Blizzard's Response to Classic Hardcore DDoS Attacks

Originally Posted by HatsHatsHats

Am I in the matrix? I just now noticed hardstyle and doom have been arguing for like 12 hours and Hardstyle just keeps repeating himself over and over with the same argument

Welcome to the Matrix—where facts are the red pill, and baseless analogies are the blue pill.While I stick to clarity and consistency, others appear content to keep cycling through narratives that simply don’t align with the discussion at hand.



Reiterating facts is actually a cornerstone of building a solid argument. It provides a consistent foundation and keeps the conversation grounded. Changing analogies that don’t match the context only serves to derail the discussion and muddy the waters—a tactic better suited for dodging the point than addressing it. So, while I may sound repetitive, it’s only because the facts remain unchallenged and are central to the debate. Some people seem determined to take the scenic route, even when the truth is right in front of them!

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by fazaim

Normal players aren't nearly at the same risk of being DDoS'd like streamers are. So since that's the case, how does your view uphold treating all players equally when certain groups are at risk?

While it is true that streamers may face heightened risks due to their visibility, Hardcore mode is predicated on the principle that all players are subject to the same rules and consequences, regardless of external circumstances. Upholding this equality is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the game mode. Making exceptions for specific groups, even those at greater risk, undermines the fundamental fairness that Hardcore mode is built on. Players voluntarily enter this game mode with the understanding that all deaths, regardless of cause, are permanent. Addressing the unique risks faced by streamers should involve preventative measures outside of selectively reviving characters, such as improving server security or addressing vulnerabilities, rather than compromising the established rules that apply to everyone equally.

Additionally, it’s worth noting that streamers, by their nature, crave attention. However, they often seek only the positive kind, while attempting to avoid the negative. Unfortunately, in real life—as in Hardcore mode—you can’t cherry-pick the type of attention you get. With the good comes the bad; that’s just how life works. It’s an unavoidable trade-off for the visibility and influence they enjoy.

Originally Posted by fazaim

That's not a fact. Why do you claim that's a fact?

This statement reflects a misunderstanding of Blizzard's history with Hardcore principles. Games like Diablo II, released over two decades ago,(June 29th 2000) established Hardcore gameplay with the defining rule of permanent death under any circumstance. Blizzard’s decision to implement Hardcore mode in WoW Classic directly draws from these long-standing principles. While the WoW iteration of Hardcore is a recent addition, the core ethos it embodies—permanent death and fairness in its application—has been integral to Blizzard’s approach to Hardcore gameplay for decades. The claim is FACTUAL when viewed within the context of Blizzard’s broader history with Hardcore systems.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Your claim that I’m spamming by reinforcing the rules is itself contradictory

You're not "reinforcing" them. You're just literally repeating them. Which becomes eye-rolling at best past the second time you copy-paste it.

as you continue to bring up the same critique without adding anything substantive or new to the conversation.

Except you're wrong. I have you different arguments (maintaining fair play; failing to protect their players; not giving the DDoS'ers what they wanted), and every time you gave the exact same response: "but the exact wording of the rules, tho!"

As for the "spirit of the rules," this argument is subjective and open to interpretation. The rules were created with clarity and consistency in mind, particularly for Hardcore mode, where the principle of "permanent death for any reason" is explicitly stated.

Yes, they were created to maintain fair play. And do you know whose person's, or rather, entity's interpretation is paramount in this instance? Blizzard's. The ones who made the rules.

Hyper-focusing on the "spirit" of the rules while disregarding their literal enforcement risks undermining the fairness and impartiality

Not restoring the characters that died because of the DDoS actually harms any claim of fairness. And "impartiality" does not mean "let the grifters get what they want".

Staying true to both the letter and spirit of the law ensures that the integrity of the mode is upheld.

Except Blizzard would not be true to the spirit of the agreement if they let the DDoS'ers get exactly what they wanted out of this attack.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

The claim is FACTUAL when viewed within the context of Blizzard’s broader history with Hardcore systems.

No, you claimed it as a fact they adopted their own principles from Diablo II and not the community addon. How do you know this?

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Upholding this equality is crucial to maintaining the integrity of the game mode. Making exceptions for specific groups, even those at greater risk, undermines the fundamental fairness that Hardcore mode is built on.

Not even ChatGPT agrees with this, I asked it myself on a blank page. Why do you hold GPT hostage to do your arguing? It doesn't agree with you.

In the case Blizzard chooses to restore characters killed off by DDoS, give me a consequence for each of your arguments. How is it crucial to maintaining the integrity of the game mode? How does it undermine the fundamental fairness if it's inherently unfair to certain groups of people?

Originally Posted by Ielenia

You're not "reinforcing" them. You're just literally repeating them. Which becomes eye-rolling at best past the second time you copy-paste it.

Your claim that I’m “literally repeating” myself rather than reinforcing the rules is misguided. The purpose of reiterating central facts is to keep the conversation anchored to the topic at hand, especially when attempts are made to derail it or shift focus. Repeating the rules is necessary when some participants fail to engage with or fully comprehend their significance in the discussion. If the facts remain unaddressed and unresolved, it makes sense to reintroduce them to clarify and refocus the debate.

Ironically, your criticism of repetition is itself repetitive, as you continue to make the same claim without offering anything new or substantive to counter the points being raised. By doing so, you are engaging in the very behavior you accuse me of—cycling through the same arguments without advancing the conversation.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Except you're wrong. I have you different arguments (maintaining fair play; failing to protect their players; not giving the DDoS'ers what they wanted), and every time you gave the exact same response: "but the exact wording of the rules, tho!"

Your claim that you’ve provided different arguments (maintaining fair play, failing to protect players, not giving DDoS attackers what they wanted) is itself flawed. These arguments, while phrased differently, all revolve around the same core idea: justifying Blizzard’s decision to selectively revive characters. My response remains consistent because the foundation of my argument—Blizzard’s established Hardcore rules—is central to the debate. Consistency is not repetition; it is reinforcing an unaddressed point to ensure the conversation stays focused.

By accusing me of sticking to “the exact wording of the rules,” you unintentionally highlight why the rules are critical—they form the backbone of the Hardcore mode's integrity. Ignoring or attempting to reinterpret these rules undermines the fairness and impartiality that players rely on. Your critique of “repeating” arguments ironically showcases the same behavior, as you are cycling through variations of the same justification without addressing the substance of my position.

Reiterating facts and the rules isn’t about being repetitive—it’s about maintaining focus on the established principles of the debate, rather than shifting narratives to fit a particular perspective. Diverging from those facts doesn’t strengthen your argument; it simply muddles the discussion.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Yes, they were created to maintain fair play. And do you know whose person's, or rather, entity's interpretation is paramount in this instance? Blizzard's. The ones who made the rules.

While it is true that Blizzard, as the creators of the rules, holds significant authority in interpreting them, this does not mean their actions are immune to critique. Rules are designed to establish clarity, consistency, and fairness, and Blizzard’s Hardcore mode has long adhered to the principle of "permanent death for any reason." Deviating from this foundational rule undermines the very fairness and impartiality those rules were intended to uphold. While Blizzard may revise or reinterpret the rules, doing so selectively raises concerns about whether their decisions are consistent with the spirit of fairness the rules were meant to ensure.

Moreover, prioritizing Blizzard's interpretation above all else is not an argument for fairness—it's an argument for authority. In a game mode reliant on strict adherence to principles, players have a right to question whether such reinterpretation aligns with the established ethos that has defined Hardcore gameplay across Blizzard’s history. Players invest trust in the rules, and selective enforcement risks eroding that trust, regardless of Blizzard’s intent.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Not restoring the characters that died because of the DDoS actually harms any claim of fairness. And "impartiality" does not mean "let the grifters get what they want".

Restoring characters selectively in response to the DDoS attack actually undermines fairness by introducing inconsistencies in Blizzard's application of Hardcore mode rules. For decades, these rules have been clearly stated: "your character's death is permanent for any reason." By choosing to restore characters now, Blizzard sets a precedent that could lead to subjective interpretations of rules whenever external factors arise, rather than treating all players equally under the same terms. Fairness in Hardcore mode relies on impartial enforcement of the rules, regardless of external events. Allowing exceptions opens the door for favoritism, eroding trust in the mode’s consistency.

Impartiality does not mean “letting the grifters win,” but neither does it mean bending the established rules to address malicious actors at the expense of the fairness all players expect. Instead, Blizzard should focus on strengthening server security and other preventative measures that benefit all players without compromising the integrity of Hardcore mode.

Originally Posted by Ielenia

Except Blizzard would not be true to the spirit of the agreement if they let the DDoS'ers get exactly what they wanted out of this attack.

Blizzard’s actions should aim to uphold the principles that define Hardcore mode: fairness, equality, and consistency. The argument that reviving characters thwarts the intentions of DDoS attackers assumes their motivations are clear and predictable, which is speculative at best. For all we know, the attackers could have wanted Blizzard to make exceptions, creating controversy and undermining trust in the rules—a result Blizzard has inadvertently delivered.

The “spirit of the agreement” lies in treating all players equally and upholding the principles they agreed to when entering Hardcore mode. Deviating from these principles for specific circumstances compromises that spirit and sets a dangerous precedent. Staying true to both the letter and spirit of the rules ensures the integrity of the mode is preserved, regardless of external malicious actors.

- - - Updated - - -

Originally Posted by fazaim

No, you claimed it as a fact they adopted their own principles from Diablo II and not the community addon. How do you know this?

The claim that Blizzard adopted the Hardcore principles from Diablo II is based on a well-documented history of Hardcore gameplay within Blizzard's ecosystem. Diablo II, which debuted in 2000, was one of the first games to popularize the Hardcore concept with its defining principle of permanent death under any circumstance. This Hardcore ethos became a hallmark of Blizzard’s design philosophy for similar game modes. When Blizzard introduced Hardcore mode in WoW Classic, it carried forward these principles, as evidenced by the clear rules stating that “your character's death is permanent for any reason.” While the community addon may have inspired certain aspects of WoW Hardcore’s implementation, the foundational principles align with the longstanding approach Blizzard has employed for decades.

This is not speculation but a fact rooted in Blizzard’s history with Hardcore gameplay. The connection between Diablo II's Hardcore mode and WoW Classic’s Hardcore implementation is undeniable when you look at the shared emphasis on fairness, consistency, and consequences. While the community addon served as a catalyst for WoW Hardcore’s creation, the principles themselves predate its existence and have been integral to Blizzard's legacy.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

<snippity snip, copy-paste goes snip>

It's not misguided. You're not "reinforcing" anything. To "reinforce" would mean to add to it to make it stronger and/or clearer, but that is not what you've been doing. You've just copy-pasted the rules repeatedly.

And as for "criticizing Blizzard's actions", they're only coming from those those that need not much reason to throw shade at Blizzard, those jealous that their hardcore characters didn't get resurrected, those that think that "mine wasn't, so neither should yours", and... you. Whether or not you fall into the previous categories is not something I'm really interested in discovering.

People had their progress almost literally "stolen" by the actions of the DDoS'ers. Anyone defending that the DDoS'ers should get exactly what they wanted (like you) is not arguing from a position of actual fairness.

By the way?

Blizzard’s actions should aim to uphold the principles that define Hardcore mode: fairness, equality, and consistency.

You don't get to dismiss other people's arguments as "just an interpretation" when you post something like that. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Clearly, you were unable to comprehend the sentence. I followed your stipulations to the letter.

You said,




Upholding fairness and consistency in the rules is not about “wanting bad guys to win,” but about preserving the principles that define Hardcore mode—a point I’ve repeatedly made because it remains relevant and unrefuted.

But, we already proved that you want the bad guys to win. This is not in question.

We have already proved you are fine with exceptions being made, despite your claims of not wanting exceptions.

These are irrefutable facts. It leaves you in a contradiction of your own making.

Show the rule that Blizzard broke.

Your assertion that I’m not "reinforcing" anything but merely “copy-pasting the rules” misses the core purpose of my argument.

Reinforcement involves emphasizing key principles to ensure clarity and consistency in the discussion

Especially when participants attempt to sidestep or misinterpret those principles. If the rules remain the cornerstone of the debate, addressing them directly is essential to maintaining focus.

Ironically, dismissing the repetition of facts while reintroducing variations of the same critique reflects a contradiction in your approach. By your logic, your reiteration of these points could also be seen as redundant, yet you rely on it to argue your perspective.

Furthermore, labeling critiques of Blizzard’s actions as stemming from jealousy or personal grievances is not only speculative but detracts from the validity of the arguments themselves.

This generalized dismissal attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the critique without engaging with its substance. Meanwhile, you contradict your own argument by shifting attention from the established principles of fairness to personal motivations—behavior that mirrors the deflection you claim to criticize.

Lastly, your suggestion that advocating for consistent application of the rules equates to “defending the DDoS’ers” is misleading. Upholding the rules isn’t about enabling bad actors; it’s about maintaining fairness, integrity, and impartiality for all players. This ensures trust in the game mode and avoids the risks associated with selective enforcement. Claiming that fairness is compromised by sticking to the rules contradicts the very ethos of equal treatment under clear and consistent principles.

Let’s focus on the substance of the debate rather than resorting to rhetorical tactics that undermine the validity of constructive dialogue.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Your assertion that I’m not "reinforcing" anything but merely “copy-pasting the rules” misses the core purpose of my argument.

Reinforcement involves emphasizing key principles to ensure clarity and consistency in the discussion

Especially when participants attempt to sidestep or misinterpret those principles. If the rules remain the cornerstone of the debate, addressing them directly is essential to maintaining focus.

Ironically, dismissing the repetition of facts while reintroducing variations of the same critique reflects a contradiction in your approach. By your logic, your reiteration of these points could also be seen as redundant, yet you rely on it to argue your perspective.

Furthermore, labeling critiques of Blizzard’s actions as stemming from jealousy or personal grievances is not only speculative but detracts from the validity of the arguments themselves.

This generalized dismissal attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the critique without engaging with its substance. Meanwhile, you contradict your own argument by shifting attention from the established principles of fairness to personal motivations—behavior that mirrors the deflection you claim to criticize.

Lastly, your suggestion that advocating for consistent application of the rules equates to “defending the DDoS’ers” is misleading. Upholding the rules isn’t about enabling bad actors; it’s about maintaining fairness, integrity, and impartiality for all players. This ensures trust in the game mode and avoids the risks associated with selective enforcement. Claiming that fairness is compromised by sticking to the rules contradicts the very ethos of equal treatment under clear and consistent principles.

Let’s focus on the substance of the debate rather than resorting to rhetorical tactics that undermine the validity of constructive dialogue.

The substance of the debate is that you argued against your own thesis.

You lost the argument to yourself. It was an unforced error on your part.

What rule did Blizzard break?

The claim that I argued against my own thesis is misguided and appears to misunderstand the central point of my argument. My thesis has consistently been that Blizzard’s selective restoration of characters undermines the established principles of fairness, consistency, and impartiality that define Hardcore mode. Upholding the rule of "permanent death under any circumstance" is not only aligned with Blizzard's stated rules but also supports the integrity of the mode. Sticking to this thesis throughout the discussion does not equate to contradicting it—it reinforces the core argument against selective application of rules.

Regarding the question, "What rule did Blizzard break?"—Blizzard did not technically break any rules. However, their decision to selectively revive characters creates an inconsistency with the foundational ethos of Hardcore mode that has been upheld for decades in their other games like Diablo II. The issue is not about breaking rules but about undermining trust and fairness through actions that deviate from the principles players have come to expect, which is far worse.

Pointing out perceived errors without providing substantive counterpoints ironically works against your argument, creating a contradiction in your critique. Let’s focus on engaging with the actual substance of the debate instead.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

The claim that I argued against my own thesis is misguided and appears to misunderstand the central point of my argument. My thesis has consistently been that Blizzard’s selective restoration of characters undermines the established principles of fairness, consistency, and impartiality that define Hardcore mode. Upholding the rule of "permanent death under any circumstance" is not only aligned with Blizzard's stated rules but also supports the integrity of the mode. Sticking to this thesis throughout the discussion does not equate to contradicting it—it reinforces the core argument against selective application of rules.

As for "What rule did Blizzard break?"—Blizzard didn’t technically break any rules. However, their decision to selectively revive characters creates an inconsistency with the foundational ethos of Hardcore mode that has been upheld for decades in their other games like Diablo II. The issue is not about breaking rules but about undermining trust and fairness through actions that depart from the principles players have come to expect.

Pointing out perceived errors without providing substantive counterpoints ironically works against your argument, creating a contradiction in your critique. Let’s focus on engaging with the actual substance of the debate instead.

They broke no rules, and have stated their intent to be consistent, and hold to the integrity and spirit of hardcore servers, per their own announcement.

You have no argument.

While it may be true that Blizzard broke no explicit rules, the issue lies not in technical rule-breaking but in how their actions conflict with the established principles of fairness, consistency, and impartiality that players expect from Hardcore mode. The explicit rule of "permanent death for any reason" is a foundational part of Hardcore gameplay, and selectively restoring characters—even with good intentions—departs from this core principle. Consistency in intent must also be reflected in consistent application of rules, and that is where Blizzard's actions raise valid concerns.

Blizzard’s stated intent to maintain integrity and consistency is commendable, but actions speak louder than announcements. By selectively restoring characters, Blizzard risks creating exceptions that could undermine trust in the impartial enforcement of Hardcore rules. This inconsistency challenges the integrity they claim to uphold, as fairness depends on treating all players equally under the same rules without subjective adjustments for specific incidents.

Claiming there is "no argument" overlooks the legitimacy of critiquing decisions that deviate from long-standing Hardcore principles. The argument is not about accusing Blizzard of violating written rules—it is about holding them accountable to the broader principles of fairness and consistency that define the spirit of Hardcore mode.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Blizzard’s stated intent to maintain integrity and consistency is commendable, but actions speak louder than announcements. By selectively restoring characters, Blizzard risks creating exceptions that could undermine trust in the impartial enforcement of Hardcore rules. This inconsistency challenges the integrity they claim to uphold, as fairness depends on treating all players equally under the same rules without subjective adjustments for specific incidents.

Claiming there is "no argument" overlooks the legitimacy of critiquing decisions that deviate from long-standing Hardcore principles. The argument is not about accusing Blizzard of violating written rules—it is about holding them accountable to the broader principles of fairness and consistency that define the spirit of Hardcore mode.

To sum up:

You're mad they didn't break any of the rules you seem to care about so much.

The assumption that I am "mad they didn’t break any of the rules" mischaracterizes my position entirely. My argument has never been about anger or frustration over Blizzard’s adherence to the rules; it is about critiquing the selective decisions that create INCONSISTENCY with the principles of Hardcore mode. While Blizzard may not have broken explicit rules, their decision to selectively restore characters undermines the FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY players expect in Hardcore gameplay.

What is at issue here is the broader impact of such decisions on the INTEGRITY of the mode. Selectively restoring characters sends a message that rules can be applied subjectively, which risks eroding the trust that the Hardcore community relies on. My critique focuses on the actions that deviate from these principles, not on whether Blizzard adhered to the literal wording of their rules.

By reducing this discussion to an emotional argument about being "mad," you’re sidestepping the substantive points being raised about how FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY are impacted in the long term. Let’s engage with the principles at stake rather than misrepresenting the position of others.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

The assumption that I am "mad they didn’t break any of the rules" mischaracterizes my position entirely. My argument has never been about anger or frustration over Blizzard’s adherence to the rules; it is about critiquing the selective decisions that create INCONSISTENCY with the principles of Hardcore mode. While Blizzard may not have broken explicit rules, their decision to selectively restore characters undermines the FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY players expect in Hardcore gameplay.

What is at issue here is the broader impact of such decisions on the INTEGRITY of the mode. Selectively restoring characters sends a message that rules can be applied subjectively, which risks eroding the trust that the Hardcore community relies on. My critique focuses on the actions that deviate from these principles, not on whether Blizzard adhered to the literal wording of their rules.

By reducing this discussion to an emotional argument about being "mad," you’re sidestepping the substantive points being raised about how FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY are impacted in the long term. Let’s engage with the principles at stake rather than misrepresenting the position of others.

We already covered this. You're mad, because they didn't break any rules.

Yeah, I remember the time I was sitting at the park, and I saw a vagrant tackle a kid, and knock his candy bar out of his hands. T'was but a fortnight ago. The vendor who just sold it to the kid decided to do a nice thing, and gave the kid a new candy bar, to replace the one that the crappy person just ruined. Then, I was reminded of the Summer of 2000, when I was but a wee lad, and I dropped an ice cream cone while standing in front of a completely different shop. As I sat there, looking at the vendor handing the kid a new candy bar, I couldn't help but think about what a piece of shit he was, for doing that nice thing for the kid. Clearly, the man and kid have no integrity. He should have let the kid suffer, despite doing nothing wrong, because I dropped an ice cream cone more than two decades ago. What about me, and what I want?

That's right, I didn't think that, because that would be crazy.

The analogy presented oversimplifies the situation and FAILS to capture the complexity of the principles involved in Hardcore mode. Giving a kid a new candy bar after an unfortunate incident is an act of kindness, but Hardcore mode is defined by rules like PERMANENT DEATH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, which exist to ensure FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY across all players. The rules are not designed to accommodate subjective acts of "kindness" when external factors occur—they are designed to create an even playing field for everyone, regardless of circumstances.

Claiming that I am "mad they didn’t break any rules" entirely misrepresents my argument. My critique is centered not on emotional frustration, but on the INCONSISTENCY created by Blizzard selectively reviving characters. By choosing to make exceptions, Blizzard undermines the core principles of Hardcore mode that players agreed to upon entering the game. This isn’t about withholding kindness—it’s about preserving the IMPARTIALITY and FAIRNESS expected in a mode where consequences are absolute.

Additionally, the analogy itself introduces hypocrisy. While advocating for fairness and integrity in one context (e.g., candy bars for kids), it simultaneously dismisses the importance of those same principles in the context of Hardcore mode. If the integrity of the system is irrelevant in certain situations, the trust in the rules—and Blizzard’s enforcement of them—is eroded.

The discussion is not about whether exceptions should feel “nice” or “fair” in isolated situations; it’s about maintaining a consistent, impartial framework that ensures trust in the Hardcore mode remains intact. Let’s focus on the established principles of the debate rather than relying on analogies that fail to address the complexities of the issue.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

The analogy presented oversimplifies the situation and FAILS to capture the complexity of the principles involved in Hardcore mode. Giving a kid a new candy bar after an unfortunate incident is an act of kindness, but Hardcore mode is defined by rules like PERMANENT DEATH UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, which exist to ensure FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and INTEGRITY across all players. The rules are not designed to accommodate subjective acts of "kindness" when external factors occur—they are designed to create an even playing field for everyone, regardless of circumstances.

Claiming that I am "mad they didn’t break any rules" entirely misrepresents my argument. My critique is centered not on emotional frustration, but on the INCONSISTENCY created by Blizzard selectively reviving characters. By choosing to make exceptions, Blizzard undermines the core principles of Hardcore mode that players agreed to upon entering the game. This isn’t about withholding kindness—it’s about preserving the IMPARTIALITY and FAIRNESS expected in a mode where consequences are absolute.

Additionally, the analogy itself introduces hypocrisy. While advocating for fairness and integrity in one context (e.g., candy bars for kids), it simultaneously dismisses the importance of those same principles in the context of Hardcore mode. If the integrity of the system is irrelevant in certain situations, the trust in the rules—and Blizzard’s enforcement of them—is eroded.

The discussion is not about whether exceptions should feel “nice” or “fair” in isolated situations; it’s about maintaining a consistent, impartial framework that ensures trust in the Hardcore mode remains intact. Let’s focus on the established principles of the debate rather than relying on analogies that fail to address the complexities of the issue.

Perhaps you didn't get the analogy, because I didn't bold a bunch of random words, and color them red.

You should show your disappointment, and cancel your subscription, with a sternly-worded monologue that would rival the Canterbury Tales in verbosity.

Go ahead and post your rough draft, here.

By chance, were you angry when they enacted the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, or were you upset that they weren't being consistent?

I understood your analogy quite well and even acknowledged it in my prior response, where I demonstrated why it doesn’t apply to this situation. Your candy bar example oversimplifies the issue at hand and ignores the broader principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY that are central to the Hardcore mode discussion. The rules of Hardcore mode don’t operate on subjective acts of kindness—they are designed to enforce an even playing field, which is compromised when exceptions are made.

Let me provide you with another analogy to illustrate this: Imagine a marathon race where all participants are expected to complete the course without assistance. Now imagine someone trips and falls due to a stray branch on the course, and the organizers decide to drive that person halfway to the finish line to compensate. It might seem like a kind act, but it disrupts the CONSISTENCY of the race and undermines the efforts of every other participant who had to abide by the same rules and overcome their own challenges. While the act might feel justifiable in isolation, it damages the integrity of the competition as a whole.

In fact, this analogy ties back to the earlier race example I provided, which emphasized that rules exist to ensure FAIRNESS and IMPARTIALITY for everyone, regardless of individual circumstances. Selective exceptions erode trust in the system, whether it’s a marathon or Hardcore mode.

As for the rest of your comment, suggesting that I write a verbose monologue to rival the Canterbury Tales while canceling my subscription is a humorous deflection but doesn’t engage with the substance of the argument. If we’re going to continue this discussion, let’s stick to addressing the principles at play rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes or mischaracterizations of the position I’ve presented.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

I understood your analogy quite well and even acknowledged it in my prior response, where I demonstrated why it doesn’t apply to this situation. Your candy bar example oversimplifies the issue at hand and ignores the broader principles of FAIRNESS, CONSISTENCY, and IMPARTIALITY that are central to the Hardcore mode discussion. The rules of Hardcore mode don’t operate on subjective acts of kindness—they are designed to enforce an even playing field, which is compromised when exceptions are made.

Let me provide you with another analogy to illustrate this: Imagine a marathon race where all participants are expected to complete the course without assistance. Now imagine someone trips and falls due to a stray branch on the course, and the organizers decide to drive that person halfway to the finish line to compensate. It might seem like a kind act, but it disrupts the CONSISTENCY of the race and undermines the efforts of every other participant who had to abide by the same rules and overcome their own challenges. While the act might feel justifiable in isolation, it damages the integrity of the competition as a whole.

In fact, this analogy ties back to the earlier race example I provided, which emphasized that rules exist to ensure FAIRNESS and IMPARTIALITY for everyone, regardless of individual circumstances. Selective exceptions erode trust in the system, whether it’s a marathon or Hardcore mode.

As for the rest of your comment, suggesting that I write a verbose monologue to rival the Canterbury Tales while canceling my subscription is a humorous deflection but doesn’t engage with the substance of the argument. If we’re going to continue this discussion, let’s stick to addressing the principles at play rather than relying on rhetorical flourishes or mischaracterizations of the position I’ve presented.

How angry were you that they enacted the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution? Were you mad that they were not consistent, and that it ruined the fairness?

Your analogy makes no sense. It would be as if someone literally kidnapped the runner, and the race officials (and police), after getting the runner back, put them in their exact same spot as when they were kidnapped, albeit it a few days later. Would you rather the kidnappers just get to keep the runner?

Your first analogy comparing this situation to the 13th Amendment is completely irrelevant and holds no merit in the discussion at hand. The enactment of the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, an act that was inherently necessary to correct a profound moral wrong and promote equality and justice. Comparing that monumental decision to the enforcement of Hardcore mode rules in a video game is a false equivalence that detracts from the actual topic. The two scenarios are vastly different in scope, impact, and context, rendering your analogy ineffective and inappropriate for this discussion.

Now, regarding your second analogy about the kidnapped runner: this also fails to align with the principles at play in Hardcore mode. My analogy of the marathon, where a participant falls due to a stray branch and is driven halfway to the finish line by race officials, better encapsulates the situation. In Hardcore mode, the established rules dictate that every player faces the same consequences for any form of death, maintaining FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY for all participants. By selectively reviving characters impacted by external factors, Blizzard compromises the INTEGRITY of the mode. Your analogy about the kidnapped runner assumes that restoring someone to their exact position is inherently just, but it fails to address the broader implications of making exceptions in a system built on impartial rules.

Let’s compare the analogies to further illustrate this:

Candy Bar/Ice Cream Analogy: These analogies rely on individual acts of kindness and fail to reflect the structured rules and principles of a competitive environment like Hardcore mode. They ignore the idea of equal treatment under established guidelines.

Kidnapped Runner Analogy: This analogy suggests that placing someone back to their original position is equitable, but it oversimplifies the situation. In Hardcore mode, there are no "do-overs," and introducing exceptions—even under extenuating circumstances—compromises trust in the system.

Marathon Analogy: My analogy accurately reflects the principles of Hardcore mode. A participant receiving external assistance mid-race disrupts the competitive fairness and undermines the trust of other participants. Just as the rules of a marathon must be upheld for all competitors, the rules of Hardcore mode must remain impartial to preserve the trust and INTEGRITY of the experience.

In summary, my analogy addresses the structured rules and principles that underpin Hardcore mode, making it a more suitable comparison. Your analogies, while creative, fail to engage with the core issue of FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY in a system defined by impartiality and consequences. Let’s focus on the actual implications of Blizzard’s decision rather than introducing comparisons that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

Originally Posted by Hardstyle89

Your first analogy comparing this situation to the 13th Amendment is completely irrelevant and holds no merit in the discussion at hand. The enactment of the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, an act that was inherently necessary to correct a profound moral wrong and promote equality and justice. Comparing that monumental decision to the enforcement of Hardcore mode rules in a video game is a false equivalence that detracts from the actual topic. The two scenarios are vastly different in scope, impact, and context, rendering your analogy ineffective and inappropriate for this discussion.

Now, regarding your second analogy about the kidnapped runner: this also fails to align with the principles at play in Hardcore mode. My analogy of the marathon, where a participant falls due to a stray branch and is driven halfway to the finish line by race officials, better encapsulates the situation. In Hardcore mode, the established rules dictate that every player faces the same consequences for any form of death, maintaining FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY for all participants. By selectively reviving characters impacted by external factors, Blizzard compromises the INTEGRITY of the mode. Your analogy about the kidnapped runner assumes that restoring someone to their exact position is inherently just, but it fails to address the broader implications of making exceptions in a system built on impartial rules.

Let’s compare the analogies to further illustrate this:

Candy Bar/Ice Cream Analogy: These analogies rely on individual acts of kindness and fail to reflect the structured rules and principles of a competitive environment like Hardcore mode. They ignore the idea of equal treatment under established guidelines.

Kidnapped Runner Analogy: This analogy suggests that placing someone back to their original position is equitable, but it oversimplifies the situation. In Hardcore mode, there are no "do-overs," and introducing exceptions—even under extenuating circumstances—compromises trust in the system.

Marathon Analogy: My analogy accurately reflects the principles of Hardcore mode. A participant receiving external assistance mid-race disrupts the competitive fairness and undermines the trust of other participants. Just as the rules of a marathon must be upheld for all competitors, the rules of Hardcore mode must remain impartial to preserve the trust and INTEGRITY of the experience.

In summary, my analogy addresses the structured rules and principles that underpin Hardcore mode, making it a more suitable comparison. Your analogies, while creative, fail to engage with the core issue of FAIRNESS and CONSISTENCY in a system defined by impartiality and consequences. Let’s focus on the actual implications of Blizzard’s decision rather than introducing comparisons that don’t hold up to scrutiny.

You admitted Blizzard broke no rules. Stop trying to talk about rules you admitted are not being broken. it makes you look silly.

This was an attack, who was beating people with the stick? Why do you want them to keep beating people with the stick. Why don't you want them to be able to re-enter the race at the exact same point where they started getting beaten with sticks, albeit 3 days later?

It's your analogy, dude.