Still not buying what you are selling.
I’d hope not. A lot of decent people here.
You are making things up to try and justify being banned for 15 days for saying alliance has healers with 30k health. That’s not a forum ban it’s an in game ban highlighting the statement they were banned for lol. It tells you right there what statement was reported. Just stop.
1 Like
Being FORCED to be nice is new… for Americans, and it is very Political.
5 Likes
But why are people queueing for things with other people if they know they can’t commit the 15 minutes to it
My cat had a pretty traumatic surgery i had to nurse for a month and i… didn’t queue bgs or arenas when she wasn’t sleeping from her pain meds or when i couldn’t be in the same room as her
I don’t agree that leaving bgs warrants a report (but deserter should definitely be more impactful), but it’s selfish and careless of people to waste other people’s time because they’re irresponsible 
1 Like
It tells you ONE statement - not the whole chat log. That statement alone has nothing wrong with it. The mods would not have suspended someone for it without more to it. If that was all that was said it would have been overturned on appeal. I have appealed before - it works if the mods mess up.
You missed both the quote and the attribution. Let me help and see if this will make any more sense for you.
Benjamin Franklin said, " Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (bold is mine)
Would you like to argue that a right to say hate speech, harassment, or discrimination is an essential liberty? If yes, do you believe that essential liberty is absolute, including in private spaces monitored by private entities, like Blizzard, for instance?
Also, do you think purging these things from a community is a little temporary safety?
Words make a difference, and excluding the ones that ruin the point you’re trying to make is bad faith argument.
3 Likes
There are no mods reviewing these new social contract violations. It’s automated. You also have no idea if more was said, and the logical thing to do is take Blizzard at their word and believe the person was banned for what they said he was banned for and not whatever you want to imagine was also said.
2 Likes
You are right and wrong. Both are attributed to the quote. Thomas Jefferson because of The Federalist Papers and a specific passage from it.
It was more than likely from Ben Franklin though because he was very well know for turning a phrase.
“A republic! If you can keep it…”
Edit: James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson.
What’s funny is, there’s posters in the Classic forums who want Blizzard to prevent them from making bad choices about transfers by limiting them.
Blizzard telling players what they can and cannot say = bad.
Blizzard telling players where they can and cannot play = good.
O the irony.
Human history is all the evidence needed. None of this “stuff” many of us warn about being a slippery slope is new. Totalitarian situations like this existed and currently exist. The results are on the planet today.
Zothlar#1524 if you actually want an answer to this. I’m not going to delve any deeper than we already have into 18th century philosophy in this thread. You’ve implied that you’re versed in this, so it should be self explanatory, but I will happily walk you through it, tuition free, in private.
If you are genuine in your belief that this Social Contract is going to steal away your individual liberties, despite agreeing to be bound by it already in another name, then it is more than a difference of opinion. I’m not qualified to diagnose, and certainly couldn’t from this limited interaction, but I would be concerned about what could be paranoia and dysfunction in your interface with reality.
Are you this upset when they are expected to follow social contracts at school?
Your opinion isn’t being suppressed. Rant for the world. Just understand that you aren’t correct. And if you can’t understand, then accept that if you have the right to broadcast your opinion, I have an equal right to try to make sure other people know it’s wrong.
2 Likes
No, I am just right. It is not correctly attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who by the way, did not write any of the Federalist Papers.
1 Like
It’s funny you should bring it up. Jefferson wrote the original draft of the First Amendment and opposed the Sedition Act. He may have been very polite about how he himself spoke out against a strong federal government, but he firmly set a precedent for it not being necessary.
Sophistry at worst, debateable at best. One look at Blizzard’s activities over the past 15 or so years tell a much different story. The Warden, Blitz Chung and Blizzard pandering to the CCP, the slow creep of censorship on both the forums and in game just to pick a few of the more obvious examples. To whit: that little kid telling Taliesin “Free Hong Kong” while the Blizzard Devs looked on Stone Faced was PRICELESS as an indicator of just how morally and ethically bankrupt they had become.
It’s not the presence of rules. It’s how vague and open to interpretation they are. And given just how closely aligned with the extreme political left Blizzard is, and how much they pander to it, I don’t think it’s even a little bit unreasonable to be VERY LEERY of this. And now they’re mandating broad strokes “attitude adjustments” for their player base?
Their “house” just turned into a gulag.
4 Likes
We saw it happen. I cant believe I am surprised by this, but I am. Why would you lie?
Sure, love debates. Not possible without making it public first.
We understand you disagree. Incrementalism is a thing. Both sides of politics use it.
I had imagined as such. So don’t try to, it is insulting to both the person and true medical professionals.
No such thing. Guessing you don’t have kids.
Read some other posts. It seems the consensus is that the forums should have the same contractual barriers.
My mistake. I was referring to James Madison. Wow you are arrogant.
1 Like
N
You not finding it insulting does not mean is not insulting. Stating “its not insulting” just means you are not insulted by it. Your statement only means that one thing. No one person is or can be the sole arbiter of what is insulting. No country, no institution can be that. Insulting is only an opinion. Akin to the word “nice” or “interesting”, just opinions.
1 Like
Yeah. I did misattribute that version of the quote. Oops. Oh well. And yes, there is more than one version with Jefferson responsible for at least one of them.
“He who gives his freedom for safety gets none of them.”
But this is trivia.
I would argue that as long as you are not using (abusing) the Right to Free Speech to cause harm (and yes, I will go so far as to include emotional harm where it can be qualified), then your ability to speak should be held as Sacrosanct.
And yes, I do think trying to force a community to behave a certain way smacks of a certain grotesqueness. Believe it or not, I’m of the school that thinks that people are generally good. And will treat you kindly if not provoked. But this? I think this is exactly the provocation that I would seek to avoid.
By the by, I’m not excluding anything. I was using a similar but different quote. Nor am I making a bad faith argument. I believe the idea I’m trying to convey is bigger than any one version of the original quote (or my screwup in who first said it).
1 Like
That was well said.
You think there’s no such thing as social contracts in schools? Even if you are in a place that doesn’t call them that explicitly, and there are many schools that do, by the way, they still exist. Do your children speak when a teacher is teaching? Why or why not? Do you children feel free to leave the classroom whenever they’d like, without requiring permission? How about the school grounds? If no to any of these, which are very common components of social contracts in schools, then some of their individual liberty has been compromised for the overall good of the community.
You condescend while “correcting” me and then call me arrogant when I condescend back? How delightful…
It could mean that, or it could mean that I’m referring to a general community standard in which a reasonable person would not find it insulting. Most law abiding citizens don’t find it insulting when they are reminded of a law they are following anyway, especially when there are other members of the community frequently breaking it.
So apply that to the question I actually asked you to answer. Are hate speech, harassment, and discrimination essential liberties? If yes, is that liberty absolute, meaning no one in any context should have the right to moderate them?
Expecting people to not harass people is grotesque now. Did I just fall off the world? What the hell is going on…
2 Likes