1000.

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

15

given that triple hearts means you need to be supporter for 5 years, the likelihood that some 3 hearted supporter being determined to win is like...

well, I can't say much for anyone else, but I have more important things to take care of irl

I tried to gift someone supporter, for 2 years, and they decided to pretend they aren't.

the last reason why I don't want to do this anymore

so, enjoy your victory cuz I will not give you a 3 count back till 1 month later at least

and to whoever received yes it's me and it's good for 2 years. enjoy the game too cuz I'd curse you for wasting my USD$52 if you do nothing with the supporter

Achromalia wrote:

i imagine i'm being a little uncharitable for thinking this, but that does seem like a bit of a gross weaponization of guilt (about obligations that nobody agreed on) for something you would've "gifted" someone. this isn't really a direct analogy, but at least for an approximate description, it reads similarly to gifting a romantic partner with a dress, then silently expecting that they would wear it for work (a presumably "proper"/"functional" use), only to find that they have exchanged it with a friend (a counteractive personal choice in favor of charity)

...at the same time, that does seem like an understandable sentiment to have. i guess it's the rationale that distinguishes between conditional and unconditional gifts, and maybe seeing a gift not be used to its fullest potential may feel like an insult or a failure to uphold some kind of implicit contract

i don't really feel like i'm comprehending the weight of that, and i may be misrepresenting it somewhere... but i suppose that's the impression it gives, where i'm much more familiar with unconditional gifts that people can use however they like, including their freedom not to use something about it that already wasn't part of the original "utility" that a gift was conceived for anyway

13

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

i imagine i'm being a little uncharitable for thinking this, but that does seem like a bit of a gross weaponization of guilt (about obligations that nobody agreed on) for something you would've "gifted" someone. this isn't really a direct analogy, but at least for an approximate description, it reads similarly to gifting a romantic partner with a dress, then silently expecting that they would wear it for work (a presumably "proper"/"functional" use), only to find that they have exchanged it with a friend (a counteractive personal choice in favor of charity)

...at the same time, that does seem like an understandable sentiment to have. i guess it's the rationale that distinguishes between conditional and unconditional gifts, and maybe seeing a gift not be used to its fullest potential may feel like an insult or a failure to uphold some kind of implicit contract

i don't really feel like i'm comprehending the weight of that, and i may be misrepresenting it somewhere... but i suppose that's the impression it gives, where i'm much more familiar with unconditional gifts that people can use however they like, including their freedom not to use something about it that already wasn't part of the original "utility" that a gift was conceived for anyway

13

my expected gain is that they'd properly appreciate the gift by at least acknowledging that they are a proud owner. that's why I feel insulted when what they did was pretty much throwing it to the ground and stomp on it.

plus it's not like we had personal issue previously or something.

sure, it's a gift, they could do whatever they want, but in turn the giving end would feel differently.

I blocked them so I'm not going to change the count with this post. its sole purpose is to explain what happened. keep the count going as if I never posted and I'd genuinely appreciate, because I said I'm not participating in this game and I mean it.

Achromalia wrote:

having acknowledged that, i can't really agree with the underlying expectations you leverage through these gifts, especially when neither of you seemed to agree on the purpose of it beforehand.

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

having acknowledged that, i can't really agree with the underlying expectations you leverage through these gifts, especially when neither of you seemed to agree on the purpose of it beforehand.

if what you're saying here means I'm asking for too much from the receiver who never knew there was a condition, then I need to make clear that all what I want from them is simply admitting that they received.

they don't even have to thank me for that.

now they made it look like I wanted to force some terrible things onto them.

to me this is not lack of communication, it's poor manner (note that I'm not saying it's fraud or robbery cuz I did everything willingly). and ultimately I lost the money for nothing good.

顺便说一句，qq我也给你拉黑了，不用费劲找我退钱，社畜也不是真的差那点钱，气不过而已。

Arctos Sagittario wrote:

Achromalia wrote:

having acknowledged that, i can't really agree with the underlying expectations you leverage through these gifts, especially when neither of you seemed to agree on the purpose of it beforehand.

if what you're saying here means I'm asking for too much from the receiver who never knew there was a condition, then I need to make clear that all what I want from them is simply admitting that they received.

they don't even have to thank me for that.

now they made it look like I wanted to force some terrible things onto them.

to me this is not lack of communication, it's poor manner (note that I'm not saying it's fraud or robbery cuz I did everything willingly). and ultimately I lost the money for nothing good.

顺便说一句，qq我也给你拉黑了，不用费劲找我退钱，社畜也不是真的差那点钱，气不过而已。