Could be Worse

[Monroe]

Blizzard, makers of World of Warcraft, is taking steps to end anonymous forum logins.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10543100.stm

 

Kind of meta to talk about forums on a forum, but I thought it was interesting none the less. I'm sure this will never happen here, though, if only so that those that run this board can maintain their own anonymity.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Monroe

Blizzard, makers of World of Warcraft, is taking steps to end anonymous forum logins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/10543100.stm

Kind of meta to talk about forums on a forum, but I thought it was interesting none the less. I'm sure this will never happen here, though, if only so that those that run this board can maintain their own anonymity.

Well, at least it's not as bad as EA, where if your forum account is banned, you lose access to all the games that you paid for.

[waterplant]

Hilarious how that guy told of how problematic it would be to reveal his name while at the same time - revealing his name!!!

 

 

Sorry Monroe, what does 'kind of meta' mean?

[Unplayable Playable Character]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Well, at least it's not as bad as EA, where if your forum account is banned, you lose access to all the games that you paid for.

Really? That's cruel.

Many people like to socialize on the internet because of the anonymity. Forum-wise, anyway.

I can't see this going too well...

[The Ratt]

I like the idea behind it, people making themselves more exposed so they are more considerate, but many people like the internet just for the opposite reason. They like being able to satisfy their vices and torment others while feeling hidden and secure. The internet truly does expose some of the worst aspects of society.

[Monroe]

It's really all about the age old question: Do you want the freedom to, or the freedom from? The internet has always been a place for freedom to, but then, no one owns the internet. I guess if Blizzard wants to make their own forum freedom from, that's their call. We'll see where it gets them. I don't think the world is ready for a freedom from internet just yet.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

I like the idea behind it, people making themselves more exposed so they are more considerate, but many people like the internet just for the opposite reason. They like being able to satisfy their vices and torment others while feeling hidden and secure. The internet truly does expose some of the worst aspects of society.

There's a great quote from Oscar Wilde, it's something like "Give a man a mask and he shall tell no lies". I've always felt it provides interesting food for thought, especially on the internet. While there are certainly many drawbacks to anonymity, it's also true that there are a great many benefits. It's just a question if the benefits outweigh the negatives, as are all other things in life.

[Nioca]

Originally Posted By: The Ratt

I like the idea behind it, people making themselves more exposed so they are more considerate, but many people like the internet just for the opposite reason. They like being able to satisfy their vices and torment others while feeling hidden and secure. The internet truly does expose some of the worst aspects of society.

Arguably true, but that's not the real problem. The real problem, as outlined here, is that using real names would potentially be enough to cause the person real-life problems.

And frankly, I don't see how that would work to curb the troll problem. Fake names, anyone? I know I've recently started giving out false information on sites that demand it, and I seriously doubt I'm alone. Not that many people know my real name, and the majority of them are here. What's to stop a troll from simply registering under a fake name?

[Andraste]

You would have to make a fake BattleNet account, Nioca. And as far as I know, you have to have a registered copy of the game bound to your BNet account to post on that particular games forum. So only people with Starcraft 2 can post on the SC2 forums, and only people with WoW can post on the WoW forums. So making a fake account would be an annoying and possibly expensive experience.

[Alorael at Large]

Being more exposed might make you more considerate, and it might make everyone interacting with you more considerate, but it won't make anyone viewing but not participating more considerate, and it certainly doesn't provide protection from someone who goes beyond trolling. See, the trolls just yell at you online. Now there's a chance that they can, with very little effort, sign you up for mountains and mountains of physical spam.

 

—Alorael, who finds this to be a remarkably wrongheaded approach by Blizzard. There are better ways to enforce civility. (And now he's wondering if anyone has ever tried a forum that requires some kind of means of payment so that it can levy a token fee against you every time you break the rules.)

[Lilith]

This is a really spectacularly bad idea. Word is that this is an order from the bosses at Activision, who want to take the online content in Blizzard's games in a new direction, and Blizzard employees aren't even being allowed to comment on it outside of canned statements. Basically, Activision sees WoW as a bigger, more profitable version of Farmville, and is treating it as such. The "cleaning up the forums" excuse is a fig leaf.

 

Originally Posted By: City of Liars and Dreamers

—Alorael, who finds this to be a remarkably wrongheaded approach by Blizzard. There are better ways to enforce civility. (And now he's wondering if anyone has ever tried a forum that requires some kind of means of payment so that it can levy a token fee against you every time you break the rules.)

 

Something Awful's forums do exactly this by requiring a $10 fee to join. If you break the rules, your account is either suspended for a period of time or banned; in the latter case, you have to fork out another $10 to get it back. People still break the rules, but probably less often than they otherwise would.

[Alorael at Large]

I thought about mentioning Something Awful, but it's actually different model. You pay to join, and your joining can be taken away from you if you misbehave. I'm envisioning forums that are still free unless you break the rules. The difficulty is in making sure that money can be collected. You'd need something like a valid credit card and a way to make sure it stays valid. I imagine re-checking every time someone posts would be an issue.

 

—Alorael, who cannot understand how a company can turn a profit while mistaking WoW for Farmville. Except for being online games that have notably addictive qualities, they're rather different.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: City of Liars and Dreamers

I thought about mentioning Something Awful, but it's actually different model. You pay to join, and your joining can be taken away from you if you misbehave. I'm envisioning forums that are still free unless you break the rules. The difficulty is in making sure that money can be collected. You'd need something like a valid credit card and a way to make sure it stays valid. I imagine re-checking every time someone posts would be an issue.

I'm not even sure that would be legal. Outright penalty fees generally don't hold up in court.

[The Mystic]

All I know is that if people try hard enough, they'll find a way to avoid using their real names.

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: City of Liars and Dreamers

—Alorael, who finds this to be a remarkably wrongheaded approach by Blizzard. There are better ways to enforce civility. (And now he's wondering if anyone has ever tried a forum that requires some kind of means of payment so that it can levy a token fee against you every time you break the rules.)

 

Something Awful's forums do exactly this by requiring a $10 fee to join. If you break the rules, your account is either suspended for a period of time or banned; in the latter case, you have to fork out another $10 to get it back. People still break the rules, but probably less often than they otherwise would.

That's not so bad. About 10-15 years ago now, I ran into a forum that charged a monthly fee.

[Slawbug]

Wow. What a spectacularly awful idea. There are a limited number of fields in which a potential employer googling your name and turning up a whole bunch of WoW forum posts would be less than catastrophic.

[Dintiradan]

Penny Arcade has a comic on this today, and in his news post Tycho links to a MetaFilter comment that touches on a tonne of reasons why this is a bad idea. Not much more to say, really.

 

EDIT:

.

[Monroe]

As of today the Real ID 'feature' has officially been cancelled. Boom. It's even signed by Mike Morhaime himself, the Jeff of Blizzard.

 

It's crazy turnarounds like this that make Blizzard the epic company that they are. I mean, this issue actually got them publicity, so it was probably worth angering tons of loyal fans, who were going to keep buying their games regardless, for a few days. In the end, they look like heros foe giving the people what they wanted (back). Jeff could learn a lot from these guys.

[Niemand]

It seems to me, at first glance, that it would be hard for Jeff to create enough outrage to gain significant publicity. Also, he would have to then follow through and defuse it in such a way that he could look like the hero of the situation, which would in part depend on being able to imply that the blame belonged somewhere else. It's a little hard to give a vague impression that the outrage-inducing idea came from some non-specific place in middle management when your framework is a company with only three employees.

[Monroe]

I was kinda joking. Even if Jeff could pull something like that off, I wouldn't want him to try, seeing as I'm one of the loyal fans that would be outraged. It's actually pretty funny to imagine the problems that having my real name posted on these forum would create. For many people... heheheh.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Monroe

I was kinda joking. Even if Jeff could pull something like that off

Jeff did manage to piss of quite a few people when he defended DRM on his blog. He hit main page on Slashdot, IIRC.

I'm sure that did increase sales, and without too much negatives.

[Dintiradan]

He's hit Slashdot quite a few times, actually. Can't help but think it's intentional.

[Slawbug]

Wow. Monroe makes a good point -- if that was a publicity stunt, it was a very smart one.

 

Did Jeff really defend DRM? I remember him in the past defending only very limited forms of DRM and being somewhat ambivalent on the topic as a whole. Has that changed?

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: CRISIS on INFINITE SLARTIES

Did Jeff really defend DRM? I remember him in the past defending only very limited forms of DRM and being somewhat ambivalent on the topic as a whole. Has that changed?

He's defended Assassin's Creed 2's DRM, which was very draconian and unpopular, so I guess that he could be construed as "defending" DRM.

Of course, all he really said was that "This will remain uncracked for long enough for them to make tons of money", but still.

[Dintiradan]

I can't see Blizzard benefiting from this. At best, it's "Blizzard is cool, but Activision is stupid", which isn't very reassuring.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

He's defended Assassin's Creed 2's DRM, which was very draconian and unpopular, so I guess that he could be construed as "defending" DRM.

Of course, all he really said was that "This will remain uncracked for long enough for them to make tons of money", but still.

His attitude seems to be that if it comes down to a choice between staying in business and keeping things convenient for customers, he'd rather stay in business. This is at least understandable for him as a software developer.

[Alorael at Large]

Jeff is in favor of invisible but perfect DRM. In the absence of that, he's come out in favor of working DRM over non-working DRM. That said, his own DRM is both non-intrusive and apparently effective enough to keep him employed. He may be leaking money around the edges (or a lot of money, if his estimates are right), but he makes a living.

 

—Alorael, who actually almost posted saying that this was a perfect publicity stunt. He couldn't imagine Blizzard being stupid enough to think the idea was a good one. He only left it alone once he figured it was Activision passing down stupidity.

[Lilith]

They're still going to require you to reveal your real name to someone in order to put them on your friends list, and display your real name not only to all friends but to all friends of friends, so it's not impossible that they've used the one big backdown to obscure everything else that's still going on. (There is a "regular" friends list as well as the RealID friends list, but it's currently being stripped of nearly all features.)

[The Mystic]

Originally Posted By: Of Probity

—Alorael, who actually almost posted saying that this was a perfect publicity stunt.

Well, it doesn't matter to me what kind of publicity stunt it was, or how good or bad; I'm still not going to play WoW.