Feb 16th 2010 11:01PM http://bricktank.blogspot.com/
-- there's an interesting article at Brick Tank about the idea of mana being the "blue rage bar" for low-level druid tanks. Neat stuff.
Jan 23rd 2010 10:32PM Yep. The numbers matter only insofar as they tell you that each player is at least *trying*. 1500 is great for someone in blues and a couple purples, especially when they're with a group of high-powered players and can't get a cleave in edgewise. Even 1k is fine. Everyone needs to gear up, and everyone needs to learn their game.
That said, the numbers are valuable when they tell you that someone isn't trying. When a DPS does 8% of the overall damage, then acts like a jerk when you ask about it, he should be kicked.
Jan 4th 2010 6:43PM It's mildly disturbing how similar this case is to what I experienced last year. My boyfriend (at the time, now husband) and I set up an RP guild, and I got very much into raiding once I reached the endgame.
We always kept a separate chat channel open for text-RP, which had the advantage of being open to people who just wanted to check out what we did, and those who left the guild on good terms. The problem with that, of course, was that people often left the guild and could get all of the RP contact they wanted through the unregulated chat channel.
Some of the difficulty we had with the pure raiders arose from the RPers not recognizing who was who. The RPers would say "Oh, Mr. So and So, I see you're enjoying the sun of Mulgore this afternoon." Since most of the raiders were "tolerant" of the RP, they found it a little disturbing to be asked to play a role that they had never conceptualized when they were pestered by the RPers. Then they'd leave because there was too much RP.
On the other side, there was too little RP! We would recruit RPers who would leave within several weeks because we had scheduled only weekly RP-events.
It felt like everyone was Little Miss Goldilocks.
For several months, we considered starting up a separate guild for the raiders, but it was such a low-population server that we knew we wouldn't be able to fill the ranks. Further, it would have created massive logistical problems for those who felt (like myself) that they were legitimately part of both groups.
Eventually, we folded the guild. I transferred servers to a raiding guild and he went off to play EVE (of all things O.o ). I'm happy and much less stressed-out, though I do miss the RP stuff once in a while.
Dec 15th 2009 12:19AM And no, I'm not talking about Natural Law. I'm talking about the logical extension of your idea that just because something hasn't been made a crime yet, you have a right to do it.
As you said:
"Speaking my mind on the forums - still not a crime - is still a legally protected right*
*legally protected means I wont get arrested"
That's incorrect. ...because the fact that something is not a crime does not mean you have a right to it. "Not a crime" and "A legal right" ARE NOT LOGICALLY EQUIVALENT.
Dec 14th 2009 11:58PM Can you explain what exactly you're trying to argue there? It sounds like you want to argue that because no one can stop you from engaging in a physical act that you have a legal right to that act...
Let's do a find and replace with "shoot" (and similar phrases) going in for "speak":
The fact that I'm trying to *shoot you* is that no one can stop me from *shooting you*. *Imprisonment* is something that is done after the fact, *trial* is something done after the fact. At all times, I have the right to *shoot you*, and all others have the right to react as they choose (within their rights as defined by law).
Does that make sense? Really?
Dec 14th 2009 11:38PM Still. Wrong.
Just because legal action cannot be brought up against you for something does not mean you have a right to it. By your reasoning, I have a right to shoot you with a teleportation gun and send you to the perfectly hospitable planet X 8 billion light years away. There's no law against it, after all.
Dec 14th 2009 11:34PM The second to last paragraph on that should end with, "Therefore, since you (Blizzard) cannot be punished for restricting my free speech, it is clear that I do not have a right to free speech."
Dec 14th 2009 11:31PM This thread:
Dec 14th 2009 11:27PM That's still wrong. You're totally missing the concept of a legal right.
If I have a legal right to something, you cannot take it away from me, regardless of whether or not you're the government.
For example, I have the right to not be murdered.
If you murder me, you go to jail. The government punishes you for abridging that right.
Similarly, if I have a right to free speech, you are punished for causing me to be unable to exercise it.
It is NOT the case that, because I have a legal right to something, the government alone cannot punish me for acting on that right, which is what you suggest when you say that it is my "legal right" to practice free speech just as it is Blizzard's "legal right" to prevent me from doing so.
Dec 14th 2009 10:51PM That's still incorrect, though, Grimm. Your legal right is this:
The government cannot make a law preventing you from free speech.
This does not mean you have a legal right TO free speech. It means you have a legal right AGAINST the restraint of free speech --by government--. It's a subtle difference, but it's important.
Were it the case that you had a Constitutional right to free speech, but Blizzard had the right to censor that speech, and that Blizzard's right to censor your speech supersedes your free speech, it would follow that the rules chosen by Blizzard TRUMP the Constitution. That's ridiculous.