|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
   |
Posted - 2011.03.16 09:28:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Nadea Semah
Is your play style consistent with your Real life code of ethics??
No Quote:
Are you a hypocrite for condemning one action in real life, yet committing said action in eve?
No.
I don't support unregulated capitalism and exploitation of the poor, but that doesn't mean I don't find enjoy crushing my opponents in Monopoly. It's called a "game" (aka "not reality"). If you can't separate the two, you need to go see a shrink and/or remember to take your pills.
The only conceivable source of hypocrisy related to EVE would be if you were the kind of person who thought that escapism is bad for you.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 10:00:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Romo Skywind
Scamming in Eve is, morally at least, the exact same as scamming in real life.
Scamming in EVE is, morally, the exact same thing as feinting left and going right in football.
Quote:
Anyone who thinks they can be a good person IRL yet be ruthless and cruel to strangers online is either deluding themselves, or incredibly naive.
Anyone who can't separate the two needs to take his or her meds.
Quote:
And any comparisons to other games (killing someone in counterstrike, monopoly, etc) doesn't work as in those games everyone knows exactly what they're getting in to.
Same thing here. If you get into EVE, you know exactly what you're getting yourself into: a game where scamming is part of the play book.
Quote:
The scamee has no idea what he's getting into.
Completely different thing: he only has no idea what he's getting into in the same way the guy with his back to you in counter strike doesn't know what he's getting into (viz. getting shot in the back very soon), or the guy who hasn't rolled the die yet in Monopoly doesn't know what he's getting into (viz. having to part with a pile of money very soon). When the "scamee's" money is lost; when that guy gets shot in the back; when the monopoly player lands on [whatever is the most expensive square in your country's version] with a hotel onà he will know. More importantly: all those things are part of the game, and people expect them.
If you're talking about "he didn't know what he was getting into" in the sense of "he didn't know it could happen" ù i.e. if he didn't expect them ù then maybe he should have read up on the rules and understood the game.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 12:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Fondon
In EVE you can't win nor lose the way you're intended to win or lose in games like monopoly, poker or chess.
Sure you can.
Beat the other guy = win.
Don't beat him = lose.
The only difference is that you define "beat" and that, being a sandbox, you have to accept that others definitions won't match yours.
Quote:
MMOs are persistent worlds where your actions impact real people
Not in any way that differs from how you impact them when you play CS or Monopoly.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 12:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
In EvE you may indeed play for the "pure pew pew" but you may also form long term plans that - when actively distrupted - have a reflection on RL stress on a longer term than you'd have vs losing a Monopoly match.
You haven't played with proper board game nutsà 
And no, I don't see the difference. You win some; you lose some. That's just the game. Disrupting long-term plans is just the same game on a larger scale.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 12:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Bottom line, you play how you want, that is the meaning of it being a sandbox. If you want to bring your morals & ethics into the game, do so; if you want to leave them at the door, do so as well. If you want to pick and choose, so be it.
That's probably the best description of it.
Sure, you could probably bring you ethics and moral into it, but assuming that everyone will (or that everyone should) is to assume that there is only one way to approach the game (or, worse, that there's only one moral or ethical code or that they are universally applicable)à and that's just mindbogglingly wrong. For instanceà
Quote:
And yes, valued human life does factor into the game, not in the manner of life or death, but there are several easily thinkable scenarios where you can ruin an entire person's months or years of play by your actions; in that respect you can say its no different than having to apply the same morals you do in real-life when deciding whom and by how much to inconvenience someone for your own gain.
àand you just as easily say that it is totally different: since the game is all about ruining what people have built over months or years, doing so is right and real-life morals are not pertinent to scenario.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:14:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
whoa whoa whoa, who said that?
Doesn't matter. If that's how they define the game, then it is right. That's the whole point.
You define your game. If you define your game as "Super SandcastleBash X" then bashing people's sandcastles is the whole point. If someone else instead defines the game as "Super SandcastleBuild X" (an eerily similar game with what on the surface seems to be the exact same content) then building sandcastles is the whole point.
More importantly, the Super SandcastleBuild X-player cannot claim that the Super SandcastleBash X-player is doing anything wrong when his splendid newly build sand castle gets bashed, because the morals and ethics of the former are irrelevant and inapplicable to the latter.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 13:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Jame Jarl Retief
So you scam someone out of a few hundred million ISK. So what? In 5-10 years when servers shut down or you move on to another game, the lost ISK won't matter
Exactly. So why do people think that it somehow makes people "rats" for doing it?
Quote:
In layman's terms - a game encouraging griefers will attract griefers.
At the same, a game that allows for freedom of action reinforces good behaviour because the freedom that lets people grief also lets the griefers get what's coming to them.
Quote:
People who lie, cheat and steal in game most likely do the same irl, albeit on a smaller scale.
Probably not, no. 
Quote:
One of my personal pet peeves is people who say "QQ" or "cry moar". I never found that witty, funny or in any way helpful.
These are generally the responses that come up when people refuse to be helpedà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:23:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Would an EVE scammer/pirate knowingly grief someone they trusted and knew IRL, such as one that might take care of their kids.
Yes. In fact, the ones I know think it's even more fun that way.
Quote:
And to that I hypothesis some will say yes simply to drive their point, but in reality the answer will always be no.
No it won't.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:36:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Read my last edit. I'm not talking about "haha I shot your frig". Most people relationships I know wouldn't stand for that level of deceit.
àand I'm talking about two friends of mine who have been at war with each other for two years now, trying to nuke their respective corps.
Again: it's all about what you think the game is about. They're playing the "obliterate your opponent" kind of EVE. Before that, they were deeply into (most relevantly) Diplomacy and various politics-LARPs and stabbed each other in the back constantly for over a decade. For them, that's what the game is about: stabbing first, stabbing hardest and (if possible) stabbing last as well.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 14:48:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Jame Jarl Retief
To me, scamming to get ahead is like cheating to win a game. Sure, you won, but at what cost?
àexcept that cheating entails breaking the rules, whereas scamming does not. So yes, they won, and the whole point was that it was very low-cost.
Quote:
I don't mind freedom of choice, it's the lack of consequences that bothers me in most games.
And that's the rub: this is EVE. It's we players who run the world, and it is you who has to provide the consequences. If you give them a free pass, then they get a free pass. If you don't, they don't.
Quote:
Choices must have consequences, every action must have a reaction.
And choices do have consequences, but quite often, people's reaction is to decide to waive that consequence (if I were to guess, it's because they think the game should do these things for them, when the game is in fact rather specifically designed not to work that way).
Quote:
Aww, come on.
Sweeping statement, meet sweeping statement.
Quote:
Personally, it's not something I'm capable of. And maybe in this society it makes me weak or a non-survival type
More likely, you're not playing the same game he is.
Quote:
At times, yes. But for the most part it is a token response, a catch-all.
I don't see it that way. Most of the time, it's in reply to a whine that comes out of pure laziness or unwillingness to accept any alternatives. At most, it's used prematurely against people who haven't quite groked EVE yet (the "why am I getting PvPed in a PvP game" kind of whine), but in those cases, it tend to be followed by an educating lecture about why what the person said wasà wellà let's call it "foolish"à in the context of EVE.
Quote:
Another thread on this forum about Gallente. Someone replies with a one-liner like "QQ moar" or "want some cheese with that whine?"
àbecause the argument has gone back and forth so many times that everyone (presumably) knows the beats by now. But sure, at times (rare ones, imo) that presumption might be a bit presumptuous (duh! ).
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 15:09:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Tippia on 16/03/2011 15:13:21
Originally by: Nypheas Azurai
Again, that's not quite it. War is defined combat. It's not piracy, it's not scamming. LARP again: defined role-playing.
And you're missing the point: they are using all the underhanded tactics you mention. Or wellà they try, but since they both play the same game, they expect the other guy to do nasty things so from my perspective they just dance around each other a lot. 
Quote:
Again, it's not war, where in you expect that to happen, or LARP wherein you script it.
àunless it is. That's the whole point. If you play the game that way, it is. As a result, you can never really assume that anyone will act in any particular way ("good" or "bad") or that your definitions of what counts as "good" or "bad" are applicable. In fact, look up blue and orange morality for a pretty accurate depiction of what EVE offers.
The downside of this is that the only practical strategy left is the EVE mantra: don't trust anyone.
Quote:
I'll illustrate with a few other common examples from similar but different domains:
How are any of these in-game? The only one that remotely qualifies is the first one, and that's because it becomes a relationship between the (oog) players.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 15:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Jame Jarl Retief
Take you, specifically. You have a choice. You can get your ISK by honest means, or you can steal/scam it. Let's assume getting it the honest way is harder, or at least less efficient. Which do you choose? Why?
Because it's actually easier to do it the honest way in EVE (easier as in "more casual", rather than "more efficient").
Quote:
My point is, certain people have a certain mindset. I won't call it bad, wrong or evil, but it is a mindset that is completely alien to my own.
Hence the "blue and orange morality". Since the game lets you play it in so many ways, setting your own goals, defining your own methods, defining your own "win conditions", there is no way to define right or wrong other than for yourselfà and the only thing you can be sure of is that this definition will most certainly not match anyone else.
Quote:
Except it isn't. And also explains why EVE has a tiny player population in spite of being one of the oldest and more polished MMOs out there today AND having had no real competition since its release.
Yes but no. No, that really is how the harsh consequences are supposed to be metered out, but yes, you're probably right: that's one of the reasons it has a somewhat niche market ù because players are not willing to do this and because they are used to the game doing it for them (or, more commonly, simply disallowing the things that would require that level of consequences).
àand you are given the tools and the means to do this, if you choose to do so.
Quote:
OK, so the argument was done back and forth. Was the issue resolved? Obviously not. Does the issue exist? Debatable, but for the most part people agree that something stinks. But be that as it may, I still don't see the reason, the MOTIVATION for someone to log in and just say "QQ moar" and leave.
Pretty much the same reason and motivation as for why we have this back-and-forthà except with fewer words (and lacking a proper argument).
Just mentally search-and-replace with "I vehemently disagree, but I just can't be bothered to explain because I believe you should know this alreadyà so there!" and everything will be sunshine and lollipops. 
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 15:46:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Karl Planck
Edit* omg I don't know why its all italicized, can't fix it
Because you left an open [edit] tag at the top of Omega's quote.
àyes, I have trained Forumpoasting to V. 
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 16:20:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Those who did not follow the mantra but still were wise and cautios enough managed to form impressive alliances that lasted years.
Those curved on themselves people who "don't trust anyone" seem to be solo players who will never experience EvE at its fullest.
Yes. I noticed now that I didn't finish that paragraph.
It's the only practical solution if you never want to be exposed to the risk of loss. A particularly grievous omission since the "risk" and "exposed" bits are rather crucialà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 16:51:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tza Omi
And how does manuevering chess peices on a board to achieve check mate equate to murder or theft?
It's a war game.
But yes: that's the whole point ù equating the two is rather silly, so you don't. So even if you abhor real-life murder, chess is still available to you as a form of entertainment or competition.
Quote:
There are no victims you are both there to compete.
So, much like EVE then.
Quote:
When you scam a person in Eve, or can flip a miner's can, you are stealing, you are taking someone elses stuff for your benefit without regard to them.
Much like taking someone's pieces in chess.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 17:22:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Tippia on 16/03/2011 17:23:52
Originally by: Tza Omi
Thats like equating an assasination to an arranged duel, other than the fact that someone dies the morality of the two aren't comparable.
No. It's like equating a war game to a war game. Both are It's an abstraction, and applying morals to the act of knocking the other guy out is rather silly.
àyou could argue that war games (or games in general, for that matter) are morally reprehensible, but that's not really what's being discussed here.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 18:21:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Plocsk
In chess, do you take a piece because it is part of the game, or to upset your opponent?
Yes.
Originally by: Tza Omi
Eve is not just a wargame, Eve is a community with very few rules excluding very few activities. Its not that stealing is built into the game but that it is not excluded. Because of its lack of rules and consequences it allows ppl in the community to interact as their spirit dictates
Except, of course, that it is built into the game. On purpose. It does have rules and consequences. They were also built in. On purpose. So no, it's not because of a lack of those or any kind of oversight. It's by design.
Case blown wide open. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 18:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Ozmodan
The problem with Eve is, most players can't disassociate a MMO from playing an FPS. Playing a MMO requires an entirely different mindset as things are not ethereal as in a FPS. The ones who tell you it is just a game are the ones who just don't get it.
àor the other way around.
Quote:
All you have to do is look at the level of cheating that goes on in these games to understand the mentality that many approach this game.
Are you talking about FPSes or MMO:s?
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 18:48:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Ana Vyr
Chess is a set piece battle in which you are starting out with equal assets. The objective it to defeat the other player through structured rules (and out of game distractions in some cases as well...trying to rattle your opponent).
EVE is a PvP-centric game where you start out with equal assets. The objective is toà wellà do pretty much anything you like, which (considering that it's a PvP-centric game) will entail defeating the other player(s) through structured rules.
The inequality you talk about is the same inequality as when a pawn is up against a queen (and you can spend part of the session to "buy" new queens).
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 18:57:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Tippia on 16/03/2011 18:59:22
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
If your intent is to upset a player (in real life) then you are doing it to provoke grief.
In real life, perhaps.
In games, it's quite often used to provoke mistakes.
Originally by: Ana Vyr
So Tippia, if my objective in EvE is to make the most ISK, am I playing the game wrong?
No. What gave you that idea?
Quote:
You tend to make it clear in your posts that PvP is the "only" objective in EvE
Yes. And you provided a good example of it.
Quote:
despite numerous ways to play the game that don't involve blowing up ships.
No. Not despite. Because there are numerous ways that don't involve blowing up ships. All of them involve beating the other players. All of them (okà not all, there are two exceptions) are PvP.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
|
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 19:42:00 -
[21]
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
In Eve, it's more often used to cause "tears", drive players to quit
ài.e. mistakes.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:03:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
But a human is at the keyboard playing it, and in order for it to exist you must make a choice.
That choice can only reflect the "You" free of the consequences of your actions.
Highly unlikely. If it did, EVE would no longer function, and people would not play it the way most of them do.
So it most certainly reflects far more than "only the consequence-free you".
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:23:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
To say that it also reflects more, is not to say that it does not reflect it.
I attempted to streamline the post as much as possible, it's long enough as it is.
There's a pretty significant difference between "streamlining" and "prejudiced stereotyping".
Of the myriad of things that are reflected in how people choose to play the game, the "consequence-free you" is ù at best ù rather insignificant. More importantly, it can only really be reflected in those players who believe that there are no consequences in EVE (those who know the consequences of their actions are not likely to act in a consequence-free way, now are they?). As it happens, the only ones who believe this are the ones who have never actually looked into that side of the game, and that excludes anyone who does anything "morally reprehensible" in the game by default.
In other words, the only ones whose playstyle could possibly reflect their consequence-free selves to any greater extent are the ones who only do good in the game. This set contains somewhere around zero people (and if someone actually were to never do anything bad in the game, their playstyle wouldn't represent their consequnce-free behaviour either, because that behaviour would be far worse than what they exhibit in-game).
The behaviour we see in the game exists exactly because the game offers consequences.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.16 21:45:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mighty Dread
What I find most disheartening in EVE is that there doesn't seem to be much room for the good guy/girl. If you actively try and help other players who are falling prey to the game's more nefarious types you end up being penalized with a sec status hit or worse loose a ship to Concord (exception of course null sec or going through the paces/expense of a corp/alliance wardec).
That's largely because it's a "harsh and unforgiving universe" ù a classic dystopia. In a world where everyone is ground down, the roles we players take on are as the most egotistical, narcissistic and elitist bastards of the lot. The game is built around reinforcing this.
That's why we mission runners mass-murder people by the thousands (or millions); why traders try to screw the little guys out of their last Caldarian cent; why manufacturers claim ownership over entire moons and planets and don't pay their workers anything and (as you say) only really are a bunch of war profiteers when you think about it.
àand from a game-mechanics standpoint, it's because "playing the good guy" (in the best Hollywood tradition) requires breaking all the rules. Unlike the Hollywood rendition, however, this crapsack world doesn't let us get away with it. We can only be "good" or helpful within the rules. You can defend other players, but you have to do so legally ù you can't go on a vigilante spree.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.17 09:31:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Mighty Dread
Right but you can't come to the rescue of another player who is not in your corp/alliance without being penalized and/or Concordokkened.
Sure you can. You can put reps on them; if the attack is illegal, you can kill/jam/scramble the attackers; it's entirely possible to scare people away just with an overbearing presence. You can do lots of things, but only after they have actually been attacked.
Originally by: Alpheias
didn't find one with popcorn so you get one with strawberries instead!
Good. Strawberries > popcorn.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.17 15:38:00 -
[26]
Basically, this whole thread boils down to this:
Which is true?- Evil => Griefer
- Evil <=> Griefer
- Neither.
(No-one seems to be suggesting the interesting alternative Griefer => Evil.)
Get voting, peopleà
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 16:10:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Yotan en Thielles
If you do not act in EVE according to your ethics in real life, then how ethical and virtuous are you really?
Depends what context you measure "really" in.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 17:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Obstreperous1
If your morals and ethics don't permeate every part of your life I suspect you probably don't have any.
You suspect incorrectly, most likely because you think there is only one set of morals and ethics (and that they're not malleable) and/or you think it's a bad idea to consider or explore alternative viewpoints.
The beauty of games is that they let us do exactly that.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
|
Posted - 2011.03.18 23:04:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Tippia on 18/03/2011 23:05:13
Originally by: Trooper Rogue
The poker analogy isn't relevant. Bluffing is inherent to poker. Without bluffing there IS no game of poker. Also in poker the very object of the game is to relieve someone of their real-life money - in EVE it isn't. I hope we can dispense with the poker analogies now.
Seeing as how it most certainly is (one of) the very objects of EVE to relieve someone of their virtual-life money, and seeing as how you can certainly play poker without bluffing, it's very relevant and they cannot be dispensed with that easily.
In fact, dispensing with them would be downright foolish considering how apt they are.
ùùù
ôIf you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡à
you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.ö
ù Karath Piki |
|
|
| |
|