Micali wrote:Teamnoir wrote:Micali wrote:Not a bug. A design choice.
Of course we each make our own life choices about how to spend our time. Your point here about that might be relevant if I were attempting to encourage the devs to "work harder". I'm not, nor have I noticed anyone making that argument. Which makes your point rather an irrelevant non sequiter.
LOL. Clearly I hit some area of thin-skin of yours.
Classifying the inclusion of tax in the prices as "a bug" implies a mistake made by the developers when it was a simple design choice.
Nonsense on two counts. First, there is no implication of a mistake, but rather the statement that the feature, (including tax), is not the desired feature.
Second, there's no indication that this was a deliberate or intentional choice at all. It may well have simply been an oversight. We don't know.
I was correcting your factual inaccuracies therefore my comments are anything but irrelevant.
My statement was one of opinion and clearly labeled so. You cannot correct the veracity of my opinion. To do so would be to claim that you know my mind better than I do and I assure you that is not the case.
I did not say that your opinion nor your comments were irrelevant. I said that your argument, that developers already work hard enough, was immaterial to the question of whether this feature was desired or not.
Please explain how, by precisely what mechanism the number of hours that the developers work changes my opinion of whether the feature is desired.
Believing the comments of someone who disagrees with you are automatically irrevelent is ridiculous.
You are ascribing both behavior and motivations to me that are not mine. I said before and I've repeated above that it is not your opinion I find irrelevant, but your argument in support of your opinion. Your opinion is simply another opinion, no more nor less relevant than any other.
Classifying my corrective comments to this effect as "irrevelant non sequiter" is either pure arrogance or simply naivity on your part towards software design and development.
Your use of the word "corrective" here is offensive. You seem to be claiming that your opinion has the weight of objective truth where no other opinion has that weight.
I assure you that I am not naive with respect towards software design or development. I am, in fact, an expert in them.
Describing the inclusion of tax as a "known inaccuracy" is simply wrong. Inclusion of the tax is technically accurate. Failure to include it would be closer to a bug.
This is an opinion, not a fact. However, I'll be happy to discuss it with you.
The "price" of an item is the price the seller receives. The "tax" is not part of the "price", as evidenced by the fact that we use a separate word to describe it as a separate amount which is also paid. When setting the price for an item, the price to which I would most prefer to refer is the price of other sales.
Everyone knows items trading in a TP include tax.
This is an obvious fallacy. While most active players may know, most people, even most players by count do not.
The transaction price is WITH TAX.
Here you are simply mistaken. There isn't a single transaction but rather there are two. There is the amount which is paid by the purchaser which does indeed include the tax. However, there is also the price received by the seller which does not. One transaction includes the tax, the other does not.
The amount people are more interested in as a gauge of market value is without tax.
On this I concur. And this is the reason why I would prefer to see this value listed.
Simply because the amount of most useful value to the trader (the one without tax) is not what the report shows does not make reporting actual trade prices as trade prices a bug.
At worst it makes it a less useful/appropriate design choice.
And now you're arguing semantics. If I'm following you, and I'm not sure that I am, you seem to be agreeing that the currently reported value, the one which includes tax, is less desirable than a value which did not. Which would seem to indicate that we are both expressing a preference for the same thing.
This whole issue is such a silly item that I would not even bother to reply except for some reason you insist on classifying accurate (though less than ideal) data as buggy, converting what should be a trivial point into a "pseudo" debate, and turn a minor friendly correction into an attempt at insulting.
Get over it.
No insult was intended. I wasn't even writing to you. I have nothing to "get over" as I'm neither blocked nor upset.