Of all those other changes which of them have merit in security, ToS violation prevent, scam prevention, CS workload benfifits, exc. And don’t change any core gameplay mechanics?
Also
Segway-a two-wheeled motorized personal vehicle consisting of a platform for the feet mounted above an axle and an upright post surmounted by handles, controlled by the way the rider distributes their weight.
Trying to figure out of your trying to use that word as a replacement for the slippery slope or not. Because your not using it for what it means
If you were trying to use it as this.
A segue is a smooth transition. When you segue in conversation , you change the topic so smoothly that people might not even notice. A good speaker knows how to segue: they can get from one topic to another so easily that you hardly notice the topic changed.
Then yes, your just trying to use it as a replacement for the slippery slope without saying slippery slope because we know it’s a fallacy.
Edit: interesting fact
When you shift to a new topic or activity, you segue. Many people unfamiliar with the unusual Italian spelling of the word misspell it as “ segway .” This error is being encouraged by the deliberately punning name used by the manufacturers of the Segway Human Transporter
So after looking into this more I am sure your argument is the slippery slope, which is a fallacy, even if you are using the wrong word.
Except that Blizzard used that exact term, did they not?
Of course that does not mesh with your goal of seeing that non vanilla QOL convenience change added to classic, so you will have _some _ reason that it doesn’t count, right?
And let’s not forget the slippery slope that you keep claiming doesn’t exist, only then slide down that same slippery slope yourself.
No matter how much you want to misrepresent the slippery slope, the slippery slope is not saying that “adding A will absolutely, positively lead to B, C, D, etc.”
The slippery slope is saying that “Change A sets a precedent for further changes.”
Very much like:
“They’re already making changes non vanilla changes, so they can add my desired non vanilla QOL convenience change.”
Actually, at least one pro guild bank advocate has used exactly that reason and is honest enough to admit that convenience is the reason he wants guild banks.
And I am sure that if Blizzard said “No guild banks”, you will continue to pester Blizzard for the non vanilla QOL convenience of guild banks like a petulant 5 year old who’s Mommy told him the cannot have that cookie he wants.
It’s more a case of that since the idea that classic will be exactly the same as vanilla has already been debunked we might as well discuss what classic should actually be.
Fesz posting as if he’s going to do anything in Classic other than sit around and fish. Guild Banks are for people that want to join a guild and do group content, not fishermen like you and Mogar.
I thought slippery slope was synonymous with the Pandora’s box reference Ion made? Or does it just mean whatever you want it to mean, because that’s how no-changers roll?
Not really it’s consistent with what blizzard position has always been, classic won’t be exactly the same as vanilla and they’re willing to listen to what people want out of classic.
Just like cars are not needed to get to work.
It just makes it much more efficient, reliable, and in some cases safer depending on the areas you would have to walk through otherwise.
Are guild banks needed? No. But then mailboxes we’re not needed either. Blizzard could have had no mail system to make people meet and trade. To go to the AH to pick up actions. Exc.
It’s not about needed. It’s about if it’s the right call to have it or not. But that’s blizzards call to make.
They made that call in 2004-2006. Mailboxes were in Vanilla; Guild banks were not in Vanilla. The Classic devs themselves have said it’s not up to them to change what existed during that time.
