That doesn't justify that many people browsing the reference site using your test browser. People aren't mistakenly using IE6 to look up the HTML reference, they're using IE6 because that's what they always use. Look at the usage numbers, Firefox is almost at 50%, Chrome is already at 6%. That is indicative of web developers, not using a browser that is 9 years old. Web developers might be more likely to have IE6 installed, but they're not going to browse with it. Web developers are more likely to have a favorite browser to do all of their normal tasks in, and they'll use that one.
Also, I'm a web developer and don't have IE6 installed, on any of my machines. I have access to it, but not on any computer I use on a regular basis. The debugging tools in IE8 are much better for web developers than having IE6 available to test on.
See, but that's just assigning an arbitrary meaning to a number. 0 doesn't mean that other people haven't seen it, or that it's not ready, it means 0, nothing, the absence of a quantity. 1 means "the first". I just think that version numbers should be used exactly to say which revision of the programming you're dealing with, not to ascribe some arbitrary meaning to various digits.
I realize it's personal preference, but it irks me seeing applications with a version number less than 1. Yeah, it's fine to say "it's version 0.5 because it doesn't have all the features", but it's never going to have all the features you want or planned.
The way I see it, by definition, the first time you hit Compile, you're creating "The First Version" - version 1.0. As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else. If it takes all the way to version 2.0 to get "all the features" you originally planned or wanted, fine, the application is now at version 2, why is that a problem? It seems like a lot of applications, especially in the open source world, insist on always having a version number less than one. A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it. That's probably putting more weight on version numbers than is intended, but version numbers are all about perception anyway (just ask Netscape 5).
And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero. The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero. By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.
I don't buy it, I think it's just stupid. There's no good reason for any entity to sue itself, it's a waste of resources. You might as well just settle out of court with yourself, right? This is just a way for the lawyers to make money, with no real work being done that couldn't have been done without filing a lawsuit. I especially like this statement:
"Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property," the answer reads. "All other allegations of the complaint are denied."
I love how the defendant (Wells Fargo) is denying the allegations made by the plaintiff (Wells Fargo). If they were just going to deny them, why did they bother making the allegations in the first place? This isn't Wells Fargo vs. Wells Fargo, it's one law firm vs. another, where both of them win because both of them get paid. If the law has this requirement for something to become valid, then obviously it's a stupid law for not having a loophole where if all loans are held by the same lender, you don't need to sue yourself. The only reason I could see that this would make sense is if there were additional lenders involved, e.g. if Wells had the first and second mortgages, and other lenders had a third or fourth mortgage. The article only talks about the two held by Wells, so it sounds like Wells is suing itself for no reason. It just seems really stupid. And taxpayers are paying to keep these people in business, because obviously they're so good at it.
If you're reinstalling drivers and rebooting Windows when your batteries die, well, that's not exactly the fault of the batteries. I definitely prefer a wired mouse at my desktop, because there's no reason I'll ever need to move it, but my laptop already has enough cords spouting off it, I don't need to add another one.
You really have those problems? First, changing batteries once every few months isn't exactly a big hassle. Second, who goes around dropping their mouse? Do you have some sort of seizures where your hand just spasms? Third, if you're troubleshooting why you just suddenly lost your signal, here's the answer: it's because the batteries ran out. Troubleshooting over. I've used a wireless mouse with my development laptop for the past year and a half and have zero problems, other than needing to change the batteries every few months (which isn't really a problem, since every day I can take advantage of the fact that there's no cord). In other words, I have zero mouse-related problems with my laptop, wireless or no.
In addition to the other examples given, the "Wanamingos" that inhabited the mine in one of the towns in Fallout 2.. I think it was Redding.. were identified as "Alien" when you targetted them. I think the 6-legged centaurs that hung around with Super Mutants were also identified the same.
Then again, it does breaks immersion to see something utterly unrealistic. I had such a moment playing Star Wars: Galaxies, when I realized I could see stars through moons! From that moment, I wasn't seeing a moon, I was seeing a translucent texture in the sky..
Reminds me of the first 3d game I made. It was a space racing game, and the course was enclosed in a giant skybox. The inner surfaces of the skybox had various textures on them, planets and nebulae and things like that. The stars were small white cubes pushed back to near the skybox, so all of the "stars" ended up being in front of the skybox textures.
Yeah, I'm sure there are actually people spoofing, but when you're talking about aggregate usage numbers where the sample size is tens or hundreds of millions, you're talking about a.01 or.001 percent difference, it's just not statistically significant. Your example was accessing a Canadian insurance website from your Linux computer, you've got to admit that's a fringe case. Frankly, if a website can't manage to set up a cross-platform application, I doubt they're tracking usage for reporting in these types of studies. I used to have Opera spoof when I went to my bank site, but I haven't had to do that for years. I did it in the past for a while on a single site, but it's not something I practice. I would rather Opera shows up in their logs, just in case they actually look at them.
I started insulting. And specifically to make a point.
Point taken, I thought you were just being belligerent.
Well, that "I shouldn't need to tell you, but" thing comes across that way...
Hmm.. perhaps that's how I picked up my new freak.
You also took my random bad words and replaced them with specific, chosen to be hurtful, descriptions. I'll live, I think, but you didn't respond in kind.
Well, I'm not going to respond to flaming with more flaming. I prefer a precision strike over carpet-bombing;) Of course, that's not to imply that I was intentionally trying to inflict emotional distress..
We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.
I don't know where you live, but I assumed that was already the case. It's true where I live, if they don't have a picture of you driving, or if the picture is of someone else, you don't have to pay.
You're telling me there are places where that's not true? Hell, I have 3 outstanding tickets where it does show my face, but I still won't pay because no one ever served me the papers. About half the people in my state who receive photo tickets decide not to pay them, in fact. They used to serve each complaint but apparently stopped doing that at some point.
Or a business, or a phone, or a satellite card, or a router..
Regardless, some courts seem to think that they can in fact identify a single person. That's the entire basis of the RIAA's lawsuits, that downloads originating from a certain IP address implicate a specific person.
If you consider that an overzealous policeman could cite you for anything, and there'd be a closest law to it however tenuous the connection, then you could say that there's a law for everything.
Right, if you're considering extreme cases. I know my original one-liner didn't explicitly consider anything, but I was thinking it!
Or, if you would agree that laws can be over-broadly applied it implies that not all uses of the law are reasonable or valid
Without a doubt. Sort of like charging someone with intentional infliction of emotional distress for calling someone's mother a cunt. It's a waste of time (including apparently yours and mine), but that's not to say it doesn't happen.
You seem to be operating on the anything-possibly-questionable-is-forbidden model.
That's not me at all, I'm highly libertarian, my original poorly-stated point was that people actually use this law to remedy getting butthurt, not that I would advocate it. It's hard to fit all of my views into one line, lesson learned, I was just responding to a guy claiming that you can't charge someone with a crime for insulting you. People do.
So you went to my site browsing for material
If people picking arguments with me are going to post links to their personal information, I'm going to take the opportunity to educate myself.
got insulting
Live and let live. Converse is also true.
and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it
I don't really think of myself as pompous, but if that's how I came off it's the only thing I'll apologize for.
I really doubt there are many people spoofing their user agent. Opera made that easy to do, but not a lot of people even use Opera, let alone using Opera while spoofing IE. I doubt many Firefox users are spoofing IE also, Firefox is big enough that nearly any website that works in IE also works in Firefox (if I find a site that doesn't work in Opera, like GoDaddy's stupid nameserver update process, I try it in Firefox before IE).
So, my point is that there's no reason to believe that a statistically significant number of users are actually spoofing their user agent string. It's possible to do, but there's no reason to believe people are actually doing it.
I didn't suggest it as a remedy for a trivial insult. The original statement I was replying to:
There is no law against me walking up to your mother and calling her a cunt
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult. That's not something I personally would use that law for, my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress when a fat, sword-toting walking Unix stereotype calls me a festering retard, but the fact is that people within the United States use that law for relatively minor grievances. They are watering the law down, and I'm not one of them.
To put a fine point on it - I'm not suggesting the law as a remedy for a trivial insult. I'm pointing out that there exists a law which other people do in fact use that way.
It's ridiculous that a few unfriendly words from someone you don't even know could be so extreme as to cause a normal person severe distress.
Yes, it's ridiculous to me, but like I also pointed out, that's what judges and juries are for, and I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
If I was uncivil I'd be kicking down your door and punctuating this with violence, or threatening to do so.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you also, but it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are, or otherwise flinging insults. I understand that you probably don't get a lot of social contact, but it's considered a civil norm to refrain from insults in a casual conversation, especially a conversation with someone whom you don't know.
But that's my point, you'd rather be offended by my words than simply address the content.
No, I'm happy to address the content, which is what all of my posts have done, to the point that you now conceded that the law that I originally pointed out does in fact exist and does in fact get used in the way in which I claimed. You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that. It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
Listen Freud, if I walked up to your mom and called her a cunt, regardless of whether or not she probably deserved it for producing someone like you, and the purpose of my doing that was to cause her to feel bad (cause emotional distress), she can press charges for that. That's exactly what the law says. That's not watering anything down, that's the law. The elements of the law are:
Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and Defendant's act is the cause of the distress; and Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
You might question whether calling your mother a cunt is "extreme and outrageous", it very well might not be, but that's why we have judges and juries.
I don't see people disagreeing with me as trolling, I'm all for civil discourse. What you're doing is not very civil.
Well congratulations, you read far too much into my one line. I mention that a law exists called "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", and apparently now I'm a fucking child, a fucking imbecile, and an asshole who wants to water the world down. Well done, that's one of the better trolls I've seen.
I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand the difference between "droning" and "fighting". I guess I have the mistaken assumption that when someone joins a player vs. player server that they're there to... I don't know, maybe fight another player?
It doesn't matter what the game is marketed as, but what the people who play it make it be.
Really? So I can buy a game on a certain premise of whatever it's advertised to be and, when it turns out to be a giant chat room, I can demand a refund from the publisher? How is the publisher going to react when their game has been reduced to a 3D chat room? If the publisher advertises one thing, and it turns out to be a giant chat room, isn't that false advertising?
We're on opposite sides of this. My MMO of choice is Second Life, where standing around and chatting is what I do 95% of the time.
I'm glad I have you here then. I have a question: why don't you chat in a regular chat program instead of a game designed to be used for something else (I'll concede that, for the purposes of this discussion, Second Life essentially is a giant chat room, I haven't been able to detect any actual traditional gameplay)?
If both teams agreed that what they want to do is to sit on the court and discuss the weather, then it sucks for you, and you're the one who gets off the court.
No, I don't think so, I'm going to kick those assholes off the court and, if they disagree, I'm going to call law enforcement into the matter. Hypothetically, they have the entire park to discuss the weather, they don't need to use the one place I have available to play the game I want to play. Ditto for online chatting vs. games. If you want to chat then fire up AOL, and get off my game server.
It doesn't matter what they market it as. What it matters is what people will pay for.
Yeah, OK. Call up the FTC and say that.
Many things are invented for one thing and then used for another. Kleenex was invented to remove makeup. The laryngoscope was invented by a singer to examine his vocal cords, and ended up being used for medicine.
..what? We already have plenty of chat rooms, why do you also need to screw up the game servers? You understand the difference between a chat server and a game server, right?
Actually he was not if you RTA. He was exploiting zone mechanics to deliberately annoy other players.
Thanks Mr. Condescension, but I actually did RTA (and several others about the same guy). He didn't exploit any mechanics, he went into a player-vs-player server and - surprise - started attacking other players. This is specifically how the game was designed to be played.
Answer this question for me: if the players get so butthurt when they get attacked, what are they doing in a PvP server?
Actually, it is. People play MMOs for the social interaction.
If you just want to kill stuff there's plenty single player games for that
Cmon now, look at how every single MMO is marketed.
WoW:
World of Warcraft is a living, breathing online adventure world with over 10 million players. Log into the World of Warcraft and join thousands of mighty heroes in an online world of myth, magic, and limitless adventure.
Eve Online:
No classes, no restrictions - players are not locked into a single path. Changing your career is as simple as learning new skills. All previously learned skills and abilities are still available to you.
Limitless opportunities to excel - player corporations are always looking for another market mogul, savvy diplomat, skilled fighter, or ambitious miner. Advancement among your peers is limitless.
Impact the Game World - Decisions you make have a rippling effect. Market prices, region control, and availability of resources all fluctuate and change based on player choices and behavior.
CoH:
City of Heroes brings the world of comic books alive in this massively multiplayer 3D online universe.
Craft your hero's identity and join millions of Hero characters in a constantly expanding universe, explore the sprawling online metropolis of Paragon City, and battle a host of foes including criminals, villains, and monsters.
In any of those examples, does it talk about standing around and chatting with people? These are marketed as playable games - games in which you join and interact with other characters in the game world to accomplish the tasks of the game, not to chat. When someone buys one of these games, they are buying the game with the expectation that they will be playing it, not chatting. I mean, is that what you really think MMOs have come to?
If you want to play a game, that's why we have single-player, if you want to chat, that's what multi-player is for. Don't mix them.
Let me clue you in on something that you're obviously not aware of: when a lot of people, including myself, play a game such as Counter Strike or Team Fortress, the main reason they play is for the team gameplay. I can play TF2 for several hours and never say anything to anyone (other than possibly trying to get people to do their job). The specific reason I play is for the team interaction. If I wasn't interested in that, I would play an offline game. The reason I prefer online games is so that I can play with intelligent people on my team supporting me or using my support. Not to stand around and chat with everyone. That's just stupid.
I would bet your claim of a win wouldn't be accepted in such a case.
Big deal. Obviously the other people there don't care about the game anyway. But they shouldn't stand in the way of people who do. In other words, if you don't want to play the game, get the hell off the court.
If however it's an informal gathering, and the two teams decided to have an impromptu break and chat with each other
Again, that's not a good analogy. In this case, the only thing the other people were doing was chatting. It wasn't an "impromptu break", it was the norm. It sounds more like a chat client where people might occasionally take an impromptu break to play a game. Which, again, is not what NCSoft is marketing as "City Of Heroes".
Slashdot Mirror
That doesn't justify that many people browsing the reference site using your test browser. People aren't mistakenly using IE6 to look up the HTML reference, they're using IE6 because that's what they always use. Look at the usage numbers, Firefox is almost at 50%, Chrome is already at 6%. That is indicative of web developers, not using a browser that is 9 years old. Web developers might be more likely to have IE6 installed, but they're not going to browse with it. Web developers are more likely to have a favorite browser to do all of their normal tasks in, and they'll use that one.
Also, I'm a web developer and don't have IE6 installed, on any of my machines. I have access to it, but not on any computer I use on a regular basis. The debugging tools in IE8 are much better for web developers than having IE6 available to test on.
The market share for IE6 is now well down in the single digits.
According to whom? Even on w3schools.com, which is visited almost exclusively by web developers, more than 14% of people are still using IE6.
See, but that's just assigning an arbitrary meaning to a number. 0 doesn't mean that other people haven't seen it, or that it's not ready, it means 0, nothing, the absence of a quantity. 1 means "the first". I just think that version numbers should be used exactly to say which revision of the programming you're dealing with, not to ascribe some arbitrary meaning to various digits.
I realize it's personal preference, but it irks me seeing applications with a version number less than 1. Yeah, it's fine to say "it's version 0.5 because it doesn't have all the features", but it's never going to have all the features you want or planned.
The way I see it, by definition, the first time you hit Compile, you're creating "The First Version" - version 1.0. As far as I'm concerned, it starts at 1.0, not 0.1 or 0.0.0.1 or whatever else. If it takes all the way to version 2.0 to get "all the features" you originally planned or wanted, fine, the application is now at version 2, why is that a problem? It seems like a lot of applications, especially in the open source world, insist on always having a version number less than one. A lot of times when I see that I feel that if the developer isn't confident enough to call their application "The First Version", there's no way I'm going to use it. That's probably putting more weight on version numbers than is intended, but version numbers are all about perception anyway (just ask Netscape 5).
And no, zero-based arrays are no excuse for now starting every numbering sequence with a zero. The word "first" is the ordinal form of the number one, not zero. By definition then, "The First Version" is version 1.
I don't buy it, I think it's just stupid. There's no good reason for any entity to sue itself, it's a waste of resources. You might as well just settle out of court with yourself, right? This is just a way for the lawyers to make money, with no real work being done that couldn't have been done without filing a lawsuit. I especially like this statement:
"Defendant admits that it is the owner and holder of a mortgage encumbering the subject real property," the answer reads. "All other allegations of the complaint are denied."
I love how the defendant (Wells Fargo) is denying the allegations made by the plaintiff (Wells Fargo). If they were just going to deny them, why did they bother making the allegations in the first place? This isn't Wells Fargo vs. Wells Fargo, it's one law firm vs. another, where both of them win because both of them get paid. If the law has this requirement for something to become valid, then obviously it's a stupid law for not having a loophole where if all loans are held by the same lender, you don't need to sue yourself. The only reason I could see that this would make sense is if there were additional lenders involved, e.g. if Wells had the first and second mortgages, and other lenders had a third or fourth mortgage. The article only talks about the two held by Wells, so it sounds like Wells is suing itself for no reason. It just seems really stupid. And taxpayers are paying to keep these people in business, because obviously they're so good at it.
Regardless of facts being left out, the company is still suing itself, which is demonstrably stupid.
If you're reinstalling drivers and rebooting Windows when your batteries die, well, that's not exactly the fault of the batteries. I definitely prefer a wired mouse at my desktop, because there's no reason I'll ever need to move it, but my laptop already has enough cords spouting off it, I don't need to add another one.
You really have those problems? First, changing batteries once every few months isn't exactly a big hassle. Second, who goes around dropping their mouse? Do you have some sort of seizures where your hand just spasms? Third, if you're troubleshooting why you just suddenly lost your signal, here's the answer: it's because the batteries ran out. Troubleshooting over. I've used a wireless mouse with my development laptop for the past year and a half and have zero problems, other than needing to change the batteries every few months (which isn't really a problem, since every day I can take advantage of the fact that there's no cord). In other words, I have zero mouse-related problems with my laptop, wireless or no.
In addition to the other examples given, the "Wanamingos" that inhabited the mine in one of the towns in Fallout 2.. I think it was Redding.. were identified as "Alien" when you targetted them. I think the 6-legged centaurs that hung around with Super Mutants were also identified the same.
Then again, it does breaks immersion to see something utterly unrealistic. I had such a moment playing Star Wars: Galaxies, when I realized I could see stars through moons! From that moment, I wasn't seeing a moon, I was seeing a translucent texture in the sky..
Reminds me of the first 3d game I made. It was a space racing game, and the course was enclosed in a giant skybox. The inner surfaces of the skybox had various textures on them, planets and nebulae and things like that. The stars were small white cubes pushed back to near the skybox, so all of the "stars" ended up being in front of the skybox textures.
Immersion is the difference between playing Bioshock and reading the storyline.
What if you legitimately don't know?
Yeah, I'm sure there are actually people spoofing, but when you're talking about aggregate usage numbers where the sample size is tens or hundreds of millions, you're talking about a .01 or .001 percent difference, it's just not statistically significant. Your example was accessing a Canadian insurance website from your Linux computer, you've got to admit that's a fringe case. Frankly, if a website can't manage to set up a cross-platform application, I doubt they're tracking usage for reporting in these types of studies. I used to have Opera spoof when I went to my bank site, but I haven't had to do that for years. I did it in the past for a while on a single site, but it's not something I practice. I would rather Opera shows up in their logs, just in case they actually look at them.
I started insulting. And specifically to make a point.
Point taken, I thought you were just being belligerent.
Well, that "I shouldn't need to tell you, but" thing comes across that way...
Hmm.. perhaps that's how I picked up my new freak.
You also took my random bad words and replaced them with specific, chosen to be hurtful, descriptions. I'll live, I think, but you didn't respond in kind.
Well, I'm not going to respond to flaming with more flaming. I prefer a precision strike over carpet-bombing ;) Of course, that's not to imply that I was intentionally trying to inflict emotional distress..
We should use this ruling as precedent to get out of automated tickets when there is no clear picture of your face.
I don't know where you live, but I assumed that was already the case. It's true where I live, if they don't have a picture of you driving, or if the picture is of someone else, you don't have to pay.
You're telling me there are places where that's not true? Hell, I have 3 outstanding tickets where it does show my face, but I still won't pay because no one ever served me the papers. About half the people in my state who receive photo tickets decide not to pay them, in fact. They used to serve each complaint but apparently stopped doing that at some point.
Or a business, or a phone, or a satellite card, or a router..
Regardless, some courts seem to think that they can in fact identify a single person. That's the entire basis of the RIAA's lawsuits, that downloads originating from a certain IP address implicate a specific person.
If you consider that an overzealous policeman could cite you for anything, and there'd be a closest law to it however tenuous the connection, then you could say that there's a law for everything.
Right, if you're considering extreme cases. I know my original one-liner didn't explicitly consider anything, but I was thinking it!
Or, if you would agree that laws can be over-broadly applied it implies that not all uses of the law are reasonable or valid
Without a doubt. Sort of like charging someone with intentional infliction of emotional distress for calling someone's mother a cunt. It's a waste of time (including apparently yours and mine), but that's not to say it doesn't happen.
You seem to be operating on the anything-possibly-questionable-is-forbidden model.
That's not me at all, I'm highly libertarian, my original poorly-stated point was that people actually use this law to remedy getting butthurt, not that I would advocate it. It's hard to fit all of my views into one line, lesson learned, I was just responding to a guy claiming that you can't charge someone with a crime for insulting you. People do.
So you went to my site browsing for material
If people picking arguments with me are going to post links to their personal information, I'm going to take the opportunity to educate myself.
got insulting
Live and let live. Converse is also true.
and acted all pompous and holier-than-thou just for the hell of it
I don't really think of myself as pompous, but if that's how I came off it's the only thing I'll apologize for.
I really doubt there are many people spoofing their user agent. Opera made that easy to do, but not a lot of people even use Opera, let alone using Opera while spoofing IE. I doubt many Firefox users are spoofing IE also, Firefox is big enough that nearly any website that works in IE also works in Firefox (if I find a site that doesn't work in Opera, like GoDaddy's stupid nameserver update process, I try it in Firefox before IE).
So, my point is that there's no reason to believe that a statistically significant number of users are actually spoofing their user agent string. It's possible to do, but there's no reason to believe people are actually doing it.
I didn't suggest it as a remedy for a trivial insult. The original statement I was replying to:
There is no law against me walking up to your mother and calling her a cunt
That is not a correct statement, there is such a law, which I've pointed out, which sometimes gets broadly applied by certain people to do just that - remedy a trivial insult. That's not something I personally would use that law for, my sensibilities are not so easily offended as to cause me emotional distress when a fat, sword-toting walking Unix stereotype calls me a festering retard, but the fact is that people within the United States use that law for relatively minor grievances. They are watering the law down, and I'm not one of them.
To put a fine point on it - I'm not suggesting the law as a remedy for a trivial insult. I'm pointing out that there exists a law which other people do in fact use that way.
It's ridiculous that a few unfriendly words from someone you don't even know could be so extreme as to cause a normal person severe distress.
Yes, it's ridiculous to me, but like I also pointed out, that's what judges and juries are for, and I can imagine plenty of sympathetic juries who would consider "aggressive" use of the word "cunt" as being "extreme".
If I was uncivil I'd be kicking down your door and punctuating this with violence, or threatening to do so.
It doesn't surprise me that I have to point this out to you also, but it is widely considered uncivil to go around addressing people the way you are, or otherwise flinging insults. I understand that you probably don't get a lot of social contact, but it's considered a civil norm to refrain from insults in a casual conversation, especially a conversation with someone whom you don't know.
But that's my point, you'd rather be offended by my words than simply address the content.
No, I'm happy to address the content, which is what all of my posts have done, to the point that you now conceded that the law that I originally pointed out does in fact exist and does in fact get used in the way in which I claimed. You just seem to be under the mistaken assumption that I'm a type of person that I'm actually not, and enjoy insulting me because of that. It's not offensive to me when someone insults me for a perceived reason which isn't actually true (i.e., ignorance).
Listen Freud, if I walked up to your mom and called her a cunt, regardless of whether or not she probably deserved it for producing someone like you, and the purpose of my doing that was to cause her to feel bad (cause emotional distress), she can press charges for that. That's exactly what the law says. That's not watering anything down, that's the law. The elements of the law are:
Defendant acted intentionally or recklessly; and
Defendant's conduct was extreme and outrageous; and
Defendant's act is the cause of the distress; and
Plaintiff suffers severe emotional distress as a result of defendant's conduct.
You might question whether calling your mother a cunt is "extreme and outrageous", it very well might not be, but that's why we have judges and juries.
I don't see people disagreeing with me as trolling, I'm all for civil discourse. What you're doing is not very civil.
Well congratulations, you read far too much into my one line. I mention that a law exists called "Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress", and apparently now I'm a fucking child, a fucking imbecile, and an asshole who wants to water the world down. Well done, that's one of the better trolls I've seen.
I'm sorry, I guess I don't understand the difference between "droning" and "fighting". I guess I have the mistaken assumption that when someone joins a player vs. player server that they're there to ... I don't know, maybe fight another player?
It doesn't matter what the game is marketed as, but what the people who play it make it be.
Really? So I can buy a game on a certain premise of whatever it's advertised to be and, when it turns out to be a giant chat room, I can demand a refund from the publisher? How is the publisher going to react when their game has been reduced to a 3D chat room? If the publisher advertises one thing, and it turns out to be a giant chat room, isn't that false advertising?
We're on opposite sides of this. My MMO of choice is Second Life, where standing around and chatting is what I do 95% of the time.
I'm glad I have you here then. I have a question: why don't you chat in a regular chat program instead of a game designed to be used for something else (I'll concede that, for the purposes of this discussion, Second Life essentially is a giant chat room, I haven't been able to detect any actual traditional gameplay)?
If both teams agreed that what they want to do is to sit on the court and discuss the weather, then it sucks for you, and you're the one who gets off the court.
No, I don't think so, I'm going to kick those assholes off the court and, if they disagree, I'm going to call law enforcement into the matter. Hypothetically, they have the entire park to discuss the weather, they don't need to use the one place I have available to play the game I want to play. Ditto for online chatting vs. games. If you want to chat then fire up AOL, and get off my game server.
It doesn't matter what they market it as. What it matters is what people will pay for.
Yeah, OK. Call up the FTC and say that.
Many things are invented for one thing and then used for another. Kleenex was invented to remove makeup. The laryngoscope was invented by a singer to examine his vocal cords, and ended up being used for medicine.
..what? We already have plenty of chat rooms, why do you also need to screw up the game servers? You understand the difference between a chat server and a game server, right?
Actually he was not if you RTA. He was exploiting zone mechanics to deliberately annoy other players.
Thanks Mr. Condescension, but I actually did RTA (and several others about the same guy). He didn't exploit any mechanics, he went into a player-vs-player server and - surprise - started attacking other players. This is specifically how the game was designed to be played.
Answer this question for me: if the players get so butthurt when they get attacked, what are they doing in a PvP server?
Actually, it is. People play MMOs for the social interaction.
If you just want to kill stuff there's plenty single player games for that
Cmon now, look at how every single MMO is marketed.
WoW:
World of Warcraft is a living, breathing online adventure world with over 10 million players. Log into the World of Warcraft and join thousands of mighty heroes in an online world of myth, magic, and limitless adventure.
Eve Online:
No classes, no restrictions - players are not locked into a single path. Changing your career is as simple as learning new skills. All previously learned skills and abilities are still available to you.
Limitless opportunities to excel - player corporations are always looking for another market mogul, savvy diplomat, skilled fighter, or ambitious miner. Advancement among your peers is limitless.
Impact the Game World - Decisions you make have a rippling effect. Market prices, region control, and availability of resources all fluctuate and change based on player choices and behavior.
CoH:
City of Heroes brings the world of comic books alive in this massively multiplayer 3D online universe.
Craft your hero's identity and join millions of Hero characters in a constantly expanding universe, explore the sprawling online metropolis of Paragon City, and battle a host of foes including criminals, villains, and monsters.
In any of those examples, does it talk about standing around and chatting with people? These are marketed as playable games - games in which you join and interact with other characters in the game world to accomplish the tasks of the game, not to chat. When someone buys one of these games, they are buying the game with the expectation that they will be playing it, not chatting. I mean, is that what you really think MMOs have come to?
If you want to play a game, that's why we have single-player, if you want to chat, that's what multi-player is for. Don't mix them.
Let me clue you in on something that you're obviously not aware of: when a lot of people, including myself, play a game such as Counter Strike or Team Fortress, the main reason they play is for the team gameplay. I can play TF2 for several hours and never say anything to anyone (other than possibly trying to get people to do their job). The specific reason I play is for the team interaction. If I wasn't interested in that, I would play an offline game. The reason I prefer online games is so that I can play with intelligent people on my team supporting me or using my support. Not to stand around and chat with everyone. That's just stupid.
I would bet your claim of a win wouldn't be accepted in such a case.
Big deal. Obviously the other people there don't care about the game anyway. But they shouldn't stand in the way of people who do. In other words, if you don't want to play the game, get the hell off the court.
If however it's an informal gathering, and the two teams decided to have an impromptu break and chat with each other
Again, that's not a good analogy. In this case, the only thing the other people were doing was chatting. It wasn't an "impromptu break", it was the norm. It sounds more like a chat client where people might occasionally take an impromptu break to play a game. Which, again, is not what NCSoft is marketing as "City Of Heroes".