Skip to Content
7-01-2009 @ 6:41PM
Thank you so much for that last link. I remember being a bit disheartened by the cavalcade of comments after the Karatechop story that essentially said, "Got what he deserved...should've known better."Sometimes I notice an attitude that all people should know Blizzard's policies (even unwritten ones) backwards and forwards, and that anyone getting hit with the banhammer deserved it 100%. But let's face it...it's a large TOS and when it really comes down to it, about half the characters I see in Azeroth don't fit the naming policy in one way or another. So, which rules are we really, really supposed to follow then?I certainly have my own code of ethics with games. I do not cheat. I do not grief other players. I do not use serious exploits (for example, I remember being upset whenever a group in Left 4 Dead expected me to do the "under the walkway trick").But, if a PUG told me that standing in a certain place makes a boss much easier, I might go along with it without even knowing that I was "exploiting." After all...I'm constantly reading in various boss strategies that I should stand with my back against the wall to avoid knockback.The linked article asks a very important question...where is the line and how are we all supposed to know it?
7-01-2009 @ 9:00PM
Ignorantia legis non excusat.
First time? A confirmation email will be sent to you after submitting.
Members enter your username and password.
Enter your AOL or AIM screenname and password.
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.