Apr 14th 2009 4:37PM Old news. Casinos have been banned since 2005: http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=10271176&postId=102801193&sid=1#0
Not sure why they have to give until April 20th to ban something they banned in 2005. Maybe they forgot they already said no?
Nov 24th 2008 7:10PM Maybe it's because I tank, but I just position the mob that's guarding the node on the node. Ninja can't get at the node without hitting the mob, thus helping me kill the mob. Plus, if it's hard to get, they generally move on (that's why they waited for you to pull to grab it in the first place).
In other words, if you want something, protect it.
Apr 9th 2008 1:32PM Brittwilson, did you report that player individually, or en masse though?
Blizzard made it up to you to report them, using the system they provided. This allows you to report them in bulk, NOT as Blizzard intended. That's rules lawyering. That's adhering to the letter of the law, often times without any understanding of the spirit or purpose of the law.
I have no problem with you reporting a name you find offensive. I have a problem with you reporting fifty of them in one fell swoop using a system that was not put in place by Blizzard. If you want to use Blizzard's system and report fifty of them in a row, knock yourself out. I still think you're missing the spirit of the law in sticking to the exact letter of the law (which is what rules lawyering is), but if it makes you happy, go for it. You'll not hear a complaint from me about it. But if you use a mod to do it, I put you in the same boat as any other griefer.
Apr 9th 2008 11:53AM I would agree that Jesus Christ is a religious name. Jesus is a common first name, popular primarily in Mexico. Who are you, rules lawyer, to determine that? That's what I'm saying. You're imposing YOUR beliefs on that person, instead of talking with them to find out the origin and backstory of it. You're assuming it's wrong.
But then, it's always been easier to sit back in an armchair and be right than to make an effort and risk finding out you were mistaken.
Apr 9th 2008 11:15AM Here's where the rules lawyering fails. Since I'm sure someone who reports enough people that they need an addon never talks to those people to find out the origin behind their name, they ASSUME that the name has nothing to do with roleplaying.
Let's take the above character named Jesus. Now, instead of just being a name, what if that player was roleplaying a draenei shaman with a messiah complex. He spends his time helping the unfortunate, constantly resurrecting people he finds along his travels, and regularly giving little sermons whenever he sees a group of people gathered until they get nervous and start to scatter.
Now the rules lawyer with the mod signs on, sees the name, and reports it.
That person has just single handedly destroyed the entire roleplay of that person's character. That's more in line with griefing than it is with adhering to the rules, because while you were busy OOC reporting anyone with a name you deemed as inappropriate, the person you reported was in character and acting in an appropriate manner for their name.
I'm all for reporting players that violate the TOU. But, I am against any mod that makes it easy to take the personal element out of reporting, as it makes it all too easy for that to turn into a griefing tool. And it saddens me to see such an addon touted here.
Jan 9th 2008 10:57AM I'd be perfectly OK with the restrictions on roots, if it was equal for all. But when a mob roots me, and I try to root them back and get "can only be used outdoors," that's when my eyebrows raise.
Oct 14th 2007 11:41AM Druids aren't true hybrids. The true hybrids are shaman and paladins. Paladins are good tanks and healers, and so-so dps. Shaman are good healers and dps, and can't tank anything. But, they can both perform some of their roles simultaneously (the pally tank can heal, the shaman healer can throw lightning bolts, etc.).
A druid, on the other hand, is a Shapeshifter. Yes, they can perform multiple roles, but they can ONLY do one role at a time. A druid tanking can't throw a heal, neither can a moonkin. A tree druid can heal, and maybe throw a moonfire or two, but they sure as hell can't tank.
I'd love to be able to tank on my Shaman. But I can't. Because the gear and the spec aren't made for it, and that's not what Shaman's are supposed to do. I knew that when I rolled it. The Paladins knew they wouldn't be able to dps as well if they rolled their class too, so they need to stop QQ-ing and learn to play their class, not play their class like their class is something else.
Sep 11th 2007 12:53PM @3&4 double post - that's all well and good, but with the new internet explorer and with firefox, they'd all open as tabs, and from a reading/website standpoint, why would you want someone to leave your site halfway through reading it?
Internal links should open in the same window, external links open in a new window. It's just common sense. Keep the viewer on your page.
Sep 11th 2007 12:20PM This is just a minor tangent, but is it possible to start using "target=_blank" when making in articles? The links are supposed to supplement the article you've written, so they should appear in a different window, not take the place of the article you've written.
/end tangent. :P
Aug 23rd 2007 4:15PM Why not just add gems and enchants that work with the stun/fear mechanics that are already part of the talent trees of some classes anyway? That way a player who find fear to be annoying can update their gear to combat that through resistance, at the cost of some of their other stat possibilities (like a warrior could gem their gear with fear/stun resist gems, but then would lose the opportunity to put stam, defense, attack power, resilience, or other gem types in that slot.