You spelled “yup” incorrectly.
You like picking on Bearhands for some reason. I’m not certain as to why you’re so fixated on him whenever he posts.
I’ve got him ignored and don’t see his posts, actually, so I’m not really sure what you mean.
I don’t ignore people unless they resort to insults and trolling. As you’ve probably seen in my post history now that you’ve looked through it some, I willingly engage in discussion with people I disagree with nearly without end so long as they are actually trying to discuss things and not just start a flame war.
Prior to ignoring him, it’s probably far more likely that I wasn’t picking on him, per se, but that we participated in a lot of the same threads and often disagreed. If it seemed like I was picking on him, that’s because he said disagreeable things more often than most.
Oh, like this?
And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. 
1 Like
I’m honestly not sure what changes you mean. Generally when people say there are a lot of changes (and seem to genuinely mean it rather than to get quickly to “so there’s no justification to not make the changes I want”), they mention:
- Layering. Okay.
- Spell batching. Something actually added to simulate the way it used to be.
- Server size. Okay.
Am I missing things?
(I’m just asking Ironchain. Random drive-by person, don’t froth at me.)
2 Likes
They fixed a vanilla bug where Hunters gained no benefit from +AP world buffs. They also added a 30 instances/day cap. They let you leave flight paths early, as often as that works. They also changed a, “bug” that made the Infernal go wild when the Warlock dies. They also made changes to AV/the queueing system. Kiting was also changed.
And, more recently, spell batching/melee leeway being all but removed - though I don’t think this is live yet.
“What a stupid argument.”
Not an insult. That is attacking your argument, which is perfectly acceptable in the Code of Conduct.
Remember, I said:
Which is EXACTLY what is stated in the Code of Conduct:
“Causing disturbances in forum threads, such as picking fights, making off topic posts that ruin the thread, insulting other posters”
“That’s just silly.”
Self evidently not an insult or trolling.
“That crap is nonsense.”
See first explanation. Also stripped of context:
“Just admit you want changes and spare me the BS excuses.”
Self evidently not an insult or trolling. Also missing context:
BLIZZARD YOU NEED TO TUNE BC TO 40 MAN RAIDS
“Utter tripe.”
Self evidently not an insult or trolling. Also missing context:
CONGRATS ALLIANCE, YOU RETAILED AV
“Try again, pup.”
Arguably antagonistic, but hardly an insult. About on-par with calling someone “bud.” Could be argued as picking a fight… but it’s missing context. The guy I was responding to was picking a fight with me:
WORLD BUFF NPC
“This is such a silly argument.”
Self evidently not an insult or trolling.
“You are just full of logical fallacies, aren’t you? Do you have any idea how logic works?”
“What the hell are you even talking about? Are you trolling?”
Not an insult or trolling. The first is an attack on the arguments presented, describing them as fallacious. The second is me asking for clarification on the poster’s argument, because it seemed so nonsensical that I thought they were being intentionally obtuse for the purposes of trolling. For context:
WHO’S TO SAY YOU CAN’T ADD NEW ITEMS INTO CLASSIC?
“Are you Cathy Newman, by chance?”
So you’re saying calling someone Cathy Newman is an insult?
Joking aside…
For context, Cathy Newman’s interview of Jordan Peterson was riddled with strawmen and misinterpretations of Jordan Peterson’s words.
I was making a reference towards that behavior to comment on the poster’s argumentation style. This was not an insult to the poster themselves, and cannot possibly be interpreted as such unless you are saying that calling someone Cathy Newman is an insult.
“Holy hell, you have no idea what you’re talking about, at all.”
Not an insult or troll. For context:
WORLD BUFF NPC
“Don’t get full of yourself, pup.”
Explained before. For context, this was in response to someone else insulting me after I called them out for lying about their credentials to add undeserved weight to their arguments.
That’s also after THEY were picking a fight with someone else who was only facetious comment about the mentality of calling people casual just because they don’t push for world firsts:
THOUGHTS ON MELEE DPS IN TBC
“You’re not very bright, are you?”
Probably the closest thing to an insult you found.
Here’s the full context:
MANUAL CROWD PUMMELER AND DRUID TANK
https://i.imgur.com/5DUChgN.png
This is me pointing out that the person missed the point of what I was saying.
I’ll give you a half point.
“What a shallow and useless summation.”
Self evidently not an insult or trolling. This is an attack on the “TL;DR” someone was giving to conclude their post, not an insult to the poster themselves.
The ones you listed, plus:
BG queue changes.
BG map changes.
World buffs affecting ranged attack power.
Spell batching being reduced to 10ms. (Its existing isn’t a change, and it wasn’t added to simulate anything. The batching windows were simply increased; they always existed)
Black Lotus spawn rates.
Instance caps.
New textures.
Removing the ability to Mind Control people in certain areas (and out of BGs).
Those are just the ones that come to mind.
1 Like
Elaborate on those three, please.
Some (not all) think I am, too. Don’t listen to them.
I will state, however you were providing spammy like posting. Which is against the ToS. I have zero issue with anyone wanting to discuss pros and cons of changes to the game. Quite a bit here are happy to have changes included into the game.
What many (I’m confident in saying this) won’t stand for is spam. Condense your thoughts down into fewer words, so it’ll fit in one post. Good luck to ya 
BG queue changes:
Blizzard made it so the game numbers of battlegrounds are no longer displayed when a queue pops, and you are not guaranteed to get into the game number you specifically queued for. This was done to prevent players from queuing at the same time and declining the invite to the game if they were not invited to the same game.
This change was made to counter Alliance premading in Alterac Valley.
BG map changes
There were a number of changes made to the maps in battlegrounds to prevent certain areas for being accessible that were previously accessible in Classic and originally accessible in vanilla.
These included, but were not limited to certain areas in Alterac Valley, various jump spots in Warsong Gulch, some buildings in Arathi Basin.
Other changes included to Alterac Valley in particular, such as changing how items dropped off player insignias are rewarded depending on if you kill someone in a graveyard, changing how certain NPCs react to being kited out of their buildings.
There’s so many changes to BGs in particular that I can’t actually remember them all off the top of my head.
Removing the ability to Mind Control people in certain areas (and out of BGs).
You used to be able to Mind Control people off boats or blimps. In Battlegrounds, there used to be exist portals that you could walk through to leave the game. These were made obsolete later in WoW’s lifetime by the addition of /afk taking you out of the game, and later adding an option on the PvP icon on your minimap to leave the game, but the portals were not removed until much later.
Up until their removal, you could Mind Control someone and run them into the portal, which would cause them to leave the game, and give them Deserter.
Another thing I just remembered:
You didn’t used to be able to report someone as AFK to kick people out of BGs. Someone would actually have to go AFK instead of just being mass reported by their teammates.
This was changed to no longer instantly remove someone early on in Classic, but the system itself did not exist in any capacity in vanilla.
Ah. I didn’t know you couldn’t mind control people off boats or blimps anymore. Actually, since I don’t play on a PvP realm, I’ve never been in a position to see that theoretically tested.
Thanks.
Somehow the troll op got his own thread derailed and outtrolled.
2 Likes
Shh, this is better than Jerry Springer.
3 Likes
The fact that you’re trying to pull every technicality you can to make it sound like you aren’t just straight-up trying to insult other people is hilarious! And you probably spent hours doing this too. Your “context” is very clear–especially when you call people “pup” all the time when you disagree with them. Nobody is going to look at that and assume you aren’t being antagonistic.
Since you wanna be technical, then I might as well hit you with more technical. Fair is fair, right? Were you legitimately asking if “Cathy Newman” was on these forums interacting with you?
But wait! You said it was a “a reference” which is not what your question inferred at all. It was a straight-up question.
Again, just being technical.
So, which one is it then? You wanna be technical when it makes your insults look like they’re not insults. Then you don’t wanna be technical when you make obscure references to people on some news program.
If you can’t understand the difference between an ad hominem argument vs. an ad hominem fallacy, then you’re in no position to really say anything further.
The CoC allows ad hom arguments because they’re not only perfectly valid logical forms, but they strike directly at arguments and ideas themselves. They can come off as insulting because people personally invest themselves into their positions and ideas, and effective use of an ad hom argument will feel like you’re being attacked, but it is all perfectly valid.
Stupid ideas can be called stupid, especially if the stupidity is well established and proven up. Whether you want to feel insulted because an idea was called stupid or not is entirely on you.
No, this is being obtuse. You understand the context, but you ignore it to make a point someone isn’t making, because you’d rather troll than do anything in good faith. That’s why you alternate between Dolchkrieger and Mobikon, so you can pad post counts, responding in the same way, and clutter up threads.
2 Likes
Hello, Mr. Gatekeeper!
Nope, it’s me showing him that I can be technical too and it doesn’t change the meaning behind what I said.
The distinction is important, and is not just a “technicality.” Anyone trying to hold a civil discussion needs to be able to separate the ideas from the person putting those ideas forth.
It is absolutely essential to the exchange of ideas that we be able to respond to, and criticize harshly, the arguments while realizing there is no insult being directed towards the person.
As opposed to what, exactly? Taking a few seconds to write a dismissive and unconvincing reply?
Allow me to try that for a second:
Am I doing it right?
You’re right, it is very clear: very clear that in every reply you quoted, I was merely attacking the arguments put forth and was genuinely trying to have a civil and relevant discussion.
When you don’t just quote one sentence in a multi-paragraph post detailing my arguments, it becomes completely clear I am not making posts to disrupt threads or insult posters, or anything of that sort.
I already addressed this:
I already explained what I was doing by asking that question:
You have this nasty habit of totally removing the context that actually explains what I am saying.
Coming from someone who puts context in quotes when referencing actual context, that isn’t much of a surprise, though.
Oh, and that isn’t an insult, by the way.
I’m not being technical when I make my case for why what I said isn’t an insult. You are not being technical when being disingenuous.
I know you’re just being facetious, but asking for someone’s name is, strictly speaking, not invasion of privacy. They have the option to refuse answering the question, and choosing to answer the question means they did not intend for their name to be private.
The closest rule that comes to addressing this issue would be:
Distribution of Real-Life Personal Information
This category includes:
- Releasing any real-life information about other players or Blizzard Entertainment employees
If a player is found to have participated in such actions, he/she will:
- Be permanently banned from the forums
And, that says “releasing any real-life information about other players.” If someone gives their own real life name out on the forums, they are not in violation of the Code of Conduct.
Sounds about right.
Ahh, I had already ignored Mobikon. I suppose I should’ve realized this was the same person.
That explains the trolling.
1 Like
Yeah, same guild, same posting style, minimal raiding, but more specifically, zero cross-over where they share a raid together. Dolch is Mobi’s alt most likely since he’s even less geared and only has Phase 6 MC clears.
The dude has done even less than I have.
Yes! Yes! Yes!
But “context” was in quotes, which you missed.
You have a nasty habit of totally removing any humanity from what you say.
Oh, I’m glad you told me, because it clearly shows you know exactly what I mean now. This pretty much confirms exactly what I’ve been saying all along too.
No, you’re being technical because you know you’re being insulting and you want to recontextualize everything so that you look like anything other than what you think you look like.
I was merely showing you what you yourself do. Calling me “disingenuous” is calling yourself disingenuous by proxy.
Oh, so if I found out your real name and just asked you if that was your name, it’s totally not “revealing” what your name is. I’ll have to remember that.
But you’re not asking them in private. You’re doing so in a public forum which entails other people see the name you posted. It’s clearly malicious.