(2024-02-04 19:32)Justanotherguy Wrote: (2024-02-04 14:57)holmes Wrote: (2024-02-04 14:16)Justanotherguy Wrote: But Holmes my dear chap I did ask you to clarify "All right Holmes old chap, please do be so good as to explain your point of view to me as I'm clearly missing precisely what it is that you're getting at.".
However, Holmsey continues to deflect and claim that I make no point whereas in fact his point makes my point for me. He also continues to fail to address the point I made by claiming that he wishes to discuss another point when returning to a point that I've clarified (more than once). Holmes also continues to insist that there is manipulation taking place when in fact I've simply stated a point of view (more than once) which essentially aligns precisely with the point Homes made (which I quoted to illustrate my point). Given that Holmes' reason and logic are so esoteric as to be unintelligible, I asked him to clarify his point of view which he failed to do, instead resorting to further obfuscation and evasion.
Once again, Holmes dear old sport, please be so kind as to elucidate upon and enlighten us as to your point of view, regarding whether or not models are freeloaders or not, and whether or not tips are irrelevant or essential to the functioning and the associated "apportioning and repartitioning" that takes place and sustains the platforms from which they stream.
Just as an aside it's fascinating that Holmes continues to insist that one of us is being manipulative when he is declining to answer direct questions. Whether this be due to an unwillingness or other factors one can only speculate. Then again perhaps there is also a little psychological projection occurring as well.
I hope that the questions I have posed (highlighted in bold above for your convenience Holmes old chum) are sufficiently clear and concise as to be intelligible to you. If it's necessary for me to rephrase them in a simpler fashion please don't be afraid to speak up as I will be delighted to accommodate you.
Once again I await your illuminating reply with bated breath.
Oh, so you just back to a previous step of the discussion? That's convenient because it allows you to scramble things. And of course it's before you reversed one of my requests and manipulated what I said by inventing a quote. What reality do you try to erase?
You know there's something called a timeline and we are supposed to progress one idea after another, and the last one who didn't answer a question is you. So, who's manipulating here?
And since you didn't bother address my question because our points align (?), I presume you agree that the stream of a model is financed no matter if she's tipped or not, right?
We can't go further if that is not clarified.
Well I must say that I'm deeply flattered by the wise and wonderful Holmes claiming that I'm capable of erasing reality when all I did was ask a question in answer to a question while also addressing and answering the question addressed to me. I'm also deeply intrigued as to how I invented a quote when all I did was quote a quote to address a quote quoted by Holmes.
But now after asking Holmes to clarify what he was alluding to he had clarified that I need to clarify what I have already clarified when I clarified what I was attempting to clarify to his satisfaction.
Given that Holmes chooses to presume I shall also take the liberty of presuming to presume that Holmes also agrees that he did indeed state that tipping is irrelevant and that models are freeloaders unless they contribute to the costs of the platform by earning tips to ensure that the "apportioning and repartitioning" he mentioned can in fact take place to ensure that the necessary financing of the platform is being supported by the purchasing of tokens for the purpose of tipping said models who insist on being tipped. Which in turn ensures that the dynamics and mechanisms required to keep the entire operation rolling along as desired are in fact in place and functioning as intended and necessary to ensure the survival of the platform etc.
You know perfectly that I was refferring to this post of yours where you reversed my request and manipulated what I wrote by inventing a quote:
"Demonstrate Holmes old chap that "users tipping models is irrelevant" and prove your own credibility if you can. Concisely if you will. Instead of circling the same point again. And again. And again. Please demonstrate your capacity to "add 2+2". If you will. I await your illuminating reply old bean."
And you avoided my question again, of course.
You "demonstrated" your affirmation by quoting me to say that our points aligned. So you agree with that (I'm quoting myself and adding an underline): "The bandwith is financed by the tokens bought by the viewers due to the presence of models,
no matter whose of those get the tips since it's all about accumulation/repartition, same way Chaturbate proceeds to pay the models since the platform get all of the money from the buyers up-front."
I was talking globally and if it's clearer for you I can reduce it at the level of one model, and it reads like this: the stream of a model is financed no matter if she's tipped or not.
So, you agree with that since you just confirmed that this was clarified.
Now, saying that the stream of a model is financed no matter if she's tipped or not means litterally that tips are irrelevant to the financing of the streams.
And then per definition you agree also with that, since it's all the same meaning coming from the quote you used to demonstrate this (I'm quoting you): "They pay for bandwidth by surrendering a percentage of what they earn through tips."
So, your demonstration is: "They pay for bandwidth by surrendering a percentage of what they earn through tips" because tips are irrelevant to the financing of the streams.
Are you ok with this brilliant demonstration of yours?? And should I understand that you agree that tips are irrelevant to the financing of the streams?
Then, you make your point on your own to say that I deny saying this but I've never so far with you addressed this question and you target me for no reason but because it suits your program. How could I deny something we never discussed? You create your own little discussion without addressing the other person like you do always.
Now, I stand by all I said in this thread and of course the fact that tips are irrelevant to the financing of the streams.
What you don't understand about the difficulty here is this:
Tipping is irrelevant to
how the streams are financed (my topic).
Tipping is relevant to
why the streams perpetuate (your topic).
And, all you do is repeating yourself for no reason, as when I'm repeating myself it's to make sure that we don't deviate from the subject because questionning if models freeload and operators provide bandwidth for free is a matter of
how, not a matter of
why. That is how the system is designed.