Use? OR Abuse -- the Market

[TheCapybara]

Eh, the problem with endorsing the use in some situations is that in neither case is it considered market abuse, as you're using the market for its intended purpose and at no point abusing it and/or its function(s).

It's like saying you're abusing archers by using them to shoot over woodlines.

Yet we also talk about players abusing their, or, perhaps more commonly, their opponent's lack of, mobility on open maps.

Language is shaped by the context and frequency of its use. I would suggest that the meaning of 'abuse' has transitioned beyond what you wish here. By all means encourage a different use of language, but simply sitting here saying that people are using the terminology wrong when the colloquial use has evolved in this way doesn't really accomplish anything and fails to reflect the collective influence on language use.

 

[IYIyTh]

Yet we also talk about players abusing their, or, perhaps more commonly, their opponent's lack of, mobility on open maps.

Language is shaped by the context and frequency of its use. I would suggest that the meaning of 'abuse' has transitioned beyond what you wish here. By all means encourage a different use of language, but simply sitting here saying that people are using the terminology wrong when the colloquial use has evolved in this way doesn't really accomplish anything and fails to reflect the collective influence on language use.

There is not a definitional entry for the word abuse that would indicate what you are attempting to convey in your post. Excessive use of mobility can only be correctly described if someone is so poor at decision making their army is never in the right spot because they are constantly travelling to the incorrect one, where if their army was just less mobile they would have been in the right spot all along.

Thus, in such a case, you could actually consider them to have abused the mobility of their units.
(see: negative connotation.)

Abuse is quite literally the improper usage or treatment of a thing, to the point of detriment.

As such, the situation you describe is simply an incorrect use of the word abuse, because they have not abused the mobility of their units, they have used the mobility of their units.

Definition of abuse​

(Entry 1 of 2)
1: a corrupt practice or customthe buying of votes and other election abuses
2: improper or excessive use or treatment : MISUSEdrug abuse
3: language that condemns or vilifies usually unjustly, intemperately, and angrilyverbal abusea term of abuse
4: physical maltreatmentchild abusesexual abuse
5obsolete : a deceitful act : DECEPTION


abuse
verb
\ ə-ˈbyüz \
abused; abusing
Definition of abuse (Entry 2 of 2)
transitive verb
1a: to put to a wrong or improper useabuse a privilege
b: to use excessivelyabuse alcoholalso : to use without medical justificationabusing painkillers
2: to use or treat so as to injure or damage : MALTREATabused his wife
3: to attack in words : REVILEverbally abused the referee
4obsolete : DECEIVE
Other Words from ab


Saying that if something is said incorrectly in some insignificantly small population of English (and more commonly, non-native English speakers) speakers enough it suddenly becomes acceptable as vernacular isn't true.

When T90/Nili/Memb say someone abuses the market by simply buying 100 food for 126 gold, they are simply incorrect. They are using the market for its intended purpose.

Stretching the argument to include second and third order effects (oh, when describing the singular action of "abusing the market to click up," they mean the market use inefficiency, et al )which they are not in the moment at all describing when employing the misuse of "abuse," is not an acceptable amelioration of the issue.

 

[MaSmOrRa]

Saying that if something is said incorrectly in some insignificantly small population of English (and more commonly, non-native English speakers) speakers enough it suddenly becomes acceptable as vernacular isn't true.

It is true though! It is indeed how a lot of slang words become part of a language!

When you say something like "hey bro that song is lit" or "that song is fire", that is objectively incorrect.
A song cannot shoot flames and a song cannot in fact be fire.
Yet everyone understands what you are trying to say because those words now mean something more than what they meant before they started being used in this context.

It doesn't matter if the people saying "abuse" the market are native speakers or not. If everyone understands what is meant by "abuse" and the use of that word becomes widespread enough in this context, then indeed it becomes part of the vernacular whether it is "correct" according to its original meaning or not...

 

[The_Philos]

2: improper or excessive use or treatment

b: to use excessively

Aren't these definition very fitting for 'excessively using' the market? At least it's a matter of subjective opinion. So it's not in an improper way, but in an unusual/ uncommon way. The most common way would probably be to sell spare resources in Imperial.
Don't really get why this discussion would be relevant though, it's not like, it's a bad word or it's confusing the viewers. Besides I hear "use" and "abuse" in casts, sometimes depending on the situation and on the caster.

 

[TheCapybara]

To add to what MaSmOrRa and Philos have both ably contributed, I'm not sitting here suggesting that dictionaries should be changed based on the colloquialisms of a video game with a following in the thousands (at least, not in this instance). However within the Age community, it has become a common use of terminology, therefore, by the way language evolves and works, it is pretty reasonable to say that it is correct. Meanings evolve over time, sometimes varying from one community to another. Language is all about context and usage, not just dictionary definitions (which, in any case, are often the product of years, decades, centuries of evolution).

 

[The Bloodless]

The higher priority is eliminating "deers" and "sheeps" from our vocabularies. Abuse is fine-ish but these plurals being wrong sounds a bit like broken English. (Yes I understand that none of this actually matters, just having fun with the topic)

 

[IYIyTh]

Aren't these definition very fitting for 'excessively using' the market? At least it's a matter of subjective opinion. So it's not in an improper way, but in an unusual/ uncommon way. The most common way would probably be to sell spare resources in Imperial.
Don't really get why this discussion would be relevant though, it's not like, it's a bad word or it's confusing the viewers. Besides I hear "use" and "abuse" in casts, sometimes depending on the situation and on the caster.

No, because the connotation is reversed.

See earlier in the thread where this exact question is asked.

I'm saying it's improper / inaccurate to use the phrase "abuse the market" any time you buy/sell (typically to click up/for situational purposes.) It's just not correct.

I'm not arguing there is a cost/tradeoff (and actually up to 500food it's cheaper to mine gold / buy food for saracens) to using the market. That doesn't mean you're abusing the market by using it.

You keep using that word.

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

www.youtube.com

As such, it still doesn't make sense to say "abuse the market," as you are still using the market for its intended purpose.


This phrase is used regardless. It's also pure opinion since sometimes an extra 100g to get bodkin arrow or CBow can mean the difference in winning/losing a game in early CA. You're not really abusing any part of the game in that case.

Use the market is still much more appropriate.

I would also argue that the casters typically aren't even trying to convey the point you're making when they say abuse the market, as it's quite literally used anytime someone uses the market at all.

You do not abuse trebuchets to destroy buildings.

 

[IYIyTh]

To add to what MaSmOrRa and Philos have both ably contributed, I'm not sitting here suggesting that dictionaries should be changed based on the colloquialisms of a video game with a following in the thousands (at least, not in this instance). However within the Age community, it has become a common use of terminology, therefore, by the way language evolves and works, it is pretty reasonable to say that it is correct. Meanings evolve over time, sometimes varying from one community to another. Language is all about context and usage, not just dictionary definitions (which, in any case, are often the product of years, decades, centuries of evolution).

Is it common because it is intended or because it has been inaccurately repeated when the caster/streamer has intended to say something else?

Thus the topic exists.

 

[IYIyTh]

It is true though! It is indeed how a lot of slang words become part of a language!

When you say something like "hey bro that song is lit" or "that song is fire", that is objectively incorrect.
A song cannot shoot flames and a song cannot in fact be fire.
Yet everyone understands what you are trying to say because those words now mean something more than what they meant before they started being used in this context.

It doesn't matter if the people saying "abuse" the market are native speakers or not. If everyone understands what is meant by "abuse" and the use of that word becomes widespread enough in this context, then indeed it becomes part of the vernacular whether it is "correct" according to its original meaning or not...

One would hope if informed that they were abusing the word they might choose to not do so in the future.

 

[dodageka]

I think it also depends a lot on what you think the intended usage of the market is
- Is the intended usage the mechanical act of selling and buying resources?
- Is the intended usage generation of gold in lategame?
- Is the intended usage fixing a messed up eco?

Especially if you side with the last two points, than using the market heavily as a strategic element to advance faster to the next age could be considered abuse, as it is precisely not what the intended usage of the market is.

 

[Tocaraca]

Arguing over semantics is one of the most pointless endeavors.

 

[archxeon]

I think it also depends a lot on what you think the intended usage of the market is
- Is the intended usage the mechanical act of selling and buying resources?
- Is the intended usage generation of gold in lategame?
- Is the intended usage fixing a messed up eco?

Especially if you side with the last two points, than using the market heavily as a strategic element to advance faster to the next age could be considered abuse, as it is precisely not what the intended usage of the market is.

I think one of the the most unintended usage of market has to be giving the person who sells first distinct advantage in some scenarios ( for example in some Deathmatch mirrors).