They owned their mistakes, and they fixed them. Crying solved nothing…and certainly wasn’t the reason things got fixed. They got fixed because it was the right thing to do. When the game smoothed out, the crybabies were the first to claim it was due to their voices being heard…
…because as we all know, it is the tears of the marginalized that stabilize servers, rather than actual hard work.
It was a grand performance of failure
Symphony sounds more grand here than performance, YMMV.
The bullies of our virtual playground taunted ragequitters relentlessly, as if taking on a personal challenge. Watch how fast I can make this one fly off the handle.
Since you are describing the challenge immediately prior to stating it, formatting wise it looks better as: The bullies of our virtual playground taunted ragequitters relentlessly, as if taking on a personal challenge: “Watch how fast I can make this one fly off the handle.”
The first signs were the rubber banding.
Since the term “rubber banding” is a single effect/thing (even though it occurred frequently) it would make sense to make the tense singular: The first sign was the rubber banding.
where was work they were promised.
“where was the work they were promised.”
They knew as well as we did that the bullying gamer mentality would thrive and prosper if not checked, a volatility management strategy.
I’m a bit confused here; are you saying that leaving the mentality unchecked was volatile or something else? Either way volatility is being used to describe the “management strategy” and it doesn’t read properly. I’m guessing it should be “volatile management strategy”?
Whether you like or not,
“Whether you like it or not,”
In an attempt to curtail online volatility,
Was this on your word of the day calendar? Lets try “hostility” here.
the QQ that followed was a rainstorm not seen since Vanilla.
Rainstorm sounds bland, how about “deluge”?
Never once did we stop to consider that perhaps their changed stance was the right thing to do, and would have taken place whether a sea of tears had flooded the forums or not.
I don’t think that it would have gotten changed without the amount of public outcry that was the result. As you pointed out, we weren’t talking about virtual impacts on 1s and 0s here. Would Blizzard have changed their minds at some point? Maybe. But I think that if when they implemented RealID and there was positive or even negligible response from the community it would have stayed (not an edit, just observation).
There are a couple of things I’m trying to convey with this post, and it sounds like I may have missed them, so some clarity in an upcoming edit is most likely in order. Here’s the nuts and bolts of what I wanted to communicate:
Some gamers bitch and whine when they fail/die/get beat/don’t get what they want. Other gamers don’t. Let’s call these losers and winners.
Losers very often don’t see the big picture – they only see how they’ve been personally wronged, just like they were on the playground.
There are a great number of players that have insight into some of these big picture problems, such as software developers understanding the struggle of server infrastructure / instability (middle part of the post). I used myself as example.
With Real ID, it was the same thing. There were a select group of knowledgeable players that understood privacy concerns even better than us (or Blizzard) – and articulated them in such a way as to convince Blizzard otherwise.
During this, QQers ranted about their own problems, not providing any solutions, not providing any effort or thoughtfulness into the issue. But, as they had in the past, claimed victory when Blizzard pulled a 180, as if they themselves were responsible for the change. They weren’t.
I think after speaking with @Dalans over IM, the disconnect comes from “the act of being on the forums” is being equated to QQ (which is 90% true…just not 100% true). I’ll see if I can rephrase a bit of this post to bring more clarity around that.
@Dalans, your edits are rolled up. I also made mention of the female sexual harassment issue, which is an ongoing problem noted by readers such as @Kurnmogh.
I wasn’t convinced that the post’s message was solid and it took a little more chiseling to get it into a better shape. The overall intent (I believe) has changed as a result, but I believe the change is that it speaks a clearer message.
For those that care to, give it a second read through (2nd & 3rd sections, namely) and let me know if this one rings a little truer.
According to rage that filled the forums
“According to the rage…”
Rewrite looks good. I don’t think it changed the tone too much.