Skip to Content
8-25-2009 @ 1:08PM
I would think this would fall outside WOW.com's editorial purview, claiming "while we don't endorse it doesn't make it true if you then run a feature endorsing it. claiming a lack of something doesn't automatically make it true. With hundreds of news features and announcements out of Blizzcon, you come to this story two days later?booooooooooooooooooo.
8-25-2009 @ 1:16PM
@ shiploreTroll much kid? I glad someone wrote an article about private servers. I have never looked into what they are and how they work. I am curious to how even people find and join one.Keep up the good work and despite what the above nub has to QQ about I think this article was very informative
8-25-2009 @ 1:29PM
Hmmm where to start...Kid? I'm almost 40, so, by most definitions I'm out of "kid" stage.Troll? So trolling is now defined as disagreeing with an editorial decision? I would be to differ that interpretation. I was also fairly composed despite a very strong negative reaction to this story. I posted my thoughts on the decision. I *actually* believe what I posted so I'm thinking "troll" is on very thin ice. WOW.com is a *legitimate* wow site, this is not a legitimate wow story.If Blizzard cracks down and sues 100 private servers, that would meet the editoral standards of a legitimate site, getting point of view from an private server is not up to this criteria.So are we going to get stories on "How to Hack WOW?" "Steal goldz with this scam?" what's the difference, if the above passes muster.
8-25-2009 @ 1:39PM
*cough 40 yr old virgin cough*This is a site that has all stuff that is related to World of Warcraft. You sit there and ridicule people who take their time out to bring you something to read about your favorite game. If you dont like what your reading then dont read it. Dont just complain to the writers about something that is obviously WoW related and something that is happening right now.Let your QQ tears be the lube of your failures
@shiploreIsn't it just like when 20/20 examines the life of a drug addict...? They get his point of view, follow him around a bit, just show people what that life is... sort of, anyway.20/20 is still considered legit, right?
8-25-2009 @ 1:53PM
@ boom ad hominem attacks are funny, but also means you surrender.Where did I ridicule? I've kept my point of view respectful and ordered. You're the one name calling and insult hurling. I think it was the wrong feature, and the wrong way to feature private servers plain and simple. How they featured it was a tacit approval of them as members of the wow community.@XoonIt's not the same thing, the way it was couched. it was a glowing first person account of something illegal with no counterpoints. if 20-20 ran an interview with a illicit-drug proponent they would also interview people with an opposing view point. Not just a bio-piece on how great it is.
8-25-2009 @ 1:55PM
Stating your age doesn't say much for your maturity level.
8-25-2009 @ 2:01PM
You didnt ridicule? I am pretty sure I see boooo across the bottom the page. Last time I checked booing is a sign of displeasure and is insulting to whoever your booing at. So boo on you my friend, boo on you
Yeah, I don't think there was anything trollish or ridiculing about shiplore's post. He was just expressing his opinion. It's kind of an asinine opinion that seems to me to combine an 18th-century understanding of journalism with a nine year old's, but no need to legitimize his nonsense with unrelated personal attacks...
8-25-2009 @ 2:06PM
Funny. . .at 40-years old, I'd think you'd know the difference between a "legitimate news site" and a blog.And as someone else mentioned, your posts indicate a maturity level far below your age.
8-25-2009 @ 2:11PM
@ BoomYeah I boo'd. It was probably a little over the line, but as I said. I disagree with their position it was from the heart.@ BillThank you for almost having a discussion, I'm not sure how my journalistic ideas are both those things (or either), but I do appreciate the mostly lack of personal attacks.when you say 18th century do you mean in that I am trying to avoid talking about unpleasant things? or ..sorry I'm just not understanding that part.I get the 9-year-old (which is also kinda a ad-hominem attack...just couched more elegantly..) but also I disagree.You can disagree that piece should run, - I'd have no problem with it if done differntly myself, but I find it hard to consider my position both childish and old fashioned...
8-25-2009 @ 2:19PM
@ Masterash.There has to be an editorial line, I think Mike, Dan and Elizabeth would all argue this, editorial decisions that have to be made in this "blog" this isn't anything goes, or we'd have stories about "How to hack" "how to scam etc", I just feel this piece crossed the line. I love this site, I come to it often and I don't have a personal issue with anyone and think they do a great job in general, but i disagree with this decision.It's ludicrous to argue my point of view is childish. I'm not espousing burying your head in the sand pretending like private servers don't exist, the context was wrong with this story in my opinion.Just because you don't agree with someone doesn't mean they're an idiot. I understand the argument for running it, (though it's not been argued by the editors) and I respect it, I just disagree.
18th Century, I had in mind something like the Alien & Sedition Acts. Kind of out there, I guess...it applies more directly to Bossy's below than to yours. The idea that things we disagree with SHOULD NOT BE COVERED.The immaturity of it is this idea that allowing someone to say his piece without comment is necessarily an endorsement of that person's viewpoint. The 20/20 reference above is a good one. You'll see murderers, rapists and frauds interviewed on the news all the time (here in the US...I should stop assuming everyone I talk to is in this country), but you don't see them berated and insulted unless you're watching one of those sensationalistic cable news shows. On a real news program, they ask the questions and let the monster say what the monster wants to say. It's more interesting and illuminating that way. But it's obviously not an endorsement of murder, rape or fraud.
8-25-2009 @ 2:33PM
@Bill Fair enough, I probably haven't explained my main issue was how it was presented. I don't need them them berate but that was a - I hope you would agree -- bit fluffy in terms of interview. I think it should be covered, a lot of the "look out for x scam" articles on here have ereally protected me as a player.I'm not arguing we shouldn't talk about things we don't like or disagree with, (and I can see how it may have come across that way, for that inelegance, I apologize) but I disliked the way in which it was presented, Lisa P. posted later that it's a misconception that this feature was designed to show just positive things, but it's name, and branding make that jump pretty easy.As for the tacit endorsement/immaturity, I was actually thinking of for example - hotel parking lots where they always post "Not responsible for broken into vehicles" there are actually a lot of cases where they are responsible, just claiming a right doesn't establish it, which is also a little off -point here, but in relation to that being the ONLY critical part of the piece or opposing view point it didn't seem like enough.
8-25-2009 @ 2:36PM
[Name-calling will be moderated. -- Lisa Poisso]
8-25-2009 @ 2:52PM
ShiploreThis is a BLOG. Not a NEWS SITE. Sure, the may POST news, but it's still a blog.
8-25-2009 @ 3:01PM
@ alaI addressed this previously, but it's a blog with an editorial position. They don't have to Follow Steven Brill to the letter of journalistic ethics, but they do obviously have an editorial position that is evident by the content they've produced.
8-25-2009 @ 8:36PM
It's hardly an endorsement when they aren't providing ANY information that would allow us, the readers, to find and start playing on a private server.
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.