BuzzerBeater Forums

Help - English > PR-Managers and Merchandise

PR-Managers and Merchandise

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
161577.19 in reply to 161577.18
Date: 10/19/2010 1:23:07 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
4141
I think this would be better experimented with by people who can afford buying the different PR managers. I'm so poor, my team has to bring their own Gatorade to matches If someone doesn't beat us to it then, one day maybe I'll have enough cash to do my own experiments. Right now, I am trying to soak up as much information as I can. People are welcome to mail me if they have any information about PR managers to share. Yes, something is just really cool about money. Maybe the crisp sound that it makes, or the look of all those zeroes! lol...

From: bonespawn

To: RiP
This Post:
11
161577.23 in reply to 161577.22
Date: 10/19/2010 6:50:43 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4141
A change is a change but the whole point I've been trying to make is that PR mangers (PRMs from this point on) are irrelevant when it comes to affecting merchandise revenue (MR).
That makes sense. Your initial statement is what was confusing to me, because that wasn't how you put it. As you are one of the more respected members of the forums, I was paying attention when you made what seemed to be a rather definite or authoritative statement that there was no impact to MR. I agree that the way PRM impacts MR is unintuitive, although I am hopeful that it can be taken advantage of. If there was no possible advantage at all, why would they have created PRM in the first place? Hopefully not as a cruel trap or distraction!

Sure, I agree that a PRM's specialty can indirectly impact MR through wins and losses but that is pretty irrelevant to the main discussion.
It was relevant when you said there was no impact, because this is evidence from the game manual that would support at least one kind of impact to MR. I now understand the points you were trying to make though, were a little different from your initial statement.

That quote can be used to sum up the main argument that every religious person has ever used when trying to defend their religion or God. It's true that if we can't see something it doesn't mean it's not there, but speaking empirically, I always like to have actual data to backup my theories. I know that statement is ironic considering the lack of evidence I have for my "PRMs have no impact on MR" theory
There is of course, no way for man to empirically prove or disprove the existence of God. Although Sagan's quote may apply, there is no point in defending religion on scientific principles. Religion is based on faith rather than science, and faith is based on belief rather than acceptance. I think that is pretty irrelevant to the main discussion though, lol... Well done, brother. You are doing a great job in living up to your forum celebrity status!

Last edited by bonespawn at 10/19/2010 6:52:43 PM

This Post:
00
161577.24 in reply to 161577.23
Date: 10/19/2010 6:59:20 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
The reason I would believe in "God" persay, is that I believe everything must have a beginning. So what existed before the universe? It can't be nothing, so my explanation is "God".

This Post:
00
161577.26 in reply to 161577.24
Date: 10/19/2010 7:25:53 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
4141
That's pretty deep, Naker


From: Naker Virus

To: RiP
This Post:
00
161577.27 in reply to 161577.25
Date: 10/19/2010 8:05:29 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
522522
hahahaha :D
Offtopic conversations ftw :D lol

Advertisement