• Dear forum visitor,

    It looks as though you have not registered for a forum account, or are not signed in. In order to participate in current discussions or create new threads, you will need to register for a forum account by clicking on the link below.

    Click here to register for a forum account!

    If you already have a forum account, you can simply click on the 'Log in' button at the top right of your forum screen.

    Your Elvenar Team

Accept a member who posts Zero-star trade offers

Gladiola

Well-Known Member
@ajqtrz all you need to do is look up the posts by member @Pookatan . Zero-star trades are all he talks about. Far from being discouraged from talking about them, he continues to bring up the same subject over and over, without presenting any new information. Which is why I said what I did.

https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?search/207669/

Einstein probably did not say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. However, saying the same thing over and over does not make an effective argument either.
 

BQwer

Active Member
We believe that the storage excuse is flimsy, because there is unlimited storage and yes, we also read the excuse about not being able to do the math. I think her math skills are not lacking one tiny bit. It's something else that's lacking ... a sense of fairness to other players.
well i try to assume the best
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
@ajqtrz all you need to do is look up the posts by member @Pookatan . Zero-star trades are all he talks about. Far from being discouraged from talking about them, he continues to bring up the same subject over and over, without presenting any new information. Which is why I said what I did.

https://us.forum.elvenar.com/index.php?search/207669/

Einstein probably did not say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. However, saying the same thing over and over does not make an effective argument either.
You ever wonder why advertisers show the same commercial, "over and over?" Because the audience changes over time and if you want your message to be heard by a wider range of people, you repeat it, over and over. In different forms, different places, and different methods. The average person has to be "touched" by advertising seven times before they'll remember the name of the company doing the advertising. So, while I respect that you think "saying the same thing over and over does not make effective argument," it does make that there was an argument more memorable.

Of course, you may get tired of the argument. I can tell you from experience making the argument over and over is also quite tiring. But as you read the responses to your argument you discover things you didn't think about before, ideas and opinions you need to consider. Usually, if you've done your homework, you find those expressions not so well thought out, and you can deal with them by showing where they lack, but sometimes you also find somebody has a good point to be made. The worse thing is not that you have to repeat yourself, but that you get the same answers over and over and over, often not dealing at all with the point you are trying to make, but instead, attacking you personally for having strongly disagreed in the first place. And that they repeat the attack over and over at every chance they get, well, that's repetition that doesn't move the discussion forward, does it?

So yes, repeat when necessary, but stick to the subject at hand, right?
 

StrongJean

Member
Hi AJ oh, I do participate in discussions by no means however, sometimes you can discuss a point to death. I do however admit when I am wrong. I cannot give you any links since I just joined the game and the forum a year ago. I am a very calm person and have to be. My profession is tough and challenging (clinical mental health counselor) So, I enjoy the game and it takes my mind off my clients issues. I like spirited discussions don't get me wrong on that I just chose which ones I participate in, happy gaming!! :)
 

Darielle

Well-Known Member
well i try to assume the best
I used to. I just got tired of listening to the same excuses of why zero star trades are fine. I wish for once someone would come on and say, "I like doing zero star trades because I enjoy taking advantage of people's misclicks." At least then, I could respect their honesty. But it's always, "well, I'm NOT trying to take advantage of anyone, but ...." You just want to sigh and say, "Yeah, I've heard that one, too." But I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. :(
 

Chloe Chaos

New Member
Most zero star traders, in my humble opinion, hope for misclicks. In other words, they hope to cheat others who are distracted, whose game screen bumps, who is clicking on another trade and double clicks by accident, etc. We've all had misclicks at one time or another, and we all get angry about it, at least momentarily. Frankly, I would not want to gain a reputation as someone people detest. There are several people in my fellowship who will not trade with those players EVEN when they post fair trades. They don't want to have anything to do with them. So this will come back to bite you in the long run, if you find later that you can't get the things you desperately need, even if you post fair trades.
Exactly,, a victim myself. Clicking and accepting too fast. Trust me,,,it'll never happen again!
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
I used to. I just got tired of listening to the same excuses of why zero star trades are fine. I wish for once someone would come on and say, "I like doing zero star trades because I enjoy taking advantage of people's misclicks." At least then, I could respect their honesty. But it's always, "well, I'm NOT trying to take advantage of anyone, but ...." You just want to sigh and say, "Yeah, I've heard that one, too." But I'm sorry if I came across as harsh. :(
Which sort of gets to the root of the conflicts we have here, doesn't it. You decide, perhaps because you would do the same if you were in the same situation, what the motives must be for doing whatever it is the other person is doing that you don't like. They do "X", you don't like "X," and thus, it must be they are doing something you don't like, because they are motivated by some negative moral choice. I've always wondered how anyone, short of having somebody say, "I was motivated by ...." can climb into the heart of the person and see their motives?

Now, on the positive side, perhaps 0-star traders aren't doing it to get everybody to miss-click, but once they know that by posting 0-star trades they are putting players at risk of doing so, maybe that would motivate them to avoid 0-star trades? But, on the other hand, maybe having 0-star trades will make people be more careful when trading? I mean 0-star trades are at the bottom...as you get closer to the bottom, slow down! It's really not that hard if you pay attention.

Just another thought,

AJ
 

hvariidh gwendrot

Well-Known Member
we 0 star trade with members to help them do stuff, but it's in house we don't post them and let them sit ..unless someone falls asleep then they get taken down the next morning :cool: on the flip side it doesn't take crawling in to the mind and heart of some of the never ending 0 star lopsided horrible ratio trade posters to understand they are doing it for the misclicks
 

Darielle

Well-Known Member
You decide, perhaps because you would do the same if you were in the same situation, what the motives must be for doing whatever it is the other person is doing that you don't like. They do "X", you don't like "X," and thus, it must be they are doing something you don't like, because they are motivated by some negative moral choice. I've always wondered how anyone, short of having somebody say, "I was motivated by ...." can climb into the heart of the person and see their motives?

AJ
I've often wondered how anyone can climb into the heart of a person and assume they've "decided" anything without them saying so. Being tired of listening is not a decision. I do not rule out possibilities, especially when people are new. But I do believe that certain courses are more likely than others and I grow weary of listening to justifications for such courses. You decided that was a decision on my part, while berating me for deciding what someone else thinks. Ironic, isn't it? If I didn't know that you treated everyone with equal condescension, I'd take it with less good humor. But it's just you, lol, so I'll overlook it. Peace.
 

AtaguS

Well-Known Member
You decide, perhaps because you would do the same if you were in the same situation, what the motives must be for doing whatever it is the other person is doing that you don't like.
I've always wondered how anyone, short of having somebody say, "I was motivated by ...." can climb into the heart of the person and see their motives?
I don't get it...you making an assumption about Darielle's motives while calling out Darielle for assuming someone's motive.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
I've often wondered how anyone can climb into the heart of a person and assume they've "decided" anything without them saying so. Being tired of listening is not a decision. I do not rule out possibilities, especially when people are new. But I do believe that certain courses are more likely than others and I grow weary of listening to justifications for such courses. You decided that was a decision on my part, while berating me for deciding what someone else thinks. Ironic, isn't it? If I didn't know that you treated everyone with equal condescension, I'd take it with less good humor. But it's just you, lol, so I'll overlook it. Peace.
You are right about decisions. If nobody does or says anything the internal may be made, but there is no way for anyone to know so. But if they take actions or speak about it, then it becomes "public," as you imply with "them saying so." Being tired of listening is, of course, not a decision, but a sense or feeling. On the other hand, and here we get into the psychology of knowledge, you cannot be conscious of your sense or feeling without categorizing it symbolically. In fact, nothing you know can be known by you to be known without symbols. But that's a bit off track here.

Any decision you made was either evident in what you said or not. If it was evident then why would you consider it wrong for me to evaluate your decision? I your response you tell me a bunch of decisions you've made. The first is to respond. I don't have to climb into your mind to see that. The second is to believe that when people post 0-star trades they are justifying their postings with, what I read as, justifications you don't beleive are their real motivations. I'm asking you why you don't believe they are telling the truth when they say they do so to store their goods. In dealing with justifications you don't choose to believe the best way to convince anyone that they too shouldn't believe them is to either show where the person has stated his/her motives were other than that of the justification offered, or show why those justifications are less just than another, more just course.

In other words, if they are a "mere" justification -- an attempt to look good when their "real" motives are more nefarious -- the one offering the justification apparently believes the by offering it they may help others to accept their actions as reasonable and just. If you think their actions unreasonable or unjust there is no need to discuss their motive but, instead, to show how their actions are unreasonable and/or unjust.

But of course, most of the time we find people just saying, "It's unjust!" without offering much in the way of clear reasoning as to why the believe it to be so. This amounts to telling them they are just plain wrong and that no explanation is necessary since it's so obvious. How does telling them "you're wrong" change their mind? I like chocolate and if you tell me I'm wrong to like chocolate and really want me to stop liking chocolate you better have some pretty good reasons and present to me. Telling me "chocolate is bad, bad, bad" is just an opinion without basis in fact to me, UNLESS you provide the facts you used to get to that conclusion. That you believe "certain courses are more likely" is certainly acceptable, but WHY do you believe that? My original post on the subject suggested that "anyone" who assigns a negative motive to another person's behavior might be doing so because if they were to engage in such behavior it would be because of some negative motive. In other words, one possible explanation for assigning a motive is that it would be what would motivate you to do that behavior if you were to do so. That's a suggestion of possible motive. A reasoned response. What is your reasoning for believing "

I don't get it...you making an assumption about Darielle's motives while calling out Darielle for assuming someone's motive.
Interesting. I made no claims about anyone's motives for coming to the conclusion they did, least of Darrielle's. I said two things: "how anyone" -- which suggests what follows is a question about behavior I observed in a number of people, and then that "perhaps" those displaying such behaviors did so from a particular motive, a suggestion of a possible motivation. Do try to read more closely and respond to what I said rather than to what, apparently, you thought I said. Of course some people are displaying such disdain for what they apparently think I said that they seem to have some rather thick blinders on to what I actually say. And they seem to think that expressing their disdain for my personal communication style suffices for a rebuttal to what I actually said. "When emotions rule, they seldom rule well" as one of my friends is fond of saying.

And of course, if one were to have read what I said, verses simply taking second hand reports, one would not make the mistake of believing the miss-reporting that goes on and, instead, have responded to the observation I made. Sadly, though, it's sort of like the movie critic who weighs in on the quality of a movie he's not seen and declares it a "bomb" solely based upon his personal dislike of the director, or what the director may done in their last movie, which he also didn't watch. But some people do think that is the best they can do, I guess. At least it's a possibility. On the other hand if a person really wants to engage in a conversation about what I have said rather than a second or third hand report, they might try taking the blinder off and reading it first. Just a suggestion.

And finally, while I'm on a roll, the word "condescending" keeps appearing. It means "having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority," and I understand it very, very well. My doctor is condescending. She's always talking down to me as if I don't have a medical degree! Yeah, I don't, but hey, she doesn't have to constantly explain everything in more simple terms. Wouldn't it be less "condescending" if she were to just tell me all that medical stuff as if she were speaking to another doctor" Yeah, I might not get it, but I'd at least feel better! But she seems to assume that education and experience in the medical field make her superior in her knowledge about medicine!

Now don't get me wrong. Just because she does know a lot more about medicine than I, doesn't mean I don't appreciate her superior knowledge -- oh, wait, that she knows more does make her superior -- so I guess my reaction to her might not be justified since she is "superior" in that. But that leaves the "patronizing" part, doesn't it? So I can be really upset because she's "patronizing!" Great.... and the definition of patronizing?

" apparently kind or helpful but betraying a feeling of superiority; condescending." A bit circular, isn't it. What I wonder is "apparently." I mean my doctor is only "apparently kind or helpful?" She does display a "feeling of superiority" but isn't that a bit justified? It's pretty obvious she has a pretty deep understanding of medicine. Should she hide it? Maybe she should come into the room and announce, after a complete examination, "well, AJ, your sick," and let it go at that. Or better yet, if I announce that I have this or that cancer -- un-diagnosed, of course -- she should just be quiet and not correct me! Right? Correcting me may display a sense of medical superiority and we wouldn't want that, now would we? In fact, to avoid that we should not call her Doctor, but maybe "Patient!" That would put us on the same level and if she avoided "correcting" my thinking I'm sure my health would get better. So all she has to do is ignore what she knows is needed and let me die in peace, happy because she didn't sound "condescending" and that made me feel so good...until it didn't.

Sigh. And why do I take her "kind or helpful" as only "apparent?" Why can't I just take it as she's much better trained in her field than I and that when she offers advice, etc... she really is trying to be "kind or helpful" and not just putting on a show? Again, condescending seems to be word to describing somebody's inner motivation. Why do I think of her as condescending? Can I climb into her head and see her attitude? No, I only have words and behaviors. Do those words and actions put me down? Only if I think I'm her equal in her field. AND display it in my knowledge and understanding. Wouldn't it be better to actually look her actions and words and to analyze them for expressions of (unjustified) superiority? And if I didn't find such words and actions -- usually pretty plain because they are generally a personal attack -- maybe I should just give her the benefit of the doubt. In other words, wouldn't it be better to to assume those words and behaviors were not just "apparently kind or helpful" but actually intended as such in a genuine manner. IN the end what is "betrayed" might be in the eyes of the one looking, not the one speaking. I think I'll give my doctor the benefit of the doubt.

AJ
 
Last edited:

Darielle

Well-Known Member
And finally, while I'm on a roll, the word "condescending" keeps appearing. It means "having or showing a feeling of patronizing superiority," and I understand it very, very well. My doctor is condescending. She's always talking down to me as if I don't have a medical degree! Yeah, I don't, but hey, she doesn't have to constantly explain everything in more simple terms. Wouldn't it be less "condescending" if she were to just tell me all that medical stuff as if she were speaking to another doctor" Yeah, I might not get it, but I'd at least feel better! But she seems to assume that education and experience in the medical field make her superior in her knowledge about medicine!

Now don't get me wrong. Just because she does know a lot more about medicine than I, doesn't mean I don't appreciate her superior knowledge -- oh, wait, that she knows more does make her superior -- so I guess my reaction to her might not be justified since she is "superior" in that.

AJ
You have just proven my point about your insufferable condescension towards everyone on this board. I concede; you are better than I am at exposing your superiority complex. Chalk up one for your side.

And now, of course, you will come back and tell me that it isn't what you meant, that I twisted your words, that you realize you make errors, that you are very humble, etc etc, while at the same time talking down to your audience. Freudian angst? It's your MO, and you seem (not saying ARE) incapable of deviating from it. I'm done with the thread, but I bear you no ill will. I think I should be the one to end this now, before it goes further. Peace.
 

ajqtrz

Well-Known Member
You have just proven my point about your insufferable condescension towards everyone on this board. I concede; you are better than I am at exposing your superiority complex. Chalk up one for your side.

And now, of course, you will come back and tell me that it isn't what you meant, that I twisted your words, that you realize you make errors, that you are very humble, etc etc, while at the same time talking down to your audience. Freudian angst? It's your MO, and you seem (not saying ARE) incapable of deviating from it. I'm done with the thread, but I bear you no ill will. I think I should be the one to end this now, before it goes further. Peace.
Okay, if you don't like my discussion of the matter, how about you answer the questions? That way I can't be "condescending" because I'm not saying anything.

Question 1: Upon what basis do you decide to condemn actions of which you disapprove -- like zero star trades -- is it the motives with which you disagree, or the actual actions?

Question 2: How is it you can't believe a person might do something you don't like -- like zero star trades -- out of genuine motives, as stated?

Question 3: Are all people actually equally knowledgeble on all subjects? If not, should those with years of training pretend otherwise and let others just role along making mistakes? How do YOU determine when to correct somebody and when to ignore their errors and let those errors just spread to others?

Question 4: Where, specifically, in my many posts, do I say I'm superior in anything but that which I've trained and studied? Is it wrong to actually display one's knowledge of a subject?

Question 5: Are you responsible for the frustration others feel over a subject when you point out to them they might be wrong, and give pretty good reasons for thinking they might be wrong?

Question 6: The subject is zero star trades. Why did we get off subject? Where was the personal attack started and by whom? Remember, to say a person's stated motives weren't their "real" motives is, in essence, to say they are lying. Did you really think you should get away with that and not be challenged?

And finally, you want peace there are three ways you can get to it.

1) Run. Don't respond to the questions and ignore them. I don't think, that's that's the best way, but well, it might be a good idea if you are in over your head on a subject or to emotionally involved to answer calmly and on topic at hand, not the personality of your oppossing interlocutor.

2) Fight. You can try to slay your opponent with an overwhelming bunch of sarcasm, innuendo, and indirect and personal attacks instead of addressing the actual question. Most people get tired of personal attacks and others have the stomach to ignore them or at least deal with them more or less calmly. But attacking does work with the thin skinned as the unpleasantness sometimes becomes too much. Some, in fact, most of those who've studied these things would find this dishonest, but it's still an option many take.

3) Discuss the point and stick to it until you've actually gone deeply into it and answered your opponents actual questions/opinions calmly and directly. Once you've gone through that process you can be at peace because, if the opponent is strong, you will know your opinion a lot better than when you started, you will know the other way or ways to look at it, and you will know that you actually examined the subject at hand rather than let your emotions turn you to offering ad hominem and ad populum fallacies in place of sound argument.

The choice, as always, is yours.

AJ
 

mucksterme

Well-Known Member
After scanning through this thread
and ignoring most of the ubiquitous battles of words
I have a couple thoughts about the original subject

I do not like zero star trades except for the "in house, help a friend" type
I would not want someone in my FS who plays that way, because I just think they are shady

I never knew anybody would use them as a storage method
So, I guess I have to adjust my thinking some because those people aren't trying to be shady
However
I still wouldn't want them in my FS because I think they are, shall we say, not the brightest egg in the tool box.