WoW is down again -- what a coincidence, I cancelled my su..

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-06, Grackle <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
> "Babe Bridou" <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42047ff0$0$18842$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
>> shadows wrote:
>>
>> It's like calling my girlfriend and only reaching her answering machine.
>>
>> Working 99% of the time is more like pumping an inflatable doll: sure it's
>> enjoyable, but I don't think it's the *only* acceptable figure.
>>
>>
>
> WoW is not a person with her own life, it's a piece of hardware, much like
> your car. Would you want to own a relatively new car that only works 99% of
> the time? I want mine to work 100% of the time, because I paid for it, and
> anything less is unacceptable.

People would SCREAM if the CD they paid $15 for wouldn't play all
the time, but something you pay $50 up front and $15 a month can
go down often and it's OK.

Typical fanboy reaction.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> On 2005-02-06, Grackle <nowhere@lalaland.ca> wrote:
>
>>"Babe Bridou" <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:42047ff0$0$18842$8fcfb975@news.wanadoo.fr...
>>
>>>shadows wrote:
>>>
>>>It's like calling my girlfriend and only reaching her answering machine.
>>>
>>>Working 99% of the time is more like pumping an inflatable doll: sure it's
>>>enjoyable, but I don't think it's the *only* acceptable figure.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>WoW is not a person with her own life, it's a piece of hardware, much like
>>your car. Would you want to own a relatively new car that only works 99% of
>>the time? I want mine to work 100% of the time, because I paid for it, and
>>anything less is unacceptable.

funny how the rest of my post gets snipped, what should I deduce? 😀

>
>
> People would SCREAM if the CD they paid $15 for wouldn't play all
> the time, but something you pay $50 up front and $15 a month can
> go down often and it's OK.
>
> Typical fanboy reaction.
>
>

FYI, I'd appreciate a car that works 100% of the time because it allows
me to earn money 100% of the time, go in vacation 100% of the time, help
friends moving places 100% of the time, and of course, simulate a
depleted gas tank 100% of the time with a hot girl next to me. I
appreciate a car to work 100% because I *need* it.

I don't see the added value of a game working or not working 100% of the
time, as it is... just *one* way among others to get some leisure. I
don't *need* it working 100%. Sure I paid for it. So what? Show me
alternatives that are either cheaper or better, or both. Show them to
me, name them. And if I paid too much for something that's good, just
not the best, or if I bought a random cd album (so rare it's unavailable
on the net) that just doesn't fit to my tastes and gives me a big
headache, then I'll tell you this:

"So what? I got screwed and enjoyed it, now get out of my office!"

We're talking about, what, 15$, 50$, 65$ psss, once you get an income,
these amounts mean *nothing* by themselves, it's a question of
priorities in your life. And believe me, you're gonna get screwed again,
many, many times in your existence.

A low-class new car can reach around 5,000$, now that's something more
important. Watch your back when you buy one, ok? As for Blizz and Wow,
if you're upset with the game and general performances, give up, cancel
your subscription, please, but stop that mad fuss about something that
means *nothing*.

You should just relax and blow off some steam, guys. I'm as much a
fanboy as my momma is a stripper, you know. And I don't see why you
absolutely want to label people "fanboys". Maybe because you think that
Blizzard is "evil" and should be "destroyed"? Then good luck in your
quest, cause it ain't happening any time soon.

Better spend your time doing something more rewarding than calling me a
"fanboy". (and better spend my time doing something more rewarding than
answering 😀)

 

[rogerm]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Babe Bridou wrote:
>
> We're talking about, what, 15$, 50$, 65$ psss, once you get an income,
> these amounts mean *nothing* by themselves, it's a question of

So if you dropped a $50 bill, you wouldn't bother to pick it up? It's
"nothing" after all.

> priorities in your life. And believe me, you're gonna get screwed again,
> many, many times in your existence.
>

The people who tolerate (and even endorse) getting screwed, the more
it's going to happen.

--

Personal ambition is for people who can't see 100 years into the future.

"Some of us prefer illusion to despair." - Nelson Muntz

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

RogerM wrote:

> Babe Bridou wrote:
>
>>We're talking about, what, 15$, 50$, 65$ psss, once you get an income,
>>these amounts mean *nothing* by themselves, it's a question of
>
>
> So if you dropped a $50 bill, you wouldn't bother to pick it up? It's
> "nothing" after all.


The trick is, how much money can I make by doing something other than
pick up the 50$ bill, and how much fun can I get.

If I just dropped it and it's at my feet, I'll pick it up because I
don't know what kind of job can earn me 50 bucks a flex.

If I need to throw a petition, send a hundred e-mails, besiege Blizzard
and generally annoy a million people about it, then I'd better do
something else. Something overall worth more (moneywise and funwise)
than what I lost by buying an "unacceptable" product and playing it for
a month.

Just my self-centered 2 cents, pretty far from the fanboy argument, I think.

>
>
>>priorities in your life. And believe me, you're gonna get screwed again,
>>many, many times in your existence.
>>
>
>
> The people who tolerate (and even endorse) getting screwed, the more
> it's going to happen.
>

Welcome to general socio-economics - as I'm not in position to answer
you in an adequate manner, I'd propose to forward the thread to an
appropriate newsgroup?

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-06, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:

> This "analogy" has no basis in fact. WoW is *NOT* a piece of hardware.
> It's an extremely complex farm of servers, running extremely complex
> code and interfacing simultaneously with thousands of other PCs running
> their own pieces of extremely complex software.
>
> Your "analogy" simply shows you have no clue about how s/w works.

Funny, when you use your ATM card or your credit card the system
that processes your transaction is more complex, larger, and
busier.

I've only suffered down time once when banking. How about
yourself?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd0dckv.lia.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows@whitefang.com says...
> On 2005-02-06, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This "analogy" has no basis in fact. WoW is *NOT* a piece of hardware.
> > It's an extremely complex farm of servers, running extremely complex
> > code and interfacing simultaneously with thousands of other PCs running
> > their own pieces of extremely complex software.
> >
> > Your "analogy" simply shows you have no clue about how s/w works.
>
> Funny, when you use your ATM card or your credit card the system
> that processes your transaction is more complex, larger, and
> busier.

Once again, this proves you are clueless. You ATM card is NOT a complex
piece of software. It is a simple storage device (the magnetic strip)
and you are only interfacing with one piece of hardware that calls for
permission to execute your transaction.

You really do need to give it up.

--
Rob Berryhill

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:
> On 2005-02-06, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > This "analogy" has no basis in fact. WoW is *NOT* a piece of
hardware.
> > It's an extremely complex farm of servers, running extremely
complex
> > code and interfacing simultaneously with thousands of other PCs
running
> > their own pieces of extremely complex software.
> >
> > Your "analogy" simply shows you have no clue about how s/w works.
>
> Funny, when you use your ATM card or your credit card the system
> that processes your transaction is more complex, larger, and
> busier.
>
> I've only suffered down time once when banking. How about
> yourself?

About once every street. It's a sport in itself to fetch some cash.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <110dioeab8oag9a@news.supernews.com>,
"Bob Perez" <myfirstname@thecomdomaincalledSHADOWPIKE> wrote:

> "Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
> news:Misc-DAE0B6.10213506022005@individual.net...
>
> > And I'm really less-interested in this guy's particular case and more
> > interested in the general case: is the policy that if someone complains
> > about profanity they'll investigate logs & maybe take action, or is it
> > that Blizz/GMs have some sort of automated tool that rings a bell and
> > flashes lights when people swear, prompting investigation & possibly
> > action? Or is it something else?
> >
> > That's what I'm getting at.

> Blizard does not automatically scan logs looking for offense, that's just
> prohibitively costly and time consuming.

It's ok to say "I don't know", if that's the correct answer. 😉

It turns out that automatically scanning chat for specific words is
virtually free. It might LOOK like a lot of garbage-chatting going on
to a person but, to a computer, it's really nothing to look for a
handful of words every time a player presses "return." Yes, even if
there are 1000s of players on.

And, again, I'm not particularly interested in this guy's case -- I'm
more interested in actual SOP at WoW-central.

Thanks!

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-07, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnd0dckv.lia.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
> shadows@whitefang.com says...
>> On 2005-02-06, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > This "analogy" has no basis in fact. WoW is *NOT* a piece of hardware.
>> > It's an extremely complex farm of servers, running extremely complex
>> > code and interfacing simultaneously with thousands of other PCs running
>> > their own pieces of extremely complex software.
>> >
>> > Your "analogy" simply shows you have no clue about how s/w works.
>>
>> Funny, when you use your ATM card or your credit card the system
>> that processes your transaction is more complex, larger, and
>> busier.
>
> Once again, this proves you are clueless. You ATM card is NOT a complex
> piece of software. It is a simple storage device (the magnetic strip)
> and you are only interfacing with one piece of hardware that calls for
> permission to execute your transaction.
>
> You really do need to give it up.

And you need to read. Try reading what I posted again especially
this part: "the system that processes your transaction is more
complex"

When you're done losing this argument, feel free to admit you're
wrong.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-07, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> So far, WoW has about a 99.44% up-time compared to my attempts to use
> it. I understand that others have had something close to 90%, and I
> feel for them -- that's A Bad Thing.

Do you live in North America? Here in Toronto I only had it go
down once. In fact I know people could lose their jobs because if
the electronic point of sale system banks deploy goes down the
impact is measured in millions of dollars if not hundreds of
millions.

I'm talking about the network itself not some atm machine on the
corner that's running windows and is an acceptable loss to the
bank if it needs to be maintained.

The network itself has to have 100% uptime or revenue goes down.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd0g2gi.p4f.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:

> On 2005-02-07, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> > So far, WoW has about a 99.44% up-time compared to my attempts to use
> > it. I understand that others have had something close to 90%, and I
> > feel for them -- that's A Bad Thing.

> Do you live in North America? Here in Toronto I only had it go
> down once. In fact I know people could lose their jobs because if
> the electronic point of sale system banks deploy goes down the
> impact is measured in millions of dollars if not hundreds of
> millions.
>
> I'm talking about the network itself not some atm machine on the
> corner that's running windows and is an acceptable loss to the
> bank if it needs to be maintained.
>
> The network itself has to have 100% uptime or revenue goes down.

Sure. But by that analogy, I don't think the entire Blizzard WoW
network has EVER gone down. Oh sure, individual world servers go down,
sometimes for a long time -- but you can always get service from another
server, if you desire.

It's the same with any service: The entire PG&E system doesn't "go down"
-- just "my neighborhood" is without power for a few hours. All of
Verizon doesn't go down -- just that I and a few thousand other folks
can't use our phones for a while. The entire ePOS system doesn't go
down -- it's just that Safeway can't seem to let me pay for my
groceries, or the ATM machine can't seem to give me cash, for a few
hours.

....And, by analogy, the WoW service doesn't go down -- just sometimes
the server *I* play on is unavailable for a little while.

Same thing.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-08, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:

> Sure. But by that analogy, I don't think the entire Blizzard WoW
> network has EVER gone down. Oh sure, individual world servers go down,
> sometimes for a long time -- but you can always get service from another
> server, if you desire.

Michael Shermer, a well known skeptic, writer, tv show host, and
editor, once remarked that no matter how he tried to debunk
psychics they would keep coming back with counter arguments
irregardless of how rational those arguments were. He compared
them to rubber duckies in his book "Why People Believe Wierd
Things." In a bath tub if you hit a rubber ducky it will pop back
up.

You see no matter what analogy I draw, no matter how many servers
go down, no matter how much Blizzard admits to their mistake
(http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/24/1855218&tid=209),
and no matter how often you have to switch servers, play a
different character, and be annoyed by Blizzard yourself, you
will *still* come back and tell me it's OK and it's normal.

Just admit that it's not. Blizzard has admitted as much.

> ...And, by analogy, the WoW service doesn't go down -- just sometimes
> the server *I* play on is unavailable for a little while.
>
> Same thing.

Right. You keep believing that

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> On 2005-02-07, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>In article <slrnd0dckv.lia.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
>>shadows@whitefang.com says...
>>
>>>On 2005-02-06, Rob Berryhill <rob_berryhill@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>This "analogy" has no basis in fact. WoW is *NOT* a piece of hardware.
>>>>It's an extremely complex farm of servers, running extremely complex
>>>>code and interfacing simultaneously with thousands of other PCs running
>>>>their own pieces of extremely complex software.
>>>>
>>>>Your "analogy" simply shows you have no clue about how s/w works.
>>>
>>>Funny, when you use your ATM card or your credit card the system
>>>that processes your transaction is more complex, larger, and
>>>busier.
>>
>>Once again, this proves you are clueless. You ATM card is NOT a complex
>>piece of software. It is a simple storage device (the magnetic strip)
>>and you are only interfacing with one piece of hardware that calls for
>>permission to execute your transaction.
>>
>>You really do need to give it up.
>
>
> And you need to read. Try reading what I posted again especially
> this part: "the system that processes your transaction is more
> complex"
>
> When you're done losing this argument, feel free to admit you're
> wrong.
>

Stubborn ass! 😛

The system that processes a transaction is indeed incremental and
modular, but never complex. For example, the only part that concerns the
action taken when you use your ATM card is trivial: it checks for
authorization, creates a transaction, wait for your acknowledgement,
ends and logs the transaction.

There's no hazard in this system, it's one-dimensional and
straight-forward. Once something goes "not in an expected way", you
start over all the way from the login screen. Pretty simple, in fact.

The "system that processes the transaction" isn't more complex, not at
all. It's a simple workflow of checkups done with the characteristics of
the OUT-account (all in table A), and the characteristics of the
IN-account (all in table A). It then writes "-x" somewhere and "+x"
somewhere else. If at any time there's an error, it simply starts over -
or it is done manually. But you probably have to work in a bank to
realize this.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> looked up from reading the entrails of
the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:

>On 2005-02-07, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
>> So far, WoW has about a 99.44% up-time compared to my attempts to use
>> it. I understand that others have had something close to 90%, and I
>> feel for them -- that's A Bad Thing.
>
>Do you live in North America? Here in Toronto I only had it go
>down once. In fact I know people could lose their jobs because if
>the electronic point of sale system banks deploy goes down the
>impact is measured in millions of dollars if not hundreds of
>millions.
>
>I'm talking about the network itself not some atm machine on the
>corner that's running windows and is an acceptable loss to the
>bank if it needs to be maintained.
>
>The network itself has to have 100% uptime or revenue goes down.

Two things you have to note:
1. Toronto is where the main branches of the Banks are (in Ontario at
least.)
2. INTERAC as implemented originally (may be different now) routed all
transactions through Toronto.

Other cities can be unable to use ATMs because of a problem between them
and Toronto, while Toronto ATMs are unaffected.

Since 1986, when I got my first ATM card, i've had dozens of times when
it was not possible to use _any_ ATM other than the one attached to the
particular branch my account was in, because all the others were routed
through the INTERAC system and routed through Toronto.

Things have improved over the years, but problems still exist.
Just see any grocery store like A&P that does debit - at times the time
to process a transaction has exceeded 20 minutes due to network trouble.

Now whether that is a problem with A&P's system, the INTERAC system or
the interface between them, it's a problem when people have to wait
extended times at a checkout.


Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

shadows wrote:

> On 2005-02-07, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So far, WoW has about a 99.44% up-time compared to my attempts to use
>>it. I understand that others have had something close to 90%, and I
>>feel for them -- that's A Bad Thing.
>
>
> Do you live in North America? Here in Toronto I only had it go
> down once. In fact I know people could lose their jobs because if
> the electronic point of sale system banks deploy goes down the
> impact is measured in millions of dollars if not hundreds of
> millions.
>
> I'm talking about the network itself not some atm machine on the
> corner that's running windows and is an acceptable loss to the
> bank if it needs to be maintained.
>
> The network itself has to have 100% uptime or revenue goes down.
>
>

The assertion that the bank information system is complex is false.
Inside a bank you might find complex logging and reporting systems, yep.
But that's a side-aspect of the Bank's job, which is to perform
financial transactions. This activity is very simple and requires
nothing but the four following things:

_a physical network connecting points together,
_an interface available to identify the author of the transaction and
allow him/her to enter the details of the transaction (date, amount,
out-account, in-account, reason),
_transfering the file to the out-account handler, who will write "-xxx"
in the end of the comptability file,
_transfering the file to the in-account handler, who will write "+xxx"
in the end of the comptability file.

Notice you don't need any kind of computer to do this. Pen & paper are
acceptable methods if you need it done.

You should have talked about last year's black-out in the US.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-08, Babe Bridou <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You should have talked about last year's black-out in the US.

A little known fact is that it happened here in Toronto too and
the blackout hasn't happened since the 1970s.

Feel free to continue to believe that Blizzard is doing
fine. As I mention over and over even Blizzard admits they
screwed up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd0gt47.ps3.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:

> On 2005-02-08, Babe Bridou <babebridou@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Please, tell me again, what exactly did you lose when you realized the
> > realms were down for the umptieth time?

> Twice I came home after work and the login server was down. No
> logins on any realms. About five times I came back from work and
> the server I play on was down. It was an incovenience if you,
> like me, play this at night before (not) getting some sleep.

Everybody agrees that this is sub-optimal. Everyone except you seems to
agree that Blizzard is doing a good job rectifying the situation.
Everybody except you seems in agreement that no ATM service in the world
provides nearly the up-time/availability that WoW/Blizzard does.

You lost out not being able to play a game before going to bed. With
ATM, I had PLANNED to use the service for which I pay to take a bunch of
friends out to dinner for one of their birthday. But, we got there, and
the ATM service for which I pay was unavailable... again!

Which is the greater loss?

When a WoW server goes down, 10-50,000 players are out of luck. When
the login server is down, 500,000 players are temporarily forced to go
outside and look at the super-hi-res graphics. This happened a few
times when they first launched, and less & less until we get to "now",
when it's pretty much over & done. ATM services have been running
DECADES and still can't provide reliable service.

Which has the greater impact on customers?

Nobody's saying Blizzard is perfect. This whole discussion started with
someone asking for any example of a smoother launch and offering that
this sort of thing should be expected, and you should be pleasantly
surprised at how smoothly things went.

Go ahead, admit it -- it went well.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd0gpgd.pns.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:

> Feel free to continue to believe that Blizzard is doing
> fine. As I mention over and over even Blizzard admits they
> screwed up.

These two things are not mutually exclusive.

Nobody denies that mistakes have been made.

You seem in contention with those who maintain that, despite these
mistakes, Blizzard is doing fine.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> writes:

> The gripe about WoW is: I pay for the service, the service wasn't
> available when I wanted to use it.

It can be said that this is a possibility covered in the service
"agreement" - if people did not want that, they should have declined
and returned the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <uk6pjmnpu.fsf@broadpark.no>,
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:

> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> writes:
> > The gripe about WoW is: I pay for the service, the service wasn't
> > available when I wanted to use it.

> It can be said that this is a possibility covered in the service
> "agreement" - if people did not want that, they should have declined
> and returned the game.

More importantly, it's a fact of life. Even in service businesses
without EULAs, this happens. Wait-service isn't 100%, ATM service isn't
100%, automotive service isn't 100%, the dry cleaners ruin your suit,
sometimes. Sometimes the pizza comes late, cold & the wrong pie.

The difference is: for all of these except ATMs & WoW, you can get your
money back. And WoW tells you up front that it's going to happen, where
banks typically don't.

....But the important thing is: folks shouldn't expect everything that
they pay for to work 100% of the time. I can't wait until some of these
people buy a house and hire a contractor... 😀

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Thusly shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> Spake Unto All:

>> You should have talked about last year's black-out in the US.
>
>A little known fact is that it happened here in Toronto too and
>the blackout hasn't happened since the 1970s.

I don't know about last years black-out, but Enron intentionally
staged the rolling blackouts in 1999 which also affected Canada. They
did this to rig the price of electricity in the US, and to position
themselves for Canadas upcoming deregulation of the electricity
market.

 

[Shadows]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

On 2005-02-08, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> In article <slrnd0gpgd.pns.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
> shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
>
>> Feel free to continue to believe that Blizzard is doing
>> fine. As I mention over and over even Blizzard admits they
>> screwed up.
>
> These two things are not mutually exclusive.
>
> Nobody denies that mistakes have been made.
>
> You seem in contention with those who maintain that, despite these
> mistakes, Blizzard is doing fine.

Despite the fact that most people can barely log in most of the
time, and the fact that entire guilds were wiped and forced to
fragment onto several servers, Blizzard is doing a fantastic job.

Go see a doctor about some medication.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

In article <slrnd0i5e3.ps3.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:

> On 2005-02-08, Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote:
> > In article <slrnd0gpgd.pns.shadows@helena.whitefang.com>,
> > shadows <shadows@whitefang.com> wrote:
> >> Feel free to continue to believe that Blizzard is doing
> >> fine. As I mention over and over even Blizzard admits they
> >> screwed up.

> > These two things are not mutually exclusive.
> >
> > Nobody denies that mistakes have been made.
> >
> > You seem in contention with those who maintain that, despite these
> > mistakes, Blizzard is doing fine.

> Despite the fact that most people can barely log in most of the
> time

This is, quite simply, not the case.

> Go see a doctor about some medication.

I might suggest the same.

--
Please take off your shoes before arriving at my in-box.
I will not, no matter how "good" the deal, patronise any business which sends
unsolicited commercial e-mail or that advertises in discussion newsgroups.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

"Miss Elaine Eos" <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote in message
news:Misc-4817F7.11092107022005@individual.net...

>> Blizard does not automatically scan logs looking for offense, that's just
>> prohibitively costly and time consuming.
>
> It's ok to say "I don't know", if that's the correct answer. 😉

It's also ok to say "Please don't bother offering any opinion or answer on
this topic unless you have specific knowledge", if that's the only thing of
interest. ;-) And if that's the case, let me suggest the definitive answer
isn't likely to come to you on Usenet. Try the Blizzard forums. I wouldn't
be surprised to see a response there from someone in a position to know the
answer.

> It turns out that automatically scanning chat for specific words is
> virtually free. It might LOOK like a lot of garbage-chatting going on
> to a person but, to a computer, it's really nothing to look for a
> handful of words every time a player presses "return." Yes, even if
> there are 1000s of players on.

This analysis only takes into account the cost of the real time processing;
it leaves out the most important cost, and that's the manpower, the cycles,
and the lost opportunity cost of someone actually implementing such a
system. With the many thousands of things that need to be done just to keep
things from going sideways, supplemented by the many thousands of things
that *could* be done in order to enhance the commercial appeal of the game,
it's extremely unlikely that Blizzard -- a company legendary for the blind
eye it turns toward exploiters and griefers -- would invest *any* cycles in
pursuit of such a system. And it's not even an issue of how much work it
would take to implement, it's more an issue of prioritization and signal to
noise ratio.

--
Bob Perez

"Men do not quit playing because they grow old; they grow old because they
quit playing."
- Oliver Wendell Holmes

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg (More info?)

Gandalf Parker wrote:
> Miss Elaine Eos <Misc@*your-shoes*PlayNaked.com> wrote in news:Misc-
> DAE0B6.10213506022005@individual.net:
>
> > And I'm really less-interested in this guy's particular case and
more
> > interested in the general case: is the policy that if someone
complains
> > about profanity they'll investigate logs & maybe take action, or is
it
> > that Blizz/GMs have some sort of automated tool that rings a bell
and
> > flashes lights when people swear, prompting investigation &
possibly
> > action? Or is it something else?
>
> Generally the rule for online worlds is that automatic finds are
handled
> automatically. Human reported is handled by humans. Many games have a
quick
> easy "reporting" button which automatically "rings a bell" as you put
it,
> and gives the location of the complaint.
>
> Also, its generally the rule that even though the Terms of Service
might
> refer to swearing as if ANY occurance is a violation it tends to be
handled
> in levels. Private conversations are rarely managed. Public places
such as
> around gathering spots, and definetly public channels, get more
immeadiate
> attention.
>
> Gandalf Parker