| Member Profile | WoW Insider

Leo
Member Since Dec 23rd, 2006

Blog	Comments
Joystiq	3 Comments
TUAW.com	13 Comments
Engadget	1 Comment
AOL TV	1 Comment
Cinematical	1 Comment
WoW	8 Comments
Joystiq Xbox	2 Comments
Massively	1 Comment

Recent Comments:

2.4.2 patch notes updated {WoW}

Apr 25th 2008 11:31AM Has anyone had this graphical glitch? I'm a shadowpriest, and whenever I get spell pushback while casting mind blast my animation for casting stops - even though the spell is still being cast.

It gets very confusing because that means I have a hard time knowing when my casting was pushed back, or interrupted. Has anyone else had this problem? I'm asking now because I thought it was a bug... but since it's not in the patch notes, maybe I'm the only one with the problem.

Guess the patch 2.4 release date and win! {WoW}

Feb 27th 2008 5:16PM 04/01

Officers' Quarters: A moral dilemma {WoW}

Feb 4th 2008 8:53PM Darian, you asserted that selling an account as I have specified is a violation of the terms of service, and will bring about the ban-hammer.

As I specified in my first post (kinda greyed out unfortunately, and so I don't blame you for not having read it) however, I absolutely agree that your statement is a true statement.

However I also pointed out that it's a circular argument that you seem to present:
"It is clear in the specific case described in your post that this rule causes indirect harm to those associated with the punished. Thus, in this special case we can confirm that harm is done."
Indeed. But your point seems more to indicate that the problem is the rule itself, and not the action that the rule punishes. E.g. I may make a rule that I will slap anyone who uses a noun. It is true that whoever uses a noun will be harmed by my slap. But does it thus follow that my rule is hence just, and should be followed? I don't believe so.

Same for selling of accounts in my specific case.
Selling your account is against the ToS, and will bring you harm. Does that mean that specific rule in the ToS is just? It does not necessarily follow. Thus your quoted statement does not really establish the "just-ness" of the ToS as you claimed.

Your second claim, where you examine more relevantly: is there harm inflicted even if the rule were absent? (if there were, then we would have a basis to assume the action is Wrong) You wrote:
"At the same time the actions described via this rule are "naturally" illegal. By definition, the selling or trading of goods or services that are not your own is a form of theft. In effect, by selling or trading your account you are robbing Blizzard. Thus, we can also confirm that there is harm done without the punishment inflicted by Blizzard."

This is a strong counterargument I have a harder time addressing, since I had always thought about the harm done to other players, and not Blizzard itself.

Firstly, a previous commenter pointed out that the ToS does not necessarily hold up legally - there is no strong precedent to establish that Blizz indeeds owns our accounts and what-not. Intuitively at least, I personally don't think it makes much sense that what we "level up" and "create" in WoW should belong to Blizzard. It's like saying music I record in the studio belongs to the studio, or that the novel I type up on Word belongs to Microsoft. Thus it is unclear that we really are "robbing" Blizzard.

But let's assume that accounts do belong to Blizzard. I guess I am in this case harming Blizzard by denying them the profits from getting $15 a month from someone who would have had to start a character from scratch. But what about in this case of selling the account to a guild member who probably wouldn't have paid for a new account to level up a new toon anyway? No harm is done. On the contrary, reporting the sales actually does do harm.

Even in the less stringent case where Blizzard is denied a subscription fee - it is unclear that it is morally right for a company to maximize its profits. Intuitively at least, monopoly laws that prevent price-gouging (like by our fav oil companies for instance) seem to reflect the moral sense that exploiting your customers seems to be unjust, even if they have no choice but to consent to the high price. By protecting Blizzard's profits, we are also de-protecting a consumer's money, and there needs to be a balance.

Anyway, I do agree that generally selling accounts is Wrong. But you did raise a really good point (assuming that the characters etc really do, and should belong to Blizzard), though I still think in the limited case here I still think it's ok to sell your account, because Blizzard isn't harmed either.

Anyway, back to studying for my moral phil exam. =(

Officers' Quarters: A moral dilemma {WoW}

Feb 4th 2008 6:29PM Tereth, I also agree with what you're saying on principle. But what I am referring to here is a very specific example. I'm not saying that "selling your account" should be made OK. I'm saying that "selling your account to your guildie who has already learnt how to play to game, because you are quitting the game (thus transaction is not for profit)" should be ok.

Obviously most people will balk and say, "well, you can't do that! How is Blizz going to differentiate between powerlevellers and people who are quitting and selling to experienced friends?"

Firstly, that is a separate issue. That's just admitting that yes, in this special case selling the account is from an objective, moral point of view OK, but for practical reasons we cannot allow it.

Even then, I would like to challenge that argument. Suppose it's stated as a rule, that when taking an exam no one should be allowed to go to the bathroom. What if I just happen to have a really terrible stomachache? Should we stick to the rules, and say, "oh, can't let him leave - he might be faking it to be a cheater"? I don't think so. There should be some personal discretion available to the administrator of the exam. We are human beings - we make rules, rules don't make us. We are able to make autonomy decisions, unlike computer programs... thus we can also allow for exceptions. Rules aren't iron clad laws that can never be bent. (Another common example is, should we fine someone speeding on an obviously empty road, to the hospital because a passenger is injured? Obviously not...)

The same idea applies to selling your account. If from the game log it's clear that the person selling the account has been playing a long time at lvl 70 (a powerleveller probably won't do that... they'd sell the account soon after ding), then such a sale should be allowed, especially to an established player.

And from Moralistic's standpoint - she has an obligation even to NOT report it. Since it is obviously clear to her that this is not a powerlevelling transaction. She is even clearer than Blizz in this case that the sale is not objectively "Wrong".

Go ahead and vote this comment down too - but I do feel that I'm not making ridiculous trolling comments. Thus I don't really understand why I am being voted down. Isn't the point of this to hold a discussion, and not just silence those you don't agree with?

Then again I'm writing on a game blog and not a philosophy forum lol...

Officers' Quarters: A moral dilemma {WoW}

Feb 4th 2008 2:42PM Matthew, I don't agree.
Bear with me while I draw out the actual issue here, before I make my point.
Everyone here:
i) Those who think selling accounts to guildies when you quit the game is morally wrong
ii) Those who think selling accounts to guildies when you quit the game is morally alright
all agree that selling the account is a violation of the rules (ie. ToS).

The heart of the debate lies in
1) whether such rules are "just", and
2) if not, should they be followed?

It is clear to me that these are questions that have been asked since the founding of societies, and no satisfactory answer has really been found... (At least, the debate rages on). But here are my two cents:

I hope it is clear to you, and other readers here that just because the ToS exists, does not make it "Right". "You can choose not to play WoW if you don't like it" is not a relevant counterargument. Such comments are as unhelpful as "lolz don't play then" when we discuss improvements in the PvP system for instance. Just because you can choose not to be part of WoW does not mean that certain rules aren't "Wrong", or cannot be improved.

Hopefully I have successfully established as much. Now we shall examine if "selling accounts is not allowed" is a "Right" policy. Obviously, opinions differ. Let us restrict it to the case of Moralistic. Is "selling accounts to guild members when you quit the game is NOT allowed" a "Right" policy? You obviously think it is a Right policy, since it prevents harm to other guild members.

But your justification is problematic. Selling your account to Guildie X is wrong -> It is wrong because it could get X banned, thus harming others. There does not seem to be any harm done, except the harm due to the punishment inflicted by Blizzard. And since we are debating if the punishment inflicted by Blizzard is "Just", the natural conclusion is "no". Selling accounts in this case does no harm except punishment from Blizz. So shouldn't the problem lie with Blizz for having such a rule? If Blizz made selling accounts ok, then we wouldn't have this problem.

Ok. Here we have established that 1) The rules are not "just".
Whether they should be followed is the next question... That's a whole paper in itself. But I hope at least I've made some points that will help discussion on this thread... I feel some of the distinctions are important. Most debate should be surrounding point 2), and I'm seeing a lot of comments being voted down for little valid reason it seems... (some are valid though).

At least you should see that a lot of people you are disagreeing with believe that the terms are not justifiable, and they should thus not be followed. Whether you agree on the last point is open to your debate... And the debate is an open one on that question.

Etymotic hf2 headset for the iPhone {TUAW.com}

Jan 17th 2008 12:07PM I went over to their website to take a look... The the microphone is way bigger than the one on the default iPhone headphones. I feel that it is still a better deal to go with Ultimate Buds (covered by TUAW a while ago), which basically just replaces the earbuds of the iPhone earphones with etymotic 6e-i. For cheaper, too. I don't see how this could be a worthwhile buy...