First lets provide precision to this statement and see if you can still apply the verb you used in the context of the sentence in which it was used:
work
/wÉrk/
noun
- Activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a purpose or result.
āHe was tired after a dayās work in the fieldsā
synonyms: labor, toil, exertion, effort, slog, drudgery, the sweat of oneās brow;
industry; service;informal grind, sweat, donkey work, spadework, elbow grease; informal graft, (word edited from definition because it is also used as a gender identity slur);informal yakka; archaic travail, moil
- A task or tasks to be undertaken; something a person or thing has to do.
āthey made sure the work was progressing smoothlyā
synonyms: tasks, jobs, duties, assignments, commissions, projects; chores āhavenāt you got any work to do?ā
verb
- Be engaged in physical or mental activity in order to achieve a purpose or result, especially (but not exclusively) in oneās job; do work.
āan engineer who had been working on a design for a more efficient wingā
synonyms: toil, labor, exert oneself, slave (away), plod away; work oneās fingers to the bone, work like a Trojan/dog, work day and night, keep at it, keep oneās nose to the grindstone;
informal slog (away), beaver away, plug away, peg away, put oneās back into something, work oneās guts out, work oneās socks off, knock oneself out, sweat blood, kill oneself; informal graft, (word edited from definition because it is also used as a gender identity slur); informal bullock;
vulgar synonyms edited; archaic drudge, travail, moil
āstaff worked late into the night to make the necessary repairsā
- (of a machine or system) Operate or function, especially properly or effectively.
āhis cell phone doesnāt work unless he goes to a high pointā
synonyms: function, go, run, operate, perform; be in working order; informal behave
āDinoās car was now working perfectlyā
- intransitive verb: To perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary
He works in publishing.
Then of course there is the definition of work that is classified as the most general case statement found in Physics:
Work is defined as a force causing the movementāor displacementāof an object. In the case of a constant force, work is the scalar product of the force acting on an object and the displacement caused by that force. Though both force and displacement are vector quantities, work has no direction due to the nature of a scalar product (or dot product) in vector mathematics. This definition is consistent with the proper definition because a constant force integrates to merely the product of the force and distance.
Quite a few different definitions, however the context of your sentence gives us a handle on which to gain a philosophical advantage. In the case of your sentence the plain language reading of it by induction lends itself to the intransitive verb definition 3. A task for which you get paid a salary or wage. And your hypothesis is that the target of your argument is not an employee or contractor for the company and therefore is not being paid therefore no work could have been done. My response is to call b.s. As we see from the various other definitions including the physics definition work is not necessarily something for which one must be paid in coin of the realm. One may be paid in enjoyment for pertinent example:
He ground out the work of gaining reputation with the faction for the pure enjoyment and the knowledge that he would be rewarded greatly by the option to purchase an azure water strider at the end of his toil and soon would be able to stride across the waves as a part of his reward.
So while your definition of the word work might be applied, the other definitions of the word (which cannot be ignored here for the simple fact that the definition you chose to hang the context on is a subset of a more general use case) are still attached and serve to negate the context as the more general use cases would be the more acceptable interpretations.
Even if we rely solely on your own context the person who chose to grind out the reputation to get the azure water strider was paid for his efforts. He was paid in enjoyment thus negating the context of your sentence as there was an exchange of payment for effort.
To then go back and remove or modify the features of the water strider because reasons, in any other context would be considered an impermissible conversion for which remedy in law would be available.
Yes the person who attained the reputation worked for it. They were then compensated for that work with a reward. That reward is payment. To modify the payment in a manner that decreases the value of that payment is one element of conversion. The other three elements (the plaintiff having the right to use as explicitly stated in the contract, the intent of the defendant to devalue the property in question being clear and the resulting damages incurred) being met unequivocally, by implementing this feature in this upcoming patch the tort of conversion will be complete and would under normal circumstances bring liability to the defendants (Blizzard Entertainment, ATVI, et al). The only thing preventing it from being an actual liability for Blizzard is that it has not been tried.
Now, I would say that while going after Blizzard Entertainment in such a fashion might be met with both skepticism and ridicule, with some pointing to the EULA and ToS. Morally and Ethically Blizzards stated intent is not different from any other company that might try the same shenanigans in the real world and were the world a just and fair place (it is not) Blizzard could be sued for this tort as might any other company who has perpetrated it in the past such as:
Love v. U.S. (1972)
LA. State Bar Association v. Hinrichs
IN RE: Thebus
Francis v Farnham Oregon Supreme Court (1982). Interestingly enough this case cites the Oregon Supreme Courtās definition of the tort of Conversion from Mustola. (Mustola v. Toddy 1969) Showing that the adverb intentionally modifies the word committed which verb refers to the tort action not the damage.
In this case Blizzard Entertainment has expressed an intent to commit conversion and if it goes forward with this intention will have intentionally or not caused damages to the class of people who āownā Azure Water Striders.
We have established that the actions required to be performed to obtain the Azure Water Strider constitute work. As a result of that the promised reward was a mount that would walk on surfaces identifiable as āwaterā in the game. We have established that Blizzard Entertainment ceded the right to use the Water Strider once the requirements were met to obtain the Water Strider. We have established that Blizzard Entertainment Intends to modify in a manner that would render the Water Strider unusable for the purpose to which it was intended. We have also established that damages will occur that will substantially devalue the Water Strider to the class of people who have earned the right to use the Water Strider. All four elements of Conversion have been met. Irrespective of the fact that it is pixels on a screen we can reject the argument that no work has been performed based on plain language reading of the definition of the word work, therefore ethically and morally a conversion is imminent and under other circumstance any such company that attempted what Blizzard is attempting would see an injunction while the case moved forward and at the end of the day it is likely that Blizzard Entertainment would be forced to compensate for conversion or would have to reverse the conversion as they would decidedly lose on the merits of the case.
![:stuck_out_tongue:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/stuck_out_tongue.png?v=6" ":stuck_out_tongue:")
![:smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/smile.png?v=6" ":smile:")
![:slight_smile:](https://d38bqls1q93fod.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/slight_smile.png?v=6" ":slight_smile:")