Event Currency Rates – Valentine’s Day 2016

This post explores the rates of event currency production. Valentine’s Hearts. Continue after the break to learn every detail.

[Valentine's Heart currency]Hearts (AKA Valentine’s Hearts) are rewarded from sending Grandpa Simpson and others on tasks (mainly at the Coconut Babaloo and the Retirement Castle). The 3 hour tasks earns at a rate of ⅓ Heart an hour.

Donut Rushing for Event Currency


Donut rushing for tasks that earn Hearts every 3 hours is 5 Donuts per Heart. 2.5 Donuts per Heart for premium.


10 comments on “Event Currency Rates – Valentine’s Day 2016

  1. elfmice says:

    Hey simp, I read your comment on the tsto addicts site.
    Basically, I made a joke on the should I buy page for the She She lounge something like this:

    “Cons: Promotes an immoral and unnatural lifestyle choice.

    I figured you weren’t meeting your quota of casual bigotry for an internet comment site so there you go, glad I could help.”

    Like I said, I guess I wasn’t surprised it got censored, just disappointed that irony and satire wasn’t appreciated on a Simpson’s fan site. But the next day I saw the eating out joke and Alissa’s comment that it didn’t technically violate the guidelines, so wondering precisely how my comment did, I read them and couldn’t find a guideline that I violated, so I asked. I could see if my comment only included the first part without labeling the sentiment as bigoted as I did in the second part, then people might not have understood it was satire and could’ve taken it as an attack. But the entirety of the comment makes it pretty clear that I consider such attacks bigoted. I was expecting an answer along the lines of the newest one, that readers might not get I was being ironic and so the comment was censored out of an abundance of caution, and I was perfectly willing to accept that as a legitimate answer. When bunny wrote her first answer about preserving the site’s rating, even though I was unaware and doubted that the internet was policed in the manner she suggests, I accepted that explanation as well and answered “fair enough” planning to let the issue drop. But then I read her second answer in which she makes it clear that she didn’t understand that my comment was satirical and accuses me of making “racial” statements and “inciting hate”. I didn’t think that was fair, so I composed a defense pointing out among other things that an attack on the LGBTQ community would also be an attack on myself. That defense was also censored, but the short follow up comment that “I would be especially unlikely to incite hate against myself.” is what you saw.
    As you said, it is their site, their guidelines and their interpretation. They don’t even have to be reasonable about which comments they censor, that’s the nature of free speech. I just saw that one controversial comment was let through because it “didn’t technically violate guidelines” and I wanted to know how mine did. I would’ve accepted most any answer and wouldn’t have pushed the issue if they made clear that they didn’t want to give one because, like I said, it’s their site. But once I had been publicly accused of racism and inciting hate I felt I had a right to defend myself especially since people were unable to make up their minds for themselves.
    So that’s the whole ugly incident. A misunderstanding. Much ado about nothing. I probably should’ve let the whole thing pass without comment, but I have a visceral reaction to censorship even in cases where my brain tells me that it’s reasonable. Also, like I said, I found it odd that the creators of Simpsons and Family Guy fan sites wouldn’t see the difference between bigotry and satire of bigotry. Very few bigots label their bigoted statements as bigotry.
    Needless to say, from now on I will self censor on that site to avoid further issues.
    Thanks for your interest, I always enjoy reading your comments on that site.


    • If any of my readers (exist and) are offended by this, please comment.


    • Well, *gulp*, thanks for sharing. 😉 When I read the quote I was a bit taken aback. I can totally see why they wouldn’t approve that. The satire is hard to see in the face of the boldness of the words. It would probably be misread by most casual readers and taken at face value.

      The problem seems to be that without the “comment” the Con doesn’t seem to be satirical. I’m thinking that if the same words were used except listed under Pro, it would seem more obvious. Maybe that’s not what you were going for. You seem to indicate that you’re gay. Is that so? (If you’re not comfortable or interested in answering that, simply ignore.) Do you think it might have come across better if you included a “btw, I’m gay” at the end? (Same as previous.)

      I do understand your issue with censorship. That their decisions are vague and flexible is one thing but within a week they should mostly match up. I’m not saying they don’t, but it can feel that way sometimes.

      I believe you’re wrong about the labeling of a bigoted statement. Bigots might be even bolder than most people. A label might not phase them. I don’t have any facts to toss your way, but just saying you’re kidding after you always hurt someone’s feelings doesn’t mean they don’t start to feel real hurt.


      • elfmice says:

        It would take more time and space than I have here to accurately explain my sexuality, but “bisexual” is probably the closest one-word label. And, like I said, I totally accept their right to censor whatever comments they see fit on their site. But in general, in public discourse, I don’t believe adults should be protected against having their feelings hurt. Especially when it is the result of over-sensitivity or mistaking satire for the thing being satired. A mature adult who mistook my joke for an attack on gays would ask me “is this meant as an attack on gays?” Before taking it that way. Then I could explain that it was actually an attack on the ubiquity of casual bigotry in internet comment threads. With that understanding you would have to be one of those over-sensitive people who are eager to take offense at any imagined sleight to be offended. I understand that people are more and more sensitive, that’s why many comedians have said publicly that they no longer play colleges. People of my generation and younger seem to be overeager to act victimized by everything. Have you heard of “microaggression”? We are adults, we are not harmed by words, this is the foundational belief behind the first amendment’s guarantee of the right to free speech. However, this rant is a digression. As I’ve said, they have the right to censor what they please on their site. And given the current climate of over-sensitivity, it seems reasonable for them to be over-cautious. I just over-thought the situation and wanted clarification on a perceived contradiction in their application of their rules. Then I wanted to defend myself against charges of inciting hate. If someone could be incited to hate by that joke, chances are good that they were already a hateful person. Going forward I will limit myself to comments that are well back from the line that I crossed with this comment. However, that doesn’t mean that the comment was wrong or hateful, just inappropriate for that particular site.
        I appreciate your input and don’t really disagree with anything you said.


        • I didn’t know comedians were avoiding colleges. I do know about microaggressions, sadly. It’s okay if we digress. We’re off-topic, as it is. 😉

          I agree, except remember that they are saying kids are welcome there, not just adults. Therefore words can be an issue. Kids are dumb, is what I’m saying. 😉 😛

          About adults being able to handle things, I agree. (I like your example. I wish some adults I knew would act that way.) And how they can be overly sensitive, I’ve noticed… and am. Sometimes I’m too sensitive, but not usually online. I try not to be. When I’m too sensitive anywhere, I do realize that I am being that way.

          I do worry a bit that a place like addicts is going down the “microaggression” road, but from what I’ve seen it’s mostly not like that. Probably just a bit of an overinsensitivity to gay and female issues. (Some others in the political realm, but nothing comes to mind right now.) I wouldn’t worry much.


    • Remember that we only see the approved comments (besides your own unapproved comments). That you say you’re adding to the quota of bigoted comments might not be true. They probably all got dumped along with yours. Similar thing happened with the Booberela comments thread where they said all those kinds of comments about boobs were not getting approved. They just haven’t said anything about it in the She-She thread.

      Just a reminder for here, but make a good faith attempt to not trash on the addicts team. I don’t want anyone coming here thinking this is the place to do that. Just the place to say “boobs”! 😉


      • elfmice says:

        I’m starting to suspect that my words sound very different when they’re posted from when their in my head. If I trashed on the addicts team that was not my intent, I truly do appreciate their work and their site. Also I accept every one of their actions in this incident excepting the accusation of racism and inciting hate. But people of good faith will occasionally disagree, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, nor do I think it has to result in unfriendliness. Good faith disagreements are one of the ways we grow as people. So I apologize if I gave the impression that I was trashing anyone.


Join or create a discussion. Leave a reply. Mark* It ^Up!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s