So.../spit has been removed from TBC.

[Sneek]

This is the game you are paying for.

[rhorle]

You are entirely wrong - about all of this. When stock prices are dropping in relation to a harassment lawsuit, you absolutely do need to report how you are responding to that situation. They have responsibilities to their shareholders, because they are a PUBLIC company.

You absolutely are not required to even when the prices of stock drop. The legal responsibilities to their share holders does not require them to inform about the rules of a video game changing. Can you provide the law that states such? Or the ActivisionBlizzard rule given to share holders that states such? It would be near impossible for Blizzard to inform share holders of every little detail as you are suggesting.

To do so would cripple the company far more then this lawsuit has.

[Moozart]

This is by far one of the more crazy things I have seen since 2004.

[arkanon]

You absolutely are not required to even when the prices of stock drop. The legal responsibilities to their share holders does not require them to inform about the rules of a video game changing. Can you provide the law that states such? Or the ActivisionBlizzard rule given to share holders that states such? It would be near impossible for Blizzard to inform share holders of every little detail as you are suggesting.

To do so would cripple the company far more then this lawsuit has.

Legal proceedings: Information about any ongoing legal matters that may be material to the company

This is something they legally must report on to all shareholders, and the link between their ongoing legal battles regarding their culture of harassment is absolutely tied to harassment in game and their response to it. If this was some change to gameplay, it does not fall under the same requirements. But as this is related to harassment, while Blizzard themselves are currently facing a very serious legal battle over exactly that, it absolutely would.

[rhorle]

Legal proceedings: Information about any ongoing legal matters that may be material to the company

Removing an emote from the game is not information about an ongoing legal matter. No part of the lawsuit involves in-game harassment or emotes. Lmao.

[Jester Joe]

I'm guessing only people who think like you get to decide that, right? Feels a lot like CEOs approving each other's bonusses because they all think the same way.

If you buy a mount that you know should not be in Classic then don't go crying about any consequences. Just because Blizzard put in it the game to milk money from the whales does not mean you had to buy it.

A nice strawman/assumption you got there.

And there is no "it shouldn't be there". It's Classic, not "the exact same thing again". That was obvious from the way Classic was handled already. You know, just like a vast majority of remakes/re-releases are, tweaked in some ways.

Empathizing with people who go into panic attacks over orange text isn't either lol.

No one said anything about panic attacks. In fact, the thing close to panic attacks I've seen here is people's kneejerk reaction to an emote possibly being removed. Since you know, there's still no official word.

I'm not seeing any difference between spamming any of those emote, especially when the sorry emote was sarcastically used.
Personally, recall that people preferred to spam hello emote, still have nightmares from "greetings traveller".

Except as I've said, even in my own experience, I've seen far less spamming. Is that conclusive evidence, no, obviously not. But it's worth just as much as yours. Although I would say most people would raise an eyebrow I'm sure if you claimed "Hello" was spammed more than "Sorry". Especially for playing as mage.

Is there any actual proof that it is working?

The fact that Blizzard is doing the same method again...? Like, you can't really be claiming that Blizzard would be inept enough to try repeating the same thing again if it didn't even work the first time.

Blizzard further limiting the ability to interact with players surely isn't proof of that.

Do you have literally anything saying otherwise?

I think there is a huge difference between an action that can be entirely resolved by /ignore and an action that requires you to not play the game.

That's great. It still doesn't change the initial point, that your random idea of "Only following would make it harassment" is pretty off the mark.

By that logic, virtually any interaction between players should be removed because they could lead to "harassment" and expecting to /ignore others is seemingly too much.

Weird stretch. Can the pretend ignorance be dropped about this honestly? You know fully well spamming /spit on someone isn't nearly the same as what you're trying to make it sound like. Twisting the scenario to try to make it sound less harmful is pretty telling.

Sure, they take action because they have virtue signal, not get any resources to make any *actual change and because the "discriminated" audience are more valueable than the average player.

Buzzwords.

This is actual change. It's also not the end of the changes, they already said they're taking a firm stance against toxicity in WoW now.

As long as you have enough gold, you will get a carry, if you pay up and they fail to deliver the service, you can even get Blizzard to intervene.
Like any people making off with gold or mats without providing the agreed upon service.

They'll punish the player, they won't "intervene".
https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/2521

Boosting services are not supported by Blizzard but if you are the victim of a scam, contact us. Game Masters cannot restore any of your losses, but will take action against confirmed scammers whenever possible so they won't scam other players.

So you'd be wrong on that.

It's not like you have trouble finding boosts nowadays, they even advertise in channels where they're not supposed to.

Doesn't mean they're the most reliable. And the more out of the way you go like that, the more likely you'll just get scammed and Blizzard won't do much.

That you have to wait yourself, check the discord and not just pay a person to get it ready for you?

Good luck getting a Voidtalon portal "ready". You'd still have to wait for the person to find the rare.

Considering that their number pales in front of the multiplayer challenges and said multiplayer ones are far more prestigeous, that's damn ignorant.

Is that really the best you got? You were shown to be wrong while I literally pointed out and admitted that they're not the most common though, and all you can do is repeat the same exact thing I said to call me ignorant?

Like, that says far more about you. Point was it's not an "exception" like you claimed.

Yes, let us equate a Mythic or Gladiator mount with an outdoor zone mount.

"See that guy? He has a Gladiator mount!"
"Fuck Gladiator mounts, i got my Nazjatar crab!"
Is this how you think the average player reacts?

I mean, that's exactly how I would react. Like, what are you even on about lol

Go back to the original quote-

Becouse people want Blizz to develop the game, and have ingame rewards for playing the game not just to open the wallet and get stuff....... omgod right....

In game rewards. Nothing about of what level or skill required. So honestly your weird attempt to shift the goalpost isn't exactly proving anything.

Who cares whether or not the mount is a gladiator mount, a mythic one, or one from doing all the achievements in a zone.
They're all part of IN GAME REWARDS FOR PLAYING THE GAME.

Just because you fixated on the word "prestige" and assumed that must mean the top 1% doesn't mean that's all that matters.

And honestly it's a bit weird to choose that as your point of comparison, since a lot of glad mounts end up just being mount models that already exist with armor on it, whereas the crab is still one of a kind.

[arkanon]

Removing an emote from the game is not information about an ongoing legal matter. No part of the lawsuit involves in-game harassment or emotes. Lmao.

It is when that action is in direct response to the court case, and is the exact same subject matter, as it is very relevant to shareholders. It is not "the removal of an emote" as you so disingenuously claim, it is an attempt to mitigate the current legal action against them - if they removed some random, unrelated emote, it would not be important. But they have stated more than once that this is 100% related to harassment.

They have stated more than once, officially, that they will be making changes in game IN RESPONSE TO THE COURT CASE, and this is obviously one of said changes. The two things are directly related.

[rhorle]

It is when that action is in direct response to the court case, and is the exact same subject matter, as it is very relevant to shareholders.

No. It is not part of the lawsuit. Using your logic any time Blizzard takes account action against someone for harassment they will now need to inform the share holders because a lawsuit was brought regarding company harassment. Lmao.

[arkanon]

No. It is not part of the lawsuit. Using your logic any time Blizzard takes account action against someone for harassment they will now need to inform the share holders because a lawsuit was brought regarding company harassment. Lmao.

They have stated more than once that this is their response to the court case - they are ALREADY REPORTING these things both internally and externally - i dont know why you would claim they are not doing something they are ALREADY DOING.

[rhorle]

They have stated more than once that this is their response to the court case - they are ALREADY REPORTING these things both internally and externally - i dont know why you would claim they are not doing something they are ALREADY DOING.

Twitter doesn't count a legally obligated report to share holders. Lmao. Nothing about changing game rules for harassment is part of the lawsuit or a legally obligated thing that need to be reported.

[arkanon]

Twitter doesn't count a legally obligated report to share holders. Lmao. Nothing about changing game rules for harassment is part of the lawsuit or a legally obligated thing that need to be reported.

Reports are due quarterly and annually. The next report absolutely will include their response to the legal action taken against them, including what changes were made, like this one.

[rhorle]

Reports are due quarterly and annually. The next report absolutely will include their response to the legal action taken against them, including what changes were made, like this one.

Lol. Classic. You don't have proof and now say the will do it in the future. Then why did you say that they already have informed share holders? Weird right? First they already did it. And now they will do it in the future. It still doesn't change that you are full of it.

[arkanon]

Lol. Classic. You don't have proof and now say the will do it in the future. Then why did you say that they already have informed share holders? Weird right? First they already did it. And now they will do it in the future. It still doesn't change that you are full of it.

As you said, they have done it via public communications such as publicising emails, and using tools like twitter. You said this doesnt count, as its not legally required. I pointed out that they are only legally required quarterly, so it will be included in that report when its due, and you wont accept that either.

[rhorle]

As you said, they have done it via public communications such as publicising emails, and using tools like twitter. You said this doesnt count, as its not legally required. I pointed out that they are only legally required quarterly, so it will be included in that report when its due, and you wont accept that either.

No. I said that Twitter does not count as an way to inform shareholders when legally obligated to tell share holders something. You stated that they are already communicating to share holders externally and internally. Twitter doesn't count as a legal communication. You stated that they are doing it in the annual and quarterly reports which means they have not communicated to share holders yet.

That is all on top of them not having to report game rule changes. You are wrong on all counts here.

[luciano]

Who honestly cares?

[Doffen]

Who honestly cares?

All in this thread.

[Tsyplenk]

I never knew there could be such a ruckus over an emote that few people care about, how melodramatic...

MMO Champ at its best.

[Zalraki]

So...

Let's suppose there's a performance at the theater. A romantic story set in the 1800s with original clothing. People have bought tickets and the actors are all ready to go.
Just before it starts several of the actors buy some bright red "I love London" T-shirts at the theater's shop and they actually put on the shirts during the performance.
The audience and the actors are upset by this because it completely ruins the setting and the immersion.
People complain to the theater owner but they make a lot of money selling T-shirts so they don't listen.
The people then start targeting the actors wearing the t-shirts and throwing insults to get them to leave.
Now suddenly the theater owner steps in and tells the people they are no longer allowed to do that, while not doing anything about the actual cause of all this.
The people are still 'forced' to watch the performance even though it's not authentic anymore.
The other actors can't get into the story either because of seeing the red shirts so they don't enjoy the play either.

In the end, nothing has been done about the cause of the problem. Only that the people, who can't enjoy the performance anymore, are being punished because of how they reacted.

Sound familiar?

[ellieg]

I never implied I was?

I'll let u go ahead and quote where I implied I was either

[Beefhammer]

So...

Let's suppose there's a performance at the theater. A romantic story set in the 1800s with original clothing. People have bought tickets and the actors are all ready to go.
Just before it starts several of the actors buy some bright red "I love London" T-shirts at the theater's shop and they actually put on the shirts during the performance.
The audience and the actors are upset by this because it completely ruins the setting and the immersion.
People complain to the theater owner but they make a lot of money selling T-shirts so they don't listen.
The people then start targeting the actors wearing the t-shirts and throwing insults to get them to leave.
Now suddenly the theater owner steps in and tells the people they are no longer allowed to do that, while not doing anything about the actual cause of all this.
The people are still 'forced' to watch the performance even though it's not authentic anymore.
The other actors can't get into the story either because of seeing the red shirts so they don't enjoy the play either.

In the end, nothing has been done about the cause of the problem. Only that the people, who can't enjoy the performance anymore, are being punished because of how they reacted.

Sound familiar?

Not really. No one is being targeted with toxic behaviour. Swing and a miss.