Oh sh-, what day is it? Oh god, I need flowers, pronto!

Apparently February 12 was my blog anniversary. Three years. That means I've been playing WoW as a blogger longer than I haven't. I'm sure that means something. Or not. It's a very good thing I'm not married.

So wow. Three years. Given that my birthday was not quite recent (month ago), that's putting me at 1/8 of my life blogging about WoW. It's funny, how being this age makes everything a really big deal, proportionally. A year unemployed, pretty damn awful. Made me dread approaching holidays because each one was a marker: "you finished school and had no real job until this holiday, plus a year." There are a thousand factors, some personal, some systematic, some neither, but just someone passing me over. But none on their own explain it and none on their own, or collectively, make it feel any better.

Objectively speaking my situation isn't too bad. I have no mortgage or rent or dependents, thanks to still living at home. But emotion isn't objective is it? No. It's funny to me that humans, as far as I can tell, invented reason, and yet we seem to be entirely incapable of actually using it. We're like a guy who got a price gun cheap off ebay and oh man it will be so great but what do we do with this? So we stick it in a box somewhere and sometimes we open it and wave it around to show off, but we don't actually use it.

This past year I've also had a non-problem: posts months ago feel like I wrote them the week before. At times late in 2010 I'd try to quickly refer back to a previous post, certain that it would be in the first page (keep in mind my first page shows about 200 posts), and no, it would be a page back, buried way down, able to be found only thanks to my strange ability to remember post titles and search by them. Though that did break down recently when I had to find a post for a biggish one I'm working on. I really should improve my tag system, maybe add one like "elitists are stupid dicks".

I really enjoyed this past year of blogging. I got to rant, rave, and at times pretend to offer thoughtful analysis and thought-provoking discussion.

Here are some of my favorites, randomly chosen from my list of favorites, which uncut would be a list of dozens. Oh the perils of writing hundreds of posts a year.

I suppose these overlap a lot, but I still enjoyed writing both of them. Sadly, I don't think they'll accomplish anything.

Woo, I changed something!

I like silly. Okay? I like silly stuff. And the comments in Tobold's response post were such fun to read.

I like the phrase "virtual phrenology."

My attempt to draw some parallels between RL and virtual behavior on the society-level. I still like the post, but it's a shame that somehow people thought it was racist.

This post about bubbles and virtual item value didn't really elaborate much and frankly I'm not all that happy with it, but the idea is surprisingly relevant to my current situation. Same with my post about the deeper meaning of how quitting players managed their mail.

I got back from India. I was really, really tired.

Swearing is fun.

Texas does silly stuff. This was a hell of a lot of fun to write. Since then I've had to be careful to not descend into full-time silly fake news post writing.

It makes me feel bad when Larisa feels bad.
Earlier I'd tried to make an Atiesh for her. It failed.

Oh Gevlon, will I ever tire of pointing out your ridiculously flawed logic and distorted view of the world?

I kept my mage in Azeroth and had a blast. That was before it got blasted.

This post helped me learn to love graphs. Really, really badly drawn graphs. And chalkboards.

A look at how our concept of instance completion has changed over time

I mix up Tam and Chas on a self-righteous moral crusade involving time-traveling policemen

My sad last run of Zul'Gurub. LAST RUN, none of this "we wrecked a raid and pretended it's new content" crap.

And Joseph danced on...

I look at how phasing and other quest design has made WoW less of a multi-player game

It was also over this past year that I discovered that I enjoyed exploration, and writing about it. Try the "immersion" tag.

Then there were a variety of posts which picked up some trolling gnats. Obnoxious bugs. In retrospect, their incredible demonstrations of stupidity were rather entertaining.

So that's a year.

P.S. I'm bad at picking favorites. I love all my posts so much. Of course I'm not arrogant! That would be a negative personality trait.

Zombie Culture

Zombies fascinate me. They confuse me. What drives them? Rage, hunger, these are the frequent explanations. But they are insufficient. They do not answer an essential question: Why do zombies not fight each other? There are not only motivations for their violence, but also something that motivates them to not be violent.

The true definition of a zombie is not a risen corpse or a person with a virus that makes them insane. Instead a zombie is most simply described as a human which no longer defines itself as part of humanity.

These could be traditional mindless hordes wandering slowly with their hands out. Or they could be nearly-human but light-sensitive as in I Am Legend. Recent years have brought about the fast zombie, along with widely varying levels of intelligence. But they all share two traits: they are our enemies and they do not attack each other. There are a few rare exceptions, but as a general force, they are non-hostile to each other.

We could apply this to real life, identifying those groups of humans who consider themselves to in some way be superior to the point of separation. These could be the Nazis who thought they were descended from gods, in opposition to the in some way inferior Jews and Slavs. These could be Islamic terrorists who feel that our refusal to join them indicates that we are fundamentally flawed: they see us as the zombies.

I think it goes the other way, actually. Zombies are like so many supernatural phenomenon: cultural representations of fears. In this case they represent the fear of being corrupted, of betrayal, of an existential threat to humanity. We're a frightened species, thanks to our imaginations. Zombies have changed over time, once being a form of slavery, of a person of supernatural powers turning us, making us do their work. They were not something we'd expect to see forming rampaging hordes, though necromancy was around as a fear. Over time they've become less personal, transitioning from something that happens to us to something that happens to people, to the point that they are viewed less by their corruption from humanity as their threat to humanity. Maybe this has some meaning, a way to measure changes in social attitudes and fears.

I really should check my town's ordinances concerning shotguns.

World Plunges into Despair as Fact-Checker Discovers that the Chinese Character for Crisis is not Made Up of Danger and Opportunity

Or as the media calls it "Chinagate." No one else calls it that, not merely because it's a useless name, but also because they're too busy screaming in horror.

CNN's Anderson Cooper gives up wearing shirt altogether while covering scenes of rioting.

FOX News asks why Obama failed to obtain any concessions during his trip to China.

White House responds: "Go fuck yourselves. We're all going to die so let's just say it: fuck off."

MSNBC brings back Keith Olbermann for a day which he spends blasting the GOP for perpetuating the lie since the days of Nixon.

Network news gave no comment, but Brian William's Facebook status is "Oh God, dear God oh God oh God oh God."

House GOP leader John Boehner cried.

If you are seeing this page, you are bad at searching

It's the attack of the strangely specific and probably useless search terms.

"troll racials" and "troll racials are overpowered" took the obvious first and second slots.

"dragon age origins unsupported video card workaround" carried up the third spot, with someone who was probably really disappointed, but if by chance you are still here, did you ever find a fix?

And then people got hungry.
"how to can the old fashioned way"
"i want freash food.com"
The non-typo version does not appear. Why does Google think my blog is a destination for by typists? I'm a bit insulted.

Next was someone who must have watched way too many spy movies recently and is trying to send me an indirect message, without anyone noticing. Yes, this search term led to my blog. "meritocracy is a selected group of people whose development is founded on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth"*

The next two are best responded to with two words each
"mincraft is boring" No you.
"minecraft mmo" I wish.

And then there's this guy, who apparently was attempting to find the name of my blog by searching, my blog.
"site:trollshaman.blogspot.com troll racials are overpowered"

Finally at number ten, is Mr. Predictable Autofill
"troll racials are"

*
He has vanished without a trace and now we've lost the code forever!
No, I've seen this before. This guy was good; he hid it.
But where?
The last place we'd ever look.
Numbers station? Bathroom wall? DNA left in his blood?
Even sneakier: absurd search terms leading to a small blog.
So we're never going to find it?
Nope. Not unless you want to have to read a lot of blogs by attention-obsessed introverts.**
If we don't, the terrorists win.
But if we do, the terrorists win.
Sneaky bastards.
Indeed.

** A truly terrible personality combination with no good outcomes for anyone.

Why I'm not commenting on your fascinating post

Sometimes I like to just stand to the side and watch and read. Not with popcorn; it's not a show, but with a notepad and pencil to catch all the interesting bits. For example, Psychochild's blog is often one to which I have no significant responses, but there's usually a good bit of discussion in the comments. Or lately a few of Tesh's posts, such as on balance, have gotten me thinking, but not saying.

It makes me wish there was a like, dislike, and "mutters thoughtfully" button on all posts.

Oh, Apple, is there anything that you do that Apple people don't love?

As it did with the original iPhone 4, Consumer Reports said it will not include the Verizon iPhone on its list of recommended smart phones due to the reception problem.

Apple's shares gained $5.13, or 1.5 percent, to $348.01 in afternoon trading.

Source

P.S. Yes, I know I am intentionally blurring the major distinction between Apple gadget cultists and people who buy Apple stock. Also I'm pretty sure that previous sentence makes no sense, but screw it, it's Friday, I reserve the right to misuse words.

Sorry, that's not going to do the trick

Blizzard, I know, I know, there are still almost two weeks left. You want to get this out there. You want me back, don't you? A couple Zuls aren't going to do the trick. Do you think it was all about that raptor? It wasn't. The bear? No. The bear was never even a consideration. Tiger? Tiger would have been nice, but again, not it.

You do this all the time now. Its like some sick bad habit. You break a toy and then you tape it together and say you fixed it. You didn't.

Don't go crying and blaming Rift. I can't even play it. Runs like crap. It's all on you. Two weeks. But it's already been two weeks at least. Three or four, maybe more than that. It's far too late. It's history you know? Force of history. Inevitable trends. Can't stop it can you? You're addicted. Me? I'm in rehab. Nice place. Walls don't turn into monsters quite so often anymore.

Can't fool me with a Zul or two.

Net Meritocracy

Tamarind came back to write another ridiculously long post at the Pink Pigtail Inn in which he makes a few good points and a few really awful points that make me wonder if he has some sort of bipolarstupid disorder. So the usual. That was meant to sound slightly more positive than negative; I do think he is/was a good writer overall, but there are always those glaringly dumb bits. I blame overexposure to Europe.

I think we forget just how meritocratic the blogosphere really is. It’s very easy to get all bulverist and assume that Xs readers only agree with X over you because X is popular, but actually we are broadly judged on our content, and that’s exactly the way it should be.

Lazily copied from Dictionary.com:
"An elite group of people whose progress is based on ability and talent rather than on class privilege or wealth."
"Rule by persons chosen not because of birth or wealth, but for their superior talents or intellect"

Well, okay yea, I guess so. I cannot reasonably argue that popular bloggers are popular by nobility and they clearly have some talent for attracting the masses. So there is talent. But talent for what? Attracting masses. That's the only general talent we can attach. Specific bloggers may attract said masses by many means. Some offer useful advice on classes, quests, economics, talents, whatever. I avoid these blogs at all cost. Some offer thought-provoking posts about where things came from and where they are headed, looking a lot at the developers. Some offer emotionally or socially relevant commentary or reflection.

And then some are just some jackass ranting about whoever he hates that week. Strangely enough, hate is popular, creating us vs. them scenarios for people to rally behind. These are popular and when popularity is the only measure available, they sure look meritocraticus. That doesn't make them in any way worthwhile and it doesn't mean that any world, whether virtual or real, is better for their existence (I mean the blog, I'm not suggesting the the actual bloggers are world-destroying sociopaths). So yes, we are "judged on our content", but when the person judging is looking for someone to rally around in a flurry of generic hate at imaginary enemies, maybe that's not a very good judge.

Net meritocracy. I didn't create the title to refer to the internet and popularity on it, though it does work. Instead I want to complain about advertising and its role in ruining the wonderfulness which would otherwise theoretically be the free market.

Companies and products do not succeed or fail based solely on the quality of their product or service, the relative value, or any other rational measure that we could pick. Instead they survive to a large degree based on their ability to lie and deceive. This is called advertising. Ideally it would inform consumers, but ideally capitalism would have made us all rich as hell and communism wouldn't have been used to kill millions of people, so clearly we're not in an ideal world.

Companies cannot simply make a good product. They must advertise it, market it, go to great lengths just to let people know their product exists. This means that the best product or service does not win. Instead the best advertised product, given a certain unknown ratio of crap compared to the good product, will win. Imagine that two companies make drugs which help keep you awake. One sells a new chemical which has no side-effects and can keep you awake longer for the same dosage and has a modest ad budget focused mostly on facts. The other sells repackaged meth with an awesome ad campaign, some viral marketing, and celebrities visiting kids at schools. Which do you think is going to win the market share battle? Yea, the second company.

This is what I mean by net meritocracy. It is not merely the meritocracy of technology, but also the meritocracy of the marketing, which determines the "net meritocracy."

If we are attempting to rationally buy quality products, the entire second half of that net is worthless to us. In fact, it may be more than worthless, it may actively harm our quest for the first half. Advertising is money not spent on research and testing. Instead it is money spent tricking people. When shareholders demand maximized value they aren't demanding quality products. They are demanding sales. So the person in search of a good product is set back; the good product which might exist is instead not available yet, because that portion of the R&D budget was instead spent to hire really hot women to rub the product on themselves for a camera. This does not add value. Better porn can be found for free without needing advertising for shitty products.

Let's loop back to me arbitrarily insulting Tamarind for things he cannot choose, such as Europe and bipolarstupid disorder. The blogosphere may indeed be a meritocracy, but when the only measure is a popularity contest, we should be careful to avoid thinking that a meritocracy is actually useful. Besides, we all know that popular people are Hitler or the Antichrist.

In unrelated news, this comment at PPI strikes me as a bit hypocritical and dickish. Or does it?

I think a lot of you need to stop admiring yourselves so much.

Nothing any one of you writes is going to alter my opinion of what another one of you writes.

I could care less of your opinions of each other.

Tam, you wrote a very good article. It kept my interest till the end. Nice to see you about.

Suicidal Zebra, never heard of you. Apparently you don't miss Tam. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. REMEMBER THAT. It applies to others as well as yourself.

Also, "could care less" implies a positive care level (assuming care cannot be less than zero, with zero being total indifference or lack of awareness). "Could not care less" implies an entirely empty care cup.

As for the "stop admiring yourselves so much" bit, I'm sorry, but it takes a certain level of self-esteem and self-admiration to think that one's ideas are worth putting out there, not merely to tell a friend or scribble it in a journal. It's somewhere in the murky realm between self-pity and arrogance. So yea, bloggers have a higher opinion of themselves and their own ideas than others. That is why we write our own posts rather than constantly reposting those of others. The obvious exception is Ms Huffington and the like who take the contrarian positions of believing themselves to be the arbiters of what is worth reading and are actually mentally incapable of writing, much as Mr. Zoolander was for a long time not bi-directional in his turning.

My point is that if you're going to wander into a place where people put in some effort to tell everyone what they think, they're going to think a lot of what they think.