Mar 12th 2011 4:49PM Ah... didn't see your post before I posted mine; but I completely agree with it. I would also strongly suspect a compulsive liar instead of a legitimate LGBT. A legitimate LGBT would not be impossible but... until now I've met more compulsive liars in life than transgendered persons. For males, about 3% has antisocial personality disorder, and only 0.003% seems to be transgendered; the odds of this being a legitimate transgender person instead of a liar are not that good...
Mar 12th 2011 4:39PM Hmm... I do agree with the drama mama's, but from my experience I may be a bit more paranoid in some respects.
For example, one of my friends led a guild which contained a very troubled (and very troublesome!) young lady who caused an endless stream of trouble and conflict and even some voluntary /gquits. But my friend was patient and understanding, even when the girl brewed up even more trouble by claiming that she might be a lesbian and made rather unwanted online advances to another female guildie. But my friend stayed patient and calm, and spent many long hours in conversations to soothe the troubled person behind the computer, a pretty girl (seen from the pictures she posted) who claimed to have trouble with both her sexual identity and was struggling with a looming alcohol addiction.
Things however, blew up when a guild officer discovered a 'solution' to the lesbian problem, the ventrilo-shy girl turned out to be a guy.
Unfortunately, in my online and offline lives, I've met a very small group of people would would in the past be called 'sociopaths' - people able to lie through their teeth to get what they want, be it money or attention. The few I had the displeasure of knowing also had the nasty habit of kicking up a mess, simply because they liked the attention caused by it and didn't give a damn about the feelings of others.
My friend, the GL, is one of the most intelligent and perceptive people I've ever met online; but even he was fooled tremendously. I mean - people can have legitimate gender issues and be young and a bit troublesome, but reading this story I'm really unsure if this person is a legitimate transgender person. All the emotional trouble caused may very well point to a compulsive liar and attention-whore, and many morally deficient persons have had lots of practice in creating exactly the sob stories that pull someone's emotional strings. Unfortunately, a confused sexual identity/orientation, while it certainly does exist, is also a 'safe haven' claim for many of such less scrupulous people.
What the truth here is, I don't know. But at the very least I would be very wary of this girl/guy despite/because of his/her confessions, which may very well be 'confessions', especially since this person caused so much trouble which can very well be a marker of a sociopathy-like disorder. My personal decision would be that the cost/benefit ratio of having such a person would not be for the good of the guild, if you you choose to keep him/her, please be wary of more signs of attention seeking or lying - I don't wish anyone to waste hours of his or her time, like my friend was enticed to, to soothe the non-existing troubles of a habitual liar.
Oct 30th 2010 11:43AM Well, I had the idea for a dwarf priest before I even bought WoW, because I have liked dwarfs since I've read Lord of the Rings, but in those vanilla (and my noob) days I was unable to finish the Kharanos-quests with him. Then tried Tauren druid, also gave up after about 12 levels, then was enchanted by my human mage "Shooting fireballs! Impressive", but in those days quite often part of the realms was down, so you'd (at least I'd) have some alts on other realms; and while doing some Elwynn quests with a party member who felt very obviously entitled to honest sharing of loot (in his/her advantage) I thought about making a greedy character for RP purposes; obviously a rogue, who became my first character to hit 60 and subsequently 70. Though I am also influenced by nice art - my first 80 was a female NE warrior, because there was a picture of a mail/plate wearing NE on the Kalimdor loading screen at that time, and I thought she looked great. Kept playing mainly because I made a few friends on that character. So in sum I guess it's first inspiration, and then it depends on playstyle and circumstances whether I keep at it.
Oct 7th 2010 7:16AM Hmm... if memory serves me correctly, the human capacity to know other people at least socially is 'hardcapped' around 150 persons. There are even some (well-performing companies) that split as soon as they grow over 150 persons in size. So I suppose that capping at 150-200 accounts (not 'characters'! - a bit more work for Blizzard, but undoubtedly doable) would not be too terrible, especially if there indeed is an option for guild alliances which would make finding groups easier.
Aug 31st 2010 7:42AM Perhaps it is useful to make a subdivision of the concept of 'God'.
The Christian God is the very pinnacle of power in the universe - a conscious being that knows everything and is all-powerful. Does such a God exist in Azeroth? All known 'Gods', from the Titans to Yogg-Saron to Sargeros are not all-powerful. So looking at the extreme God-concept, an Azerothian may be 'pure-God-agnostic'. There MAY be a supreme all-powerful god, but we don't know, and it seems unlikely he/she concerns itself with day-to-day management.
However, you could also see the traditional monotheistic God just as the extreme of a definition of
a) a conscious being
b) who is more powerful than you are
(and, in most religions) c) can be 'bribed' to make your life now or in the hereafter better by worship, prayer, obeying commandments etc.
According to this definition, Gods may be like a sort of unfallible super-parent (the concept of Gods being possibly an extension of the concept of parent).
If we allow that we don't consider mere humans as Gods (though they are conscious, can be more powerful than we are, like employers or parents or presidents or rich people), then anything that is 'more than human' could be considered more or less-Godlike; with demons being a bit godlike (as they seem to live forever when not killed), Yogg-Saron more Godlike, and the Titans even more godlike, though worshipping them is probably a rather fruitless enterprise as they don't seem to concern themselves with the world.
So smaller or bigger Gods - there may be a scale of godliness. But for the pragmatical Azerothian, the question may not so much be which God is most 'godly', but what deity to worship will result in the biggest rewards. After all, to get ahead in life, one can better flatter a vain boss than an uncaring God.
Jul 7th 2010 5:30AM Let's see... I guess I have a pretty unique name myself (at least when checking Google). I really couldn't hide within any multitude of John Smiths, and someone who really wants to can easily find my phone number and address from my real name.
I definitely see how this could be a problem for women players (and possibly some male ones too!) Roleplayers too might hate this change (after all, if you RP a dwarf on the RP forums, you won't want any prospective employer to misread your intentions as RL fondness of overdosages of beer and pinching gnomes.
I won't say that I enjoy forum trolls, but Blizzard may be really throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Having a general (madeup) name for one account would probably do about as well of a job, without barring people who don't want to use their real name from communicating their activities (will we have employed or female guild leaders in the future?) Anyway, I never posted much, so my contribution will probably not be missed too much.
But let's look at the bright side of things: having miniature, inactive forums will save Blizzard a lot of money for moderators or people to actually read the posts to get feedback about the game!
Apr 16th 2010 9:44AM Hmm... in some respects this represents a change though. Simply because, while one still needs to buy a riding skill, buying a mount costs in-game gold (well, not much, but still...) So if you buy this mount, you're essentially saving yourself like 55 gold or such on every one of your characters.
It seems a tad like gold-selling, just only very indirectly.
But if we accept this, why would it be then wrong (on principle) for Blizzard to sell gold directly, or sell weapons and armor for RL money? After all, you could use the money you save on buying mounts to go to the AH and buy better gear.
So, I may be wrong here, but to me it seems that this mount is actually a huge step, and is the moral equivalent to gold selling and weapon/armor selling...
Apr 13th 2010 3:30PM Oh yes! I remember giving up on raiding in Vanilla when I calculated how much time I'd just have to spend to run Stratholme and BRS again and again and again...
But anyway, great post! A wonderful combination of knowledge, insight and a sense of humor.
Mar 17th 2010 5:15PM Seems to be only suitable for those who play on US-servers. Perhaps could be mentioned in the article for 'those across the ocean'. Though I don't blame them, since the study is funded by the US government.
Mar 9th 2010 8:26AM I suppose the article may be right when your guild is a guild with exclusively raiding purposes, no social or roleplay purpose.
I remember one guild I was in, which tried to both do roleplay and raiding.
The big snag came when the old raiding officer retired, and recommended a successor. This successor was indeed a dedicated and quite proficient raider, however, he had some weaknesses in the 'leadership area'. He did indeed form an A-team, in his own words based on performance, but in reality consisting of himself, his wife, their two best friends, and most of the officers. Some of these were indeed the best-geared in the guild (or became so quickly) since they simply spent much more time in heroics and raiding, even though their skills or class knowledge were not always superb (I remember their main tank, as 'expert' writing a guide in our forums in which he amongst others showed that he didn't understand how defense worked). The raid officer claimed he selected his team on merit - the rest of the guild suspected that the A-team should be called N-team for nepotism. The guild still exists, though just as a label attached to the names of the officers and their friends, as the non-A-team (which was most other people) left for greener pastures.
Anyway, if you consider creating an A-team, you need, most of all, superb communication to all guildies, especially the B-team. Make it so that nobody will feel that the A-team is just a bunch of nepotist jerks, but rather create an A-pool and a B-pool with indeed guidelines for what an ambitious member should do (or should be able to do) to get into the A-pool. And create fair rotation systems so that every A-er and B-er should feel that if they are excluded, it is not because the raid leader decided to bring his friends instead.
By the way, one should also look at the ambition level of your guild; some A-members are so hardcore that they'd consider three raids a week too little, and will try jump the ship to server-first-guilds at the first opportunity available anyway. I don't think every guild should be or try to become a 'server-first, no-life' guild. So in some cases, it is forgiveable to let the A-members go simply because they'd go sooner or later anyway, and would rip the guild apart if you'd cater exclusively to their elitist wishes.
Anyway, while I can agree with Scott's logic, I think that guilds which try to implement an A-team would need a more elaborate guide on how to do it, for an A-team is very much a goblin-engineered grenade, very powerful when used correctly, but very likely to blow up in your face, especially when handled inappropriately.