Thats what I said. I compared it to getting a gun and going up to someone and saying "Smile or I will shoot your face off".

 

That isn't a robbery but obviously isn't legal. Thats how I feel at the bare minimum this should be considered if courts agree that you do not own virtual goods. If you do own then then its armed robbery.

RWT getting you into trouble in the RW? Possibly a lesson here? ...basically don't do it

RWT getting you into trouble in the RW? Possibly a lesson here? ...basically don't do it

 

While I agree with you, RWT is hardly the same as armed robbery ;)

RWT getting you into trouble in the RW? Possibly a lesson here? ...basically don't do it

That logic doesn't follow. That's like saying one is speeding and gets pulled over for having an expired license, and blaming it on the speeding. It's a logical fallacy known (among other things) as false causality. (Or correlation does not equal causation, etc)

No one is saying that if he never RWT'd he'd be robbed at gunpoint, just that something that is illegal can have negative effects sometimes. You know well enough to see the difference without shouting "FALLACY FALLACY."

 

 

No one is saying that if he never RWT'd he'd be robbed at gunpoint, just that something that is illegal can have negative effects sometimes. You know well enough to see the difference without shouting "FALLACY FALLACY."

 

Ya except doing legal things can have negative effects sometimes too. I see your point, but your point is illogical, and as such void. I guess you could hold an opinion believing that, but again an opinion not based in logic is flawed. It is illogical to claim a correlation. Just like it's illogical to claim a correlation between video games and mass murder. Correlation does not imply causation.

 

Your point that "sometimes illegal actions can have negative repercussions" may have some basis in reality because it is such a broad statement, far too broad in fact. I use the counter example "sometimes legal actions can have negative repercussions". It's also a sweeping generalization fallacy.

 

I'm willing to accept either side of an argument, but only when both are presented logically and with minimal (if any) fallacies. Even if I agree with your stance, if you try and defend it with faulty reasoning, I will attack the flaws. Please note this is nothing personal. However, good discussion can not exist in the presence of flawed argumentation. People are often unable to differentiate an attack on a stance with a personal attack- hence why people say not to discuss religion and politics with family members.

 

Yes, I understand that he probably would never have had a bb gun pointed at him if he hadn't met this guy. However, the arguments used to say "he shouldn't have done that" were flawed, and thus were challenged. If you don't like me challenging fallacies, they'll have to stop being used. Likewise, if I use a logical fallacy, please point it out so I can address, correct, or redact my statement.

 

http://imgur.com/a/BgADo This is a cool picture I use to look up various technical name

For [bleep]'s sake, does whatever it is you're arguing about even matter?

In a word, yes. If a real discussion is to be had it needs to be logical. Otherwise its just babbling with a dash of baseless opinions.

At this point it's arguing about how we're supposed to argue instead of discussion.

According to the newest myths, Win All Day got banned

[qfc]14-15-878-63948495[/qfc]

 

Win All Day and Stokenut are amongst those with wiped highscores.

Don't know any others :P

Nice going. Also happy news about them adding a free-to-play highscores soon.

 

Good to see them doing something right in between all the BUY SPINS AND SOLOMON STUFF advertisements.