The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

Pyromaniac · 2016-03-30 14:04:47

Bimps wrote:

Pyromaniac wrote:
Same goes for Bimps! He has stated in the past is dislike for Jawapa, and now the public sees him siding with him?
BREAKING NEWS: peoples opinions cannot change! whaaaaaaaaat

They can but sometimes it makes you look like a fake **** ****

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-30 15:47:49

Luka504 wrote:

You are completely misunderstanding the chart that you brought up. It's interesting how you seem to commonly misunderstand things important to the campaign. Your chart shows a comparison of free-to-play and pay-to-play games. Spending money in a game does not make it pay-to-play. In-game purchases do not make a game pay-to-play. A game is only pay-to-play when you have to pay to play it. You keep claiming that you have "broken" my theory, but you've only either strengthened it or provided completely irrelevant information. And as to when you claimed that "no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play," JaWapa may have something to say about that.
See!? You keep nitpicking on the smallest details!
Yes sorry, the words are a bit different even though they are the same exact thing.
Fine ill retry ONE more time and if you still dont understand i will give up on you entirely.

This is the point i tried to bring up the entire time. People are unwilling to BUY a game for even 1 dollar.
Meaning the amount of players who do in game purchases is still roughly the same as it was in 2008.
,,But u editd du pictur blrswlsl,,
I did, but it still doesnt change the fact im right. I had to edit the image or you will nitpick on the difference between free to play or pay to play, which in this argument is pretty irrelevant.
Theory broken, end of story, bai.

Just because you write incorrect text on an irrelevant graph does not make you correct. At this point, I believe you are willfully misunderstanding the entire point of the graph.

Pay-to-play is not synonymous with spending money in a game.

Please read that sentence over and over until you comprehend it, then respond. You really shouldn't be getting so indignant over something you don't understand at all.

Luka504 wrote:

And as to when you claimed that "no party has ever suggested making EE pay-to-play," JaWapa may have something to say about that.
Ok.... What does this change? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

When you make completely false claims, I am going to point them out. You brought up an irrelevant point and then said something wrong, so I corrected you. You're welcome.

Yandax · 2016-03-30 16:08:19

Because I'm lazy to read the post, is it to late to sign up for the campaign?

N1KF · 2016-03-30 16:37:12

Yandax wrote:

Because I'm lazy to read the post, is it to late to sign up for the campaign?

I am both concerned by your "laziness", and your signature.

Here's a little reminder to keep you on your toes: I may or may not be a pathological liar.

Bobithan · 2016-03-30 16:54:26

Yandax wrote:

Because I'm lazy to read the post, is it to late to sign up for the campaign?

It is never too late, but you only have today and tomorrow to campaign so you'll be at a disadvantage

Zumza · 2016-03-30 17:29:15

@32OrtonEdge32dh Please don't characterise me with @Luka504's posts as you did, because he doesn't speaks for me.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-30 17:43:33

Zumza wrote:

@32OrtonEdge32dh Please don't characterise me with @Luka504's posts as you did, because he doesn't speaks for me.

He made one statement about your campaign and I addressed it. I haven't characterized you as anything. Are you suggesting that candidates shouldn't be allowed to criticize other candidates' platforms?

Luka504 · 2016-03-30 18:25:29

JaWapa wrote:

Luka504 wrote:
Meaning the amount of players who do in game purchases is still roughly the same as it was in 2008.
You're not understanding your own graph. The part you are referring to, is the number of people who spent money to play the game, not the number of people who spent money on in-game items. Totally different.
Luka504 wrote:
I did, but it still doesnt change the fact im right.
Yeah... but we don't know what you're even arguing. You've changed your stance every three posts. So I guess, yeah, being that you've held every view point on this, you would be right.
Ladies and gentlemen, Luka, you're future prez.
kthxbai.

Oh god now i have to deal with 2 of you people.
This chart represents how many people choose a free to play model vs a pay to play.....
So by using logic,
People who spend money INGAME should be pretty much the same, since people dont want to spend money on a game.
I never changed stance BTW. You can only refer to the content over bugs thing which still doesnt change much.

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Just because you write incorrect text on an irrelevant graph does not make you correct. At this point, I believe you are willfully misunderstanding the entire point of the graph.
Pay-to-play is not synonymous with spending money in a game.
Please read that sentence over and over until you comprehend it, then respond. You really shouldn't be getting so indignant over something you don't understand at all.

Yup i called it.

Luka504 wrote:

,,But u editd du pictur blrswlsl,,

I explained like 4 times why you are wrong and your theory is broken. I even explained it EVEN MORE precisely since you nitpick on details that arent even there.

Should we even be considering electing a candidate that doesn't understand all of the issues facing the players? I know that I wouldn't

Yup im using your own words against you. As you said it yourself, i did not understand a single issue, but YOU cannot understand my point. Most people wont pay for a game, meaning they wont do ingame purchases. But if they never spend money, useless gifts will not encourage them to spend real money, but free energy instead, even if it is a strategy in super markets. The only reason it can work in supermarkets is beacuse you HAVE to use real money, butt in EE you can buy stuff for free, meaning the useless gifts will make them spend more energy.
Boom done.
But no you are arguing about how i edited the image even though i gave an explanation. And the arguments you are making arent solid proof your theory is solid.
People, should we really vote for someone who cant understand detailed explanations? If we elect him, and theres a problem in EE, he will most likely just argue with anyone who doesnt share his opinion.

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-30 19:38:26

Luka504 wrote:

This chart represents how many people choose a free to play model vs a pay to play.....
So by using logic,
People who spend money INGAME should be pretty much the same, since people dont want to spend money on a game.
...
I explained like 4 times why you are wrong and your theory is broken. I even explained it EVEN MORE precisely since you nitpick on details that arent even there.
Should we even be considering electing a candidate that doesn't understand all of the issues facing the players? I know that I wouldn't
Yup im using your own words against you. As you said it yourself, i did not understand a single issue, but YOU cannot understand my point. Most people wont pay for a game, meaning they wont do ingame purchases. But if they never spend money, useless gifts will not encourage them to spend real money, but free energy instead, even if it is a strategy in super markets. The only reason it can work in supermarkets is beacuse you HAVE to use real money, butt in EE you can buy stuff for free, meaning the useless gifts will make them spend more energy.
Boom done.
But no you are arguing about how i edited the image even though i gave an explanation. And the arguments you are making arent solid proof your theory is solid.
People, should we really vote for someone who cant understand detailed explanations? If we elect him, and theres a problem in EE, he will most likely just argue with anyone who doesnt share his opinion.

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Just because you write incorrect text on an irrelevant graph does not make you correct. At this point, I believe you are willfully misunderstanding the entire point of the graph.
Pay-to-play is not synonymous with spending money in a game.
Please read that sentence over and over until you comprehend it, then respond. You really shouldn't be getting so indignant over something you don't understand at all.

Abelysk · 2016-03-30 19:46:39

This thread is a joke.

Bobithan, Xfrogman43, 32OrtonEdge32dh, Pingohits, Kirby

N1KF · 2016-03-30 19:52:42

Kefka wrote:

This thread is a joke.

Just like all politics!

Bobithan

Yandax · 2016-03-30 19:58:13

Well then, I'm running as the Future party.

My Answers to these dilemmas:

Should name changes cost money? Of course. If name changes now are confusing, what would it be like for free? And, it's a small stream of revenue for the game. (If you think this answer is kinda copied and stupid, wait till you see my other ones.)
Should people get banned for trolling? No. Generally, if your trolled, it's your fault. And on the rare occasion you are trolled through a hack, they'll get banned for hacking.
Should ingame moderators be appointed by the community? I don't think so, mostly because there are people out there who would vote for... well... not the right person. (I mean no offence if you are somehow offended) The best bet is if the entire staff, not just Nou or whoever voted on mods.
Are there too many staff members? No, I think we have the right amount, though we might need another moderator. You need a large amount of people to code, add art, and test updates.
Are bots a valuable addition to the game? Yeah, they make certain ideas possible, and make awesome worlds. This is kind of a bad answer, but I think that without bots, EE loses something.
Should staff be kickable from worlds when off-duty? I think so. They're players just like us when they're off duty.
Should the shop be more easily accessible by new players through discounts/bonuses? I think it's pretty good right now, especially 'cause of the infinite blocks. But maybe a couple discounts on certain (Read: Kinda but also not kinda expensive) items wouldn't hurt.
Should exclusive items/smileys be made attainable through new ways? Nope, I don't think so. It's a one time thing.
Should the staff be seriously reprimanded for giving away free stuff ? Yep. Just 'cause your in charge doesn't mean the rules don't apply. If you want something, don't ask the staff. Get it using energy, unless it's exclusive and no longer available, then, don't get it.
Should the rules be made more lenient than they are today? No, I think they're already a mite lenient already.
Should updates focus more on tweaks and fixes or new content? Both, they're both essential to the games survival.
Regarding gender diversity and neutrality, are the smileys fine as they are now? Meh. I think the smileys are pretty neutral right now, and possibly they should stay there. But a couple more female smileys could make people feel better.
Should bugs in the physics engine be fixed even if it breaks minigames? Yep. The game needs fixed, even if it breaks stuff.
Should more tools be added to mitigate trolling? Heck no. We have enough to stop trolling right away. And once again, generally it's your fault if you'll trolled.
Should the more easy difficulty campaigns be introduced to the game? Maybe. I think the campaigns are well balanced, but possibly one more easy one could help.
Should text be made available to everybody, rather than just the staff? No, it makes the game laggy-er, and it's kind of a symbol of a moderator/admin.

Okay. I answered all these questions badly.

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 20:25:55

Luka504 wrote:

but YOU cannot understand my point.

Because you're not explaining it clearly enough, and you change your point quite often.

32OrtonEdge32dh

Bimps · 2016-03-30 21:52:27

MORE SICK POLL RESULTS COMING KIRBY RIGHT BACK AT YA:
cali noub
zelda ben
bimps ind: death
32 ind: green
jawapa other/ben

not very accurate due to only 12 responses, but hey man ok. VIEW RESULTS HEEEEEEEEEEEERE

for the fourth and final general poll, i will not be doing google stuff. instead you can pm me the list of doods you want. like this:
1.
2.
3.
and so on. once again only 1 and 2 are required, and once the results are in ill do a mock general poll to see the mock results of the mock mock election. whew. ill stop accepting pm's whenever i get enough. HAVE FUN

EDIT: for ease of seeing results, ill be bring down everyones nick to 5 letters because im counting this manually. idk if you want a special abbreviation tell me? make sure it relates to your name though or else i wont accept it

EDIT2: include yandax since he is official now pls. if you dont ill put him as #20 automatically

EDIT3: jawapa won the ben vote i guess? but that is just because zelda didnt really yknow vote so

N1KF · 2016-03-30 22:38:17

Okay Bimps I think you can stop now

Bimps wrote:

KIRBY RIGHT BACK AT YA

Except that please do that more often

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 22:43:26

I want to thank the people in Mafia, Everistan. With your support, we reached the #1 spot in the unofficial BNN (Bimps News Network) poll!

I will now be moving to FNaF, Everistan, to continue campaigning.

Join me on this eendeavor,
JaWapa

N1KF · 2016-03-30 22:46:06

JaWapa wrote:

I want to thank the people in Mafia, Everistan. With your support, we reached the #1 spot in the unofficial BNN (Bimps News Network) poll!
I will now be moving to FNaF, Everistan, to continue campaigning.
Join me on this eendeavor,
JaWapa

I

What

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-30 23:35:18

Hey JaWapa, could you go on record as to which party you're with now? Your intro post suggests an independent run but I swear I remember something about joining the Benjaminson party.

mrjawapa · 2016-03-30 23:53:23

32OrtonEdge32dh wrote:

Hey JaWapa, could you go on record as to which party you're with now? Your intro post suggests an independent run but I swear I remember something about joining the Benjaminson party.

I have switched to the benjaminsons. Bimps made a post for me, and I wasn't able to update my intro post. I'll do that now.

Luka504 · 2016-03-31 07:57:21

JaWapa wrote:

Luka504 wrote:
but YOU cannot understand my point.
Because you're not explaining it clearly enough, and you change your point quite often.

How specific do i need to be!?
I explained the exact same thing like 4 times:
,,People will spend energy, not real money, even if they do receive useless gifts,,

This chart represents how many people choose a free to play model vs a pay to play.....
So by using logic,
People who spend money INGAME should be pretty much the same, since people dont want to spend money on a game.
...
I explained like 4 times why you are wrong and your theory is broken. I even explained it EVEN MORE precisely since you nitpick on details that arent even there.
Should we even be considering electing a candidate that doesn't understand all of the issues facing the players? I know that I wouldn't
Yup im using your own words against you. As you said it yourself, i did not understand a single issue, but YOU cannot understand my point. Most people wont pay for a game, meaning they wont do ingame purchases. But if they never spend money, useless gifts will not encourage them to spend real money, but free energy instead, even if it is a strategy in super markets. The only reason it can work in supermarkets is beacuse you HAVE to use real money, butt in EE you can buy stuff for free, meaning the useless gifts will make them spend more energy.
Boom done.
But no you are arguing about how i edited the image even though i gave an explanation. And the arguments you are making arent solid proof your theory is solid.
People, should we really vote for someone who cant understand detailed explanations? If we elect him, and theres a problem in EE, he will most likely just argue with anyone who doesnt share his opinion.
Just because you write incorrect text on an irrelevant graph does not make you correct. At this point, I believe you are willfully misunderstanding the entire point of the graph.
Pay-to-play is not synonymous with spending money in a game.
Please read that sentence over and over until you comprehend it, then respond. You really shouldn't be getting so indignant over something you don't understand at all.

I give up on you. Your theory is broken i dont care what you have to say. This response itself doesnt prove much since i was talking about INGAME spent money, not PAY-TO-PLAY.

666th post lol.

mrjawapa · 2016-03-31 12:09:40

Luka504 wrote:

I explained the exact same thing like 4 times:
,,People will spend energy, not real money, even if they do receive useless gifts,,

Yeah, no, I'm almost positive you have not said that.
You need to be very specific.

If you're going to tell me my ideas are flawed, you have to be able to back it up.

In the post you quoted, you said, "Most people wont pay for a game, meaning they wont do ingame purchases." But that's not true at all. EE has brought in A LOT of money, just on in game purchases. People even spend real money on the things they can get for free.

so I guess...

Luka504 wrote:

Your theory is broken

kthxbai

32OrtonEdge32dh

32OrtonEdge32dh · 2016-03-31 15:06:04

Luka504 wrote:

This response itself doesnt prove much since i was talking about INGAME spent money, not PAY-TO-PLAY.

Then why don't you find any sort of evidence related to microtransactions instead of your irrelevant graph that deals with free-to-play vs. pay-to-play? You should probably be less concerned with trying (and failing) to "break theories" and more concerned with actually supporting your arguments with factual evidence instead of trying to mislead people.

RavaTroll · 2016-03-31 15:13:18

This thread is everything that is wrong with EE, congratz for the cancer.

xJeex, Onjit, Bobithan, Pyromaniac

Kira · 2016-03-31 15:35:28

ALLAHU AKBAR

BLESS ALLAH

join my party big brothers

Zumza

fishbole · 2016-04-01 04:29:18

offishle anownsment from fishbole of the fishbole fun partie

hi im fishbole of the fishbole fun partie and after the time playing ive reelized everybody edits is not quiet what it dreams to be
its supost to be a fun experience but ever since the removal of fishbole astronaut ive not been able to have fun so deeplie
even after this i havent lost hope that the game can can rise up to be a fun time for all
thats why im running for ee notpresident under the fishbole fun partie
lets make this game a fun experience for all

trolling can be fixed by alowing special world types for it so fun can be maximized most efishently
updates can keep fun as a top priority (dont kill the bugs they just want to have fun too)
rules alow freedom as long as they dont make the game less fun for others
introduce more methods of fun for all players new and old

howevre
thats not all
theres an ishue that hasnt been discussed much even tho its reallie important
we need to help squaresmilies fele more welcome
while u priveleged yellow round smilies may think that onlie u shoud be added ur not thinking about it enouf
many squaresmilies live there lives unapreshiated bc of being a small endagered minoritie
more squaresmilies other than mr robot can added to improve diversity in smilies
additionallie maybe squaresmilie versiones of each smilies can be added
lets help the square smilies find there place in the world
use these flags with pride as a simble that u want to help us squaresmilies

hi im fishbole of the fishbole fun partie and i aprove of this mesage
also thx to mommie for showing me how to do these fansie forum codes

Fradeshan, N1KF, gkaby, Pingohits, Kirby, AlphaJon

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#226 2016-03-30 14:04:47

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#227 2016-03-30 15:47:49

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#228 2016-03-30 16:08:19

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#229 2016-03-30 16:37:12

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#230 2016-03-30 16:54:26

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#231 2016-03-30 17:29:15

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#232 2016-03-30 17:43:33

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#233 2016-03-30 18:25:29

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#234 2016-03-30 19:38:26

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#235 2016-03-30 19:46:39

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#236 2016-03-30 19:52:42

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#237 2016-03-30 19:58:13, last edited by Yandax (2016-04-02 01:21:25)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#238 2016-03-30 20:25:55

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#239 2016-03-30 21:52:27, last edited by Bimps (2016-03-30 22:29:11)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#240 2016-03-30 22:38:17

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#241 2016-03-30 22:43:26

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#242 2016-03-30 22:46:06

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#243 2016-03-30 23:35:18

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#244 2016-03-30 23:53:23

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#245 2016-03-31 07:57:21, last edited by Luka504 (2016-03-31 07:57:48)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#246 2016-03-31 12:09:40

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#247 2016-03-31 15:06:04

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#248 2016-03-31 15:13:18

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#249 2016-03-31 15:35:28, last edited by Kira (2016-03-31 15:37:20)

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

#250 2016-04-01 04:29:18

Re: The 2016 EElections! (VOTE NOW!!!)

Board footer