Oh Goodness! Now we're cherry-picking statements to substantiate our position! Take 'em to the chop shop! I love it!
A word of advice: If you are going to cherry-pick people's arguments to then rearrange them to fit your position then do NOT end a cherry-picking on the user's comma as your first one does.
Just a word of advice from someone that deals with these issues regularly. Furthermore, the one above it even contains a chop shop job from an Inno employee so by using re-formulated responses it's clear for all to see a lack objectivity from the proprietor. I'm certain that will help you moving forward.
Let's start off by discussing the prior:
Why are you attempting to claim I said "
you are wasting your time talking about whether they want it this way or not." Are you serious??? Where on Earth did I say that??? You've just decided to start making this stuff up as you go? The fact you are attempting to attribute something to me that anyone can look and see that I didn't say is poor form and undermines any credibility you are hoping to accrue. When it is compounded by the cherry-picked statement (that curiously ends on a comma, no less!)
"Their intentions are inconsequential when determining if there is a problem and who is responsible, THAT IS A SECONDARY MATTER" it reveals motive, something that should be hidden, if not entirely removed when conducting Logic as it counters the process entirely. Curious that your quote, accidentally removes the part claiming that it is a secondary matter and substituted with an assertion that I told you that "you are wasting your time." Curious, right? Accidentally, right? The best lesson I can teach you right now is to understand that actions divulge intentions and you are not any different than anyone else in this regard. It is of primary importance NOT to be able to be construed as dishonest when formulating an argument based on logic, that is, in fact, the antithesis of the procedure and doing so is an automatic loss.
More importantly, it sounds like you have changed your tune and do finally agree with premise
#1, that
Inno is responsible for all game design when stating
"I don't think very many people in this thread ha(ve) ever argued that it is anyone's responsibility but Inno's." I do appreciate that you clarified and defined your assertion on outside influences referencing the possibility that "focus groups or ... entities involved in the financing and/or play-testing" as a potential source for discord. That may very well be true, and I have speculated that financial issues could be the reason for this condition just as you are doing. That said, though, you're speaking on behalf of the developers with that statement and all three of those are
still Inno's creation and, therefore, not absolving them of their responsibility AS A WHOLE. Remember, I'm speaking about the Corporation, a multi-million dollar one, and not about the responsibilities of any certain department.
I'm sensing you are ready to concede that #1 is a Given Truth. However, please continue on if I am mistaken as I don't mean to speak out of turn.
It is actually very easy to explain to you the misunderstanding you are having with
#2 and I'm certain we can reconcile you without any further issue. To state "Inno is aware they have created the possibility for feeder cities" is
not claiming "Inno has awareness of feeder cities." That's a correlation fallacy and, as bright as you obviously are, I'm certain that upon further inspection you would probably wish to modify your response. However, if you still stand by your assertion that saying
they are aware that they have created the possibility for feeder cities is saying the same thing as stating
they are aware players have feeder cities then you'll need to re-configure your argument and, even in doing so, that does not discount
#2 . So, at least until you can provide the requirements that necessitate a viable counter-argument to
#2, I am going to claim that
Inno's over 2-year old statement stating that "pushing" is inappropriate conduct constitutes awareness on Inno's part for the possibility within
their design for players using feeder cities and hence:
#2 is a Given Truth.
As far as
#3 goes, your statement that "
we don't know any reliable facts about what they are doing or not doing," is, in fact, incorrect. It IS a reliable fact that anyone can go start up a feeder city right now so clearly Inno has not done anything to prevent this from occurring. Your focus seems to be on
punitive measures while I quite clearly reference
design changes regarding the possibility for feeder cities. I'm simply hoping that Inno will rectify it's design moving forward so that I don't have to give bad news to fellow players and am largely unconcerned about what would be appropriate retrospective action for Inno. It should be noted, however, and I will concede this point out of fairness, that Inno DID make one design change regarding this issue that many have glossed over: Now when scrolling over a players score while visiting their city, you can see
HOW they have accumulated their tally. It is an
extremely useful tool when figuring out if someone is, indeed, "pushing." So, in turn, if you wish, I will clarify
#3 to state:
Inno has never made any design changes PREVENTING THE CREATION OF FEEDER CITIES in the years since creating the possibility for the creation of feeder cities. That should render
#3 as a Given Truth but, as I'm sure you can tell, I love to hear lucid argument and appreciate your participation in attempting to do so and will continue to do the same.
Thanks again and a glorious evening to you, Good Sir!