Whether we think the current algorithm is smart, fair, efficient, etc. is irrelevant.
Quite right. Why would InnoGames care what we think? We're just the video game addicts, right? Why would a dealer care what the junkies think?
.
The cut is fine. Now scram.
The argument that you are not talking about the order in which SPECIFIC buildings get aided or polished is semantics.
The interpretation of
any rule is semantics. Furthermore, if a rule were flawed (which I doubt in this case, because I don't think it applies to my proposal), then the unwillingness to challenge it would beg the question of whether those who make the rules are
infallible. Is InnoGames divine?
Praise the Lord!
Or as Gutmeister put it ...
Constitutional amendments get tweaked, and yet the DNSL is sacrosanct.
The current algorithm for motivation/aid is well-established.
That doesn't make it right. You're employing a fallacy — Appeal to Tradition. Slavery was well-established in the Antebellum South. Did that make it right? Of course not.
He wants to change the rules to avoid the downside of the choice he has made.
You know my motivation? Is that because you're inside my head?
. . Despite what you and a few others here may think (or what we have all been taught by the capitalist system), not everyone is motivated primarily by self-interest.
Like the other detractors of the proposal, you have avoided the core issue, which is the
glaring inconsistency in the game between designing and
promoting game decorations, on one hand, and then
punishing players for actually using them.
Why bother creating quality artwork if the game process then discourages players from creative design?
.