Technically, you are correct. But people get used to having the same tree in the same place where they've grown to enjoy it. And a poisoned tree is a sad, sad sight, as well. Even though it's just a digital game piece, you know it's dying.
But, if you pay attention, most people these days are complaining about trees being poisoned on their home streets. This is because home streets feel more personal, having your own name on them.
Just because game mechanics allow something doesn't mean that a code of etiquette can't or shouldn't form around an activity. After all, you are forgetting one very important game mechanic in your calculation of what's right and wrong: you're playing with other players.
That said, there's nothing wrong about asking for exceptions to the etiquette. After all, sometimes trees need to be poisoned. You might ask, what trees are safe to poison politely?
I'm not sure there's one answer to your question. Personally, I don't get offended but I think some reasons it upsets some people include:
1. It changes the resource availability of a region. If people are used to collecting a certain amount of resources in a certain area, it disrupts their gameplay if trees aren't mature or if they are a different type than expected.
2. It "kills" something that someone else created and nurtured, something that exists and doesn't "deserve" to be erased.
3. Poisoning trees is usually only for personal gain (i.e. earning badges or completing quests), not for world/community-building.
4. When people leave empty patches, it "costs" other Glitches the time, resources, or currants to replace the trees
5. People want the world to be a particular way, and the tree poisoners can change that. This ties into #1, but it also can be a purely aesthetic or psychological preference that is not related to harvesting...i.e. "bubble trees look weird in Groddle Meadow," or "there should only be gas on the light side of Ix and only spice on the dark side," or other somewhat arbitrary preferences that are based on personal taste or historical precedent.
I'm not saying this is a complete list of reasons it bothers people, or that those reasons are valid, or that they are equal in weight/merit, just reasons I have heard.
No reason not to, especially trees that are on non-disputed public streets. I would consider it nice NOT to replant the tree, because then someone else gets to decide what to plant. Especially when I was a new player, I was always really excited to find a patch on a public street.
What TS has given ppl the ability to do and what's socially accepted is going to be a never ending conflict...it's like a KKK march...I may not like it, but i gotta deal with it...
But personally I could care less about trees getting poisoned...there are alot of them. {+_+}
It's kinda annoying when someone comes down from their treeless desert mansion at Sakinalu Shreds Quarter to visit our humble abodes in Bortola mid-afternoon and brutally murders many of the quarters street trees replacing them with bean trees that they didn't even bother to pet or water. I replaced as many of them as I could afford but it was very reasonable of them as I'm sure they were on a VERY important mission (to them anyway)
Because some believe that certain places ABSOLUTELY MUST have a certain tree. Like there are people who mantain Wickdoon Mood so it has wood trees 24/7. And others believe Ix must have spice plants, and Jethimadh and Kalavana must have gas plants. I don't like how people believe that one place must have a certain type of tree, because that's why the devs had areas grow multiple different types of trees. They probably waste an awful lot on tree poison too.
There's a lot of issues here that we will never come to something upon.
One of the reasons I enjoy www.glitch-atlas.info so much. Up to the hour information on where to find the trees you need!
Also, an enterprising Glitch may find this conflict to be a fine opportunity to start lucrative business in the Tree potion market.
I, however, will stick to re-purposing guano. An activity that is much less controversial.
I'm sort of 50/50% on this, myself. On the one hand, a certain amount of consistency is definitely appreciated, and it's nice to be able to have a personal project that you can feel proud off (even if it is to cultivate your own public bean tree). On the other hand, we share this world together, and many of the quests and goals that we may adopt run contrary to those of others. There is going to be conflict, but it could be treated as part of the game.
In short, there must be a way to have fun arguing about this! Perhaps we could start bargaining with each other?
"What TS has given ppl the ability to do and what's socially accepted is going to be a never ending conflict...it's like a KKK march...I may not like it, but i gotta deal with it..."
Holy shit.
What's with the horrible comparisons in the Forum now a days?
I mean, really?
Out of all the comparisons of stuff we have to put up with, you picked THAT?
Not flouride in the water.
Canada passing off ham as bacon.
Rent being too damn high.
Or even horrible game endings.
Using well-known controversial subjects as examples, in order to make a point, is not offensive. Saying that a particular person is the equivalent of the subject of the controversial subject would have been offensive. Presumably, we are all adults here, and we should all be familiar with these "horrible comparisons." In any debate, it is far more effective to use a clear-cut example (such as the KKK) than to use a wishy-washy example, with which many people may not be familiar. If you can't even see the term "KKK" without fainting, perhaps an adult forum is not the right place for you.
It is true. A KKK march is protected in the U.S. by the first amendment, and so as much as we find it absolutely abhorrent, we must put up with it (at least on legal grounds. No one said we can't have counter protests, though... But the best ones are those done with a fair amount of biting but good humor, such as the clowns dressed up as brides.
It's not that I can't see the term without fainting, I just thought the example was distasteful to say the least.
I'm all for arguments and what not, as long as they stay tasteful and delicious.
Without the use of a horrible Plan B.
And assuming one can't browse an adult forum without fainting when seeing some as "KKK", is, in my opinion, bollocks to quote a country.
You can be an adult, and the slightest racy remark or sentence can still make someone "faint" or be offended.
I am a fan of intelligent discourse. I am a fan of diverse opinions. I am a defender of free speech. I am a fan of using examples to make a point.
Not all points can be made "tasteful and delicious." Some points are ugly and sour. Sometimes the word "Hitler" is exactly the right argument and sometimes an argument can best be made with humor or butterflies. It is not up to me to decide how someone else chooses to make their point. It is not up to you either.
It is up to you whether or not you choose to be offended by another person. That is a choice you make. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the person making the "offending" statement.
I think we should have a vote on which of these metaphorical arguments was the least "tasteful and delicious."
A. "glitch is being taken over by soccer moms."
B. "clowns dressed up as brides"
C. "Are you a fan of fear tactics?"
For my money, the idea of clowns dressed up as brides is pretty darn scary, not to mention a potential insult to the concept of traditional marriage. In fact, when I read that line, I immediately fainted and woke up hours later still feeling offended.
"It is up to you whether or not you choose to be offended by another person. That is a choice you make. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the person making the "offending" statement."
That last sentence is a load of crap. Yes people can control their reactions to things but people can also control how they word things.
I was gonna make the comparison using eating a burger in front of the window of a vegan restaurant, but I'm not vegan so I didn't believe I should make a comparison using something I have no clue about tolerating...so I decided to go with something I had experience having to deal with...and with me being black I chose KKK marches since I had to tolerate their multiple marches through my college town...I didn't agree with it, but I had not choice but to deal with it...I didn't realize my comparison would cause a constitutional debate {+_+}
Poisoning Trees Is A Right !! (I would say it's practically an obligation)
... but don't abuse it.
We have poison, we have hatchets, we have bean seasoners.
There are badges for hatcheting dead trees (I'm still working on this kind)
There are badges for seasoning beans
There are badges for planting beans
so .. you're offended? Really?
So yes, I proudly poison trees, I also carry seasoned beans and offer them freely to anyone passing by that wants to replant.
But I never poison on Home streets, I don't poison every day (it's probably been a week already), and I don't poison on every street.
EarthToGrace, you are not "technically" correct, you are just Correct.
At least in this case. The "if it was considered wrong it wouldn't be an option" logic does not apply in all cases.
The initial question was, "why are some people offended" by a poisoned tree. And the thread includes thoughtful answers about the kinds of circumstances that would SOMEtimes cause SOME people to be upset by someone poisoning a PARTICULAR tree.
In your own gameplay, you can make your own choices about what trees you poison or antidote, hatchet, replace, or replant. You can make your own choices about how much you care about what someone else feels about what you want to do. Unless you are generally and repeatedly playing with the goal of pissing other people off, TS pretty much gives you leeway to make your own choices.
I like Vocable's take on this, because it is basically, well, the truth.
Mr. Granberry, reading your post carefully, you and I basically agree on nearly everything except the definition of the term "technically". We are coming to the same conclusion from different angles.