Nov 5th 2010 6:37PM Fair enough, the guy isn't a lawyer or a law student. I don't expect a 30 page legal memo on the issues, I just expect that if you're going to header the article "Lawbringer" that it have something to do with the actual law. Not being a lawyer/law student doesn't absolve him of the "parents just don't understand" routine going on in this article. There are tons upon tons of 1st amendment blogs covering the important details of this case. Heck even a cursory glance of the L.A. Times article on the hearing provides a decent amount of coverage of the issues.
45 minutes of reading, digesting, and then churning out in his own words the important legal topics going on in this case would have infinitely preferable to jokes about how SCOTUS Justices are all old farts who don't play video games, and LULZ KAGAN SED MORTAL KOMBAT.
There are tons of law students/lawyers who play WoW, I am one of them, there must be one of us out there who can take this blog over and get back to what the original author was doing: educating WoW Insider readers about the nature of the law and how it interacts with one of our biggest hobbies.
Nov 5th 2010 5:28PM As a soon to be lawyer I have to say this was pretty much the most disappointing lawbringer so far. The case before SCOTUS is intensely fascinating and your entire article was basically just a whine-fest about how Supreme Court Justice's are not "cool", "with it" and "hip" to us kids with "our video games, and our Lady Gagas, and our song walkmans".
Not to mention you have some odd interpretations of what went on in those oral arguments. Mortal Kombat is "not so 1995" when you actually pay attention to what Justice Kagan was actually asking, which was about how and why they choose to ban certain games based on their violent content, especially when she likely has Supreme Court Clerks in her office who spent their adolescence playing the game and still managed to be freaking Supreme Court Clerks. She can't make the point she is making if she chooses a game her law clerks didn't grow up playing in their adolescence.
This column has bottomed out, I wish I knew what happened to the original author. She was smart and clear (sometimes funny) and she wrote things in a way that really brought out the legal issues and educated a lot of WoW Insider readers about how the law operates and thinks. This article could have been written by a teenager ranting about how his parents "just don't get it". It offers no legal insights or credibility, nor does it expand on the legal issues inherent in the case such as statutory construction, vagueness and ambiguousness in statutes and how violence may or not not be considered a new aspect of obscenity which the court may or may not choose to allow regulation upon.
Sep 25th 2010 4:21PM So it occurred to me while flying over Icecrown today... of what exactly are gargoyles the undead existence?
Everything else undead is either clearly a construct of some sort or has a living counterpart in the game. Are gargolyes constructs, too? If so they seem to be much more expertly put together than other constructs.
Its confusing me.
Sep 6th 2010 5:15PM I find it pretty laughable that people honestly think this is going to be the end product for camo and are bothering to argue about it as if their argument will stave off the obvious nerfbat that will be twacking this thing shortly. I find it disappointing that wow.com bloggers actually think that this ability, on its face, seems "fair" to them. Wow.com bloggers usually have a much more honest and accurate notion of balance and fairness in this game than your average forum or wow.com commenter, but I've noticed that a lot of the fair and balanced aspect of assessing class changes seems to be disappearing around here the more that the class articles get divided up and given to more bloggers.
The likelihood that camo is intended to be another LOL INVULNERABLE ability is pretty much zero given many of Blizzard's past statements re: uncounterable invulnerabilty. Even if it maintains much of its LOL INVULNERABLE HAHAHA power, the liklihood it would be completely uncounterable is about zero too.
Blizzard specifically went to the trouble of creating things like mass dispel and shattering through because uncounterable invulnerability is stupid, regardless of whether the person using it can attack or not.
I'm also extremely skeptical that blizzard would go to the trouble of getting rid of FD-trapping to come 2 expansions later and create its more powerful brother, FD-camo. Anyone that thinks critically about this game, its development and its balance already knows this is not the final product because its grossly exploitable, forgiving the fact that its also grossly unfair.
Aug 27th 2010 9:32PM I believe you're actually referring to Kelo v. New London, not New Haven.
Aug 24th 2010 9:31AM Nef priest call ---> heal the loud-mouthed but lovable paladin class leader. Died so fast he couldn't even bubble.
Aug 18th 2010 3:02PM Your entire comment basically talks completely past what my point is.
Repping up in a guild has to be reasonable. If repping up in a new guild is NOT reasonable it will make people not feel capable of quitting their guilds for legitimate reasons, making them feel trapped someplace they don't want to be.
If the repping up process is too easy, then guilds will be able to easily sell slots to people to rep up and buy rewards and then leave. I don't think Blizzard wants to encourage that behavior and I'm not exactly sure how they're going to make repping up for legitimate guild hops relatively easy and not make it easy for people who are hopping for equipment reasons.
And finally, I'm not concerned (nor do I think is Blizzard) with what quality of player you do or don't want in your guild, thats your personal choice and has nothing to do with how the actual game should be functionally designed. Just like many other aspects of the game, Blizzard designs it to encourage certain behaviors and discourage others. I doubt guild-hopping for guild loot is a behavior they want to encourage so figuring out how they're going to discourage that and not making rep grinding for your guild be a complete chore will be rather interesting.
Aug 18th 2010 1:37PM Actually, you don't have any evidence to support the idea that it won't be sellable. We have no idea how long it takes to reach "exalted" with the guild after you join it.
It can't take too long or else legitimate new members of guilds will get irritated with "repping up" with their guilds and it will make people feel trapped, so it stands to reason it'll probably be a light enough activity for a guild to fairly easily sell slots and access to guild rewards.
Aug 18th 2010 1:27PM It seems, under this system, that top guilds can simply sell guild slots to people who could then wait the appropriate time and purchase guild-based rewards and gquit.
Jun 23rd 2010 2:12PM Wow, thems some sour grapes there, Ziebart.