EVE General Discussion

As someone that's been unable to afford my own subscription from time to time, I'm entirely against this idea. Let me tell you why.

The world is fair, by virtue of being unfair. What's that, I hear you ask, the world contradicts itself?

No, it doesn't, it gives you goals to strive towards and better yourself. EVE Online subscription fee is a goal; national financial stability is a goal; LIMITATIONS ARE GOALS, things to be overcome in order to achieve legitimate self-improvement. If you give a homeless guy money, how is he going to learn to earn his own? If the system is what's keeping him down, then giving him some money is little more than a bandaid. Your suggestion that we pay to support other people to play is a bandaid to problems that we cannot solve, and it's an unsustainable system as a result. The actual solutions to the problems are, in the case of legitimate systemic problems, systemic solutions, and in the case of individual problems, the solutions themselves are individual.

Now, I have another point as well. EVE Online is not a necessity. The human body has no need for it, our inalienable human rights do not cover access to it, and there isn't a single social welfare system or private charity on the face of the planet that will cover it. It is a luxury. Which again brings us back to what makes it a goal. If someone really wants to play it, but can't afford it, suddenly they have a goal, and a limitation to overcome. That is on them, and no one else.

As for the idiot above expatiating social relativistic propaganda, political opinions and commentary aren't welcome on these forums, thank you. And PLEX for good is not for political things either, Jenshae, but for non-partisan disasters only, like natural ones.

The fact you could afford a maid automatically disqualifies you from complaining about the cost of living, sorry.

Forum ate my post, so the salient points:

- Social responsibility
- People with very little or no education
- Sold TV, Hi-Fi, microwave and toaster at one point to ensure we paid our servant.

The one servant we had for many years and came to us with the clothes on his back and a pregnant wife had a house with eight rooms (he rented four), had a corner shop, electrician, plumbing and tree felling businesses when we left.

They become your dependants and you help them if you have them for the right reasons.

Forget what ever you have latched onto in the original post.

We the players can help other players. Quietly and without embarrassing them.

One does not focus on social responsibility at the expense of personal responsibility. My social responsibility is fulfilled by my taxes, my job, the people I train to take over my job when I retire, and the various other contributions I may choose to make to society, such as things I might learn and/or discover and pass on to other academics. My personal responsibility is to prioritise my life in such a way that I can fulfill my own needs first, my own desires second, and my optional social contributions last.

The fact that you felt you had to sell some of your basic things like your television so you could afford your maid was your own failure to prioritise, or alternatively, your own choice of prioritisation. A maid is entirely optional, and it is not your responsibility in any writ of law, or by any social expectation, to employ other people when you cannot afford to employ them. You cannot use someone else's personal responsibility to earn their living as a shield for your own failure of personal responsibility to prioritise your own finances. That is entirely your own fault, and your own choice to hire a maid over having a television.

Don't try to play this social collectivist bullshit with me. I'm Australian, I'm pretty damned socialist already. The difference is, I understand the importance of a healthy balance between personal and social responsibility, just as I understand a healthy balance between socialist and capitalist economies. That healthy balance only occurs when the people living in and participating in that economy also understand their personal and social responsibilities in balance.

At the end of the day though, it is not nor will it ever be my responsibility to help someone else afford a video game. And there is little I find more detestable than someone who tries to shame me with the expectation that I should be responsible for someone else's own failures.

My original comment stands though. The fact you can afford a maid disqualifies you from complaining about the cost of living. That is not debatable. If you think it is, why don't you head on over to, say, Zimbabwe, or Somalia, and tell them all about how you're struggling so much you had to sell your tv so you could afford to keep a maid on your payroll.

Who the hell is embarrassed by the fact they can't afford a luxury like EVE online? Most poor people I had contact with were too proud to even accept a free meal without giving me back some of the change they had gotten out of begging during the day and you are telling me embarrassing someone for begging for a damn luxury is bad?

Yeah but my maid costs so much that I had to sell my DED ship to afford her.

I pity whom ever is around you guys if your bubbles ever burst.

Why not CCP created a perfect game for people to give grief to each other, one that thrives on peoples grief what is the problem if their own subscribers return a little bit of that grief to CCP?



Try smacking back when your ganked in the game nope you can't beating and ******* are non returnable events. :D

Socialism is for pussies. Man the **** up.