…and this is a 
If only inhabitants of fantasy worlds could vote here…
Category: Weirdness
Posted on: November 4, 2008 1:11 AM, by PZ Myers
It's a landslide victory! Obama gets 62% of the vote in World of Warcraft!
I guess it isn't that surprising that a poll of game players might get results that reflect the real world vote, but the strange thing is that there were some game-associated differences. People playing the Horde side (undead, orcs, that sort of thing) were mostly for Obama, while those on the Alliance side (humans, elves, dwarves) gave more mixed results, with dwarves being the only group that favored McCain. There's a joke lurking in there, I'm sure…I just can't think what it would be.
All we have to do now is make sure short people aren't allowed to vote in the presidential election.
Comments
Posted by: John | November 4, 2008 1:26 AM
For the Horde! I mean, for OBAMA!
Posted by: SC | November 4, 2008 1:28 AM
In real life, it's the mental midgets who support McCain.
Posted by: Nerdette | November 4, 2008 1:32 AM
Lady Tauren FTW
What's with the plethora of WoW related items, PZ? The college crowd is bemoaning that the middle of the quarter is such a terrible time for an expansion...
Posted by: BobC | November 4, 2008 1:33 AM
I've been looking at this map every day and this is the best it's ever been for Obama: Probabilities: Obama 91 McCain 9
Posted by: Cods | November 4, 2008 1:36 AM
The dwarves just empathize with McCain because they know what it is like not to be able to grab at things above a certain height.
Posted by: god | November 4, 2008 1:40 AM
this is funny.
Posted by: shonny | November 4, 2008 1:44 AM
The words 'McCaine' and 'intellect' beside each other?
If there ever was an oxymoron, or antonym . . .
- Well, maybe Palin and . . .
Posted by: Jadehawk | November 4, 2008 1:48 AM
I wonder if the McCain campaign is going to somehow manage to twist this into another out-of-touch attack... "Those who are against humanity, are for Obama!"
but i guess with less than 24 hours to go, i won't be seeing that ad :-p
Posted by: bmeissner | November 4, 2008 1:50 AM
If you spend much time playing, it wouldn't surprise you that Alliance have more idiots than the Horde.
Velithe, 70 Bloodelf Rogue.
Posted by: Patricia | November 4, 2008 1:51 AM
Shame on you, naughty PZ.
We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk.
Posted by: Your Mighty Overload | November 4, 2008 1:52 AM
SC at 2
Yes, mental in every sense of the word, I think.
However, there could be an interesting psychological study into the characters chosen by various groups, as I imagine this is largely a factor of the players worldview, and their own self-image. We might imagine that Republicans or Christians might choose more "human-like" players since they have a more rigid (read; "unrealistically simple") view of "good" and "bad". Dems may be more likely to choose more fantastical creatures as they may well be simply more imaginative overall (seeing things as how they should be, and often proposing more radical solutions to problems than right wingers do).
Still, just a hypothesis really.....
Posted by: redwards | November 4, 2008 2:03 AM
"We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk."
I MIGHT actually wet myself laughing.
Posted by: Sara | November 4, 2008 2:10 AM
Don't knock all the short people! Gnomes still favored Obama!
Posted by: Finn | November 4, 2008 2:18 AM
My overly-thoughtful reaction was to rationalize that the Horde consists of a very diverse group of races, each with their own agendas and stories, working together for a common goal against a common enemy. Whereas the Alliance is made up basically of all the classically attractive fantasy races which the humans decided to befriend. So maybe Horde players are more tolerant of/into diversity, whereas Alliance players have that more black and white view of the world and can only see themselves as the "good guys" and everyone else as "other."
Also, @bmeissner, Alliance doesn't necessarily have more idiots (across all servers). They just have way more players, so of course they're bound to have more idiots. But I'm not sure the percentage of Alliance idiots is much higher than the percentage of Horde idiots, as someone who regularly plays both factions.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | November 4, 2008 2:19 AM
Posted by: Patricia | November 4, 2008 1:51 AM
Shame on you, naughty PZ.
We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk.
Ohdearme, I have read too much Pratchett, Dwarfs have to undress in order to determine if they are male or female. And dwarfs consider it bad form to admit if they are female.
Posted by: Patricia | November 4, 2008 2:30 AM
Careful - we're touchy.
Posted by: Kaela Mensha Khaine | November 4, 2008 2:31 AM
She could be one of the ... new ones.
You know. These people, who ...
They talk about ...
They ...
They have no shame.
Ha'ak
Posted by: val | November 4, 2008 2:36 AM
Of course the horde is for Obama. It's only a few decades ago the orcs were under an evil ideology hellbent on the destruction of the entire world (of warcraft). They are probably the biggest fans of atheism in WoW.
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 4, 2008 2:45 AM
You mean instigate apart-height?
I'd like to claim that as my own original work but I can't. I don't know if many of you in the US have ever seen the brilliant UK series The Goodies, but it comes from an episode where they parody South Africa but make segregation height-based rather than race-based.
Posted by: Sauceress | November 4, 2008 2:47 AM
62%?
The "world vote" actually puts Obama a little higher at 87%.
If the world could vote.
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results
Posted by: Benji | November 4, 2008 2:51 AM
It's simple : Christians feel too much holy to be members of the Horde!
Just kidding, I don't like orcs either.
Posted by: Anderu | November 4, 2008 2:56 AM
Gnome rogues for Obama!
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 4, 2008 2:56 AM
LMAO!!!
The funny thing is this actually reflects my personal experience in the game. I got characters on both the Horde and the Alliance. For whatever reason, whenever politics comes up in the trade chat (I gave up long ago trying to get people to use the trade chat for trade) on the Horde side the liberals tend to be dominant will the opposite was the case on the Alliance side.
Also, I would like to note that in battlegrounds each side's organization is completely the ANTITHETICAL of what their names imply. The Horde function generally as a team, relying on one another and having everyone play their part. The Alliance side tends to be a team of disorganized Rambos, everyone off doing their own thing. A libertarian wet dream. The Allys generally get their asses kicked. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the winning side is favoring Obama.
Furthermore, Retribution Paladins need to be nerfed.
Posted by: CBBB | November 4, 2008 2:59 AM
But these people aren't going to turn up and vote - they'll be too busy playing World of Warcraft.
Posted by: DLC | November 4, 2008 2:59 AM
It was only a matter of time until someone ran such an item.
No doubt that who (or what) you choose to portray yourself as says something about your personal preferences, at least to some degree. Now, what does it say about me, when I play a Dwarf Hunter AND a Tauren Druid ?
Posted by: Inky | November 4, 2008 2:59 AM
If you spend much time playing, it wouldn't surprise you that Alliance have more idiots than the Horde.
Velithe, 70 Bloodelf Rogue.
Actually, ever since Burning Crusade, there seems to be a steady influx of the Ally idiots into the Horde herd. I'd say that Alliance just has way more people, and thus, a greater raw number of idiots.
But this idea of mine doesn't explain Kansas.
Asherah, 70 Human Mage
Posted by: Patricia | November 4, 2008 3:01 AM
Janine you slut, unlacing through a generous beard, over an ample bosom takes time.
Then if you add a can of Squirty Cream - it just all goes henshit!
Good night sweetheart - it's the witching hour here.
Posted by: Inky | November 4, 2008 3:04 AM
"Now, what does it say about me, when I play a Dwarf Hunter AND a Tauren Druid ?"
Erm. You're a short person with bullish stubbornness?
Or you'd like to be more horny?
Heh. Frankly, I think it just means that you're comfortable exploring your inner personalities and freaky facets. I've tons of alts, so I'll go with the "I'm just a more tolerant, curious person!" schtick. ;)
Posted by: Maugrim | November 4, 2008 3:06 AM
(Can't believe this hasn't been done already)
If you doubt it is possible that McCain will win, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??!?!
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 4, 2008 3:07 AM
Vote? Hell, a whole campaign full of them is on the verge of losing their bid for the US presidency.
Posted by: Kerlyssa | November 4, 2008 3:16 AM
Alliance is the default side, basically. It's where people start. And a lot of people stay there.
If you want to keep exploring the game and finding new things, however, you eventually go horde.
Posted by: David Utidjian | November 4, 2008 3:17 AM
Lets hope the WoWers will be able to tear themselves away from the game long enough to actually go out and vote.
My college sent out an email to the entire community (faculty, staff, and students) that they will be running a shuttle from campus to the polling site starting at 7AM until the polls close.
Vote early and vote often!!!
-DU-
Posted by: Nerdette | November 4, 2008 3:27 AM
#18 - Considering the game is built on the fantasy of drawing powers from god-like beings to battle against other god-like beings, I would say that, no, atheism is not part of them game.
#24 - Yes, because all gamers are addicts. Ass.
Posted by: Azkyroth | November 4, 2008 3:35 AM
Which is fortunate, because, since all gamers are also male, they might otherwise be more likely to vote for McCain, since Obama generally polls better with women. *echoed eyeroll*
Posted by: Dag Yo | November 4, 2008 3:41 AM
This is interesting. I wonder how many other correlations can be found across other groups of people.
Posted by: DLC | November 4, 2008 3:42 AM
CB^3 @24: Like any self-respecting asocial loner hermit I voted by mail last week.
Inky @28: Or maybe I'm a bearded bull ?
:
McCain is a Gnome Warlock ?
Think about it.
Posted by: Colin | November 4, 2008 3:44 AM
Maugrim (#29) FTW!!
Yeah, I reckon the "good guy" races are more popular with conservative players. Not surprising that McCain does better with the Alliance.
Good luck over there. Fingers crossed.
Posted by: Jake | November 4, 2008 3:48 AM
Not sure if the joke has been made but...
...with dwarves being the only group that favored McCain. There's a joke lurking in there, I'm sure...I just can't think what it would be.
Well it does ring true that only people that live under a rock would vote for him...
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 4, 2008 4:09 AM
Posted by: Wowbagger @ 19 "...You mean instigate apart-height?"
Goodies ... goody goody yum yum. Oh I remember it well! After the revolution, the Prime Mini-ster and the entire mini-stry was composed of retired jockeys. My favourite episode though was Goodies Live. Slightly even more off topic, my maternal grandmother's maiden name was Goody. I found it hilarious when I discovered this while doing my family tree.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | November 4, 2008 4:21 AM
Wonderful, from WoW to The Goodies in one easy step! Well, as long as your legs are long enough (strides off into the distance).
Posted by: Penny | November 4, 2008 4:23 AM
Just listening to ClassicFM (a radio channel on the east side of the Pond) - "Now, we all know Obama is going to win, so you don't need to stay up all night worrying to watch the results" (or WTTE).
I don't know of anyone over here who thinks that McCain is a good idea (let alone Palin!).
(And Bring Back the Goodies!!)
Posted by: Stuart Dorward | November 4, 2008 4:26 AM
I was sad, but not suprised, to see Alliance Priests as the most conservative of them all.
Aquinas, 70 Night-Elf Priest
Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2008 4:33 AM
I don't know of anyone over here who thinks that McCain is a good idea (let alone Palin!).
I don't, but I think he's a better idea than Obama (on grounds of economic policy alone).
And I do know some British conservatives who still support McCain - blogger Donal Blaney, for one. Prior to the Palin pick many British people favoured McCain, but Palin really isn't the kind of candidate who appeals in the slightest to non-Americans.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 4, 2008 4:37 AM
Tonight, it's going to be a landslide victory for Obama ;
1- Min. 6% gap. on popular vote
2- Min. 350 electoral votes for Obama
3- the big surprise would be if Obama could win states such as Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and even Arizona ! Then he could break the 400 electoral votes mark.
Tonight, Americans are going to show the world that they have decided to turn the page on the Bush era in a grandiose way.
Posted by: JRY | November 4, 2008 4:38 AM
To CBBB @24:
They may not be playing on Tuesday as much as normal: extended server maintenance day from 3 AM to 11 AM PST (that's 6 AM to 2 PM EST).
And on my day off too.
Applebottom, 70 Night-Elf Rogue
Posted by: Wowbagger | November 4, 2008 4:47 AM
I'm one of those who doesn't like to count chickens until they're hatched so I'm keeping the Wowbagger Happy Dance on hold until the result is incontrovertible.
Sure, it doesn't affect me directly (being in Australia and all) but I know how much better it'll be for the world - as long as the Democrats do what needs to be done. I think the pressure needs to be kept on them so they don't get complacent and let things slide.
Walton wrote:
Doesn't he plan to just keep on doing what the Republicans have been doing the last eight years? That doesn't appear to have worked all that well - unless you're an oil company, Halliburton, or some other big name in the military-industrialist complex.
I do hope we're going to see the end of war profiteering - arguably the most repugnant way to make money. I won't hold my breath, though.
Posted by: scooter | November 4, 2008 5:00 AM
Wowbanger @ 46: I'm one of those who doesn't like to count chickens until they're hatched
You're right.
McCain should have chosen Leeroy Jenkins as his running mate.
At least he has chicken.
I hadn't thought of that.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 4, 2008 5:32 AM
Wowbagger,
oh but you don't understand, if you are Walton or one of these right wing pundits, you can pretend that the unique cause of the economic crisis are the subprime mortgages, and of course, it's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's fault (hence the democrat's fault).
It's like this, if one calculates the reduction in asset worth between the real estate market and the stock market, we're talking an estimated $ 15 trillion minimum !
Now see, according to these so called rightwing economic experts, all of this devaluation is due to the $ 300 bill. subprime mortgages market, or less than 2% (of which only a small share was carried by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).
But of course, Walton will say nothing about the shadow banking system, hedge funds, derivatives, CDSs, etc... which was completely deregulated and caused by far the biggest chunk of the financial crisis. This they conveniently chose to ignore.
And what to say about "perfect competition" and the invisible hand theory, when you know that roughly it costs max. $12 to produce a barrel of oil, but speculation and cartels end up yielding the crazy prices / profits we have seen so far ? That theory doesn't seem to have worked that well, has it ? Exxon Mobil made $40 bill profits last year alone.
See, it's easy, if you want to completely deny reality, you can say whatever you want.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 5:38 AM
If only inhabitants of fantasy worlds could vote here... - PZ
But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 4, 2008 5:40 AM
I'm trying not to be overconfident. I've pretty well had hope beaten out of me over the years, but--I'm 56; these fuckers have stolen half my life, 3/4 of my adult life almost. I want them dead. And not painlessly either! I don't think I can survive another disappointment like 2004 (and I almost had a stroke in 2000!)
I keep flashing back on the sketch on Fridays (ABCs answer to SNL, if anybody remembers it) the Friday before election day 1980. It was a spoof of The Exorcist called Election Night. "When the polls cloooose...the HOOOORRRROR BEGINS!" Truer words were never spoken!
Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now....
Posted by: Teresa | November 4, 2008 5:47 AM
Tagentally on topic...
http://somehedgehog.livejournal.com/245807.html
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | November 4, 2008 6:13 AM
Patricia,
LOL! Why am I not thinking facial hair?
Posted by: James F | November 4, 2008 6:13 AM
Excellent! A post that makes me feel like less of a nerd! Thanks, PZ!
(Oh, I kid the gamers!)
Posted by: Lancelot Gobbo | November 4, 2008 6:15 AM
Real, live spelling-pronunciation in the wild. It's not a WIV-VERN, it's a WHY vern.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | November 4, 2008 6:23 AM
Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2008 4:33 AM
This is an example of an assertion that cries out for valid supporting arguments. In all means of measure, Obama has outperformed McCain in his response to this economic crisis:
1. He showed restraint and patience before laying out a plan, while McCain "suspended" his campaign to race back to Washington to ensure the passage of the bailout - which resulted in its defeat the first time around.
2. He has surrounded himself with advisors far superior to McCain's, such as Robert Reich and Robert Rubin who were key advisors to Clinton during his Presidency. (And I shouldn't have to point out that our economy was pretty good in those days.) To be fair, repealing the Glass-Stegall Act was the one blemish during that time period that contributed to our current situation, but that fact actually hurts McCain, because the main proponent of that action in Congress was Phil Gramm, McCain's now infamous advisor who displayed his arrogance with his "nation of whiners" and "mental recession" comments to the media.
3. Even a cursory examination of the two candidates' economic plans as related on their websites reveals the fact that McCain's plan is lacking in the area of outlining exactly how his specific initiatives will help middle class Americans, whereas Obama's plan clearly lays out the benefits to that group. This is even more ironic considering the fact that McCain constantly rails on Obama for being heavy on rhetoric yet light on substance.
Walton, don't take any of this as being conveyed in a condescending tone, because I certainly don't mean it that way. As I've told you before, I was a staunch Republican not too long ago, and there are still a few points, albeit not many of them, on which I agree with the conservative consensus. But in light of both their plans (as far as the candidates have expressed them) and their actions in response to the economic crisis, I just cannot see how you could honestly deduce that McCain would be a better overall choice to guide the recovery of our economy. Remember - McCain has not only been in Congress for well over two decades, he has been a prominent and senior member for many of those years, serving in powerful positions on many different committees, to include being the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.
Honestly, even aside from the economic issues, do you not see a major liability in having a President who is so very prone to committing major gaffes in full public view? (Not to mention the fact that he chose as his VP nomineee an individual who is woefully underprepared for the office she seeks.) He has already made a great deal of these mistakes already in his campaign, which begs the question: How many more will we see should he win four years in the White House?
To me, this election involves many different vital issues, but it mainly centers around one task that will surely become the new administration's foremost mandate - to restore the American image, both domestically and abroad, that has been destroyed over the course of the past eight years. Knowing that, it seems very unwise to choose a candidate that has aligned so closely with the administration responsible for demolishing that image, as proven by his voting record. McCain himself has said it best in his attacks on Obama that words are words, but a candidate's record is what really matters.
When you look at both candidates' voting records on those issues that are pertinent to the situation we now find ourselves in as a nation (the war in Iraq, the deregulation frenzy that led to our current economic freefall, the importance of prudent and comprehensive diplomacy in dealing with the rest of the world, etc...), it is clear that Senator Obama comes across as reasonable and prudent, while McCain has been reactionary (re: his assertion that he would fire the SEC Chairman even though a President does not have that power), inconsistent (re: his assertion that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" while soon after claiming that the economy is "cratering"), and at times even volatile (re: his knee-jerk, belligerent rhetoric towards Russia in response to the Georgian crisis...not to mention his obvious conflict of interest in that case, evidenced by the fact that one of his top foreign affairs advisors, Randy Scheunemann, was a lobbyist working on behalf of Georgia while also advising McCain).
I'm honestly interested to hear why you think McCain would be a better choice for the economy, much less any other issue facing the next President.
Posted by: The Chemist | November 4, 2008 6:31 AM
All this does is demonstrate that liberals enjoy being evil (or are more likely to have multiple WoW accounts), I haven't decided which.
In other news: Dwarves cry foul on the basis of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. (Unable to reach the levers)
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | November 4, 2008 6:41 AM
Posted by: Lurkbot | November 4, 2008 5:40 AM
While I certainly do share the same apprehension concerning the prospect of Bush and the GOP doing anything and everything within their means to hold onto the reins of power, I can assure you that he would not be able to count on the military to do his dirty work for him. He may get some of the higher level General officers to be sympathetic to his desires, but he'd be insane to think that he could successfully order the military to do anything as unconstitutional as enforcing his retention of the Oval Office. Even considering how far this administration has regressed our national ideals and identity, I believe we are safely past the days in which a politician can successfully use our nation's military to wrest control away from the people by force, a la Julius Caesar. (As always, I could be wrong on this, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that the Army is definitely not the overwhelmingly Republican-friendly organization that the likes of Bush and Rove would have you believe it is. While there definitely are political ideologues within the Army's ranks, especially at the high command level, the majority of us signed up to defend our national principles, not subvert them for the benefit of a political party.)
In the event that Bush would be dumb enough to try such a thing (and believe me, I definitely don't put it past him and his ilk), I believe he would not only be rebuffed by soldiers and civilians alike, but he would also be committing a crime of such magnitude that not even his Rovian political machine could prevent him from being brought up on charges of treason. Because using our nation's military on our own citizens is the very definition of treason, and no amount of spin or political maneuvering would be able to save him from an action like that.
Posted by: brokensoldier, OM | November 4, 2008 6:47 AM
In light of these WoW poll results, is it any wonder that the Federal Government recently advanced the idea that WoW is the perfect arena for terrorists to plan attacks, and then used that assertion to suggest that these online spaces need to be subject to monitoring by the government?
Hey, after all this exaggerated bullshit about ACORN possibly "destroying the fabric of democracy," I'm not putting anything past the bastards...
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 4, 2008 6:54 AM
Well, Bush could always declare a state of national emergency in the case of for instance a US/ Israël /iran war under the NSPD 51 directive that he has signed into law in may 2007 ;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html
But honestly, I don't think this is going to happen anymore, the guy is tired, he wants his retirement, go and enjoy his ranch and forget about power.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 7:03 AM
We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards - Patricia
Do you tuck the voluptuous beard down the cleavage, or fork the beard and train each half to curl seductively round one of the nipples? (I'm assuming dwarfs do only have two nipples.)
Just idly speculating...
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 4, 2008 7:09 AM
The most frightning thing about this NSPD 51 is that Bush managed to pass it into law which basically gives him the possibility of a coup d'etat by national emergency, which doesn't seem very constitutional to me, and this seems to have never been challenged by anybody so far ...
Strange country you have there....
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 7:16 AM
Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now... - Lurkbot
No. Apart from the reasons given by brokenSoldier and negentropyeater, even the neocons around Bush would not support such a move, for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. They will concentrate on covering up their crimes, laying as many booby-traps for Obama as possible (on top of the huge obstacle of the financial crisis, which is bound to generate a serious recession at best - Obama will need to be both brilliant and lucky not to be a one-term President), and on fighting with other factions (theocrats, "libertarians", pragmatists) over who gets to control the Rethuglican Party.
Posted by: negentropyeater | November 4, 2008 7:52 AM
Bet you he makes two terms !
Don't know why, but something tells me he's going to be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents.
Ah well, I really like the guy...
Posted by: rob | November 4, 2008 8:08 AM
Didn't Ron Paul win the WoW republican primary?
Posted by: GunOfSod | November 4, 2008 8:13 AM
We all know the Gnomes have rigged the voting machines anyway. I also heard that the Arathi Highlands have re-zoned to include SouthShore in their voting tally!!!
As a nominally independant undead, I was keen to support the further torture of Guantanamo *cough* POW's *cough*, alas the world changes and I'm a rotting skeleton.
Torquemada Undead Warlock 70, Aszune.
Posted by: GunOfSod | November 4, 2008 8:16 AM
#45 Applebottom, 70 Night-Elf Rogue
Applebottom!!
Soz u must di by fire.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2008 8:33 AM
I second Feynmaniac; My main is a 70 Dwarf Pally on Greymane (part of one of the best dang pvp battlegroups in the serververse, if you don't mind me saying) and whenever politics comes up on the alliance side there are, invariably, many more libertarian responses that either conventional republican or democrat ones. Having said that, those from the right who do respond tend to be more fanatical that either the libbies or the democrats. And, as Feyn said, in pvp the alliance players 70% of the time just runs around trying to play the hero instead of grouping up and doing what they need to win (except in Alterac Valley).
The odd thing is that, in world pvp, those roles are reversed. I guess Allie team players mostly do quests and instances whereas Horde team players mostly do pvp.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2008 8:44 AM
Nerdette: Actually, the light was originally an atheistic idea which, with the BC expansion, was retconned to include a more theistic element through the Naaru. In the Warcraft I, II, and pre-BC lore, and to some extent in the Diablo lore as well, paladins could only draw power from the Light by being notably good people dedicated to helping others. The idea was that, by being a thoroughly good and selfless person, individuals would naturally gain an ability to channel the creative and positive forces of the universe, and that the order of the Silver Hand was simply a gathering of these individuals dedicating to beating back the Horde invasion. This is really a simplification, and there's allot more on the issue that could be said, but I doubt that it would be a subject of great interest on a science blog.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2008 8:47 AM
brokensoldier: I think the episode to which you refer is more a case of newly hired, non-Arabian or Urdu-speaking CIA "security" analysts trying to justify their continued employment than an instance of the gov trying to inject regulation into WoW, but I could be wrong.
Posted by: Julian | November 4, 2008 8:49 AM
Hmm, for some reason I seem to be writing that in the place of than today. Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 9:01 AM
negentropyeater@63,
Well, I didn't say he wouldn't be both brilliant and lucky! He had to be a brilliant campaigner to get to where he is, and he was certainly lucky that the crash happened when it did and not a year later. (Plenty of people foresaw something of the kind happening, but no-one can predict just when or how such turning points will occur in complex systems.)
Posted by: FrodoSaves | November 4, 2008 9:04 AM
Short people aren't allowed to vote?! But we Frodologists, worshipers of Frodo, have our ranks peopled by hobbits and hobbit-wannabees! We plan to vote for McCain en masse. We feel it will be easier to convert to a Frodologist state from a Republican Christian state than from a Democratic sensible one.
Posted by: Epinephrine | November 4, 2008 9:08 AM
Horde prefers Obama? One possible explanation...
Not sure what this would mean in terms of effect on voting, honestly. I suspect the youth has more to do with it.
Ah, more role-playing, makes sense. Dwarves in particular are often portrayed in fantasy as conservative, and I wouldn't be surprised if those playing dwarves were more likely to have a conservative mindset.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 9:10 AM
whenever politics comes up on the alliance side there are, invariably, many more libertarian responses that either conventional republican or democrat ones.
Makes sense. Fantasy worlds are, after all, the natural habitat of "libertarians".
Posted by: Rick | November 4, 2008 9:24 AM
Favorite line?
"McCain would be a dwarf warrior... he's short and he holds a lot of agro"
LOL
Posted by: Epikt | November 4, 2008 9:25 AM
Nick Gotts:
Most certainly. Many libertarians were republicans until a few weeks ago. Once they saw the likely outcome of the election, they turned and ran from the republican party, and now claim they were never members, and are in no way responsible for the flawed, not-free-market-enough policies of Bushco. The easy comparison is with nazis post-WWII, but making any kind of nazi analogy in an online post is considered bad form, and I would never do that.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 9:25 AM
We [hobbits] plan to vote for McCain en masse. FrodoSaves
In that case, I reckon McCain's got it in the Bag End!
Posted by: Mane | November 4, 2008 9:28 AM
In my experence, the only ones who vote for McCain, are somewhat of a dumbass to begin with; remember the Alliance is populated by kids.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 4, 2008 9:29 AM
Of course. And not just because the particular word isn't used much outside the USA.
Posted by: Kamacausey | November 4, 2008 10:23 AM
"But these people aren't going to turn up and vote - they'll be too busy playing World of Warcraft."
The servers are normally down on Tuesdays for maintenance. They can get out to vote until they come back online.
Posted by: Nick Gotts | November 4, 2008 10:33 AM
The easy comparison is with nazis post-WWII - Epikt
Naw - after all, the "ex"-Nazi's didn't for the most part complain that Hitler had been too soft on the Jews and leftists, and not aggressive enough in his foreign policy! Though this does remind me of the joke about Hitler being discovered alive by a group of devoted Nazis in 1950, hiding out in Paraguay. They try to persuade him to attempt a comeback, for a long while he's reluctant, but in the end says:
"Vell alright, alright! But zis time, no more mister nice guy!"
Posted by: Nerdette | November 4, 2008 11:00 AM
Julian - True, but it doesn't stop at the Light. The dragon aspects, the Earth Mother, even that giant eyeball, C'Thun and the peacock, Hakkar. Theist aspects in terms of paladins may have been absent, but there are plenty of other sources.
Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2008 11:01 AM
To brokenSoldier at #55:
You make a fair point about Obama's temperament and intellect, and I do have a lot of respect for him as a person. He was certainly the best choice out of the leading Democrat candidates (I'm glad the nominee wasn't Hillary or Edwards, for instance).
I'd also be the first to concede that McCain isn't perfect. He's picked one of the most incompetent running mates in GOP history, and he has at times talked absolute nonsense while pandering to the party base. I'm under no illusion that he's the ideal candidate. (FWIW, he was a much better candidate in 2000.)
But I'll explain the reason for my preference. We live in dangerous economic times; in a recession, the temptation for governments, under pressure from industries, corporations and labour unions, is always to use protectionism, state support and other anti-free market measures in order to "protect jobs". As most reputable economists agree, free international trade is an incredibly important goal; more tariffs, subsidies and protectionist policies would constitute a dangerous step backwards. I am concerned by Obama's use of protectionist rhetoric in the Democratic primaries; backed by a solidly Democratic Congress (which seems virtually certain), he may well cave to union pressure and move away from free trade in favour of protectionist policies. Likewise, he may well give way to the clamouring voices mistakenly asserting that "deregulation" and "greed" (rather than failed government and monetary policies) are the cause of the present financial crisis, and hamper the American financial markets with more red tape and state control, thereby making America less competitive globally. And he seems amenable to the idea of raising America's (already punishingly high) levels of corporation tax, which, again, would drive business overseas and hamper the economy.
Don't get me wrong. Given Obama's undoubted intellect and impressive educational background, I'm sure he fully appreciates the benefits of free trade and the free market in principle - but I am concerned that, in the worst-case scenario, he might, as a politician, cave to popular protectionist sentiment and to special interests.
Even so, if this were Obama v Palin, I'd be a reluctant Obama supporter. Whatever his failings on substantive policy, Obama is not an idiot, nor is he unaware of how to deal with crises. With Palin, we simply don't know how she'd react to, say, a major international incident; she hasn't been in the public eye for long enough, and her public statements thus far indicate that she is either pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment (which would be bad in itself) or, worse, that she is actually unaware of vast swathes of economic and foreign policy, and proud of her own ignorance. So I've been hugely disappointed by McCain's choice of running mate, as well as some of his policy shifts.
Posted by: Steph | November 4, 2008 11:08 AM
I've got a dwarf and I'm about to head out to vote for Obama. Of course she's a female dwarf rogue, which is apparently about the rarest thing you can be, so I'm probably out of the dwarven mainstream. Maybe all those NRA-member hunters skew the results?
Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2008 11:18 AM
But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?... Of course. And not just because the particular word isn't used much outside the USA.
I'm not sure this is true. Here in the UK, though our "Libertarian Party" was only established last year and is still very small, there are an increasing number of MPs and activists within the mainstream Conservative Party who identify expressly as libertarians. At my university, a majority of the Conservative Party activists I know are, I would say, broadly libertarian in outlook. It's a growing movement, which is increasingly supplanting the more traditional, socially-conservative right wing in UK politics (the "Tory Taliban", as they're sometimes labelled).
I imagine (though I'm not sure) that the term is used a lot less in mainland Europe, since "liberal" on the Continent tends to connotate free-market libertarian, rather than leftist, beliefs. (The FDP in Germany are described as "liberal", for instance.)
The only reason we even use the cumbersome word "libertarian" at all is because the word "liberal" has been hijacked, in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK, by the left. Those of us who are liberals in the nineteenth-century sense, standing in the tradition of J.S. Mill and believing in both personal and economic liberty and limited government, have to use a term to identify ourselves. "Conservative" doesn't cut it, because the word "conservative" doesn't actually signify a specific ideology; rather, it denotes a position relative to the traditional political and social culture in one's context. Thus the conservatives of the nineteenth century were those who wanted to retain monarchy and aristocratic rule, while those who advocated for limited government were called liberals; and similarly, a hard-line Stalinist in the late Soviet Union could easily be labelled "conservative". I am a "conservative" in the same sense that Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives; but my core ideology, being that of individual freedom and limited government, is a libertarian one.
Posted by: