World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
World of Warcraft hobby sparks US political row
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19842704
13 comments
I've had a lot of fun explaining why it's important to reap your zombie children on many occasions.
maybe a better example would be anything to with "master" "slave" relationships.
A coworker and I were de-duping records in a database. One of us said while pairing on the script "well, every slave needs a master."
An african american woman in the office turned to us and said "maybe it's the master who needs the slave?"
She wasn't really offend or anything and she said it with a sincere smile. She was just calling out our idiotic computer lingo for what it was.
After apologizing feeling like complete idiots we quickly changed our terminology both in words and in the script to parent/child.
An african american woman in the office turned to us and said "maybe it's the master who needs the slave?"
She wasn't really offend or anything and she said it with a sincere smile. She was just calling out our idiotic computer lingo for what it was.
After apologizing feeling like complete idiots we quickly changed our terminology both in words and in the script to parent/child.
Los Angeles county tried to ban master/slave terminology on computer equipment... http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/ptech/11/26/master.term.reut/
And then there's the Chaos Monkey who randomly kills anything in sight.
"Is there a good way to ensure that all the children are killed when the parent dies?"
"Oh so you believe in automatic garbage collection? You despicable, good for nothing 47%er! Take out your own garbage by hand!"
I can't believe how ridiculous this is. I think that this will definitely just earn her a bigger following among her fellow players and only alienate the older crowd who wouldn't like her anyway.
Politics makes me sick.
Politics makes me sick.
> bigger following among her fellow players
Most of which don't vote.
> and only alienate the older crowd
Most of whom do vote.
Most of which don't vote.
> and only alienate the older crowd
Most of whom do vote.
"who wouldn't like her anyway" Yea you missed that part, because it's true. Most of the older crowd in Maine are hard core conservative republicans.
Thanks, that was my point.
Isn't the average gamer a 30 year old male, fully capable of voting? In this case I think the "older crowd" are baby boomers. People born in the 70's and 80's grew up with video games, so I'm guessing they played/still play them/can identify with gamers.
This is state senate, so the districts are pretty small. 35 districts in a state of a million or so people. If it's anything like 99.99% of the state senate races in the US, most of the voters in that district probably didn't even know she was running. She's not even the incumbent, so she didn't have that going for her. If there's ever races that favor incumbents, it's state government seats. People just push the incumbent button.
So what could have triggered this? Was she really that much of a threat?
Seems like a small state party just screwed up and brought attention to someone that very likely would have lost anyway. Now it's interesting.
Seems to be semi-rural, from google maps...
EDIT- corrected suburban to semi-rural
So what could have triggered this? Was she really that much of a threat?
Seems like a small state party just screwed up and brought attention to someone that very likely would have lost anyway. Now it's interesting.
Seems to be semi-rural, from google maps...
EDIT- corrected suburban to semi-rural
If you're resulting to insulting someones orc in a political campaign, you're clearly running desperately.
Correct!
What matters is whatever they are blabbering about actually gets them out of office or paints a negative picture to enough people that it makes a difference.
If it is not effective, that's when things get interesting, I believe. It could mean a number of things; younger people are voting more, games are becoming more widely accepted as not a bad thing, for instance.
In the latter case, one could argue that the perpetrators are very much out of touch.
What matters is whatever they are blabbering about actually gets them out of office or paints a negative picture to enough people that it makes a difference.
If it is not effective, that's when things get interesting, I believe. It could mean a number of things; younger people are voting more, games are becoming more widely accepted as not a bad thing, for instance.
In the latter case, one could argue that the perpetrators are very much out of touch.
If it works (and I hope it doesn't) then I guess it can be viewed as a successful way to win, but it's a bit desperate if they're resorting to attacking something like that over policy or similar.
If it doesn't work, I hope for the most part it means the wider population assumes she'd be good at her job and what she does online is her own business, but if it means younger people think of voting that's also a good thing.
If it doesn't work, I hope for the most part it means the wider population assumes she'd be good at her job and what she does online is her own business, but if it means younger people think of voting that's also a good thing.
If it didn't say BBC at the top, I'd assume this was an Onion article.
I'd vote for her because, you know, For the Horde!
I'd vote for her because, you know, For the Horde!
The main thing that this will probably achieve is pissing of WOW players who are eligable to vote in US elections.
I really hope that what will happen now is that those who do not care about games will do not care about this, and the gamers will be pissed, voting for her. Also as others have pointed on reddit the fact that she managed to get in a good position have a family and play a game show that she knows how to manage her time.
Personally, knowing that a politician plays video games in their spare time makes me want to vote for them! It means they are more likely to be able to identify with my demographic.
Video games are fine. For me, WoW crosses a line to addictive obsession. I don't think games like WoW are good for society in general, just because they are too addictive and consuming. Before you know it, you've lost 5 years of your life and achieved nothing.
Key words "for me". Just because you can't manage to control your habits doesn't mean the game is "bad for society in general".
I played WoW for 5 years - usually never for more then 5-6 hours a week. In that time I freelanced and was rather successful for it. I also got married, bought a condo, and did many other things happy productive people did.
I got mocked by friends who insisted I was addicted when they were paying 100-200 dollars a month on new games and spending upwards of 20+ hours a week playing them.
edit: don't play anymore because that type of game is now like melba toast to me. No amount of jam can make melba toast taste good.
I played WoW for 5 years - usually never for more then 5-6 hours a week. In that time I freelanced and was rather successful for it. I also got married, bought a condo, and did many other things happy productive people did.
I got mocked by friends who insisted I was addicted when they were paying 100-200 dollars a month on new games and spending upwards of 20+ hours a week playing them.
edit: don't play anymore because that type of game is now like melba toast to me. No amount of jam can make melba toast taste good.
I think that's more about the player than the game. Most people would consider Halo a pretty casual game, but I've lived with people that played 4-5 hours of it per day (on average). Similarly, I used to play WoW for a few hours per week, and then just got bored and stopped. Not exactly addictive.
I think a case could be made that games like WoW are designed to attract and exploit addictive personalities. The WoW playerbase probably contains a higher percentage of addicts than most other games, since the game's quest structure is fine-tuned to balance the frequency and quality of rewards. That said, you're absolutely right, this does not mean that everyone who plays WoW is a basement-dwelling addict.
WoW is ethically worse than, say, Mario, but better than a slot machine, which is in turn better than everything from Zynga.
How are ethics involved in WoW? (Sincere question)
Game design can quite trivially trigger obsessive and compulsive responses and progressively increase time/money commitment to the next 'hit'. (see: Zynga)
Before Zynga and before free to play games were popular, MMO's like WoW were the default case study for arguments about where the line is, between a pass-time and a conditioning chamber.
Before Zynga and before free to play games were popular, MMO's like WoW were the default case study for arguments about where the line is, between a pass-time and a conditioning chamber.
Oh, I mean in the sense that it is manipulating players into continuing, I think it's ethically questionable.
See, as somebody who was addicted to the game for a few years during college, I don't see how it is manipulating anybody? The game is fun and it has a lot of content and they keep adding content. It was MY lack of self control that led to me playing the long hours I did, it had NOTHING to do with Blizzards "manipulation".
Blizzard is in the business of making money through making games. It is in their interest to keep users playing month to month because of their recurring fee. In order to do that, they need to keep the game fresh so they introduce a lot of content. People want to play this new content so they keep playing.
Blizzard is in the business of making money through making games. It is in their interest to keep users playing month to month because of their recurring fee. In order to do that, they need to keep the game fresh so they introduce a lot of content. People want to play this new content so they keep playing.
The idea of manipulation in games is when they add specifically add game elements meant to keep the user in the game, and encourage them never to leave. Sure it's all a matter of self-control. Not losing your life-savings at a casino is also about self-control. That doesn't mean that casinos can't do ethically dubious things to take advantage of people without self-control.
E.g. The inside of a casino always looks the same, even at night. No windows (being near the entrance is the exception), lots of bright lights. It makes it easier for a gambler to lose track of time.
E.g. The inside of a casino always looks the same, even at night. No windows (being near the entrance is the exception), lots of bright lights. It makes it easier for a gambler to lose track of time.
If she posted "I played WoW all day and did not do any work" on the face that is a genuine ping on her work ethic. You have to look and see what kind of "work" she does though to ascertain that and other details like did she bill her time anyway.
I agree with your assessment, but the "social games" (Farmville etc.) probably have the highest percentage of addicts, since being an addictive drug is essentially their purpose.
I'd say it may be less about addiction and more about escapism. The problem being that unlike other video games/books/etc, the story doesn't end, but keeps on going. This allows the escapist to allow themselves to be engulfed by the world.
While I absolutely get your point about addictiveness (indeed many games are designed to be addictive) I've always found it odd when people complain that time spent gaming is "wasted" moreso than other hobbies. I don't think I've ever looked at someone who makes model train sets and thought "now there's an accomplishment!" I've never heard about someone buying a stamp and went "well, I bet their parents are proud!"
Both of those are perfectly fine hobbies, and I bet people interested in them absolutely have skills and accomplishments they're proud of. And that's fine. I may not get the hobbies, but I'm certainly not going to judge the value of how they spend their spare time. That's for them to determine if they're happy with. And I'll worry about my spare time.
Both of those are perfectly fine hobbies, and I bet people interested in them absolutely have skills and accomplishments they're proud of. And that's fine. I may not get the hobbies, but I'm certainly not going to judge the value of how they spend their spare time. That's for them to determine if they're happy with. And I'll worry about my spare time.
You state that video games are fine. WoW is a video game, therefore it is fine. But then you go on and state you think that WoW is not good for society, blatantly contradicting your first statement.
To bring an overdone statement in to the mix: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It isn't the game, it is the individual who already has addictive tendencies. It doesn't matter if it is WoW, another game, or another activity people who are predisposed to addictive behavior will tend to go overboard on their chosen activity. It isn't WoW's fault (because if it is, then many other games should be brought into this blame list).
To bring an overdone statement in to the mix: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It isn't the game, it is the individual who already has addictive tendencies. It doesn't matter if it is WoW, another game, or another activity people who are predisposed to addictive behavior will tend to go overboard on their chosen activity. It isn't WoW's fault (because if it is, then many other games should be brought into this blame list).
I mean typical video games - ones you can "finish", or "win".
WoW isn't a game you can finish or win, and it manipulates players into continuing to spend more and more time in it. That's the part I think is damaging.
WoW isn't a game you can finish or win, and it manipulates players into continuing to spend more and more time in it. That's the part I think is damaging.
And here we have a live example of the target demographic the political advert was target towards.
I'm surprised that a WoW player running for political office doesn't in and of it's self alter your expectations of players.
I'm surprised that a WoW player running for political office doesn't in and of it's self alter your expectations of players.
As a former WoW player, I sympathize with your concern. However, there are many people who play WoW casually without being obsessed and addicted.
Obama, for one, plays poker and drinks beer. Both of which have a dark side. I bet he bluffs in poker.
Will someone make a website saying not to trust him because he is deceitful in poker?
Will someone make a website saying not to trust him because he is deceitful in poker?
I'm curious how this will turn out. Is videogaming as much of a campaign-killer as atheism?
No, most definitely not. Atheism will get you nowhere in American politics. We'll have a gay president before we have an atheist president. Which, truth be told, I would love a gay atheist engineer for president. Let's get our priorities straight :)
American voters would rather elect a gay or Muslim president than an atheist. Here is a 2012 Gallup poll:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Pres...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/Atheists-Muslims-Bias-Pres...
That's an interesting poll, thanks!
I'm sure you'd get the stigma from atheism as well since the game is full of goblins etc.
Blizzard should make her a skin, and also a super PAC. That would be so great.
As much as I would like to attribute this purely to political banter, I think it reflects a general attitude in the broader society: video games are still not considered equal to the arts, often considered "a waste of time" and childish. Just look at the reporting when theres been another school rampage.
(Of course, the same crowd clamoring for a ban on videogames has no problems with splatter horror movies in the theater, which from my experience surpass any game in realism and pointless violence)
(Of course, the same crowd clamoring for a ban on videogames has no problems with splatter horror movies in the theater, which from my experience surpass any game in realism and pointless violence)
Is it just me, or has there been a more-than-normal amount of mud-slinging in politics this year?
nope - same old same old http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_zTN4BXvYI
at least nobody called anyone a "hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer" yet
at least nobody called anyone a "hatchet-faced nutmeg dealer" yet
The level may be the same, however the sheer volume of mud slung in this campaigns cycle dwarf anything seen before, thanks largely to super PACs. We're probably not going to see anything like this again, until the next election cycle.
Per capita, I doubt it. We have a lot more avenues to escape this kind of stuff now, and politics was much more of a concern of folks back then.
Maybe "She puts children on a tree and removes their parents!".