i mean even psychological harm doesn't occur since you never know when someone else has pirated your game.
what other metric would there be? what's another example of something you can do that hurts nobody but is still wrong?
you would not be justified in stealing someone else's work because they lose that piece of their property. they may be able to duplicate it to replace it, but they shouldn't have to. that's not what happens in piracy though, you don't lose any property and you don't have to duplicate anything to replace anything.

what i am saying here is that the argument "you took one of their files from them" is faulty.
if companies knew that everyone didn't want to play their game, they wouldn't make the game either. does that mean i'm obligated to play the game?
i'm arguing for the sake of something i believe in, which is that piracy is morally neutral.

i know what's wrong with stealing, but evidently you don't, otherwise you'd be able to tell me instead of hiding from that very simple question.

just any harm.

cool, so it's not your english, you're just braindead, good to know.
i am NOT taking a copy that you have to CTRL+C CTRL+V to replace PERIOD, physically digitally or otherwise. the number of copies of the file that you have is UNAFFECTED by my actions. i never for even a second reduce that number. i could pirate a million copies, pull them all up on my PC at once and jack off to the BSOD that that causes and you would have absolutely zero way of knowing because it wouldn't affect you or your stock in the slightest. copying files could be a painstaking, arduous process and you STILL wouldn't be affected because you DON'T have to copy anything to "replace" what i "stole" because there's nothing to be replaced.

given your flag i'm going to be incredibly charitable and assume English isn't your first language, so I'll point out to you the part you're missing. i said "i'm NOT EVEN going to your PC and taking a copy that you have to CTRL+C CTRL+V to replace". i am NOT doing that.

no it isn't. like i literally just said, i'm not deleting one of your many copies, i'm not even deleting one of your many copies that you can freely recreate, i'm not even touching your copies. someone else is just allowing me to make a copy of the copy that they purchased from you. i didn't TAKE a copy from you, in any sense of the word.
your argument sounds like you're admitting that nobody is harmed by piracy. is that correct?

i explicitly did not say that, read it again.

I don't get this insistence on who's harmed or not, do we actually have to harm someone just so something to be wrong?

yes, of course.

Pirating is specifically wrong because it is just stealing.

then what is specifically wrong with stealing?

When you pirate something it will snowball vs when you simply don't buy the product. If you pirate something others will think that they should too instead of wasting money.

so? if pirating isn't wrong, "but there will be more pirating" isn't an argument for why it's wrong.

But that's not the case with simply not buying, with not buying you basically said you're broke and the product doesn't suit you and move on. It is easy to move from point B to point A but as long as you don't, no one is harmed.

what?

that doesn't occur in piracy. when i pirate a file, you still have just as many files as you had before. i'm not even going to your PC and taking a copy that you have to CTRL+C CTRL+V to replace, I'm literally not affecting your stock of copies one iota.

yes, because I lost the product that you stole from me.

you didn't answer my question. what specifically is wrong with piracy? who is harmed and how when i choose to pirate vs simply not consuming the product?

what are you talking about? you said, and I quote, "it's bad", and "I know it's just wrong". and by definition any action that needs "justifying" is bad. you're not neutral, you think piracy is wrong. fine, but my question is "why"?

what specifically is wrong with piracy? who is harmed and how when i choose to pirate vs simply not consuming the product?

because there was evidence against sinatraa you fucking half-wit

rapist
fuck each and every one of you

ts lol
13-8 13-11 NV
TL absolutely flopped in that game

if you can't beat fucking vivo keyd, even with a hidden camera, you're not that dominant

acend #4 is crazy considering they literally lost in the group stage and had to get it replayed (and still barely won. against brazil pre-loud no less)

when it comes to riot talent management, do not ask "why". assume that they are deciding through roll of a dice.

vlr rankings have been absolutely nonsensical since franchising began, it's a lost cause, might as well delete them.

ukraine is CIS, they quite literally played in the CIS qualifiers to make VCT in 2022

derke didnt play at Reykjavik 22, Klaus didnt play at lock-in, zest still played at all those LANs he just got subbed out for a map or two

wtf does "the util usage is relative" mean?

idk about riot but vlr really should be using the flag of the country who's resident they count as. idgaf if tex has german ancestry, he counts as an american player and therefore should be using the american flag, otherwise the flags are useless

1) we observe that the tournament had a lower prize pool than usual. you propose that the only explanation for this is that it wasn't intended to be a major tournament. i propose that a better explanation is just that the money was allocated elsewhere given that it was the largest tournament by # of teams we've ever had by far. your explanation requires that we believe that all the players, casters, Riot official media, and community either have amnesia or are lying about lock//in being a major. my explanation requires acknowledgement that it costs more to have more teams at your event. budget constraints are something riot has directly called out as being the reason for some of their decisions about this event.

2) what the fuck are you talking about? i asked you to name one single 'best-of-the-best' team that wasn't there. not to name one dogshit team that was there. before lock//in, there had been no majors without qualifiers. before Reykjavik '22, there had been no majors with 12 teams. pointing out a unique aspect of a tournament doesn't make it not a major. and i'll ask again for the third time, imagine that the Playoffs were the major and the Groups were the qualifiers. does anything meaningful change?

4) you aren't making an argument, inbred fuck. just saying "it doesn't make any sense!" is not an argument.

5) if everyone "subjectively" decides that it's a major, it's a major. even in NA, the vast majority will call it a major. now please go and Minecraft yourself you waste of oxygen.

1. it had almost triple the teams of a Masters tournament, vs Champions which only adds 4. further, Champs is the most prestigious event and thus has a higher prize pool for that reason.

2. name one 'best of the best' team that wasn't there. and again, pretend the Playoffs were the major and the groups were the qualifiers. does anything meaningful change?

3. yeah no shit you bumbling retard. it's just completely irrelevant to the argument.

4. yeah, majors can't have any other purpose ever, true. "major to advertise the game? nah...", "major to keep the game relevant? nah...", "major to make money from the broadcast and sponsorships? nah..."

5. go poll the community and ask them how many majors there have been you will receive the same number 99+% of the time: 8. go look at how Liquipedia classes the different tournaments, look at how Riot talks about it, look at how the Talent and the players treat it, use any metric you want that doesn't require your peanut brain to generate any sort of dumb shit.

please take the advice of the black man with the lightning background

1. barely smaller, which makes sense given the higher costs. all teams at the event always get a share of the prize money, are you dense?

2. ascension teams join the partner league, dickhead.

3. one has, it was called LOCK//IN. before it there wasn't one, but before Reykjavik 22 not a single major had had byes or had 12 teams, does that make every Masters since then 'not a major'?

4. yeah you're right man, boaster was just crying at the overwhelming emotions of winning a showmatch. all the players, casters, and community also just all lied about fnatic being the first 2-time major winners.

5. where, dickhead?

1. barely lower, which makes complete sense given the size of the event and how much higher costs would have been. each team got less because there were more teams there, please use your brain.

2. it doesn't matter who else is there, the best of the best was there. if it makes the difference to you, pretend the Playoffs were the major and the alpha/omega brackets were the qualifier, is it a major now?

3. yeah, it was dogshit. an absolute insult to the community. still a major.

4. i don't believe the phrase "show tournament" was ever used, nor was it ever referred to as a showmatch. riot mentioned that it was intended to "showcase" the new teams, which it can absolutely do while still being a real tournament. it was always going to be a major, it was considered a major while it was happening, and it's always been called a major since. boaster didn't cry at the joy of winning a showmatch.

5. i think it's pretty clear which tournaments are majors and which aren't. first strike wasn't a major, masters 1 2021 wasn't a major, there have been exactly 8 majors so far with a 9th coming this year.

1) 500k isn't a big prizepool? reykjavik '21 had a 600k prizepool, was that not a major?
2) champions had 16 teams dipshit, all the best teams in the world were present. anything you say about "franchising boo hoo" applies to every international tournament for the rest of time, so unless you think the majors ended in 2022 you're not gonna have much luck there
3) format was dogshit, but last i checked a major wasn't defined by how good the format was. reykjavik '21 had a shit format (teams randomly getting a bye, awful seeding), berlin had abhorrent group seeding, masters last year had a shit format (online giving you a bye, at least now you have to win on LAN), were those all not majors too?
4) a tournament that has a focus of showing the new teams is still a tournament dumb cunt. rito also directly refer to fnatic as the first ever back-to-back winners.
5) show me a piece of evidence.

fnatic owns us lil bro

yeah man, lock//in wasn't a major, it was a just an... international event sponsored by riot with a large prize pool as a part of the official VCT circuit with all the best teams present, and one of only three in the year, granting the winner the title of world champions. completely different!

if FNS was in one of your diamond lobbies you would report him for aimbot my dude

this just tells me that you've never IGLd on any level in your life.
when you are the IGL, you are the team's brain. you have to pay extra attention to the minimap. you have to take in the information from all four of your teammates and use it to create a coherent mental map of what's happening, how the round is playing out, what your goal should be and how you should achieve it. you have to be ready to make quick adjustments based on new information and changes in the state of the game, you have to communicate your calls to your teammates well enough to get everyone to follow a plan on the fly or make sure that they can be in position for a set play. at a certain point, your aim becomes your secondary focus and you can't shoot the same as your star player can. it absolutely impacts your mechanics.

then where motherfucker
not one person has screenshots
what map and what comp was it?

where

nobody's complaining about that. they're saying that if riot were biased for NA, they wouldn't have made them play LOUD and FNATIC first round.

lowtiergod yourself

one person on your team is toxic so the rest of your team deserves to lose too i guess

ardiis

why does fns still have a job then you fucking dolt

astra

most of this isnt announced but its reported

drx too

they will try

xset>>kru

no i get your message. having people who arent afraid to speak their mind is good. but when what's on their mind is misogyny, that is not good.

lol fuckin what? why do we need sexists?

you're really out here flexing another man's bugatti