Online game costs too much

Ok J. I will follow your lead. If you want to spend the time with me. Can you repeat the questions you asked me so i dont have to go back through all the posts to find them? then i will answer them to the best of my ability. The we can go on from there.

Thanks

Scott.

Ok, Scott. The last post I made that addressed your posts, and you failed to address directly, was my Thu/May27/12:15 post on "page" 4. Address what I said directly and I will continue to debate you

There's another important stipulation I forgot to mention in my last post. I almost never continue debating someone who has lied about and/or grossly misrepresented my arguments, as you did in your last two lengthy posts. But I will debate you if you acknowledge those lies and misrepresentations I mentioned or give evidence to show they are actually true. And to avoid further such lies or misrepresentations, you need to (and should) actually quote my arguments when you address or represent them.


P.s...It's actually "L.Strether" if you want to be accurate.

Scott is right in that 'value' is up to the individual - it is not an absolute measure based on dollars spent per hour of use.

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.

If value were solely contingent on individual perspectives, then nobody could compellingly (or even legitimately) tell someone else what a good or bad value is...which Scott tried to do in his previous posts.


Ps. I never said nor implied that value was "an absolute measure of dollars spent per hour of use"...I have no idea where you got that from. In fact, I never mentioned "time spent" at all, so you need to reread my posts. Scott was the one emphasizing time spent, which was another example of him referencing objective facts (not just personal opinion) in his arguments.

Is this the post you are referring to? Thurs. May 22?

Scott.

The quote is actually on page 3, but the date and time of it are the same.

Lets say you like coffee. so you go buy a coffee each day for 37 cents. But then you notice that only one out of 5 coffees you buy tastes good. The one that tastes good you enjoy, but the other 4 you spit out and continue on with your day. You tell a friend that you stopped buying coffee because 4 out of 5 times you buy it you don't enjoy the taste and spit it out.

Your friend answers, yeah but dude its a great deal, you are only spending 37 cents a day on it. What other beverage can you buy for 37 cents a day? So you say to your friend, I understand that but its not 37 cents a day its actually 4 days with a bad taste in my mouth and 1 day of and enjoyable tasty drink. So why would I spend 37 cents a day on something I don't enjoy. If I could spend 8 cents then I might consider it because then I can buy 5 cups of coffee at once and have at least one be a good cup of coffee each day and it costs me 40 cents. Now that would be a deal because even buying it 5 times is less expensive than a can of coke for 99 cents.

If you enjoy spending 20.00 on a team in online strat then its a value to you. But if it takes you five times, (80.00 to 100.00) to enjoy online strat because you suck and only 1 out of 5 teams is successful, and you are of the opinion that having a sucky team is a waste of 20.00 (some don't), then it's not of value to you.

Scott, this is both an inapt comparison and one that further proves that your arguments are based on your personal experience, not facts that would relate to most (if not all) strat users. First, you can't compare coffee that is bad 4 out of 5 times to a product (SOM) that does not vary daily in the services it renders to you...you are not losing because Strat is daily altering what it gives you. Secondly, if SOM isn't worth 31-37 cents a day to you because "you suck" or because "only one out of times you are successful," then that is due to your own personal experience, not SOM's actual value in relation to other values of similar cost. If you want to prove that SOM is a bad value outside of your own experience/personal opinion, you need to do so by relating it to values of similar cost.

For you the question is, Is 37 cents a day a good buy to play a season of online strat? If no, prove it by giving a comparison to other things out there. So I should answer that as well so to be more thorough.

If I go to a movie it costs me 12.00 (if I don't get ripped off by buying popcorn) for 2 hrs of entertainment. Strat, if I have a competitive team (which so far is 1 of 4 teams), I spend approx. 15 min a day on (10 min usually, occasionally longer if I get an injury).

the calculation is this way

Strat
15 x 52 = 780 minutes for $80.00 (didn't enjoy the 3 teams that didn't compete)

Movie
780/120 = 6.5 x 12 = $78.00

of the last 10 movies I saw I didnt enjoy one of them so to adjust...

78.00 x 10% = 7.80.. 78.00 + 7.80 = 85.80

so the outcome is very similar and who thinks 12.00 for a movie is a good deal? And at least with a movie you can get up and walk out after 20min and get a refund or credit if you didn't enjoy the movie. I don't think you can ask strat for a refund after a 10-30 start to your season.

In conclusion, strat would be better off for someone like me to have the ability to fool around with it, tinker with different types of drafts, salary caps, etc to learn the ins and outs of online strat at a cheap price because at 20.00 a pop to do this it would definitely be too expensive.

You also fail to aptly compare SOM to a value of similar cost here. First of all, you keep basing your comparisons on your own experience/personal opinion. When you earlier misspoke and inaccurately accused me of basing my arguments on personal opinion, you did make one correct observation: if a point is merely based on personal opinion, it is only relevant to that person, not anyone else. So your movie/SOM comparison based on your personal experience/opinion is really only relevant to you, it does not successfully or accurately represent or diminish SOM's value.

Also, your attempts at mathematical support also fail. You only factor in the minutes of your actual interaction with SOM, not all the services it provides you every day, such as games facilitated and run, and drafts run on many days, so you are misrepresenting the provided services in your calculations. And you can manipulate your calculations using your own non-mathematical personal experience all you want; it doesn't make a 6-9 dollar movie a "12-dollar movie," nor does it make a "12-dollar" movie an accurate comparison to SOM's cost and/or value.

So, in conclusion, you still haven't shown that SOM is a bad value for anyone else but you. If you want to actually do so, you actually have to compare it to another value of approximately 31-37 cents a day--without relying on your personal experience/opinion--and show why that comparison makes it a bad value for most people, not just for you.

Ok i think this is it correct?

Scott.

P.s. May i refer to you as Jason, or do you prefer I.strether?

Ok, Scott. The last post I made that addressed your posts, and you failed to address directly, was my Thu/May27/12:15 post on "page" 4. Address what I said directly and I will continue to debate you

There's another important stipulation I forgot to mention in my last post. I almost never continue debating someone who has lied about and/or grossly misrepresented my arguments, as you did in your last two lengthy posts. But I will debate you if you acknowledge those lies and misrepresentations I mentioned or give evidence to show they are actually true. And to avoid further such lies or misrepresentations, you need to (and should) actually quote my arguments when you address or represent them.


P.s...It's actually "L.Strether" if you want to be accurate.

Yes, Scott, that's the right post. However, you still need to do what I stipulated in the highlighted passage above if you want me to respond to what you write.

...and feel free to call me "Jason' or "L.Strether"...either Is fine.

" So, in conclusion, you still haven't shown that SOM is a bad value for anyone else but you. If you want to actually do so, youactually have to compare it to another value of approximately 31-37 cents a day--without relying on your personal experience/opinion--and show why that comparison makes it a bad value for most people, not just for you."

So i should answer this?

That is that find something to compare to the value of strat and show that strat is a bad value compared to it?

Meaning i need to find a service that costs 31-37 cents a day not anything else that costs more or less than 31-37 cents a day?

Then once i find something that costs 31-37 cents a day, then compare it to strat and show that strat is of a worse value than it?

Making sure i include the service that strat provides as well.

Scott

Ok, Scott. The last post I made that addressed your posts, and you failed to address directly, was my Thu/May27/12:15 post on "page" 4. Address what I said directly and I will continue to debate you

There's another important stipulation I forgot to mention in my last post. I almost never continue debating someone who has lied about and/or grossly misrepresented my arguments, as you did in your last two lengthy posts. But I will debate you if you acknowledge those lies and misrepresentations I mentioned or give evidence to show they are actually true. And to avoid further such lies or misrepresentations, you need to (and should) actually quote my arguments when you address or represent them.


P.s...It's actually "L.Strether" if you want to be accurate.

Scott, I made it clear (in my post quoted above) what you needed to do for me to respond to your posts; you ignored it. Write anything you want, I will no longer respond.

I am just trying to figure out where I went wrong in my argument with you Jason. The best way to do that so that I understand is to allow you to take the lead and answer the specific questions you asked me, then I can answer them, then you can point out where I went wrong and then we can get to a conclusion. It will save time rather than me going through all the posts to figure out where I went wrong.

But I you want me to try to do that on my own I will.

Scott.

So here my attempt to try and figure out if I can argue in a comprehensible way using I.strether posts as a perameter,

"Scott, we haven't been discussing whether or not Strat is cheap (although it may be); we've been discussing whether its price is fair, and it is. A season takes from 54-64 days of game play, depending on playoff participation. That means a day of strat costs from 31-37 cents a day to play. For that not-so-exorbitant sum you do get to do all the activities you mentioned above (for ten minutes or more or less). But, more importantly, you get all the services and facilitated game-play Strat provides that I mentioned in my post above yours, services you neglected to address in your post above. So yes, I would say all this is worth 31-37 cents a day.

My questions to you would be:

1. What do you think are better deals out there for 31-37 cents a day?

and

2. If you consider On-Line Strat too expensive at 31-37 cents a day, how much per day would be a fair price for Strat to charge?"

So this was an early post by I.strether

the answer to these two questions are the following:

1. Pokerstars, yahoo games, and many facebook games you can play for free.

2. A fair price would be between 5 to 10 dollars per team (8 to 18 cents a day).

Here is part of another post by I.strether replying to a post by RedRum666 where RedRum666 mentioned that strat is too expensive because "It takes forever for leagues to fill. Multiple 12 team leagues should easily fill on the same night if the game were price correctly. Unfortunately, SOM is shortsighted in this area. They should lower their pricepoint. It would likely result in a lot more businesz."

Now here I could just as easily say "the bottom line is the game is priced fairly," but I would rather convince than rest on platitudes. So, I will refer you back to my earlier post (Apr. 24 2:27 pm) where I presented Strat's main services and the actual costs for those services --31-37 cents a day--and ask you the same question concerning them that I earlier asked Scott:

1. What do you think are better deals out there for 31-37 cents a day?

and

2. If you consider On-Line Strat too expensive at 31-37 cents a day, how much per day would be a fair price for Strat to charge?

To be accurate here are Strat's main services that I.strether pointed out:

It allows you to draft a team against 11 (or 23 or 6) other managers (from different US states), organize that team through provided salaries and salary caps, and then compete against those other managers every night as you continually manage your team through strategy and general manage it through transactions.

I am still understanding I.strether which is good and unlike before I answered his two questions. Let's continue...

After others spoke their piece and I.strether argued with them I stated:

What I.strether is talking about is the value is good for him. But that means little to anyone other than him. His opinion is that its worth the price. My opinion is that it is not. My thinking is that if som priced it lower i would buy more teams. I would spend more money over all if the price was lower. If the price was 10.00 i would be less reticent in joining leagues where im less sure i would have fun playing. Or to join a league when my confidence is less strong. I have bought 4 teams so far with 2 being autodrafts and 1 being a multi frwnchise draft and one being a live draft.

I think this is where I made a mistake. I attributed I.strether remarks as personal opinion, where I.strether was arguing from an objective standpoint (I hope I got this right). Here is how I.strether answered my post:

You' need to improve your reading, Scott. I explained quite well (in numerous posts) and quite incisively why SOM is a good value, period, not just for me. If you disagree with my arguments, you really should actually address
them instead of making such inaccurate, unsupported statements.

You claim you don't like spending the SOM cost of 31-37 cents a day--which Is an excellent value (not just for me)--when you have to "spend 10-30 minutes a day checking losing box scores each day." So, you are actually doing what you inaccurately accused me of; you are judging the cost and value of SOM based on your own personal experience, not it's cost and value outside of it. To evaluate its actual cost and value, you need to compare SOM's price and value to other values of similar cost.

So I will ask again--since it is germane to this discussion--that question I asked you before:

Since you don't consider SOM a good deal at 31-37 cents a day, what is a better deal out there for 31-37 cents a day?

I look forward to your answer. But, considering you probably know there are few better deals out there, I won't hold my breath...

Ok so I answered the 31-37 cents a day question earlier in this post which I didn't answer originally up to this point in the argument. I.strether also attributes to me for the first time that I am arguing the cost and value of strat from "personal experience not its cost and value outside it."

I am assuming now that in order to make a good argument I must remove my personal experience from judging whether the cost and value of strat makes it's price point of 31-37 cents a day not expensive. That personal experience is not relevant.

Originally I continued to argue from a personal experience, according to I.strether, when I compared online strat to a movie. He stated:

You also fail to aptly compare SOM to a value of similar cost here. First of all, you keep basing your comparisons on your own experience/personal opinion. When you earlier misspoke and inaccurately accused me of basing my arguments on personal opinion, you did make one correct observation: if a point is merely based on personal opinion, it is only relevant to that person, not anyone else. So your movie/SOM comparison based on your personal experience/opinion is really only relevant to you, it does not successfully or accurately represent or diminish SOM's value.

I.strether also points out that I made a mistake since I didn't include the services strat provides in my comparison:

Also, your attempts at mathematical support also fail. You only factor in the minutes of your actual interaction with SOM, not all the services it provides you every day, such as games facilitated and run, and drafts run on many days, so you are misrepresenting the provided services in your calculations. And you can manipulate your calculations using your own non-mathematical personal experience all you want; it doesn't make a 6-9 dollar movie a "12-dollar movie," nor does it make a "12-dollar" movie an accurate comparison to SOM's cost and/or value.

[btw im in Canada and a movie costs 12.00]

He concludes his argument with what I think is the core of his own argument:

So, in conclusion, you still haven't shown that SOM is a bad value for anyone else but you. If you want to actually do so, you actually have to compare it to another value of approximately 31-37 cents a day--without relying on your personal experience/opinion--and show why that comparison makes it a bad value for most people, not just for you.

Ok so now we have the core argument of I.strether.

No personal experience, compare it to another value of 37 cents a day, and after comparing it show why that comparison make it a bad value for most people.

Ok now that we have the parameters of the argument lets see how clearly I can argue that strat is a bad value at 31-37 cents a day, negating the fact that I think it is since what I think is personal experience and therefore irrelevant.

The best argument I can muster, and hopefully this is clear and understandable is the following:

Pokerstars, yahoo games, and many Facebook games offer their services for less than 31-37 cents a day. In fact they offer them for free. People play them at no cost. They offer a similar service with tracking your progress and statistics as strat does.

In fact their services are more expansive. They rank your progress compared to your friends and others playing the game. They allow you to play the game live against others not just choose the way a computer will play your game for you. They allow you to chat live with other players both in game rooms and specific games you are playing. All these things online strat does not offer.

If everyone can play these games for free, Is paying 20.00 for a the game of online strat not a bad value for most people?

Hopefully I didn't miss the point this time

Scott.