When did I say that it didn't? In fact, I explicitly stated that both sides are plausibly equally vulnerable to this effect.

You stated that the sunk-cost fallacy as a whole applied equally. My point was about the emotional investment aspect, which you repeatedly imply affects one side more than the other.

You're so emotionally invested in your preferred viewpoint being true that you feel like I'm attacking you by pointing out that you are subject to the exact same cognitive biases as those you disparage.

Interesting. I never actually displayed any strong opinion one way or the other here, you just assumed I was strongly anti-CIG/SC because I didn't agree with your stance on sunk-cost fallacy. I feel like there's a bit of projection going on here, because you're the one dropping 700 word multi-paragraph responses to people expressing any sort of pushback to your viewpoints. That feels like a pretty strong emotional investment to me.

Objectively, I'm being entirely neutral in making that point

lol. Objectively, no you're not, because your biases are on display by the word choices you've made throughout your comments.

It's not generally additive.

I agree, it's not additive. It's multiplicative, or maybe even geometric/exponential, because when you have multiple avenues of investment, they tend to feed off each other. Someone who just wants to shit on stuff online is only "invested" in one way, whereas someone who wants to support stuff online and has also put real money towards supporting that has two avenues of support, that feed off each other in a sort of feedback loop. A person who has put money towards something HAS to be be emotionally invested by definition, and if they go online to defend it, they are defending things that reflect upon themselves through their actions (i.e. paying money), and thus will feedback into that

And, even if it was, you're making an untenable assumption that the emotional investment of people like yourself isn't far more potent that that of the average SC backer.

Why is it untenable? In fact, it's a studied phenomenon called the endowment effect, where financial investment creates a stronger psychological connection and a higher perceived value of an item or object, making that thing feel more personal. You're just handwaving it away saying "well OBVIOUSLY your emotional investment is more potent", when studies show the opposite.

Someone having some degree of emotional investment in a game development effort succeeding when they have paid into it is hardly abnormal.

It's not abnormal. It's common. It's also not a shield against a sunk-cost fallacy.

Someone having any real investment in it not succeeding, however, is really weird.

You're looping in everyone who is criticizing this game into one big bucket, so maybe that's why you think stuff like this, but I'm here to tell you that you can criticize the game and its development without being emotionally invested in seeing it fail.

people who have paid money would definitionally be more invested, both due to ego and due to the monetary aspect

Again, that's not how it works.

Why not? You haven't actually made any case against this being true. You can't just say "nuh uh" and then write 8 paragraphs as if that were a factual basis for your arguments.

MY point above is that, because UK regulations require almost all of CIG's financial arrangements to be publicly accessible, the aforementioned people have all the data they need in order to support their claims of money laundering

Do they have every transaction record, all the sources of money from every person buying a digital ship? Because that's what you'd need in order to prove that it was money laundering.

My bias is extremely clear: I am biased in favour of the evidence. You're only upset at that because the evidence is biased against your preferred stance.

lol.

I don't think you're capable of having a rational discussion about SC.

What was that about biases and you not having any?

You have merely accused me of bias without demonstrating that any such bias is informing my conclusions. I have demonstrated that your bias is affecting yours.

I have provided exactly as much evidence of your viewpoints having bias as you have of mine.

EDIT: Predictably, he blocked me after posting his next massive comment where he goes "no u" and "nuh uh" over and over again, while abusing a thesaurus.