It’s definitely still chugging along, although I will point out that the sub numbers now include not only modern WoW players but also Classic players. If the 7 million number is accurate, that’s 7 million across all WoW versions, not just modern WoW.

Same. A friend and I were excited to play together like we did in D3, but we barely managed to finish the campaign. It’s on the shelf for now unless/until we hear the team turned things around.

True, if it turned into a situation where you had to sub with money for a month every time you wanted to redeem a token or something, that would definitely lessen the value for me. I’d still say it was worth it because I could use the tokens for expansions and other games, but not everyone may have the same opinion.

The WoW token wasn’t introduced until WoD, so if you played that long ago it wouldn’t have been an option. If you’re ever looking to jump in again though, it’s definitely a useful system if you like to make gold in game.

Free trials can’t farm gold anyway because they’re capped to 1k gold, so this really does only impact bot accounts for the most part. There’s likely a small number of people who use tokens because they otherwise couldn’t afford to play, but I expect that’s not terribly common.

As someone who uses gold to buy WoW tokens for both game time and shop credit to make other Blizzard purchases, I have a hard time getting upset over this. I’ve been playing the game without spending money for years, and tokens are also how I buy both WoW expansions and other Blizzard games. Asking me to pay money for a month of sub time every few years seems reasonable, especially if this change makes it even the slightest bit annoying/harder for bot accounts.

That might be better, but I’d still worry about people rep farming (for lack of a better term). Any time you give people a score, title, or other personal metric, you run the risk of people posting to influence that metric rather than to post for the sake of contributing content.

It’s possible the good such a system could do would outweigh the bad, but it will definitely always have elements of both.

While karma might help spam/bots in some ways, I feel like it would also lead to karma farming, which I’m personally happy to not have here. Maybe they could instead allow communities to set requirements for minimum time subscribed or minimum interaction (voting, commenting, etc.) before people could post? I’d prefer that be set per-community, though, and not a site-wide mandate.

Similar to that, yeah, although I think the master/slave thing started earlier. (It’s a bit more blatant, tbf.)

I agree that allowlist doesn’t roll off the tongue quite as nicely, but as long as it makes it obvious what the word means, I’ll go with it.

Sync! It’s what I used on Reddit, and having it here made switching platforms so much smoother.

In recent years there’s been a shift from “white/black list” to “allow/block list” in an effort to avoid the stereotypes associated with those terms. I wouldn’t say it’s the new norm yet, but it’s slowly becoming more popular.

The difference is that racists are usually racist due to a moral stance, not because it makes them money; ignoring them means we’ll hear about it less but it won’t actually go away. Clickbait/ragebait, on the other hand, isn’t a moral viewpoint - it’s meant to bring a person money via exposure/engagement, so less engagement leads to less money which leads to less bait because it’s no longer working.

This is me. I played at the start and for a bit of Season 1 but lost interest ~60 hours in. Maybe it’ll be good in a couple years, but for now there are too many other fun games available to keep playing this one.

I can see how creators who are solely on Patreon will benefit from the additional features, but I’m curious about how widely they’ll be adopted by those who post on multiple platforms. If you have a YouTube channel and use Patreon for members-only content, for example, using the Patreon chat feature would exclude the non-member portion of your community from those conversations. While this is a good alternative for those who specifically want member-only chat areas, I don’t see it replacing tools like Discord any time soon.

Also, having the member profiles on by default definitely made me pause when I got the email a few weeks ago. I know some people will enjoy that feature, but I personally went in and immediately turned it off.

If anything, I think the r/diving example would have been a good choice to include alongside the others. It demonstrates how something that’s already risky can quickly turn even more dangerous when inexperienced (or outright deceitful) mods are appointed.

It’s not that I find the examples in the article to be wrong, more that they give the impression (rightly or wrongly) that the author really had to dive deep to find any material to support their view. It gives off the same vibes as the articles claiming everyone’s outraged about ABC, when really the whole thing is based off three tweets and a TikTok. I’m not in any way trying to say that that’s what’s actually going on here, merely that it’s the way the article reads (at least to me).

While I enjoy some Reddit drama every now and again as much as the next person, this article had a plenty of words but very little substance. A few former mods are concerned that new mods don’t have the proper knowledge and background to moderate effectively (but with no concrete examples of a post’s misinformation directly leading to harm), and researchers are worried they may no longer be able to use Reddit data for their studies (although Reddit has a policy around research-based access and is working with Pushshift to improve access).

These examples feel cherry-picked, and the article itself says that it’s too soon to say whether or not content quality was impacted by the API changes and mod replacements. Without actual data - or at least many more examples of specific concerns that weren’t present before the changes - it doesn’t do much other than say “a few people are worried that something bad might happen.”

Pretty sure LinkedIn already called dibs on selling our employment data.

Your comment made me curious enough to go check my /played, and I regret my decision. Over 500 days of play time.

The vast majority of people I speak with just use regular old text messaging. If it’s someone I meet via networking at work, I’ll occasionally get asked about LinkedIn; same thing but with Discord if it’s someone I meet gaming online.