The Science Behind Shaping Player Behaviour in Online Games

"

Moonyu wrote:

I enjoyed your dissection except for the corruption of the language. I grew up with an Editor that blasted any misuse of grammar, but if you study history, and I have, language evolves. While you may not like the direction it changes, it does change and I could list many words that have lost their original meaning over time.

Somewhat off topic, but just because language evolves (about which you are undoubtedly correct) doesn't mean that people shouldn't speak up against changes they dislike - quite the opposite in fact. The opinions of ScrotieMcB, or the editor you mention, or myself* are an essential part of that process of evolution.
Just as creatures evolve under external pressures, and those with changes or mutations that make them less able to fill a niche or compete for resources die of, while other changes prove beneficial and proliferate, so it is with language. Changes to how things are will come under fire from people who disagree, and this is the testing ground - where some changes will prove too much to swallow for too large a group and will not catch on, and other will survive and spread into common usage.
If I were to start referring to the bottle of hot-sauce on my desk as "milk", others would be confused, and disapprove of my (attempted) redefinition. It probably wouldn't catch on, and become part of the language. It would be ludicrous for me to imply that because language changes and evolves over time, my change should simply be accepted.
And that opposition is just as essential for other, less forced, changes in language - because the change either overcomes said opposition, or does not - thus limiting the changes which occur to those that people actually use, just as evolution of life relies on external pressures killing off mutations that negatively affect the creature.

*I hate that "literally" is now accepted to mean "figuratively", as we have no word anymore that actually fills the roll that "literally" did when it was unambiguous

Hi guys,

Please do not derail the conversation into ad-hominem arguments. It would be really great if you would continue to discuss this in a reasonable manner.