What you are talking about is something "you can never get". That isn't the case here. Play the ladder, place in an EC, and you could easily get the things being questioned.

Was this in exchange for you losing a game to him on the ladder?

Of course. Everyone likes getting stuff for free. No one is arguing that.

That's you. Not everyone else. Many who get a hand out don't ever plan on giving ANYTHING back. I'll refrain from the obvious example from the current state of the United States...

Of course. But that's not the case here. My post was referring to people asking for free handouts BECAUSE you have more than they do.

Again, don't get me wrong. I'm all for giving stuff away for free (sometimes). I just wonder about the ideology of people EXPECTING free stuff.


From my conversations, with him, that doesn't seem to have been the case at all.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I've been refraining from posting my own thoughts here but I think I will now:

There have been good posts on both sides of this topic, but I think many are missing the main point.

The original post by Keyser was about the fact that people EXPECT TO BE GIVEN FREE HANDOUTS, especially if the person has 4566552373 hadarck's thrones.

No one is ever expected to give stuff away for free, so why should anyone expect to be given free stuff.

I'm not against someone giving free stuff, but that is entirely up to the person. What I am against is people expecting free stuff. Sure, it doesn't hurt to ask once for a throw-in or to increase the trade, but do know that the other person always has the right to say no. There's no harm in trying to get the best deal you can or holding out, but don't expect to be able to beg your way into getting free stuff, that's all. On the other side of it all, don't expect a person to make a trade just because the values are essentially equal (on the market, or however else), or even if you are giving away more than you are getting. After all, it takes two to make a trade.

Now on the free stuff stance, I won't give out free stuff (actually, I've only done that once, but I was feeling generous... I won't say who received it though)... but I am certainly willing to throw in small things into a trade. Even so, I like to get the best deal I can myself. But I am with Sunyaku in that I am always willing to offer free advice. Free advice isn't actually free... here's what happens: I offer free advice to a player. What I get in return is a larger, more competitive player base and thus the quality of games I receive in turn improve. Free advice will also help players get their own cards in free-play ladder, etc. Sure it's a long path, but no one ever said you didn't have to work for it. I can give you a card, but it's not going to make you a better player. Advice, instead, will. I have seen many great players using mediocre decks and winning... and I have also seen these great players scope out the cheap but powerful cards to make a solid deck with essentially no rares and still play well. Well enough anyway, to make themselves some gold on the ladder to either a) buy more expensive cards or b) win in zwar.

Plus the game gives plenty of free stuff in the form of free sealed and free draft. One can always enjoy the game on an even level (limited format) with the same access to all the cards as the other player, albeit some chance is involved.

More later, if I have anything to add...

Yours humbly,
cosmosiskwik

Politics sir, politics. I have over 10 years of real world experience in the medical profession--not as a doctor. The net for helping the "underserved" is VERY wide indeed, and yet a bunch of filthy rich politicians want to spend billions and billions more? In other words, take from the mostly hard-working rich and give to the usually less hard-working not-so-rich. Anyone, and I do mean anyone, that actually needs medical coverage in the region where I live HAS said coverage.

There are LOTS of people gaming the system currently. They drive new Escalades and qualify for state medical coverage. Open the floodgates with more funding and fraud will skyrocket! But hey, some politicians will get more votes with their "caring" and "generous" natures. Why bother thinking about the long-term success of the country? That is a waste of time I guess...

Many other examples abound. I am gonna eat my McDonald's meal now... All hail the power of FAsT food!!!

Hungrily,

DarkJello

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

Once again, sorry for so much words and the bad English. I am trying to do my best here

Ok I agree with lots of the comments here but some people are using myths as if they were facts.

1) People just don't appreciate what they have if they don't work for it.

That’s the first false statement. What is a fact is that I appreciate a lot been able to play TFW and is free. I could have developed it my self with hard work and a team. It is not impossible to do. In compensation from that I try to be good person in game so that the playing environment is good for every one and I give report of bugs and the like.

2) Rich people that most of the times are hard working and poor people that most of the time do not work so hard.

Second false statement. You can go to statistics of your countries and I believe it is probably going to be the same than here (Peru). Most poor people have 2 or 3 jobs (normally informal jobs). And most of then work 12 or even 16 hours a day 6 days a week with no holidays. The so called rich people work 8 hours 5 days of the week and have holidays and when they are old they can rest while the poor people keep working. So it is not hard work what is playing here. Having or not having something in our world as it is do not reflect work but luck and social status.

3) The third myth is not referred directly in any of the post but is a believe that hides behind most of then. Is the fact that people believe that the way things are right now is the only possible way of things.

Lets then refer to the history of my own country. Peru. Culture had some very fascinating things in the times of INCAS. They believe in something we called now in Spanish “reciprocidad”. It was the feeling that if some one give something to you you should give something back to then. Most of the relations between peoples and communities were based on that principle. The INCA Empire made very big gifts to the other communities so by the “reciprocidad” they had to give the INCAS something back. This way the little communities start working together with the INCA empire and eventually merging with it. Most of the conquests were done that way. Other, when people refused the gift, simple do not happen or resolve by war.

It sounds funny and nearly unbelibable. But the interesting thing is that in this culture the “reciprocidad” had the status that liberty (freedom) have in the actual cultures. Non one is going to give their freedom away. And in this treat liberty is clearly that: some one can do what he wants with the things he own. It have not always been that way. And it do not have to be always that way. More important when pepole say they can give free advice and not free stuff it is in other words saying “I am not willing to do nothing that really cost me something. I have the freedom to do whatever I want with the thing I own. So I will care only for me and the people I love”. The freedom have give us a sense of individuality that cultures never knew before. I do not believe in that sentence but in social interaction all of us, members of this society, use it as a hiding fact. In our world every one cares from him self’s and the few people they love exceptions to this are very few.

So sad.

nayen:

I am sorry to hear that is how things work in Peru. Sadly, that is the state of things in many other countries around the world too. In America, where I live, most not-so-rich people make life choices that guarantee less opportunities. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink, as they say. And most successful people have made choices that will most likely result in them being more successful.

The following is a simple example of what I mean: Person "Z" graduates from high school, gets a job, and spends his money on a new truck. Person "A" graduates from high school, takes advantage of the PLETHORA of funding for college students, and earns a Baccalaureate. Both people work hard for the next 40 years. Which of the two is most likely to retire with greater wealth? In this example both people worked hard, but one was ALSO wise enough to choose actions that would most likely result in long-term success. Nothing is 100%, but playing the odds seems like the best course to me.

Que la fuerza te acompane,

DarkJello

P.S. Me gustaria platicar mas en tu idioma natal.

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

Sorry DarkJello: But I think you complete missed the point. Person A graduate from high school and person C graduates from high school. A was born in Bell air And study in Harvard. Person C was born in the Bronx. And could not afford studies in Harvard. in fact he had to work at the end of it high school studies because the waitress job of his mother was not enough to give all his brothers a good education. That's the point I am trying to show. Is not only about making good choices. It is about having the possibility of making those choices. One of the myths I must add then is “Every one can choose”. And thats not true at all.

Not to mention the differences betwen the education that one recived in Bell air and B in the Bronx. I think your country is more similar to mine that what one could think in first sight.

I am trying to understand your statement here, but it is as clear as mud. How does Sunyaku giving away inexpensive stuff while refusing to give away valuable items for little or nothing result in a "significant loss" for him? How would most people get to work if they gave away their car for a banana? Hopefully I just misunderstood your point, otherwise that is some twisted and fallacious logic.[/quote]

Indeed, you have misunderstood. Let me clarify:

Sunyaku's principle is that he never gives away anything of significant value (his words). If he deviated from that principle, he would give away valuable things, thus incurring significant loss. By upholding his principle, he avoids loss.

My contention was that a principle that only brings you gain is not really a principle, it's just looking after yourself. I mean, I, too, don't enjoy giving away my valuable possessions. It's not a principle, I just like having them...

When you're willing to sacrifice something for your beliefs, then we can start talking about principles.

I hope that made things clearer.





Isn't it about time we put this "hard workers" and "relaxers" myth to rest?
I mean, in TFW, sure. The guy pumping Keyser for cards was kind of funny. But we wouldn't have had 3 pages of discussion over Keyser not giving away some cards, would we? As people here (on both sides of the debate) have noted, this is about the real world. It's about U.S. health policy making some very small, very hesitant steps towards joining the rest of the Western world.

You see, the people who benefit from public health care, they work just as hard as you do. Maybe more. According to your very own U.S. Bureau of the Census, 16% of wage earners in the States have no medical coverage. Sure, a few of these are rich people who just figure they'll pay for medical care when they need it. But unsurprisingly, most of these 16% are concentrated in the low end of the wage spectrum. They're minimum wage earners who just don't make enough to pay for food, rent and medical coverage. And now, finally, these people might actually get treated when they have cancer. I think it's in your Declaration of Independence somewhere, right before "liberty and pursuit of happiness". (Or is "pro-life" only about the life of unborn fetuses?).

Now, someone has to pay for Joe burger-flipper getting his prostate cancer treated. That someone is you. And that's not a problem at all. Partly, it's not a problem because his life and health is more important than your extra vacation, or bigger house, or whatever. But the main reason it's not a problem?

Because it's not your money.

Sure, you may be currently in possession of it, but it's not yours.

How do I figure that? Simple. How did you get your money?
Assuming you didn't steal it, you either inherited it (blind luck, no reason to reward that), or you worked for it.

Except you didn't work for it. A lot of people work very hard, and make minimum wages. Others work just as hard (on art, hobbies, etc.), and don't make a cent. You were not paid that money for your hard work, because honestly, no one cares how hard you work. You were paid that money because you provided services, and you were paid by the people to whom the services were provided.

Okay, so you got the money because you were useful. Doesn't that entitle you to some money. Sure. Except you don't get money for being useful to just anyone. I mean, that guy from the New Testament washed the feet of the poor, and look where that got him. You only get money by useful to people who already have money, and can give it to you in exchange for your services.

If you don't understand why that is a problem, just consider feudalism. Under feudalism, there were privileged nobles and disenfranchised peasants, and I hope we all agree there's a problem with that. But nobles got their titles the same way you got your money: they either inherited them from their parents, or they got them in exchange for being useful - to the King, or to some other high-ranking noble. These nobles could claim, just like you do, that they deserve their titles, because they worked for them. The problem, of course, is that we question the right of the King to grant such titles in the first place.

It's the same with money. I question your right to your money, because you got it from someone else, to whom you provided a service. If that person had a right to their money, all would be well. But I question their right, just like I question yours! I mean, they either inherited their money (blind luck again), or they got it just like you did, by providing a service to someone else with money, and so forth. But how is such privilege (having money) justified in the first place?

If you go back far enough, you'll get to the beginnings of capitalism. Let's look at those first capitalists. How did they make their money? Slave trading? Slave owning? Homesteading (on land they took, at gunpoint, from its previous inhabitatnts)?

And it's not just the Americans. Capitalism really started in 14th century England, when wool came in demand and nobles started raising sheep on their feudal lands, the same lands their ancestors forcefully appropriated some centuries before that.

So it's all circular. One person's financial privileges are being justified by another person's financial privileges (be it parent, employer or customer), which are in turn being justified by another person's priviliges, and so on until you get to someone whose privileges just cannot be justified.

And now some of these privileges will be used to provide basic medical care for those who lack privilege. Just like every western country except the U.S. has been doing for decades.

And about time, too.

nayen:

Waiting for everything between everybody to be 100% equal before a person tries to improve his lot in life is illogical and completely unrealistic. "Every one can choose" to make the most of the opportunities life presents them. I am from rural America, none of the successful people I know grew up in Bel Air. Most are not from "rich" families. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, dentists, businessmen, farmers, policemen, firefighters, nurses, respiratory therapists, electricians, physical therapists, contractors, pilots, college professors... And so on and so forth. Also, pretty sure Harvard is not the only way to gain an education to increase one's skills and potential for future success.

yaron:

Sunyaku does "give away" valuable advice. Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and he feeds himself the rest of his life. No need to become a martyr for the logic of that statement to stand.

It appears you fundamentally misunderstand the issues here in the USA. EVERYONE who truly is too poor to buy health insurance just needs to sign up and they WILL be covered. And again, because you appear to have missed this key point, many people are already abusing the current system. So the answer is to misuse even more money instead of fixing the problems and gaps that currently exist? People get treated for cancer, and thousands of other conditions, ALL the time even though they don't have insurance. That is just a ridiculous statement to make on your part!!! (I also recommend you actually look up information on prostate cancer because your demographic is WAY off).

On your whole "money" theory, wow! That is indeed "circular" thinking on your part. I am going to refrain from a diatribe about purple monkeys and the history of schooners.

Finally, imitating Europe is generally not my idea of a wise plan. Thanks, but no thanks.

DarkJello,

The undisputed Overlord of Gelatin

_________________
Ad astra per alia porci!$!

http://www.storyofstuff.com/

Very funny easy and clear for every one.

Your own Census Bureau disagrees: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/ ... 08asc.html
It's not about understanding or misunderstanding, it's about facts.
Either you think your C.B. is lying, or are you positing that the 16% uninsured (most of which are low-income), do not, in fact, wish to be insured and receive medical care. Which is it?

Even if this is true, how is this a key point? I'd rather have a system that allows some abuse than a system in which some people are denied medical care (which happens, deny it as much as you will).
Incidentally, in most western countries public healthcare is universal, so there is no abuse - everyone is eligible.

Seriously, man, if you can't think of any counter-arguments, that's fine. But calling someone's line of argumentation "nonsense" without even trying to present any credible refutation is just lame.

That, I can understand.
I mean, why would anyone want to live in a country which incarcerates less than 1% of its adult population? Where there are almost no homeless people? Which is responsible for less than 25% of the pollution of the entire world? Where the average life expectancy is over 80 years?
Surely, you don't want to be anything like those Europeans.