Wednesday, August 12, 2009

What the fuck, WoW-playing douchebag?

I have, in the past, played the massive multiplayer online role playing computer game, "World of Warcraft". I have also often mused that, if the player base represents real-life society (which it likely does), then we're "fucked".

A kindred soul who also is interested in maliciously laughing at idiots led me to a post, from the World of Warcraft forums, where somebody describes a new game feature as segregation. Boy did I laugh out loud for about 60 seconds, all while smacking my head against my desk.

Before going into the post, I'll give you a little background, for those that are not WoW-inclined:

In WoW, one can level their character up to level 80 through adventuring and killing things. Since the games inception, there have also been "battlegrounds", which involve players killing other players (who are from the opposite faction) in a level bracket (10-19, 20-29, etc). For a short time, these battlegrounds also gave you experience points, helping you get to the pinnacle of leveling (60 back then).

They (Blizzard, the makers of WoW) took the experience points system out of the battlegrounds not-too-long after the game's release. Since then, people have been "twinking", which is the act of reaching level x9 (19, 29, etc) and then getting the best equipment you can, including enchants and all sorts-of other stuff that aren't available to the average player who is just trying to level to 80, basically making them invincible compared to normal players. Because of this, twinks basically, at times, made it unfun to play in battlegrounds.

Due to many complaints over the years, Blizzard finally did something about it: They re-introduced experience points in the battlegrounds. But, to not lose "twink" customers, they gave people the ability to turn-off experience-grain in battlegrounds. The only catch was that, if you turn off the XP gain, you have to play in a battleground with other people who have done so. So, now, twinks can only fight other twinks, no longer being able to proverbally "rape" normal players.

Apparently, this is a problem, because a lot of twinks don't feel like doing it, so they've given up twinking. Because of that, twink battlegrounds rarely get enough players to begin a match. Many twinks have complained about it, but this guy takes the cake:

I don't mind fighting only exp locked people but if you are going to segregate us like black people pre 1950's then give us a chance for all of us to play together like Compton. I don't mind slumming it up with my twink brethern but placing us in internment camps and making it unplayable is retarded.[1]

Yes, folks... Apparently, making the game fun for normal players and making things more fair (and trying to keep the twinks happy by letting them still twink) is JUST LIKE SEGREGATION. JUST LIKE IT!

Later on, this same idiot says it's like the Jews being rounded up in World War II. But don't worry, he means no offense, because he had Jewish and German relatives, so he understands both sides of that conflict! Personally, though, I wouldn't mind if it were like the rounding-up of the Jews. That's right, you heard me: Round up all of the WoW twinks and execute them! Leveling characters are the master toons!

So, to recap: Making a game fair and trying to keep all players happy by giving some of them special servers because of their choice is just like rounding up people because of their race (and possibly killing them), something that they never choose to be!

Right.

Oh, and for bonus stupid: The guy claims he doesn't like to kill regular players and he just enjoys fighting other twinks, but his name is "Domination" (with some weird D character, actually, but whatever).

Domination: Overreacting to video games since 2001.[2]

1. Source
2. I figure there's no way he's over 13, and probably wasn't too interested in video games until he was 5. But hey, I could be wrong... Dumb people come in all shapes, sizes, and ages.

Tuesday, August 11, 2009

WTF, Daniel Rozak?

Daniel Rozak is a man often referred to as "your honor", which is something I refuse to do.

I don't refuse to call him "your honor" or even include his title of "judge" before his name because I'm an asshole who wishes to disrespect authority, but because he really doesn't deserve it. The title of "judge" implies someone with good judgment - which he doesn't. And, in that same vein, calling someone "your honor" implies that you honor him - which I don't.

I don't make it a habit to go around, non-chalantly disrespecting authority figures (probably because I haven't been 12 in a very long time). However, this guy definitely, 100%, no-doubt-about-it, deserves my complete and total disrespect. A good term to use in his court room would be "your honorable ass" or maybe "your dishonor", because that's what he's done to himself recently - completely dishonored himself with idiocy, and here is why:

(Aug. 10) -- As Clifton Williams sat in the courtroom in Joliet, Ill., awaiting his cousin's sentencing on drug charges, little did he know he would soon be the one in jail.

As Judge Daniel
Rozak sentenced Williams' cousin to two years probation, Williams yawned, an act that earned him six months in jail on contempt charges, the Chicago Tribune reported.[1]

A guy yawned during a courtroom proceeding, and now he's in jail. Wow. Yawning, as proven by a few studies (and the television show Mythbusters) can be completely involuntary. Perhaps somebody else yawned, or the guy thought about the word "yawn" (hell, I bet someone reading this just yawned - but not from boredom, I hope).[2] In any case, yawning is hardly a reason to be held "in contempt", and especially not for six months.

Maybe Daniel Rozak is correct, maybe Mr. Williams really did do it on purpose, but somehow I don't see how he should be charged with Contempt of Court, and receive the MAXIMUM SENTENCE ALLOWED BY LAW for such charges.

So, to recap: One yawn can get you the same penalty as somebody that stands up and tells the judge to fuck off. What an amazing courtroom Rozak must be running there. Was he, by any chance, born and raised in Texas? Or the 1600s?

Daniel Rozak: Your judgment has failed.

1. Source
2. I yawned reading the original article.