deriving Activision's obligations from general principlesFollow

To assess how Activision handles World of Warcraft, start out from this principle:

"Every businessperson has a paramount fiduciary duty to the entire human species. By definition, that duty supersedes all other fiduciary duties, including those to shareholders, direct reports, junior staff and customers or clients."

My assessment is that Activision's senior executives need to have that tattooed on their foreheads so that they stare at it in the mirror every morning when they shave or put on makeup. Then they might get a clue. But then, pretty much every large 21st-century business relies on a hideously narrow interpretation of the definitions of "self-interest" and "prudence" and has a perspective so short-term that it's like they think God created the earth at the start of the current fiscal quarter. Activision is no different, and that's a major reason why, while the game of WoW is wonderful, the WoW community is abysmally terrible.

Regards.

Actually, people like you are the reason why the WoW community is so abysmally terrible.

Regards.

In addition to this is a blurb from the wiki page of the merger( i know its wikipedia and anyone can edit but....)

Activision and Blizzard Entertainment still exist as separate entities.[10] The holding company does not publish games under its central name and instead uses its subsidiaries to publish games, similar to how Vivendi Games operated before the merger.[11] The merger makes Activision parent company of Vivendi Games' former divisions.

While Blizzard retained its autonomy and corporate leadership, other Vivendi Games divisions did not. For example, long-time label Sierra ceased operation. With the merger, there was a rumor that if a Sierra product did not meet Activision's requirements, they "won't likely be retained."[12] Some of Sierra's games such as Crash Bandicoot, Spyro the Dragon and Prototype have been retained and are now published by Activision.[13] Also, due to the closure of Sierra, the Sierra Community Forums servers have been shut down as of November 1, 2008.[14]

Edited, Nov 24th 2012 1:28pm by Rukkuss

Edited, Nov 24th 2012 1:37pm by Rukkuss

Thanks for the info Rukkuss but plea-hease choose another color. It makes my eyes bleed.

Edit: Surprise, surprise.

Edited, Nov 24th 2012 1:27pm by TherealLogros

You need to delete the existing color tags before adding new ones, I think.

I suppose that having to run searches through google.hk may limit my hits, but a paste and search of the quote yields no results other than the OP and a similar, deleted thread on the O-boards. It seems that you're a freshman (or high school student) who has discovered Philosophy but you haven't learned to apply the discipline to yourself, let alone the broader world. Putting your own words in quotes to appear to borrow authority or expertise is false scholarship and hubris. If it is an actual quote, failure to cite the source is poor scholarship at best.

You've misused "fiduciary duty". It is a term of law, with established limits and conditions. Your failure to understand them renders the rest of your attempted principle gibberish. Among other things, a fiduciary duty requires that the fiduciary accept the responsibility and they generally do so through a positive act. A fiduciary duty is not necessarily created even among family members. Blizzard (not Activision, Blizzard) has a whole laundry list of disclaimers that define their relationship and obligation to players. Click wrap contracts, for all of their potential flaws, have generally been supported by the courts. By playing World of Warcraft, you've made a declaration that you accept those terms and limits.

Learn to use structure, either syllogisms or Venn diagrams will help you avoid mistakes. You've started by trying to state some lofty principle, you move on to a rant about 21st century business and conclude -- offering absolutely no supporting proof -- that these points have a causal relationship to the attitudes of the player base.



/facepalm Your badly awful torment of English is painful.

Aww looks like someone got his hands on a thesaurus. Have you read your first sentence then looked back at your previous posts? That sentence alone sums up your nutter theories rather well. Then you go on to make up words (lol "technicalistic") followed by a complete lack of knowledge.

He has provided plenty of substance to the mindless rot that you decide to spew on this forum. Keep it up though princess, watching you try to act smart is hilarious. Let me guess, next you are going to come along and accuse Blizzard Activision of selling accounts to gold sellers.

Edit: While I was doing the dishes I gave it some thought. If Activision is to blame for the "abysmally terrible" community in WoW what about the communities in CoD, Halo, LoL, HoN, or if you want to keep it just in MMO's you can limit yourself to... all of them. Spoiler alert! SpoilerIt isn't the parent companies fault that their gaming community can be an utter ******** sometimes. It is the communities fault and more specifically it is people such as yourself SolaRoe that is the problem. Instead of forcing the community to become better you try to shift the blame onto a company. Grow a pair and become part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Edited, Nov 24th 2012 8:03pm by Criminy

Mmmmm... Nope, it doesn't work that way. You're the one who wants to sell your hot new theory, you get to prove your numbers and draw the relationships. Activision has %100 percent control? Prove it, others have already linked you to data that casts doubt on your claim and the ball is in your court to rebut it.

Save yourself the trouble, for somebody who likes to throw around the claim something is ad hominem you both love it and do it poorly. It could be the Illuminati who secretly own and control the world ... of Warcraft. It wouldn't make any difference because you've failed to define your argument; you invoke "Activision" because it is a boggle in certain parts of the player base.

Let's go through your posts and see if we can put things together for you. This is how one does ad hominem. You have trouble getting a toon out of any but the simplest of the current batch of content. You're butthurt that you can't figure out how to beat a multiboxer in low level BGs. You have a fixation on unwashed anuses, having used the phrase several times in a short posting history; it is hard to say if you're gay and in denial or simply have a scatalogical fixation. You feel inadequate and compensate by trying to seem intellectual in inappropriate settings -- for example, invoking Plato to respond to writing advice from a poster who is known to regular forum readers as an aspiring writer. You resort to passive-aggressive behavior and hide your cries of "he's mean to me" by dressing them up in Latin and glossy words. You've probably used similar tactics in communicating with guild mates, in chat, and with GMs. That has eventually brought you here, hoping that you can find a following and somehow force Blizzard (I said it) to do what you think is right for the game. Other forums have probably already banned you. Your poor communications skills and possible narcissistic personality disorder are also the reason you keep rerolling characters. You cope with your failures by demonizing others, e.g. describing your multiboxing Horde nemesis as having druids who looked like turkeys and that helps you accept running away from problems. You can't accept that other people manage to enjoy the game as it stands and instead like to think that focusing on the leveling experience would bring in millions of players who just happen to play the way you want. You probably have trouble actually seeing others as people; you see them as actors on the stage of your life and that gets in the way of having a social/sexual relationship over the long term. At some point in your life you may find these characteristics have gotten you into trouble with the criminal or administrative legal system.

As for me, I live in a country where the legal age of consent is 14 and I plan to have a wonderful evening with a young lady half my age.

Rhode, you should have added one more option to your poll: B, C, and D. It's been too quiet around here since Raw "quit" posting.



This is a wonderful example of where using a thesaurus to make you sound intelligent fails for you. "Fiduciary" has a broad literal meaning that encompasses what you are trying to say, but a much more limited definition in the context in which you are using it.



The point of your apparent made-up quote is that Activision (who doesn't actually run Blizzard, but since this is a WoW fan forum, let's go with Blizzard) should act in the best interests of the ENTIRE human species. Okay, fine, whatever, business should strive to make the world a better place by their existence, or at least not make it worse. Can you point to specific executive decisions that have violated this new principle you have concocted? Blizzard has three times before (with another coming out in the next patch) sold an in-game pet and donated the money to charity. There's also the instance of the boy who designed an in-game item through the Make-A-Wish foundation.



You seem fond of this phrase, this is the second time you've used it in fewer than 20 posts. Is it an original thought, or are you parroting a teacher/professor?



You make absolutely no connection from any of your previous statements to this one. How does Activision Blizzard influence the community? What could the executives do to make it better? You should actually support your philosophy with concrete concepts, and then explain why implementing your ideas would be beneficial.

So he is new to the mmo genre. Gotcha.

Alas, you've gone and dashed my attempt at youthfulness.

No. Although I've worked with several Chinese lawyers and judges here and have a good bit of respect for them, I was a lawyer in the US. The young law students I taught here were a good group, several went on to study in the US and get licensed there. Number Three 'daughter' is a lawyer, but she has drifted off to the evils of HR.



It looks like an interesting case. Unfortunately, the current political turnover still has Google messed up and I'm not having much luck pulling up a copy of the case itself. From what I've seen, I'd expect it to be a product of the era -- a 1925 case, preceding the Representation of the People Act by three years. The courts do that from time to time, the US branch of the legal tree gave us Dred Scott v. Sandford.

edit: typo, need more coffee.

Edited, Nov 25th 2012 8:54pm by Rhodekylle


Edited, Nov 25th 2012 8:59pm by Rhodekylle