Jul 19th 2010 8:16AM Must... resist... urge.. to make... Office Space... joke.....er.....
As to the topic at hand, the answer for me is no, no, a thousand times no. Now, I never put in 40 hours a week, but when I was doing semi-hardcore progression raiding in BC I estimated that between raiding itself and maintaining "raid readiness" for my character I was spending upwards of 30 hours a week on it. That was simply too much and caused real burn out for me, even though we WERE making progress. I just couldn't DO anything else in the game, so forget leveling an alt (and this was still before BoA gear anyway) or messing around with a secondary profession, or doing interesting questlines, or whatever.
Really, it wasn't just the switch to 10 mans, but also the nerfing of consumables (much to the sadness of alchemists) and the introduction of massive amounts of badge gear and farming them that made raiding less time consuming. No longer do you NEED to take several hundred gold worth of consumables into a raid to do progression now. Of course the top end guilds still do, but it no longer plays out like a requirement. For me, that was one of the most time consuming things about raiding that I was not sad to see go.
Jul 16th 2010 3:11PM This is why Karazhan was so great. It's design and purpose was pure; it was an entry level raid that was made to teach new raiders how to raid while steadily ramping up the difficulty between bosses.
Thats why I wasn't too keen on the reuse of Naxxramas. Sure, it made sense for the setting, but Wrath really missed out on having that entry level feel so people could cut their chops learning in a raid environment designed for that. It's also why the badge gear is probably not as good an idea as I thought it was. There is absolutely a learning curve involved when you go from not raiding to raiding, and trying to learn that right away in something like ICC (which is an end game raid) is just not a good idea.
Jul 10th 2010 2:00PM You've continued this conversation at least as much as I have, but continue to pretend you have some sort of high ground. Delusions and illogical conclusions seem to be your forte as it is.
Jul 10th 2010 1:25PM >Ok then. Shut up and leave me alone you troll. I don't want to be bothered by you EVER again.
See, in Hoggersbud's world, trolls are people who demand logical discourse. Good to know.
Jul 10th 2010 10:06AM >Concerning the difference between Phone Books and forums Hoggersbud claimed to exist, I belive he meant the following:
Oh, I am well aware of what he THINKS the distinction is, only it's not a distinction at all. The logical flow of his argument was always that it was dangerous to actually attribute a name to something, this is false. The name itself holds no sway. Furthermore, he ignores the supremely obvious that one could simply disagree with someone in a real world conversation, than have that person find them through the phone book. Or the fact that informational tools that people would use to find someone on the internet are.... electronic phone books.
Essentially, he has invented distinction where no exists, and has attempted to limit his scope as much as possible to avoid detection of logical error. And failed. Hence why I keep telling him he hasn't shown any distinction, cause there is none.
Perhaps most hilariously though is that he doesn't seem to grasp that his argument actually proves the point of those he is arguing with. If he is saying that it IS dangerous to link someone's name to an opinion on a forum, he is arguing that anonymity is, in fact, encouraging that level of argument and that removing it would cut it down. Of course this is still a bad argument because it argues for retribution, but it does more to argue that it would be effective at killing such arguing rather than working in favor of his danger scenario.
Basically, I don't think he has really thought this through. As I said before, I think this is merely an emotional argument for him, something he has developed through deindividuation or something.
Jul 10th 2010 7:29AM >Well, I know for sure are you attacking me, as if I were in any doubt before.
You are damn right I am attacking you now. You've made the discussion devolve that way. Look, you've not even ATTEMPTED to complete the argument as it was, because you couldn't. You've never even remotely tried to justify the logic of how having your name in one place is dangerous but in another it is not. You can not, for the life of you, even begin to make up for the incongruous of the logic you've used, so you've simply pretended it doesn't exist. It's a pathetic, trollish style of forum etiquette that leaves one with the impression of a not very educated person. Pure as the driven snow.
Look how you do it again. You've so missed the boat with the juxtaposition of the phone book and the post (i.e. they BOTH GIVE A FUCKING NAME!) that it can only be determined that you aren't even arguing with an adequate understanding of what you are doing. I attacked you with cause. What's your excuse for being so illogical?
>You must live in a different universe then, if forums and phone books aren't different. Other than that, I can't think of a way.
For the umpteenth million time. They, in the event of the Real ID changes, would have BOTH GIVEN A FUCKING NAME! That is all that would be needed for the juxtaposition proposed for the logical postulate. Seriously, this is tenth grader thinking right here.
>The one who devolved into personal attacks and alarmist remarks if you Alex.
Alarmist? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! And I am alarmed about what, exactly? And as I just said, you are damn right I attacked him. Can you explain why he stopped having a logical conversation? Can you explain why he glossed over how I pointed half this stuff out to him at the beginning? Can you tell me why the most basic tenets of logic escape him so? If you are gonna jump into the middle of someone else's conversation, please prove you've at last actually read it. You clearly haven't cause....
>If you posted on the WoW forums with your real name, you're the kind of troll who would have received punishment via misuse of your real name. At that point, I wonder if you would see the irony of it and whether you feel whatever punishment came your way would be appropriate.
You seem to be under the impression I liked and agreed with the changes. Obviously, then, you've not really read what was being discussed.
Jul 10th 2010 12:10AM >Well, it's not what I'm saying, so...I'm not worried about what you think of it.
That's cause you don't know what you are saying. It's not surprising. You're quite dense.
>You're missing the difference still. See if you can find the missing piece without me telling you. Heck, several people have already named it in this discussion. So maybe you should ask a few of them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!!!!!!! There is no difference. None at all.
But of course, you completely and utterly, skipped over the main thrust of logical breakdown as well. It's funny, really, cause now you've proven yourself to be exactly the kind of troll that no one is gonna miss either.
>I'm pretty sure it's just demonstrative of how you come up with crappy reasons to justify your position, but fail to recognize just how empty it really makes your arguments look. See, your attempt to equate them, that's what is inane.
Says the guy whose done NOTHING to prove either a lack of equation OR an attack on the logical fallacy. I know it is tripe on a forum to do this, but, you are clearly a high school kid. Has to be. Only someone that bereft of education would make these sorts of errant posts.
Jul 9th 2010 10:59PM >I didn't say you were attacking my arguments.
No, I said that, which would have been the point. You seem to think that you have a strong logical foundation because I attack it so much. This is a weird, nonsensical form of thinking.
>You're the one who doesn't see the difference between the two. You should try to figure it out. There's something different about the one that isn't in the other. At least not in any phone book I've ever used.
The Real ID post would contain a first and last name. The phone book entry could contain any of the following: first name and last name, phone number (most assuredly), and address..... Yes, clearly this forum thing is worse.....
But really, that's besides the point anyway. Let's see if I can lay this down for you slow enough so you can get it.
Your assertion was that posting your first and last name on the Blizzard forums was a violation of public safety. If one accepts this logical postulate, then all public offerings of information of at least first and last names would also have to be considered dangerous, that would include the things listed (like the phone book). The logic of your stated position demands that you accept the concept that the phone book is dangerous. Since this is a silly conclusion, once would therefore accept your assertion that posting such on the forums is dangerous was fallacy.
Really, this is basic deductive logic, and the fact you can't grasp that is proof positive that you aren't very educated on the subject.
>You're the one whose argument against phone books is that there is a problem with people randomly pulling names from them to hunt down.
I have no argument AGAINST phone books. It's inane to argue against them. The usage of the phone book is to underline the inherently troublesome nature of your logic, as pointed out above.
Jul 9th 2010 10:11PM >It's quite strong, thank you, otherwise you wouldn't spend so much time trying to attack me for making it.
What the hell kinda logical thinking is that? People only spend their time attacking strong arguments? I know this question gets asked a lot on the internet but... how much time have you spent in school studying logic? I really am starting to wonder....
>Me, I'm not disputing whether or not there is foundation to the desire to attach identity, I'm concerned about the negative consequences. Either they failed to recognize them, or they intended the consequences to apply to us. Neither is good for Blizzard's position.
What the hell? So, if you are not disputing that a similar outcome of engendered empathy is possible... then you are not disputing that your view of vindictiveness is wrong. If you are not disputing this... then what the hell are you even talking about? If you KNOW that you are simply assuming it, then why are you are arguing that you aren't assuming it?
Can you even follow your own arguments?
>Quite a bit more actually. I suggest that you go take a course that teaches you the difference between a listing in a phone book and a forum posting.
That's it, you are, indeed, not very bright. A phone book would offer one more information, a great deal more, than the suggested forum post. However, the forum post is MORE dangerous than a phone book? Thats some serious stupid pills right there.
>If there's a problem with cyborgs from the future coming back to the past to kill people listed in the phonebooks, then we probably should get rid of them.
Cause no one has ever used a phone book to hunt someone down. Ever. Has NEVER happened.
If this is the best you have to offer....
Jul 9th 2010 9:43PM >Who needs an inside knowledge of anything? It's straight reasoning. Nothing more.
No it's not, it's interpretive assumption at best. You are assigning a level of vindictiveness to it that you can't possibly prove. One could simply argue the counter that the removing of such anonymity was an attempt to engender empathy among the community by humanizing the posters. Several psychological studies have shown that anonymity also breeds disassociation between people as it allows distance from the effect of actions on them. Would a community based around public knowledge of people's real lives be more constructive on the internet? Who knows.
But since you can't prove that this line of thinking wasn't in play when Blizzard made it's decision, you can't argue that your version of vindictiveness is correct. Yet... here you are trying to do so. It doesn't surprise me at this point, since you've shown a lack of basic logical foundation, but it is a clear cut rationale as to why your argument is far more shaky than you seem able to realize.
>Or are they so oblivious that they didn't realize that would happen?
Are you oblivious to the concept of dehumanization that the concept of anonymity adding to it went over your head? See, this can be argued two ways. Your foundation is not nearly as strong as you think.
>Why are you making things up? This was a threat to people's safety.
No more than a phone book, a caller ID, or a census. Yet you aren't tossing a single peep about it. Seriously, you haven't even offer one iota of evidence to this, instead relying on logical fallacy to promote it. Go take an elementary logic course for this.
If you follow your line of reasoning to it's stated end, you are arguing every person listed in your local phone book is in danger. If you can't see how stupid this is, there is really nothing that needs be said to you anymore, you'd have invalidated yourself.