It’s time to reject violent political rhetoric

Note: It’s late Saturday evening (January 8th) as I begin this post. It will be past midnight when I finish it.

I completed a different post earlier today, but just before I finished it I became aware of the shooting tragedy in Tucson. Representative Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8th district) was shot in the head and is fighting for her life; Federal Judge John Roll and five others, including a nine-year-old girl, were shot and killed, and 13 others were critically wounded in the senseless shooting spree this morning.

The events in Arizona affected me profoundly, and I’ve decided to share a thought or two that I’m having about the situation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Late this afternoon, I learned of the shootings that took place today in Tucson, Arizona. Everything else immediately seemed to stop for me – other sounds and words were tuned out as I followed the developments on the internet.

In the evening, I caught most of a special edition of Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. I don’t usually watch Olbermann (although his views align more closely with mine than those of the talking heads at Fox News do), because I tend to shy away from overtly partisan news, and both Olbermann and the pundits at Fox News can be sensational to varying degrees. This was an extraordinary occasion, though, and as such, there was a special edition of Countdown.

On the handful of occasions that I’ve watched Olbermann’s show, I’ve had to bring some grains of salt with me. This is not because there is no truth in what he says, but an astute mind will challenge what he hears or reads by looking for facts and sorting through BS.

With that said, I’m glad that I tuned in.

Olbermann’s voice faltered occasionally, belying an internal struggle with emotions at times. His sadness and passion for the subjects discussed on the program were clearly evident to me, and I was grateful for that.

He spent a significant portion of his time talking about the subject of violent rhetoric and its place in politics; or rather, the idea that it should have no place in politics. And in his closing “Special Comment,” he declared that the time for violent speech is over, and called for an immediate end to all use of violent metaphors and rhetoric from politicians, activists, and people of influence on radio, television, and other media (I’m paraphrasing).

He also apologized multiple times for making violent remarks on one occasion in particular, made clear that he did not condone them, and further apologized for any other time that he might have made remarks that inadvertently were violent or caused someone to think that he wished for something terrible to happen to another person.

To watch his Special Comment, click here. Other portions of the program can be found on the Countdown site at MSNBC as well.

But this post is not about Keith Olbermann. His show was merely a part of my Saturday night experience this weekend.

* * * * *

Two months ago, I wrote a couple of posts about the deteriorating quality of public discourse. In my post from November 9th, I touched on the idea that people often don’t seem to be aware of the consequences of their words and actions, particularly in this age where it is possible to make and publish statements publicly (and, in some cases, anonymously). From some of our country’s most prominent political figures and personalities down a certain subset of people who litter chat channels in video games and other social outlets, it seems that modesty, politeness, and respect have been been widely eschewed in favor of disrespect, taunting, name-calling, hate-spew, and violent speech of one kind or another.

As I was reading about what happened in Tucson, I began to think about Sarah Palin’s political hit list, the controversial “crosshairs map,” which she posted on her website last year (and removed shortly after the shooting occurred). I then thought about Bill O’Reilly, who referred to abortion doctor George Tiller (murdered during a service at his church on May 31, 2009), as “Tiller the baby killer” two dozen times on his show, according to Politifact. I thought of others who have recently shown a disquieting comfort or familiarity with violent or war-related speech, as used for political (or other) gain.

Keith Olbermann’s commentary closely matches my own feelings on the subject.

We don’t know, and perhaps we will never know, exactly why the shooter committed such a heinous set of crimes in Tucson. Perhaps he was encouraged in part by violent political rhetoric, perhaps not.

However…

In today’s world, we have access to astounding amounts of information – it’s at our fingertips and on our televisions. The majority of households in the U.S. have internet access, and nine in ten children are online in some fashion.

Keith Olbermann has called for an end to all use of violent rhetoric, metaphors, and speech, in our nation’s public political discourse, regardless of party, political position, or any other divisive associations. In the coming weeks, I know for a fact that we will see an as-yet-unknown number of public figures, as well as hordes of commenters on blogs and other social media, reject part or all of that idea because it came from a person who differs from them ideologically.

And while we may never know if any of the recent violent speech (etc.) had an impact on the killer’s motivations, it’s almost impossible to know for sure that those words weren’t taken the wrong way by someone.

Think about it. If a public figure makes a violent statement against someone, it could be read, heard or viewed by thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands or even millions, of people, including children and those who are mentally unstable.

Politics is a lot of marketing, and, despite all of the demographic studies that are done for both fields, at the end of the day, the message goes out to the general public, hitting its target audiences as well as others. If the wrong person gets a flippant or ill-considered message, the consequences could be tragic.

Again, we don’t know that anything negative will come of it. However, we also can’t be certain that the opposite will be true.

* * * * *

It starts with our leaders, parents, public figures, and mentors, .

In order to maintain a de facto civilized society, our leaders and public figures must set an example by dealing with one another respectfully and courteously. Political differences are a way of life, but we are all human beings – and not just “at the end of the day,” “when the dust settles,” etc.

Whether we believe it or not, our words make an impression on others. By speaking cautiously and treating others with respect, wherever we are in life (and on whatever platform or through whichever social media outlet), we lay the groundwork for positivity, well-being, growth…

And as citizens, we can’t stand silent and consider violence and violent speech acceptable. It can be eliminated, at least on a political level, if sensible people will collectively reject it.

Violence is simply awful. “Violent” is even a harsh-sounding word, appropriately describing its manifestation. The idea of a gunshot wound is absolutely horrifying in and of itself – it’s sudden, instant, irrevocable, and violent – and countless parents, widows, and friends of victims of violence have had their hearts broken when their loved ones have been taken away.

With that said: don’t become numb to violence and violent speech/rhetoric. It is not trivial. All of the “desensitization” that we hear about nowadays is something of a fallacy, because death is just as real as it was, and hits just as hard as it did, before violent video games, movies and lyrics became widely accepted. It certainly changed countless lives this weekend.

* * * * *

In closing, I realize that some of what I hope for is idealistic. It’s unrealistic to think that there will be a widespread elimination of the vitriol that we encounter way too often in our lives. However, maybe the events in Tucson will serve as a wake-up call to both politicians/public figures and citizens in general. Perhaps enough people will consider how they interact with one another that civility will gain market share, and public figures and officers will be held accountable for the quality of their discourse.

In the meantime, our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. I sincerely hope that Rep. Giffords will pull through, and will be able to have some quality of life again.

I wrote a letter today

I wrote a letter today.

By “wrote a letter,” I mean that I sat down with a notebook and a pen, and hand-wrote a letter. It’s been a long time since I’ve handwritten a letter, other than short notes for work or in greeting cards… things like that. But today, I decided that I wanted to reach out and make a physical, tangible connection with one of my oldest and closest friends.

I’ve never had the best penmanship, but I think that it has to have regressed. I think that my friend will be able to decipher it well enough, but I am not proud about the quality of my handwriting at the moment.

This is the first real letter that I will have hand-written and posted in years (I plan on buying a stamp and dropping it off at the post office tomorrow morning, since it’s already a bit too late to make the last pickup). As the many forms of social media have taken over our communications, “writing a letter” has almost universally been replaced by “sending a message electronically.” Email, Facebook’s different messaging options, tweets, text messages, and smart phones have soundly relegated physical notes and letters to the bargain bins. Letters are the quiet minority, an old-fashioned medium from days of yore. People like my parents still write letters occasionally (although I’m pretty sure that most of their correspondence is electronic at this point), and official letters are still sometimes created and mailed in physical form, but it seems that the vast majority of interpersonal communication is done via satellite and the internet.

Using the post office for communication certainly has its disadvantages. I’m not sure how it works in other countries, but in the U.S. there is almost always an overnight waiting period, minimum, between the time that the mail was posted and received – even within the same city – while electronic messaging is relatively instant. Mail also uses paper, a resource that costs money, and letters require the effort of forming the letters of the alphabet, by hand, into legible words and sentences that can be read and understood by the receiving party. Admittedly, this is no small effort for people like me, for whom penmanship was never a strength. Additionally, a letter currently costs $0.44 to mail in the U.S., and while that’s a paltry sum compared with the costs of most other products and services that we purchase, it has become a largely unnecessary expense, given the advantages and availability of “free” electronic communication.

However, letter-writing has its advantages as well – or, if nothing else, it has its unique features. For one thing, hand-writing is generally a different process than, for example, composing with a word processor. When I write blog posts or compose emails*, I tend to write, read my work, edit, cut and/or expand, reread, rework, etc. until I am satisfied that I’ve said what I want to say. With hand-written letters, editing is tougher, and, unless I commit to writing, editing, and then rewriting a letter, I have to be somewhat more focused as I compose the actual text. This forces me to concentrate on how my sentences and paragraphs flow, look up words that I am unsure of (with regard to spelling or meaning), and think about how the letter will be read by the person to whom it’s addressed, as I write.

*Yes, I do all of this even when I send emails. To me, it feels disrespectful to send someone an email with a lot of mistakes in it. Just as important, though, is ensuring that something isn’t left out (or in), like a negative, which could convey a completely different meaning than that which you had intended. I don’t claim to be perfect, but I shudder to think about how embarrassed I would have been if I hadn’t proofread and edited countless emails and blog posts.

In addition to the distinct compositional experience, handwritten letters have both a sense of permanence and personality that electronic communication struggles to approach. Someone reading a letter can get of a sense of the writer’s personality and emotional state from a letter. Furthermore, letters have their own versatility: paper is also a medium for art, and I have received letters with drawings, diagrams, tables, and notes scribbled along the sides of the text. Letters are also real, physical things, and are able to be kept, filed, stored, and reread without the burden of another device. Like vinyl records, a letter can be something that is neat to have: it’s something that someone took the time to create, to express any number of ideas, or to entertain you.

Now, I’m not bashing electronic communication – I use it every day, and appreciate its conveniences and advantages – but I had a good time writing this letter today. It was an old, familiar process, but also one at which I am definitely rusty. I am determined to write more letters this year, both to my friend and to others. Perhaps he will write me back, and we can correspond with some regularity – that would be fun, as well as good exercise for the brain. It may also become something of a luxury sooner or later – with the way that things are going with the USPS and its heavy financial burdens, our concept of snail-mail (a term that I detest, by the way), which we take for granted now, could change drastically over the next several years. I’m going to write some letters this year, and send them through the post office while I still have the chance.

I finished Fable 2 – some final thoughts

I finished Fable 2 today. I didn’t play the “Happily Ever After” phase, which commences after you complete the main storyline and save the world. I did begin to do one of the quests that become available after the credits roll, but, as part of it involves shooting moving objects within a small time window, I let it go, since I am horrible at aiming with a thumbstick.

Overall impressions?

I liked it. I spent several hours more in the game than was actually necessary to beat it, and had fun for the most part. It’s a beautiful game graphically, with great music that expands upon themes from the original game, and it’s fun to get caught up in the cute British-based fantasy world.

It’s generally an easy game to play. That has its positive points; the main one being that the gameplay doesn’t get in the way of the story. However, for those looking for a challenge, this is probably not the game for you.

As I’ve mentioned in a few previous posts, I’m pretty clumsy when it comes to playing certain types of games on a console controller. For a game like this, I found myself limited by the controller. Players have the opportunity to learn several different Will (magic) spells, and can map them to their B button. Using the right trigger (or the menu), players can choose different spells for different occasions during combat. Honestly, I found this to be a clumsy interface, and, with the game being fairly easy, I stuck to using only Time Control and Blades, depending on my needs. I found myself missing the click/key-mapping options that many PC games offer, but, as the game is playable without using cool spells like Force Push, Chaos, Inferno and Shock, I ignored them almost entirely in favor of a less cumbersome playing experience. For what is very much an action game, I wish that there were a variety of spells at my disposal that could have been accessed via the D-pad and/or buttons by using a function button, like RT, to activate “Will mode” for more intuitive real-time spell casting and variety.

The other two disciplines, Skill (ranged weapons) and Strength (power, toughness and melee flourishes), are fairly intuitive and work well enough.

I didn’t get very involved in the social scene, and I didn’t try to get any of the more off-beat achievements. I got married, and then I went off and spent ten years of non-negotiable time in a quest chain. When I finally escaped, I cleared up a few things and then went back home to find that my wife had divorced me. So I married again, etc. To me, that social aspect is interesting, but it wasn’t fleshed out very well. Once I had gotten a modicum of renown, almost everyone wanted to marry me, and I was badgered with requests for autographs and wedding rings for the remainder of my time spent in towns throughout the game.

In spite of all of that, I didn’t commit my first murders until I was about 90% of the way through the game. Someone caught me stealing, and I decided to kill the five guards that attacked me rather than pay the fine. I hadn’t given much thought to being totally good or evil, and ended up being very loved, moderately feared, and fairly pure. There are choices that you can make in-game that will change the way that people feel about you, but ultimately I didn’t feel that I had to pay too much for my actions, one way or another.

I had heard that this game would be more difficult to exploit financially than its predecessor, and for a while I found that to be correct. However, this week I discovered that there is an exploit, and a cursory internet search shows that it became known fairly quickly by people who played the game when it came out. It works like this, in a nutshell:

When you own property, and that property is a business, you get a Shop Owner’s Discount. I figured that this would also mean that you could sell goods to that vendor with a nicer markup, but that’s not the case – you actually get a better price when selling if you don’t own the business. Since businesses can generally be bought and sold whenever, with a few exceptions, I was able to go to the Blacksmith and the Stonecutter in Bowerstone, buy up all of their wares (once I had the capital), sell the businesses, and then sell all of their wares back to them at higher prices. Buy the business, buy all of their goods. Rinse, repeat. It made money a non-issue, as I eventually bought most of the properties in the game. I wasn’t happy that the money challenge was completely decimated, but on the other hand it meant that I didn’t have to waste time doing jobs as the game wore on and I concentrated on questing.

Overall, Fable 2 was a fun game for me. Once I got accustomed to using a controller again, I found it to be an enjoyable experience. I left the game unfinished, as far as non-essential quests go, and I would probably continue to play it if I didn’t have Fable 3 sitting on top of my pile of un-played games. Now that I’ve finished with the main story, I’m interested in seeing where it goes in the third installment, so I will likely be tackling that one soon.

Alomar, Blyleven elected to Baseball Hall of Fame

The Baseball Hall of Fame announced its 2011 election results today, and, as expected, Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven were elected.

Alomar, who fell eight votes short in 2010, received an overwhelmingly definitive 90.0% of the vote in this, his second year on the ballot. Blyleven, who was merely five votes short last year, needed 436 votes this year, but received 463 for 79.7%. This was Blyleven’s 14th year on the ballot.

Here’s how other players of note fared (note: all statistics taken from Baseball-Reference.com).

• Barry Larkin: 62.1% this year (his 2nd), up from 51.6% last year
• Jack Morris: 53.5% this year (his 12th), up from 52.3%
• Lee Smith: 45.3% this year (his 9th), down from 47.3%
• Jeff Bagwell: 41.7% this year (his first)
• Tim Raines: 37.5% this year (his 2nd), up from 30.4%
• Edgar Martinez: 32.9% this year (his 2nd), down from 36.2%
• Alan Trammell: 24.3% this year (his 10th), up from 22.4%
• Larry Walker: 20.3% this year (his first)
• Mark McGwire: 19.8% this year (his 5th), down from 23.7%
• Fred McGriff: 17.9% this year (his 2nd), down from 21.5%
• Dave Parker: 15.3% in this, his final year
• Don Mattingly: 13.6% this year (his 11th), down from 16.1%
• Dale Murphy: 12.6% this year (his 13th), up from 11.7%
• Rafael Palmiero: 11.0% this year (his first)
• Juan Gonzalez: 5.2% this year (his first)

* * * * *

Barry Larkin looks to be in a good position to be elected at some point in the next few years, as he received a strong increase in voting percentage this year. Additionally, Jeff Bagwell made a strong initial showing, although it will be interesting to see how his future ballots play out, given media and fan suspicion about steroid use. And Tim Raines had a solid showing, although it’s too early to tell whether he will continue to trend upward.

Jack Morris (who has received some of the most attention over the years as a borderline case), Lee Smith, Edgar Martinez, and Alan Trammell all seem to be stagnating, while Don Mattingly and Dale Murphy will likely be following Dave Parker off the ballot as their candidacies come to a close over the next few years.

* * * * *

Mark McGwire actually received less total votes this year (115 to last year’s 128), even though there were 42 more voters this year (581 to last year’s 539). This indicates that his candidacy is not only stagnating, but is suffering as a result of his steroid confession and apology. This was potentially a pivotal year for McGwire, but it looks like his prospects for election are weaker than they have ever been. Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s the way that the vote seems to be leaning.

In related news, Rafael Palmiero, whose good name and excellent statistical career was destroyed when he tested positive for steroids in the summer of 2005, did finish with 11% of the votes, so he survives until at least next year.

* * * * *

Next year’s class of newcomers does not include very many high-profile players. Of the new names, only Bernie Williams strikes me as a lock to receive enough votes to remain on the ballot in 2012. This could bode well for Larkin, who could be elected in a weak year, as well as others looking to increase their vote totals. However, for those who do not get elected in 2012, the following years bring the potential for a lot of competition:

• In 2013, we will see Mike Piazza, Curt Shilling, and Craig Biggio, as well as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, and Sammy Sosa.
• 2014 is looking even stronger, with Greg Maddux, Frank Thomas, Tom Glavine, Jeff Kent, and Mike Mussina, along with Luis Gonzalez and Moises Alou, slated to be eligible.
• Finally, 2015 brings Randy Johnson, Pedro Martinez, and John Smoltz, along with Gary Sheffield and Nomar Garciaparra, to the ballot.

It’s possible that some of those in the middle, such as Smith, Raines, Martinez, Trammell, and Walker, could be lost in the shuffle in those years.

Based on what these future ballots look like, I’m going to go out on a limb* and predict that, unless he sees a surprisingly strong showing next year, Jack Morris will never be elected to the Hall of Fame by the BBWAA.

*I usually hate predicting things.

* * * * *
In closing, I’d like to express my congratulations to Roberto Alomar and Bert Blyleven. One thing to remember is that everyone who plays baseball at a big league level is a great player – even those who received zero votes on this year’s ballots were among the top percentage of players in the world. To be elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame is never anything less than an extraordinary accomplishment, and these two players are definitely deserving of the honor.

Heyman’s resolution wish list for 2011: not my cup of tea

I need a new source for sports news.

I’ve gotten the majority of my sports news from the Sports Illustrated website for several years. However, I’ve been dissatisfied with several of their writers for a while now, and I’m thinking of changing my go-to source.

Sports Illustrated does have a couple of my favorite writers, Joe Posnanski (multiple sports) and Peter King (football), and I will of course continue to follow them. And there are some that I don’t mind, like Tim Marchman, Joe Lemire, Don Banks, etc. But there are others that get on my nerves, and among them, Paul Heyman is really getting on my nerves.

The article that is pushing me over the top (mind you, this is not the first one that has irked me) is from Monday, January 3. Entitled New Year’s Resolutions for 50 of the biggest names in baseball, it’s an article that lists some mundane wishes for 2011. Some examples from Heyman’s list (and I paraphrase):

“Albert Pujols, please take less money to re-sign with the Cardinals…”

“Bill Dewitt, please spend more money to re-sign Albert Pujols…”

“Miguel Cabrera/Josh Hamilton, please don’t get drunk/use drugs anymore, so you can continue to have great seasons…”

And so on. I know, good stuff, right? Just about Facebook quality.

Anyway, I was browsing this list, and I came across these gems (quoted directly from the article):

12. Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay. We will continue to understand that money isn’t everything, and frankly, enough is enough.

17. Bert Blyleven. I will consider myself fortunate when I am voted into the Hall of Fame, and understand that while I had a great career, I am not Tom Seaver or Steve Carlton but rather Don Sutton and Phil Niekro, near-great pitchers who were borderline candidates who gained enshrinement. I will also thank the small coterie of Internet zealots who kept calling attention to the value of strikeouts, shutouts, complete games, longevity and durability and helped me rise from 14 percent of the votes in my second year of eligibility to more than 75 percent and act gracefully upon hearing the expected good news.

The reason that these two, in particular, grate on me is that Heyman seems to assume that these are resolutions that need to be made; that the players mentioned are probably in danger of not acceding to his wishes; and that, if they already have been made, they need to be reinforced.

I actually wonder if Heyman has some sort of troll complex, where he’s baiting people like me to be upset by his tone… but I don’t think that’s the case. I think that he’s just one of those sportswriters that totally rub me the wrong way – the ones that give you their opinions as if they themselves are without fault, and have no tolerance for anything less than what fits their holier-than-thou viewpoints.

Here’s my take on these three players:

• In the case of Cliff Lee, he took plenty of money to come to the Phillies, did what was best for himself and his family, and came to what he felt was the most comfortable situation, in taking a five-year, $120 million contract instead of accepting something like $28 million more to jump to the Yankees. I think that he’s happy with his decision.
• In the Roy Halladay’s case, he accepted a trade to Philadelphia before last season, and signed a three-year, $60 million contract extension as part of the deal. In everything that I have seen of him thus far as a Phillie, I’ve gotten only two indicators of his feelings about the situation: he’s truly thrilled to be playing for a competitive club, and he’s always working his tail off in order to keep his edge and give his best possible effort every fifth day.
• As for Bert Blyleven, it’s well-known that Heyman does not feel that he is Hall of Fame material, and did not vote for him again this year. However, I don’t really think that Blyleven needs to be prompted to be thankful: upon learning the results of last year’s election (he missed being inducted by five votes), he admitted that he was “a little disappointed,” but also added that he was “very, very happy for Andre Dawson,” and expressed surprise that Roberto Alomar had fallen just short as well. He was gracious, and has waited a long time – I’m sure that, if he’s elected, he will experience a multitude of feelings, including relief and overwhelming thankfulness. Heyman’s “resolution” rings of sarcasm, as well as acute bitterness about what he seems to view as the inevitable lost cause that his anti-campaign will become if Blyleven actually does receive enough votes this year or next.

In all three of these cases, as well as for several of the others listed, his suggestions make assumptions that seem to indicate that the worst may happen if he doesn’t make them. It’s kind of ridiculous, in my view, to publish a tidbit telling Bert Blyleven to consider himself lucky to be elected, and to act gracefully about it! Baseball players and other athletes, while acknowledging their hard work, are often thankful to have been given the talents and opportunities that they’ve gotten, and Blyleven, while having personal pride, is certainly not the type of person who carries himself like a prima donna. He worked hard during his career, and has been patient through the long, stressful trial that has been his Hall of Fame election journey.

No, I don’t think that Blyleven, Halladay, or Lee are the issues. I think that the issue is that, however connected Paul Heyman is with MLB people, he is disconnected from people. I also think that he has an inherently negative view of people, and there are times when  he expresses that worldview to the detriment of his quality of work.

* * * * *

If anyone has suggestions for a good, thorough, online source for sports news, feel free to leave a suggestion in the comments. I have yet to find one that I enjoy as much as I used to like MLB.com before they made their news page virtually un-browse-able.

As the 2011 Baseball Hall of Fame announcement nears, thoughts on my hypothetical ballot, Mark McGwire, and Jeff Bagwell

The votes are in, and on Wednesday, January 5, 2011, the Baseball Hall of Fame will announce its 2011 inductees. The ballot, containing 14 returning players and 19 who are in their first year of eligibility, can be viewed here. Players are required to have served ten years in Major League Baseball in order to be eligible, and appear on the ballot five years after their final big league game.

As always, there is plenty of speculation about this year’s ballot. Will Bert Blyleven finally be elected after years of gradual vote total increases? Will Roberto Alomar get the required 75% of the votes after missing by just a handful in 2010? Will Tim Raines, Barry Larkin, Alan Trammell, Don Mattingly, Jack Morris, Dale Murphy, and others see increases that indicate future potential electability, if not this year?

How many votes will Rafael Palmiero, who debuts on the ballot, receive (after having a consistently-good-but-never-great career, punctuated by his sworn statement before Congress in 2005 that he had never used steroids, followed by his positive steroid test a few months later)?

(I know, that was a bad sentence…)

And so on. Each year, there is a lot to talk about. Honestly, I’m just glad that Jim Rice and Andre Dawson were finally elected in the past two years, because I grew tired of hearing the arguments on either side. I liked Dawson for the HoF, although I considered him a borderline case, and thought that Rice was overrated, although I’m happy for him. It’s nice to move on, though.

Mark McGwire’s post-confession situation

This is the first year that the Baseball Writers Association of America voted since Mark McGwire tearfully confessed to, and apologized for, using steroids during his career on January 11th, 2010. In his four previous years of eligibility, he has received 23.5%, 23.6%, 21.9%, and 23.7% of the vote, all less than a third of the votes necessary for election. He has a long road to climb.

I’m curious to see if those vote totals rise significantly (7-15%) this year. Perhaps they will, but I think that there’s almost as strong a likelihood that they may be flat, or may even fall.

In my opinion, his case for the Hall of Fame has been strengthened by his controversial confession and apology.

Shortly after his televised interview with Bob Costas on MLB Network, I wrote two opinion pieces (first, second) on the subject, and those pieces came from a passionate place. McGwire’s apology, which I watched live in its entirety, affected me deeply. Watching someone humble himself so brutally on national television, when accepted in the spirit of humanity, is a profound experience. I was greatly affected by it, and felt that, even though it was far from satisfactory to the general media punditry, it was a valid confession and apology.

His confession affected me to such an extent that I was inspired to call my father a few days later and make a confession of my own. Doing so was an experience that freed me of a heavy burden that I had been carrying for years, and it opened the doors for a closeness and openness between us that the two of us had never experienced together before.

Confession doesn’t undo the wrong, but it can be cathartic, as well as a growth experience and a strong building block for relationships.

At any rate, in my opinion, Mark McGwire’s Hall of Fame candidacy was strengthened with that confession. That is an opinion that is not shared by most of my friends, some of whom were snickering about it at work during week following his interview, or by much of the media. This last point is what makes me wonder if his Hall of Fame chances may have actually been hurt by his confession.

Immediately after his confession, and again as the Hall of Fame discussion began this fall, there was, collectively, a particularly nasty reaction to, and discussion of, it. Virtually the entire talking-head crews of ESPN and MLB Network, along with SI.com’s Tom Verducci and many other columnists in newspapers, magazines, and on the internet, felt that McGwire’s assertion that he took steroids in order to help heal and prevent the debilitating injuries that were derailing his career, and not to hit more homers, was false. They also blasted his statement that he felt that steroids did not affect his performance directly, and that, had he been healthy and steroid-free, he believed that he would have still performed at a comparable level. The general consensus was that these two points of contention invalidated his confession, and the general reception was harsh.

My inclination is to think that there is a possibility that, if some voters had been leaning toward voting for McGwire, or have voted for him in the past, they may not do so now and in the future because they have either reacted negatively to those points in the confession, been swayed by those who have, or have simply been turned off by his admission of steroid use. This could have the effect of negating the votes of those who have changed their minds and voted for him this year for the first time, creating a situation where his vote totals could remain stagnant or even drop.

Now, if this turns out to be the case, I’m sure that if he had the chance to second guess himself, McGwire would certainly confess and apologize again, knowing that he was cementing his “steroid user” place in history. The Hall of Fame is of far less value than the personal freedom that he will experience for the rest of his life, since he does not have to keep his secret from his father, his wife, his friends, and the world. He has brought himself a great measure of peace, and for that I am grateful, as I’m sure he is.

Bryant Gumbel gets on his high horse and loses my respect

Notable among those who reacted harshly to McGwire’s confession was Bryant Gumbel of HBO’s Real Sports. Shortly after the confession, Gumbel read an “open letter” at the close of one of his shows in January 2010, in which he not only completely dismissed McGwire’s remorse with a colorful assortment of disrespectful comments, but implored the other “usual suspects” (Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds, Rafael Palmiero, Sammy Sosa) to take McGwire’s apology as an example of what not to do “when you decide to confess” (I’m paraphrasing Gumbel there).

In addition, he also named Jeff Bagwell, Nomar Garciaparra, and *Ivan Rodriguez, strong hitters who suffered injuries in their early thirties that curtailed their production or ended their careers, as obvious steroid users. This was rather big news at the time, as he was the first major commentator to blatantly slap the PED-user tag on Bagwell and Garciaparra.

*I’m not sure why he lumped Pudge in with the list of power hitters, because during the eight year stretch from 1997 to 2004 (his prime production years, ages 25-33), he only averaged 22.75 home runs per year, which is relatively pedestrian amount compared to the prodigious numbers that players were putting up at the time. He hit a lot of doubles and had well above a .300 batting average during that period, but while he was definitely a valuable hitter, his power numbers were relatively unremarkable. Rodriguez was named in Jose Canseco’s controversial book Juiced, so I’m not claiming that he was definitely not a steroid user. However, the quality of journalism displayed by Gumbel in this case, as with the rest of the “open letter,” is pretty poor.

Jeff Bagwell’s prospects in his debut on the ballot

This is the first year that Jeff Bagwell is eligible for the Hall of Fame. He had a remarkable and consistent career with the Houston Astros, hitting .297/.408/.540 with 449 homers and 1529 RBIs over 14 full seasons and part of 2005. He was one of the most fearsome hitters in the major leagues throughout his career, taking a wide batting stance, waving his bat menacingly while awaiting pitches, and hitting baseballs very hard.

Recently, accusations of steroid use by Bagwell have been ramping up considerably, most likely because of his initial appearance on the Hall of Fame ballot. Unfortunately, he has had to face questions about steroid use, and has repeatedly denied using them. Many have noted his precipitous drop-off in production in 2004-05, which was largely due to a degenerative arthritic condition in his right shoulder that had been affecting him since 2001. As Major League Baseball started testing players in earnest for PEDs in 2003, many have observed that several high-flying big league stars saw sharp drops in their numbers since then. Unfortunately for Bagwell, assuming that he’s innocent of the accusations, his ailing shoulder made him unable to play baseball relatively shortly after the testing began, which of course feeds the rumor mill to this day.

The Astros are notable for having several players in the spotlight concerning steroids. Lance Berkman has been vocally opposed to their use and in-favor of testing, while Roger Clemens and Andy Pettite, respectively, are presumed to have used/were guilty of using PEDs. Ken Caminiti, one of the most productive players in the 1990s, told Sports Illustrated that he had struggled with cocaine use throughout and after his career, and also admitted that he used steroids in 1996 and for several years afterward. Caminiti died in 2004 of acute intoxication due to the combined effects of cocaine and opiates, and also suffered from coronary artery disease and an enlarged heart, according to Wikipedia.

One of the great tragedies that has resulted from the steroid issue at large is that there are players who certainly did it “the right way,” but are still constantly subject to unpleasant scrutiny about the use of steroids. At this time, we have to presume that those who have not been found to have used PEDs, or have not confessed to having done so, are innocent. For now, Jeff Bagwell falls into the Ken Griffey Jr./Frank Thomas/Jim Thome/Albert Pujols/Larry Walker/etc. category of players who have not been connected with steroids.

My opinions and votes

If I had a Hall of Fame ballot, I would vote for Mark McGwire and Jeff Bagwell this year.

I would not have voted for McGwire at this time last year, because everything about him seemed clouded. However, in spite of his transgression, he was largely a positive force within the game. While steroids likely contributed to his immense strength, he worked very hard to become a student of hitting, something which is forgotten and/or poo-pooed by the experts. I don’t think that he will get in, at least for a long time, but it is my hope that humanity will shine in this situation, and his confession and the man himself will start to get some of the respect that they deserve.

I don’t think that Bagwell will get in this year either, but I think that he is someone who certainly deserves to, and should remain a strong candidate for years to come unless he is proven to have taken banned PEDs.

As for the rest of the field, I would vote for Alomar, Blyleven, Larkin, Mattingly, Raines, Trammell, Dale Murphy, and Larry Walker.

There are strong arguments against Mattingly, but he was one of my favorite players in the late eighties and early nineties, and I think that it’s unfortunate that injuries set him back in the second half of his career. He will probably never get in as a player, but I would still vote for him.

Trammell is very underrated. Unfortunately, he also may never be voted in by the BBWAA, which is a shame. Murphy was a great player, as well as a teammate, that every team would have loved to have, and would likely have been even more productive, for a multitude of reasons, if the Braves hadn’t generally stunk for the majority of his career.

I’d vote for Walker, even though he played the bulk of his career in the heyday of the Coors Field hitting factory. I am not sure that he’s a Hall of Famer; I think that his candidacy needs some more analysis, discussion, and time, and he definitely won’t get in this year, so I would vote for him in hopes that he would get more than 5% of the vote and remain on the ballot next year.

Blyleven, Alomar, Larkin, and Raines are all Hall of Famers in my book. It is my hope and belief that they will all be elected sooner than later, although time is running out for Blyleven.

Closing

Thanks for reading, if you’ve made it this far!

It will be interesting to see the ballot results on January 5th. I’m sure that there will be some surprises, a couple of injustices… and hopefully, someone will be elected!

My week: fixing cars and thinking about people

I mentioned in my last post that I intended to blog more regularly than I have since the Cataclysm release. Four days later, I have yet to publish anything, but I’m comfortable with that.

See, the holidays seem to be a busy time for most people. Whether there are gifts to purchase, wrap, and send out, groceries to buy, parties to attend, family and friends to visit, college and work to wrap up, or other end-of-year activities, there is always something going on.

In my case, this week’s plans have been sort of pushed aside to deal with car issues. On both Tuesday and Friday, I was asked by my girlfriend to take care of problems with her car.

Adventures with the car

Now, I am not a car-savvy guy. The list of car-related problems that I can take care of is limited to checking and filling fluids, changing and rotating tires, replacing blinker bulbs, and things like that. So I’m not totally comfortable with vehicle issues, but I can handle a limited range of repairs.

On Tuesday, she asked me to take care of the dying battery in her car. Her brother, who works at a local car dealership, took care of finding the battery for me, as well as letting me use the shop at his business as a place where I could change it. My tasks included picking up the battery, getting her car started, taking it to the dealership, and installing the battery. While I did that, he checked the fluids and tire pressure, disposed of the old battery, and so on. It was his Christmas gift to her, as he and his wife are busy with a new baby.

It was nice that he let me use the shop, for two reasons. First of all, it was about 20∘ Fahrenheit that morning, so it was great to have a warm room in which to work. Secondly, the variety of tools in the shop came in handy for getting to those those hard-to-reach places while removing the old battery and installing the new one.

On Friday, she called me to tell me that her front passenger tire was flat. She noticed that her car felt like it was riding funny on her way to work, and when she got there, she was horrified to see that the tire was completely flat. I drove over and inspected it, and decided that it needed to be replaced since it had been driven a couple miles on the flattened rubber. So I put the doughnut (which was also flat) on it, took the tire to Sears (in my car), discovered that culprit was a nail, had a new tire mounted, and then I brought it back to her car and reinstalled it.

Now, at some point I have to rotate the tires so that the new (odd) tire isn’t a drive-tire. I should also fill up the spare tire in her car, and check mine while I’m at it. Perhaps I’ll do that tomorrow – it’s supposed to be a balmy 35∘ in the afternoon!

Thoughts while adventuring…

I enjoyed working on the car for her. I like making her life easier, and clearing up problems like that makes me feel good.

One thing that I kept pondering as I worked was how it’s easy to disconnect with reality in this world. It first occurred to me as I was leaving Sears with my car battery on Tuesday. I had the opportunity to hold the door for an older gentleman, who was appreciative. I wished him a Merry Christmas, and he did the same.

While retail at the holidays is always physically and emotionally taxing, one of the few things that I miss about it is the opportunity to interact with some of the customers. I liked saying “Have a great holiday!” to people as they concluded their transactions and left the store, and “Have a Merry Christmas!” to those with whom I had actually talked about Christmas.*

*I respect that people celebrate the holiday season differently – some celebrate it as Christians, others celebrate it as simply a family holiday, and still others celebrate entirely different religious holidays in December. Some people don’t celebrate it at all. However, it was always heartwarming to be able to connect with a person, while at work, about Christmas, and I always felt more grounded, more myself, when I was able to exchange warm Christmas wishes with another person.

Anyway, the thought that I had after the “Merry Christmas” exchange with this gentleman was to consider who he may be. In truth, we are all different, as humans. Each of us has a different perspective, a unique background, distinctive personality traits, and our own personal beliefs. At the same time, we’re all humans. Since there are millions of us, even thousands of us within our greater locale, we are bound to share some, though not all, of these things with most of those that we encounter.

This gentleman, who cheerfully returned my Christmas greeting, likely has political beliefs that differ sharply from mine. He has probably done things that I will never do, and I’ve probably done things that he has never done. And so on… and yet, there is a connection, and that connection relates to our humanity in some way.

* * * * *

As I was putting the new tire on my girlfriend’s car in the parking lot, a woman saw my open trunk, stopped, and and asked, “Are you ok?”

I told her that I was fine, and related to her in a few sentences that I was simply replacing a damaged tire on my girlfriend’s car. (Changing tires is easy, and I was half-done and looking forward to getting home and, frankly, using the bathroom.) She mentioned that I was a nice guy for doing that, which was nice of her. I wished her a Merry Christmas, and she wished me the same, and went on her way.

I smiled to myself. In a world where so much of what goes on (and what we read about) is uncaring, mean-spirited, or political/commercial posturing, there is still a spirit of concern for others – we just have to be aware of it.

Course correction: thoughts on recognizing my own shortcomings, the nature of public discussion, and the focus of future posts

I have a confession to make.

I’ve had my tidies in a bunch over the past few weeks about several issues, mostly pertaining to online discourse.

I’m sorry about that.

I didn’t start this blog to be a dick to people, and I feel that I was unfair to Ambrosine last week with regard to her take on Frostheim’s story about behaving badly in a PuG. Disagreeing with her wasn’t unfair, but when I reread my post, I realized that I never completed my thought about her post, and sort of left hanging the paragraph in question. I tried to clarify how I felt in the comments to my post, but she may never read anything on my blog again, for all that I know. Anyway, as a result, I’m afraid that readers could have taken what I said in the post to mean that I felt that her post was worthy of simply being dismissed, which is not the case. And that was unfair of me.

That said, I apologize to Ambrosine, and others who read my words, for my own poor communication on that particular point in the article.

My own personal conundrum

Words and thoughts can come from different places. Rational places. Emotional places. I find that, sometimes, those places are at odds within me.

I care quite a bit about my country, its people, and its government. My reactions to current events may come out of anger, frustration, hope, or some point along the skepticism/cynicism line, depending on the circumstance(s). There are issues that I feel strongly about, along with some issues that I am unsure of, or feel undereducated about. Some of my values are very different from those that I had growing up, while others are very similar. Many of my views on these issues are based on rational thought, but my reactions to how the issues are dealt with can come from an emotional place that conflicts with my rational self, and sometimes hinders my ability to separate fact from spin, and logic from bias… if that makes any sense.

I see a lot of good in the world, every day. I also see a lot of stuff that bothers me. As such, there is often much that I want to get off my chest in written form, and yet I continue to feel under-qualified to do so. Until lately, people who read my blog semi-regularly haven’t seen a lot of my opinions on matters that seem to be hot topics – I just haven’t felt that I have the ability to say what I want to say and be satisfied with the way that I’ve communicated it to the reader. Therefore, most of my writing doesn’t really touch on many hot-button issues.

My own personal conundrum, continued – rational vs. emotional

To go a little further into this, let me give an example. I am very passionate about the First Amendment. Rationally, I am completely in tune with the idea that it is a fundamental element of our country, a cornerstone of our way of life. My rational self tells me that debate and discourse are good.

On the other hand, my emotional self hates conflict and is discouraged by the often uncouth nature of online and political discussion. Civility in discourse is very important to me.

There are certainly multitudes of people who express themselves eloquently online, in the news, in-game, and on the street, and I appreciate their discussions, even if I disagree when their viewpoints conflict with mine. However, I’ve previously expressed my disappointment over some of the destructive conversation that takes place online, and that feeling extends to the public and political spheres as well. My instinctive reaction to that type of conversation is to recoil in disgust, or to dismiss it. I usually try to deal with it in a mature manner; however, my tolerance for it has been dwindling rapidly lately, and “dealing with it maturely” ends up having a “bottling up your feelings”-type of effect. When my tolerance reaches a certain low point, the guardians of my own judgment go on vacation and I start reacting to stuff publicly, in spite of my usual reluctance to do so.

The results end up being emotional, reactionary. In spite of what I rationally accept and endorse (free speech is free speech, whether you like it or not), I hate the way that people express themselves sometimes…

Blogger: “Here’s a funny story: I made a less-than-noble decision in a game, but I learned something that I felt was exciting and decided to share…”

Tweetsters: “OMG!! Blogger should be fired for asshattery! He sucks anyway, and always has!”

Me: “Blarg! I find your method of communication to be one or more of the following – offensive, disrespectful, egregious, dismissive, ridiculous, to whatever degree – so I’m going to over-verbalize my reaction to such an extent that my point will be obscured, blah blah blah…”

No, no… This is not how I want to bring readers to my blog, and is not the kind of stuff that I want to draw inspiration from in order to have something to write about.

If I were able to write more clearly, concisely, rationally, and with better structure to my arguments, I might reconsider taking inspiration from these sorts of topics. Those, however, are skills that I don’t think that I’ve fully developed at this point.

Public Discourse: the way that we say something affects how people hear what we say

I’m not sure when it started, but at some point in my adulthood I noticed that I react pretty negatively toward inflammatory “discussion.” In politics, for example, when disagreement over a talking point turns into personal attacks and provocative rhetoric, I, as a citizen, stop hearing the content and start reconsidering my impression of the person making the statements.

I have a friend who expresses a lot of anger about President Obama. His anger is not without good reason, as far as I can tell based on my own research into some of his concerns. However, to be honest, I stopped listening to him months ago, because the language that he uses to express his viewpoints is absolutely rife with over-the-top, accusatory tones, obscenities, and proposals of violent solutions to the issues that he cares about.

This saddens me, because the guy has a lot of good points to make, and I could probably learn from him. However, he seems to feel that the only way to be heard is to shout, and to punctuate his arguments with profanity and suggestions that the President (for example) should die, or be otherwise personally, physically harmed.

I don’t think that the President should be harmed. And I don’t think that our former President should be harmed, either. That’s pretty extreme.

There’s so much shouting. So many people seem to think that using fear, insults, exaggeration, and the word “fuck,” are great ways to emphasize their positions and make others listen to them; that the degree of  volume and extremity of their statements will reinforce the “right-ness” of their viewpoints.

I think that it’s unfortunate that ideas seem to come before respect of others, no matter the forum: “You retard!” in-game; “You’re a Nazi!” in politics; etc. In-game, at school, at work, in the media, we are all citizens of the world. That seems so unimportant to an alarming number of people today. I wonder how much poor communication stunts the growth of countries and the welfare of their people; at any rate, it’s a terrible example for the next generation.

In the context of world problems, discussion in and about video games ranks far lower in overall importance. However, the tone of the discussion affects me similarly. I’m more inclined to find an article interesting, and to consider the author’s points, if it is presented sanely and maturely. I’m less likely to respond positively (or even finish reading) if the author’s point is delivered in an inflammatory tone, or is smothered in profanity or insults.

I’m not saying that it’s necessarily “correct” of me to react that way. I’m saying that that’s the way that I react.

So here I am

I feel that I have difficulty, sometimes, writing in a compelling manner – that is, expressing my views in a clear and concise manner first, with maybe some emotional emphasis added. Rather, I feel that some of my writing lately has come from an emotional (indignant) place, which has resulted in rambling posts and lower editing standards on my part. The end result is that I say things in a way that I may not be proud of upon reflection.

I do not want to be a part of the problem. I want to write posts that I enjoy rereading. I don’t want to make the mistake of expressing a view of someone’s work that is incomplete or otherwise doesn’t accurately reflect the respect that I have for his/her opinion.

I am considering following my intuition, which, right now, is telling me that I should perhaps curtail my discussion of these types of topics on my blog. I would love to be a bit more articulate on these subjects. However, when I look at the number of potential posts that I’ve discarded over the past couple of weeks, and the two “rant-y” ones that I’ve actually published recently, I don’t think that I’m ready to go down that road at this point.

I’m definitely not saying that I’m not going to post anymore. I’m still planning to post about WoW, music, sports, and other stuff that I find interesting. I just think that I’ll be a happier blogger if I don’t put out content that isn’t up to my own standards.

* * * * *

Post-Script: This post doesn’t seem to flow as well as I would like it to – which is, by this point, a common theme with me. I apologize for that. Trust me, it was way worse before I reworked and edited it!

In defense of Frostheim

The rants continue here at Sunmurma…

Yesterday, Frostheim (Warcraft Hunters Union, WoW Insider) posted a story on his blog about a Heroic Old Kingdom that he ran just prior to the recording of last Saturday’s Hunting Party Podcast.

The post, entitled “Story Corner in which Frost is a Bit of an Ass,” can be summarized in this way:

• Frost queued for a random, and it took forever for him to get a dungeon. Just when he was about to give up, he got into OK.
• The tank was doing fine, and Frost was having no threat issues.
• At some point early in the dungeon, a member asked if they could do the optional bosses, and Frost politely let them know that he only had time to do the required ones. He got nothing but silence in response.
• After the second boss, he and two other party members went up to the trash before Herald, and then he noticed that the tank and the person who asked to do the extra bosses were nowhere in sight.
• Meanwhile, one of the members who were with him drew proximity aggro on one of the Faceless Ones, so Frost sicced his pet on it, taunted, and proceeded to solo-kill the mob while the other two members ran away!
• Once the mob was down, he said “Hey guys, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were doing the optional bosses. I said I don’t have time, and I don’t have time for them.” He received several articulate, mature responses, including “Hunter come here” and “Hunter get down here.”

At this point, with limited time before the podcast went live, Frostheim, a big fan of extreme soloing and testing the limits of his hunter abilities, figured “Screw ‘em, I’ll just finish off the instance on my own.”

He pulled the Herald, and when the first insanity phase began, he quickly learned the reality of the fight (which I did not know), which was that the insanity phase is instance-wide. Therefore, the other party members were experiencing insanity without being prepared for it. People started dying, and after a few comments like “WTF hunter?” everyone left the party, Frostheim was booted from the instance, and he didn’t get to finish the boss fight.

Frostheim ended his post by expressing his excitement over the idea that he could have soloed the Herald on Heroic mode.

* * * * *

 

Reactions may vary...

Reaction the post has been varied. Extremely varied.

Most of the commenters on the post itself have cited the coolness factor, along with the idea that being tersely addressed as “Hunter” when he had been polite to them is a put-off. A couple of others suggested that he should have dropped group rather than ruin the instance for the other party members.

Today, there are people on Twitter decrying what he did, even calling for him to be fired from WoW Insider. Ambrosine (I Like Bubbles), in a piece called Responsibility., scolds Frostheim for displaying this type of behavior (being an ass) as a prominent member of the hunter community.

* * * * *

My take on what happened, with some thoughts about Frostheim and opinion on whether he should be fired by WoW Insider, follows.

Communication

The LFD situation that Frostheim described is one that many of us have encountered hundreds of times along the way: a group of people who do not put forth the effort to communicate. After Frost clearly communicated that he would not be able to do the additional bosses, he got no response. Being greeted with silence, he faced an uncertainty: either the other group members were resigned to the fact that they would just finish up the instance, or they would willfully ignore this person who was playing well within the group and go their own way. Personality will help determine how a person perceives the meaning of the silence; Frost interpreted it as acceptance of the fact that the hunter only had a short amount of time, and assumed that everyone would simply finish the instance as quickly as possible.

Clearly there was confusion, as half of the remaining party members were with him, and one was even in front of him (as evidenced by the fact that one member drew aggro because he was too close to a mob).

I assume that, if nothing else, the tank had the impression that Frost was simply a dumb huntard, only there to do DPS, and would comply with what the tank silently willed.

Ineptitude followed by asshattery

When the other party member drew aggro, Frost stepped in to save him. Quickly sending his ferocity pet to take the heat off of the guy, Frost proceeded to work on finishing off the mob while the other two ran away. To quote Frost, “Then the other two turned and ran off toward the tank, leaving me and my pet with aggro. Well, with cower and Mend Pet and a lot of DPS I managed to take the Faceless One down…”

Well, that was nice of them. I’m assuming that one of them was the healer, which would have greatly benefited Frost’s pet, and the other was a DPS, which would have greatly benefited both the pet and Frost himself. But no, they ran away, effectively saying “screw you, buddy!” while he did his best to prevent anyone from being needlessly killed.

Responding to respect with disrespect

After finishing off the Faceless One, Frost typed the following (again, quoting his post): “Hey guys, I’m sorry, I didn’t realize we were doing the optional bosses. I said I don’t have time, and I don’t have time for them.”

This is where he got the responses addressing him as “Hunter”: “Hunter come here” etc.

Frost quote (again): “I had been about to apologize and leave, but these guys had annoyed me just enough. Screw ‘em, I figured, I’ll finish off the instance on my own.”

Acting with respect goes a long way toward peace. The opposite is also true.

I know that there are a large number of people out there who are disrespected in WoW (etc.). Some choose to respond in kind, while others choose to overlook the asshattery and go with the flow, “for the good of the group.” This is how I usually respond, although a certain amount of feeling ignored/ disrespected/ abandoned can push me over the edge. On my druid, I’ve kicked tanks who ignored the spoken will of the rest of the group (running past bosses in UP, for instance) and taken over as tank, or pulled bosses who were skipped and tanked them without heals at times. Sometimes, I’ve felt correct in overriding the tank’s silent “I’m the tank” middle finger to people who need badges/points. But this is the exception, not the norm. Usually, I do whatever the tank wants, or whatever the group wants, however much I’m hating the experience, because I am “being mature” about it.

Frost’s decision

However, even mature people can get stepped on too many times, and I think that this was one of those times for Frost. At some point, a person can reach a threshold where, once passed, he says “screw it, we’re doing this my way, because I just don’t care about you anymore.” Frost reached this point, after being ignored, unappreciated, abandoned and disrespected. In addition, his personality is such that an opportunity to extreme-solo a boss is akin to someone offering you the chance to eat a free, delicious meal – most people wouldn’t pass it up, and neither would he. He also didn’t figure that he was hurting the rest of the party, but simply spiting them. As far as I can tell, these were the major factors that led to his decision to clear the rest of the trash and pull the Herald.

Thoughts on Frostheim, his writing and analysis, and whether he should be fired

There are some people on Twitter and around the flame-net who are calling for Frostheim to be fired, boycotted, or chastised. As you can see above, some commenters are saying that Frostheim promotes “huntard,” that he showed no class, that he “doesn’t represent (So-and-so) as a hunter,” etc.

The post at I Like Bubbles contains comments that seem to cover most of the opinions on it.

My take: it’s probably not something that I would have done. However, as Frost had reached a point where he lost his concern for the other party members’ desire to do the complete instance, and understanding his personality, I don’t think that his actions deserve to be flamed like they are.

If one reads the articles that Frost writes, one finds that they are filled with information, helpful discussion, and huge doses of his personality. In his writing, both on WHU and WoW Insider, he continuously preaches team play, and discusses how to get the most out of your hunter in almost any situation while being the solution, not the problem. As a player, he strives to top the meters while being an indispensable member of a raid team. He is a huge fan of hunters, and his enthusiasm for the minutia of hunter play is infectious. His articles are insightful and humorous, and he is tirelessly dedicated to bringing his readers the best information possible, constantly testing and refining and bringing new ideas to the public. His track record is very good, and so, to me, “being a bit of an ass” in this situation, with no intent to actually kill off the other members of the party, is certainly not one of the defining traits of his play. As far as I’m concerned, he’s a very positive member of, and contributor to, the hunter/WoW community.

He even admitted to being a bit of an ass in the title of his post, so he’s certainly aware that the content of his story didn’t follow purist, conventional wisdom.

So no, I don’t think that he should be fired. I found his story to be funny, and I while I wouldn’t have done it myself, it does not strike me as outrageous that he decided to do it. It definitely was not a low move along the lines of a tank intentionally pulling and then dropping group, for instance.

It’s probably not something that he will do again – that’s not the type of player that he is. In the course of dealing with a lost cause, he found out something that excited him, and shared it with his audience.

And to those who argue that it sets a bad example: I am highly skeptical that this one incident is going to put a bigger black mark on the hunter community. There are hunters who play their classes well and are team players, and then there are hunters who define their unfortunate, derogatory nickname. That’s not going to change as a result of Frostheim’s article.

 

Feeling anti-social: thoughts on Blizzcon detractors, Twitter, and other social networking stuff that is annoying me lately

I’m going through a negative phase this week, with regard to The Internet. There seems to have been a bit of communication overload in the circles I hang around, from Twitter to Facebook to the blogs I follow, and around the web in general. It seems odd, because a couple of months ago there was a lot of “there’s nothing going on” going on, but recently there has been a flurry of everything, and it’s making my brain and eyes hurt.

A little real-life stress doesn’t help. But that’s beside the point.

I follow a lot of WoW/MMO blogs, and I also follow sports. Over the past couple of weeks, that has meant that I’ve subjected myself to a lot of news and discussion regarding the Major League Baseball playoffs, the NFL season, sports-related concussions, 4.0.1, Cataclysm, Blizzcon, and F2P MMOs.

In addition to this, I’ve been playing some WoW, and most of my time in WoW has been spent doing BGs with my druid as I work toward a full set of feral Wrathful gear. Anyone who plays WoW with their hearthstone set in Dalaran and runs a lot of BGs knows that this is a recipe for exposing one’s self to a ton of name-calling and other totally useless or socially destructive chat.

So that type of thing doesn’t help my mood.

Let me preface what I say by reiterating something that I’ve said before – people have the right to say whatever they want; to give opinions, to express themselves, etc. I am 100% in favor of this.

However, a lot of chatter (and chat) seems to be getting on my nerves lately. Here goes…

Blizzcon

Well, I may as well get this out of the way.

The amount of negative coverage that Blizzcon has gotten this year has surprised me. With the knowledge that there was no big announcement in the works, Blizzard claims that they wrestled with whether to actually have a Blizzcon this year. They eventually decided that not holding the event would be disappointing to the people who love to attend. From what I’ve read, people who attended had a blast. Fans of the game, from new players to old players to writers, loved having opportunities to talk with developers, see some new content, check out some gear, play Blizzard’s games, and hang out with – and talk WoW with – fellow WoW-players for three days. All things considered, I would say that it was a success.

However, I’ve wasted more life-experience over the past two weeks reading articles poo-pooing Blizzard’s annual convention than I ever cared to. The ad nauseam complaining that “Blizzard didn’t have a big reveal, so they ripped off their fans” and “Blizzard won’t give players extra character slots, or wardrobes/closets for gear set storage, so they don’t care about their fans” is so tired at this point.

Blizzcon certainly wasn’t perfect. They didn’t answer everyone’s questions, and there were some questions that weren’t answered particularly well. However, it was an event for the fans, and it seems that a fun time was had by, if not every single person, the overwhelming majority of the people who attended. I think that that’s the most important thing.

I didn’t go to Blizzcon, and I didn’t watch much of the video footage. It’s not my bag, but for thousands of people, it is, and I’m glad that Blizzard gave them the chance to get together and celebrate some of their favorite games.

Blizzcon part 2: the “broken leg”

(Subtitled: If nobody likes an asshole, then why are there so many of them out there?)

The problem, in this case, wasn’t the fan who fell and apparently broke his leg during the dance competition. The guy actually “broke a ligament” in his knee, according to what he told WoW Insider. Whether or not it can be argued that one “tears” rather than “breaks” a ligament, the guy suffered some serious damage. Ligament injuries are fixable, but they aren’t easy procedures, and usually require quite a bit of therapy before the knee is back to normal. In addition, the injury could cause him suffering down the road, depending on a variety of factors.

However, the injury was not the issue for me. Ligaments can be damaged by slipping, or your foot landing awkwardly, or being knocked at a bad angle during a sports competition.

The problem was that it happened during the dance competition, which was recorded and seen, not just by the people attending, but by people watching at home, and later by YouTube visitors, who have, as of this writing, viewed it around 650,000 times (here’s one of the links to it). Since it was a legitimate injury that happened to a “nerd” in a “nerdy” competition and is widely available to view on the Internet, the kid is not only physically injured, but is now famous for being “that guy…”

As we all know, YouTube is one of the largest troll-havens on the planet, and a quick glance through some of the comments on the video confirms that to the fullest.

It appalls me that name-calling and derision (of the magnitude that we see now) is the norm in this day and age. The downside to being socially networked these days is having to sort through all of the anonymous disrespect, callousness and misanthropy.

Hey assholes: the guy didn’t hurt himself because he’s retarded, has Asperger syndrome, is a douche, or a nerd with no life, or a virgin, or any of that crap. He fell because he took part in a dance competition for fun, and, unfortunately, the stage was extremely slippery (witness all of the other people who fell while dancing – some fell multiple times).

I’m disgusted by the hatred that is spewed by so many people on the Internet. Even if he did have a disorder, it wouldn’t be funny or cool to make fun of it.

Twitter: too much info

I like Twitter because I can follow some my favorite writers, like Andrew, Tesh, Krist, and Gordon. And a few others.

I don’t like Twitter because some of the other writers that I follow tweet at a rate of about fifty times per day. It ends up becoming a lot to sort through, and it’s more work than I really care to do.

What Twitter ends up being, from my perspective, is a chaotic way to converse. Followers of the more prolific Twitter users often have to sift through a deluge of abbreviated partial-conversations in order to get a cohesive idea of what’s going on. Last weekend, I was reading an amazing amount of tweets about baseball, football, and Blizzcon, and felt as if my brain was going to explode. As a result, I have removed nine users from the list of people I follow, and I’m thinking of trimming that list down to the people mentioned above, along with a few others, and leaving it at that. This would be something completely Twitter-related; I still love reading Peter King and Joe Posnanski, etc., but I don’t necessarily know if I need to follow every one of their tweets.

WoW/PvP chat

Um…

Yell chat. PvP chat. I don’t think I need to say anything more. It’s as ridiculous as ever. See above rant regarding the dancer injuring his leg…

I really wish that there were options for disabling /bg (temporarily, “for this BG,” for times when I’ve reached my breaking point in a “fail BG”) and /yell (permanently) in this game. If there are, please let me know, because I will do it!

Blogs

I follow more than 125 blogs in my reader. Lately, I’ve been skipping a lot of them, and reading only the core blogs that I really like. The sites/blogs that I read every article from are:

1. Multi-subject/gaming: Systemic Babble,  Tish Tosh Tesh, We Fly Spitfires, Krist Novoselic
2. WoW class-specific: Warcraft Hunters Union, Feral Aggression, Think Tank, Primal Precision, The Fluid Druid, OutDPS!, The Brew Hall, One Man Raid, Tree Bark Jacket, From The Barrow Dens
3. WoW general: WoW Insider
4. Sports: Joe Posnanski’s blog, Peter King’s columns at SI.com
5. Music: Blabbermouth.net (well, I don’t read every article due to the sheer volume, but I read it every day)

*all of these are linked in my blogroll

I have a ton of unread posts in my reader right now. A few months ago, I spent a lot of time raiding others’ blogrolls, culling as much new reading material as I could. However, I’m sort of burned out at the moment, as far as reading so much. So this is all on me, and does not in any way reflect negatively on the quality of others’ writing; I’ve simply come to a point where only so much holds my interest at the moment. I’m sure that will change soon enough!

The news

ugh… the news… ugh… /shakes head

SO…

All of that, to say this: I am suffering from a kind of severe case of information overload, along with an even-lower-than-usual tolerance for asshattery.

As such, I scaled back my blog-reading/Internet-time/WoW-playing over the past few days. In addition to playing quite a bit more guitar this week, I also dusted off my copy of Fable 2 (360) a couple of days ago, and have put eight or nine hours into it.

It’s the first time that I’ve put more than a couple of hours into it before giving up. This time, I started a new character and began getting over my discomfort with the control scheme and UI issues, which I’ve written about in the past. Fortunately, I’ve succeeded in this endeavor enough that I’ve really started to enjoy the game.

I’m taking my time with it, playing with a toon who is generally balanced both morally and in combat. I’m trying to make some gold, working jobs and completing side quests, and trying to become even more comfortable with the 360 controls (I’m spoiled by the WoW UI in this regard).

It’s great to be playing a game where there is no interaction with other people. Sometimes, breaks from things like these are necessary. I’ve been largely avoiding the blog, the reader, the news, and Twitter, and I’ve been logged out of WoW quite a bit this week, and it’s refreshing.

Closing

Thus, my rant for this week is over. Hopefully, a few more days of diminished social networking will leave me feeling somewhat refreshed, and I can get around to the 500+ articles that I have left unread at this point.

Saniel: if you’re reading this, I know that you commented on my Feral PvP post a few days ago, and I apologize for not responding to it before today. I’ve remained logged out of WordPress for the past few days, so I didn’t respond to anything until now. However, I appreciate the comment!

* * * * *

Possible near-future article ideas: impressions of Google Chrome as compared with Safari, my Feral PvP spec, maybe a Fable 2 post (um, yeah, fresh on the heals of the Fable 3 release – sounds about right for me!).