Online game costs too much

If two games were played each night instead of three and you still spent 10 minutes a night "engaging" with the game, then, the argument that the game would be a 50% improvement in value because the season would be 80 days long instead of 54 days long doesn't hold water for me.

So equating value with time spent is a shaky proposition.

Paul makes a good point here. And it is what Jason was stating as well although in a much longer form. That is, whether you spend 10 min or 30 min, or whether strat gives you a season length of 54 days or 80 days, the service is exactly the same. You still pay 20 dollars for a 162 game season, get all the stats, have the abilities to choose your line ups and pitchers, make trades, drop players etc.

They both negate time engaging with the service as a factor in its value. This may be true, but it isn't what I argued at the beginning of this post. I argued that spending 20 dollars for a service that takes me (and by extension everyone) 10 min. a night is expensive, or to put it in terms Jason mentioned, not a good value.

Jason changed the argument from using time spent as a determining factor in value, to arguing the services provided are a good value in themselves whether time spent on them is used or not. He negated my argument by saying that time spent is a personal thing not an objective thing, and therefore has no merit in judging value.

But again that was not the argument I was making.

If you want to argue it then you must argue how spending 10min on a service per night is worth 20.00 over the 54 days a season lasts. Not whether the service in itself is a good value for 20.00.

Argue it is a good service when spending 10 min a day on it for 20.00 for 54 days. Then when you make a good argument I can change my point of view. I can say yeah, he is right, it is a good value for 10min a night for 54 days for 20.00.

Arguing that the service is a good value for 20.00 because of what it gives you is pointless if the 10min a night isn't involved in the argument.

If a game of basketball costs 20.00 and provides the service of watching players, run, shoot, steal, dribble, pass etc. Is it of the same value whether you spend 10 min watching or 2 hrs watching? Of course not.

If it takes me 10 minutes to check my team, make line up and pitching adjustments and check box scores etc., and Im not any different in my abilities to click a mouse and look at a screen, and study statistics than anyone else, then it isn't my personal choice to limit the amount of time engaging with the service, it's just the time it takes to engage with the service. And 10 minutes a night is too short for 20.00 for 54 days.

It means if I return to the basketball analogy, that the games are 10 minutes long and you don't have a choice for longer unless you repeat watching the same game or spending another 20.00 to watch another game.

If you disagree and think that 10 min a night is a good value for 20.00 for 54 days, then argue that point, don't change the whole argument to negate time spent when time spent is a crucial element in judging the value of the services provided.

I guess perhaps I equate value with time spent using something where others don't. Or perhaps they do but don't realize it or choose to ignore it.

Scott.

Scott is not right, nor are you. As I correctly said before, "personal value" is up to the individual. "Value" is contingent on both individual perspectives and objective facts and realities applicable to all.

Scott, you really shouldn't lie and/or misrepresent my post and its positions. As you and everyone else can clearly see here, I do think the personal is "of merit" when speaking of personal value.

You really need to reread my previous post (and other posts) if you are to accurately address them. You haven't done so so far.

I'd love it if it were a little cheaper. I'm on a fixed income so I am limited in the amount of teams I can play. BUT I say when they have a sale and you can buy a 6 pack for a 5 pack price, that is the time to buy. at 13.33 a team, now that's pretty hard to beat! I try not to buy single teams for $20. I've been lucky lately and have been playing on free credits so that has let me have a few more teams.

If I were still working, I would think nothing of paying $20 per team. Hell, when I was working I used to spend over $100 a week on wine alone. Sadly, those days are gone

Jason argued that time has no relevance in a discussion of "good value" because it is a personal thing not an objective thing.

Jason thinks that for the service provided by online strat for the price of 20.00 it is a good value. And if you want to change his mind on it, then you must argue on that basis alone.

Scott, these are two more blatant lies/complete misreadings that you don't even try to support. Nowhere in any of my posts did I say or imply these things, which makes your post an erroneous fiction as well as a semi-coherent ramble. As I said before, if you want to debate me like a grownup and actually address my posts and arguments, I will gladly do so. But if you want to continue to avoid doing so and lie, misrepresent, and shout out your views like an adolescent, I won't...although I will address this nugget of yours below.

Also, nobody, including myself "derailed" or changed the discussion. The initial discussion was not about "time". It was about whether or not SOM is a good or bad value and/or too expensive. Again, read better.

Because the 10 minutes spent isn't as personal as Jason likes to think. Objectively speaking, if you have a team, it doesn't take you more than that amount of time to set up your team each night for a new series and look over the box scores and details for the previous nights games. And 10 minutes a night for 20.00 is expensive. That is why most online strat players play with more than one team at a time.

This passage is particularly amusing because you contradict yourself twice. Firstly, you started out the post with the lie that I do not think the personal is "of merit" in issues of value. But here you complain that I am giving the personal too much merit. And then, you yourself completely negate the personal by insisting it is an objective fact that looking over "box scores and details from the previous nights games" takes ten minutes while failing to factor those who take a longer time....And yes, 10 minutes a night for 20.00 a night is too expensive, but SOM costs 37 cents a night.

P.s. I don't mind your referring to me as "Jason," but few people know me as that. You might want to refer to me as "L.Strether"

And dollars-per-hours-of-use is a poor temporal measure of value if used by itself. One product may provide ten times as much value in ten minutes of its product than another does in 2 hours its product. Also, many consumers prefer lengthy usage while others prefer products that can be enjoyed quickly. You have to always factor in variation in both objective realities and personal perspectives when effectively estimating and communicating value.

Here's my actual quote addressing value, time spent, and their relation. It completely debunks three further lies/misrepresentations you make in your second dishonest, fictional, incoherent post.

Also, your lying about many of my arguments and points without even directly quoting me shows considerable lacks in your ability and integrity as a debater, as well as a general lack in class.

Scott, I think you would be better served to keep your points as concise as possible. Hey, I'm not really a good writer either, so just sayin'. I often get lost trying to figure out what your point is because you tend to ramble and the point gets lost.

As for value, I can't measure it for everyone. But if I can have 3-6 teams running at a time while living on a very modest disability check, well, that I think speaks for itself as to how much I value the game

Hmmm

First let me repeat that i answered J.strether with the responses that newspapers offer the same value as online strat for a similar price and sites like yahoo games, poker stars and facebook games offer a better service for free (with advertising).

But no one in any of these posts have argued that spending 10min a night for 54 days is not expensive for 20.00. Which was my original argument at the beginning of the post.

So thats the simple thing. Tell me how spending only 10min a night for 54 nights is worth 20.00. 10 min is too short a time.

Scott.

Ok now that Jason has finally given a more concrete meaning to his idea of value, he is right that there are few things that give what strat does for 37 cents a day. Scott.

Gee, Scott, now you're even lying about and misrepresenting your own arguments, as you yourself said Strat wasn't too expensive at 37 cents-a-day.

If you weren't a complete liar, you would actually have my sympathies by now. You clearly have significant difficulties in reading comprehension, as well in conceiving and articulating your arguments.

Yes i ageed with you at that point but on reflection i realized i was incorrect because of other sites offer a similar service for free and i spent more time using them as well. Obviously J.strether you have a much better aptitude towards argument than i do. So if you dont mind spending the time, answer simply for me on how strat at 10min for 54 days is not expensive.

I would appreciate this

Scott.

Nice try, Scott, but that's not my question...it's yours. So as I said in my last post, address the cogent points I made against your arguments--including answering my question I asked you--and I'll gladly debate you and answer that question. Otherwise, my last post effectively cleared up the matter and finalized our debate.

Another nice try, Scott, that's another question to my question and another attempt to avoid debating my arguments directly. So, what I said in this post above still applies.

Address my previous arguments directly and I will answer your question that I have already answered directly (and through implication). Or you can thoroughly reread my posts and find my answer there...otherwise, I can't help you.