There really isn't a point to discussing the insults. You're continuing to say all kinds of insulting crap even though I ask you repeatedly not to do so.
"Since you confirm you refuse to analyse the hypothesis of a different habit of v-dip users I am forced to address your points one by one. As you wish."
I still don't see a hypothesis to analyze.
"The New-Open pages match better the needs of any user. Far more better than any kind of advertisement. The New-Open pages are the complete list, and they are not a non-consultable thousand fields list.
You’re comparing single-product sellers knocking at your house door with going to a supermarket yourself."
I'm going to need this analogy explained more. I see, vaguely, the comparison, but I don't understand the point, and as I'm interpreting it, it has flaws. As I could very well be misinterpreting, I'm instead asking for further explanation.
"In any case ads *might* help NOW, with this current situation and habits, where the forum ads have improperly diverted the attention of a portion of the active users from the New-Open pages. And when they help, they help the advertised game to start/get a position filled while at the same time they decrease the chance to start/get a position filled of any other unadvertised game."
For the millionth time, no, they don't, not always. For those people who are just perusing the forum, not looking for a game but available to play one, ads provide a way to match those people up to games they wouldn't play even in your perfect world where everyone checks that page every time.
"If they weren’t looking for a game and they join because of ads… isn’t it what I called “hand-guided choice” ? Did they make the best choice for their own fun/needs?
Probably there was something better-fitting for them in the Complete/Official Lists."
Is that for you to decide? No. It's for the person in question to decide. *That* is the ultimate issue at hand here - your side seems unwilling just to allow people to decide for themselves how to utilize advertisements. Your side acts as though it can decide what people want better than the people themselves.
"It’s written and explained above, on Guaroz’s posts. There’s already enough text here, I won’t copy and paste.
In any case it’s about the occurrence of *almost* duplicated games; similar pre-games types at the same time."
Both frequent checking of the New/Open tabs *and* advertisements would *reduce* this occurrence.
"True, I could tell the same thing, and I am amazed you still can’t agree to this.
For the last time: I never stated that advertising an anon game is the necessary condition for cheating. I can cheat even outside the website, talking face to face with you about an on-going game’s moves if I am your friend in real life.
I never said Advertisement = cheating.
Nevertheless advertising an anon game increases the potential of cheating. It’s one step towards cheating occurrence. If someone answers the Ad thread and says “I’m in” it’s two steps towards cheating occurrence..."
No, no, I mean that we've gone over this point countless times, and every time since Devonian posted his suggestion, I've said that I would like his suggestion implemented if possible. Banning anon ads (or limiting semi-anon ads to the game creator, or both) is fine... I don't think it's strictly necessary or even makes sense (though we've gone over it enough), but it's fine.
"Unless you want to tell me that the topics treated in game ads are attractive and exciting…
Removing them will release some space and attention for something more interesting."
I didn't say that at all. I said we *don't* have that activity as it is. And ads aren't blocking it. Ads don't stop people from making useful topics. webDip's forum is ample evidence of that.
"Yes, you answered. This does not imply that you convinced nor that you are the owner of the truth (the reason why I wrote "This is not the game "the last one who posts is right/wins", PE" )"
When I say "I've replied to this plenty of times already," I mean "I've replied to this plenty of times already, and no one has addressed my response." I'm not saying that because I said it last I'm right, I'm saying that because y'all continue to post here, after I posted the response, and *don't* respond to what I say, but *continue to say the same thing to which I already responded*, that I will continue to point you to my objection until it gets answered.
"In this site we have Reliable users, High Ranked users, but we don’t have “special” users. The game I create is NOT more important than yours. Do I have the right to launch a message that reaches the home page of 2000 users? Oh, that’s fantastic for my game, it will probably increase the chance of MY game to start, but in the meanwhile I am eclipsing ALL the others’.
Yes, currently I have this right. But indeed it’s unfair. It’s a bad habit.
If you can't agree with this, well, we just have different visions."
It isn't unfair at all because everyone can post. Honestly, your statement here is analogous to one person out of twenty declining to take a piece of cake, then demanding that we ban cake because not everyone wants cake and those who get cake are being unfair. Take your cake or don't, that choice is yours, but you don't have an argument for saying others' getting cake as well is unfair.
"I told more than once this fact (yes, fact, not opinion): 2000 users which don’t ALL share your same opinions-attitudes-habits. Someone might be lazy to check the New-Open pages, someone might be unaware about checking, someone might be unused to check, someone might be like you, someone might be like me..."
Okay. So why restrict their options? Some people respond to ads better than checking the Open/New tabs. Some people, as I've said repeatedly, aren't even looking for games at all, but end up finding one they otherwise wouldn't, due to advertisements. Your statement here, and previous talk about a "new vision" where everyone checks the tabs all the time, carries with it the normative assumption that only your way, without ads, and only looking at the New/Open tabs, is right. I, and others who've posted, have rejected that assumption. You cannot validate that assumption, or if you can, you haven't yet.
"Oh, for God’s sake, Eden, if you like to copy and paste do it, but please don’t distort-and-paste.
I wrote: “in the assumption that we are in the condition mentioned above… ads are in the best hypothesis redundant.”
And the condition mentioned above was: Users are all educated-and-used to observe the “new”, “open” and “search” page."
Relax, Decima, I made a mistake.
Your condition isn't relevant to my point. People who are conditioned as you state can still be browsing the forums, *not wanting to join the games in question* and thus *not looking at the open or new tabs*, and see an ad, and decide they like that game and want to join it.
Further, you have given no way of bringing about this "education" process.
Further still, all of this is built on the aforementioned - and unvalidated - normative assumption.
"I know you’ll answer this post in a matter of 8 hours, President Eden. And you shall still be defending the “status quo” (blindly in my opinion). If I don’t reply, please do not assume that I don’t have arguments anymore. I will be away for 4 days."
Ending on more unnecessary insults. Nice.