Doubt it. Past Diablo games definitely had an offline single player mode, and this one forces you to be online. I see no reason they'd not include an offline mode instead of forcing everyone to be online.
No, but I'm a member of a fairly large community of hackers, none of whom have ever had any keys unrightly banned.
This is about false positives, not about actual cheaters getting banned. Even if 100% of cheaters got banned, that would not mean that no innocents got banned.
I'm tired of people bitching about the internet connection requirement...do you really disconnect your computer from the internet often when gaming?
Not everyone has a decent internet connection. Not everyone is always in a place with a decent internet connection. Not everyone's internet connection is always working. This isn't an MMO, and there is no reason for this nonsensical DRM; just separate offline and online accounts.
False dilemma. He could also not be lying, and also not want to see a 12 year old in a porn movie. You know, it almost seems as if you're implying that all parents are irrational morons...
Yes, you can play solo, but that is not the intention of how the game is supposed to be played.
It does not matter how they intended the game to be played. What matters is how the player (the one who actually owns the game) wishes to play it, and there happens to be a single player made (playing alone, single player mode, whatever you wish to call it).
You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
No, I don't. And I certainly don't think it's reason enough to ban anonymity altogether for everyone.
Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
It is difficult. I'm sure both people might believe they're correct, but neither necessarily are.
There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct?
That depends on how you define "wing-nut" and who gets to define it. More than likely, I believe, such a power will be abused.
In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
Whether it's "vital" or not would depend on who you ask.
Common Sense
Saying that something is "common sense" is meaningless. It doesn't mean that it's common, obvious, or correct.
Looks like anonymity will have to be removed everywhere because someone, somewhere will always think it kills "rational discourse" (in other words, things they don't like are said).
Yes! He doesn't agree with you so he's not acting in reality! By saying this, you have completely and utterly defeated him and proven that his subjective opinion is 100% objectively incorrect.
While I generally agree with your point I do think there are times when punishing people who have not actually harmed anyone else yet is right.
I realize you replied to a part of my comment that mentioned "maybes," but I don't think that applies. In one situation, someone is putting others' lives in danger (which has been proven), and in the other, they're not (or, at least, it certainly hasn't been proven in this specific case). Not only that, but I view it as a complete waste of time to go after someone looking at pictures, and believe that the ones doing the raping (the ones hurting the children) should be the ones punished. Actually, in this case, the rapist is indeed the one doing the damage (like a drunk driver might), not the person looking at images.
The point is that each citizen has the right to express their opinion in any public forum.
That's great that you're the only person allowed to define what free speech is. When you say "free speech," you're not telling me what you mean. What kind of speech is free? If you just leave it at "free speech," that, to me, implies all speech.
Don't mix up things with the consequences.
Almost all things have consequences. Whether the "consequences" of the speech are enough of a reason for the government to arrest you is another matter.
While somebody can be persecuted for telling a lie, nobody is allowed to restrict people from speaking publicly just because they may lie.
Well, no. But either way, somebody is prosecuted for their speech. It makes no difference, and that is a limitation on speech (whether you agree with it or not).
"It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception." "So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?"
You asked. I was speaking of absolute freedom of speech there.
And that particular point seems to me like such an obvious given that I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to point out.
Is that so? I've seen people who feel otherwise. If you feel that way, then there is no problem to me.
I'm not asking an endless series of "but, why?" questions here.
I don't believe it matters. Your reasoning is very likely just as arbitrary as anyone else's.
If someone is going to assert that certain ideals are important above and beyond all other ideals
Well, I don't do that. I believe it's just my own personal opinion.
then it indicates that they've simply accepted a belief system as a matter of faith or emotion.
Much like just about any preference.
note! an explanation, a reason
But whether such reasons or explanations are "good" is up for the individual to decide. "Why do you care about that?"
So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?
It depends on the liberty in question. But I believe someone shouldn't be blamed for the individual actions of others due to things they said previously because it ignores the people who caused the actual damage: those who acted on the speech without question.
It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception.
Why don't you? For each response you give, I could keep asking you why. Eventually, there will very likely come a point where you no longer know the answer (or you begin engaging in circular reasoning).
I asked you what I believe is a valid question: what is "good reasoning"? Is it something that you agree with? What exactly would it take to make you think that something has "good reasoning"? What if someone told you that it's simply something that they themselves prefer? In what way is that not valid?
We are talking about preferences here. I see nothing objective about this.
Wanting to protect your children is one thing. Reacting to every situation involving the possibility of harm to children with irrationality is another. I suppose one of those could aid in the continuation of the species, but the other doesn't help much (I can't think of an instance where not thinking rationally is helpful) and often makes the person extremely easy to control.
Your right to liberty does NOT trump a child's right to be safe from that kind of abuse.
So, in other words, "for the children" we must give up freedoms. I disagree entirely. The fact that a few people are getting hurt is not, to me, a reason to prefer safety over freedom.
But I do not believe a child has a right to be free from that kind of abuse at the expense of my own freedoms. In one case, it is criminals who are infringing upon the child's "right," and in the other, it's the government taking away your liberty to stop the criminal. There is a difference.
You can't logically say "find the people doing this and hold them responsible" in one breath; and in the next breath say "oh, but don't compromise anybody's anonymity to do it".
You can do so very easily: "Attempt to find the people doing this in ways that don't violate anyone's freedoms."
Freedom != anonymity;
Anonymity certainly helps protect people, though.
responsibility which anonymity allows us to evade all too easily.
Taking it away is very similar to collective punishment. You're punishing not only the supposed criminals, but innocent people using it for other reasons, too. And the reasons for doing so seemingly stem from emotion more often than not.
For example, maybe if people watch cp enough they will want to try it out with their own kids or other children.
I think that's about as valid as saying that someone who watches pornography will go off and rape someone simply because they don't have anyone to have sex with. I haven't seen any evidence (which I believe is incredibly important) to support such a thing.
Slashdot Mirror
You have not rights to demand anything.
Well, that's just a straw man. No one ever said that you do.
I said that the player is free to play the game how they wish (provided it's possible to play it that way).
If you don't like it play something else.
You can, however, criticize whatever you wish.
So World of Warcraft has a single player mode.
Doubt it. Past Diablo games definitely had an offline single player mode, and this one forces you to be online. I see no reason they'd not include an offline mode instead of forcing everyone to be online.
it has to be online to prevent people cheating in the online space.
Well, that worked!
possible as a DRM scheme.
I find this and greed to be a very likely explanation.
i would think it's closer to the former as the whole game was designed to be multiplayer.
Then there is no point in allowing people to play alone at all.
No it does not have a single player mode.
Yes, it does.
every charachter you create has the ability to interact with other charachters and is thus a multiplayer charachter.
You also have the possibility to play in single-player mode.
This, to me, is clearly DRM and/or greed-inspired nonsense. I won't support any game like it, and I'll tell others to avoid it.
You are both just being pedantic, really.
I disagree. I see no value in the DRM, and see no reason that it always has to be online. To me, Blizzard's reasons and excuses are clearly nonsense.
They allow players to play alone if they like, but that does not mean the game is "single-player".
The entire game is not single-player, but there is a single-player mode. I see no reason for the DRM other than paranoia and greed.
No, but I'm a member of a fairly large community of hackers, none of whom have ever had any keys unrightly banned.
This is about false positives, not about actual cheaters getting banned. Even if 100% of cheaters got banned, that would not mean that no innocents got banned.
If you had a clue on how games are designed I wouldnt have to explain to you how stupid you sound.
I don't even know what you're talking about. I simply responded to someone who was stating that the game is "supposed" to be played in a certain way.
I'm tired of people bitching about the internet connection requirement...do you really disconnect your computer from the internet often when gaming?
Not everyone has a decent internet connection. Not everyone is always in a place with a decent internet connection. Not everyone's internet connection is always working. This isn't an MMO, and there is no reason for this nonsensical DRM; just separate offline and online accounts.
Anyone saying otherwise is simply lying.
But... what if they're not lying, and you yourself simply haven't experienced it? Things that you haven't personally experienced can't happen?
Or doesn't have a 12 year old.
False dilemma. He could also not be lying, and also not want to see a 12 year old in a porn movie. You know, it almost seems as if you're implying that all parents are irrational morons...
Yes, you can play solo, but that is not the intention of how the game is supposed to be played.
It does not matter how they intended the game to be played. What matters is how the player (the one who actually owns the game) wishes to play it, and there happens to be a single player made (playing alone, single player mode, whatever you wish to call it).
There are no cheaters. The worthless DRM stops them from existing!
You do not believe that there is a difference between things being said that I don't like, and things that are said repeatedly, and repeatedly off-topic?
No, I don't. And I certainly don't think it's reason enough to ban anonymity altogether for everyone.
Is there no way to tell the difference between statements supported by facts, and claims that the gub'ment wants us dead?
It is difficult. I'm sure both people might believe they're correct, but neither necessarily are.
There is a distinct difference between a protester here in the states that posts in on-line forums with facts and figures related to human rights abuses in the United States, and a wing-nut who posts ALL-CAPS rants, correct?
That depends on how you define "wing-nut" and who gets to define it. More than likely, I believe, such a power will be abused.
In the case of a small-town paper being hounded by someone who wants to do nothing more than piss people off to make his sad existence seem worthwhile, well, maybe anonymity isn't that vital.
Whether it's "vital" or not would depend on who you ask.
Common Sense
Saying that something is "common sense" is meaningless. It doesn't mean that it's common, obvious, or correct.
Looks like anonymity will have to be removed everywhere because someone, somewhere will always think it kills "rational discourse" (in other words, things they don't like are said).
you're not acting in reality
Yes! He doesn't agree with you so he's not acting in reality! By saying this, you have completely and utterly defeated him and proven that his subjective opinion is 100% objectively incorrect.
While I generally agree with your point I do think there are times when punishing people who have not actually harmed anyone else yet is right.
I realize you replied to a part of my comment that mentioned "maybes," but I don't think that applies. In one situation, someone is putting others' lives in danger (which has been proven), and in the other, they're not (or, at least, it certainly hasn't been proven in this specific case). Not only that, but I view it as a complete waste of time to go after someone looking at pictures, and believe that the ones doing the raping (the ones hurting the children) should be the ones punished. Actually, in this case, the rapist is indeed the one doing the damage (like a drunk driver might), not the person looking at images.
The point is that each citizen has the right to express their opinion in any public forum.
That's great that you're the only person allowed to define what free speech is. When you say "free speech," you're not telling me what you mean. What kind of speech is free? If you just leave it at "free speech," that, to me, implies all speech.
Don't mix up things with the consequences.
Almost all things have consequences. Whether the "consequences" of the speech are enough of a reason for the government to arrest you is another matter.
While somebody can be persecuted for telling a lie, nobody is allowed to restrict people from speaking publicly just because they may lie.
Well, no. But either way, somebody is prosecuted for their speech. It makes no difference, and that is a limitation on speech (whether you agree with it or not).
What exactly are you talking about?
"It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception."
"So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?"
You asked. I was speaking of absolute freedom of speech there.
And that particular point seems to me like such an obvious given that I don't understand why you felt it was necessary to point out.
Is that so? I've seen people who feel otherwise. If you feel that way, then there is no problem to me.
I'm not asking an endless series of "but, why?" questions here.
I don't believe it matters. Your reasoning is very likely just as arbitrary as anyone else's.
If someone is going to assert that certain ideals are important above and beyond all other ideals
Well, I don't do that. I believe it's just my own personal opinion.
then it indicates that they've simply accepted a belief system as a matter of faith or emotion.
Much like just about any preference.
note! an explanation, a reason
But whether such reasons or explanations are "good" is up for the individual to decide. "Why do you care about that?"
So there you have my reasoning. What's yours?
It depends on the liberty in question. But I believe someone shouldn't be blamed for the individual actions of others due to things they said previously because it ignores the people who caused the actual damage: those who acted on the speech without question.
It appears that you are unable to explain why you too, apparently and like GP, value "liberty and freedom of speech" above all else, without exception.
Why don't you? For each response you give, I could keep asking you why. Eventually, there will very likely come a point where you no longer know the answer (or you begin engaging in circular reasoning).
I asked you what I believe is a valid question: what is "good reasoning"? Is it something that you agree with? What exactly would it take to make you think that something has "good reasoning"? What if someone told you that it's simply something that they themselves prefer? In what way is that not valid?
We are talking about preferences here. I see nothing objective about this.
Wanting to protect your children is one thing. Reacting to every situation involving the possibility of harm to children with irrationality is another. I suppose one of those could aid in the continuation of the species, but the other doesn't help much (I can't think of an instance where not thinking rationally is helpful) and often makes the person extremely easy to control.
Living a life of dignity seems more valuable than freedom of speech in many cases where the two things conflict.
"valuable" being subjective.
Easy example: the Westboro Baptist Church hate demonstrations.
Is that an easy example? I value freedom of speech there.
I'd like to hear some very good reasoning behind it.
What is "good reasoning"? Something that you agree with?
Your right to liberty does NOT trump a child's right to be safe from that kind of abuse.
So, in other words, "for the children" we must give up freedoms. I disagree entirely. The fact that a few people are getting hurt is not, to me, a reason to prefer safety over freedom.
But I do not believe a child has a right to be free from that kind of abuse at the expense of my own freedoms. In one case, it is criminals who are infringing upon the child's "right," and in the other, it's the government taking away your liberty to stop the criminal. There is a difference.
You can't logically say "find the people doing this and hold them responsible" in one breath; and in the next breath say "oh, but don't compromise anybody's anonymity to do it".
You can do so very easily: "Attempt to find the people doing this in ways that don't violate anyone's freedoms."
Freedom != anonymity;
Anonymity certainly helps protect people, though.
responsibility which anonymity allows us to evade all too easily.
Taking it away is very similar to collective punishment. You're punishing not only the supposed criminals, but innocent people using it for other reasons, too. And the reasons for doing so seemingly stem from emotion more often than not.
For example, maybe if people watch cp enough they will want to try it out with their own kids or other children.
I think that's about as valid as saying that someone who watches pornography will go off and rape someone simply because they don't have anyone to have sex with. I haven't seen any evidence (which I believe is incredibly important) to support such a thing.