Starcraft 2 makes major announcements (and I am off the hype train)

[Final-Fan]

bbsin said:

Final-Fan said:

I meant to say that your argument was intellectually deficient, not yourself.  Sorry. 

I'm not saying NO ONE is boycotting the game, because I'm sure some are. 

But it's just wrong to assert that anyone who says anything about how upset they are about the changing of a product into something they are unwilling to buy (when they were previously willing) is "boycotting" that game. 

No.

First, this sounds like you're either putting words in my mouth or you're very confused. I've NEVER said that ANYONE that says anything about being upset about the absence of LAN support is considered a boycotter. My argument lies on the fact that there are *some* (and I've been pretty clear about this) people that are indeed boycotting this game, in this very thread.

That is what IMO the implication was of your general argument, even when it seems to contradict your specific position. 

Second, your statement doesn't make sense as what you've described (in the right situation) can and is considered a boycott. If someone that had actually wanted a product decides that a dealer is doing something that he/she thinks is "wrong",not reasonable or fair, then goes on to publicly show their protest and disfavor because of that issue, and finally decides to not buy or obtain illegally as a result (especially to send a message to the dealer, whether the message is intentional or not) is considered a boycotter.

The ONLY better example, would be if someone just plainly says that they are boycotting a product/company/country/etc.

(in the right situation)  That's the key right there.  It's not always the case that what I've described is boycotting by your own admission, isn't that true? 

And it's wrong to say that anyone who pirates such a game is "boycotting" purchasing that game. 

I've never implied or said that pirating a game = boycott. Again, it depends on what the dealer or product is doing, the reaction of the person and what they do as a means to show their disfavor. You can't target only a fraction of my argument and tell me that it's "wrong".

I meant to say, who was going to buy it, finds out about no LAN, and resultantly bitches on forums and pirates.  Sorry for my miscommunication. 

Now I'll volunteer that I suspect at least some of those posters were going to pirate anyway, and are just latching on to this as an excuse to claim (either to us or themselves) "well I was GONNA buy it until this outrage!"  But that is not relevant. 

As for SamuraiNinjaGuy, I'm always glad to see an articulate new member too, but do you realize his definition of boycott is DIFFERENT from yours?  You said "you're not getting my point if you think I'm implying that as long as someone refrains from buying a product, it'd be considered a boycott. That's simply not the case. It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results."
Repeat:  it's not the case that it's a boycott simply because someone refrains from buying a product, according to you. 
SamuraiNinjaGuy explicitly told us a story about how, for him, MP SC2 will be literally unplayable if he can't use LAN.  So for that reason, BECAUSE THE PRODUCT HAS LOST VALUE (and not as a form of protest or "sending a statement" other than by the simple fact of his non-purchase), he will not buy the game.  Because he is also a scrupulous person, he will also refrain from pirating the game. 

IMO when he calls that boycotting (assuming I have gotten his position right) he is using the term in a way that contradicts the way I think you are using the term.  If I am wrong, please explain how.

SamuraiNinjaGuy is not buying SC2 because Blizzard had taken away an option to play via LAN, which happens to be the only way he can play MP. In his case, He says he's boycotting Blizzard (which in reality, he's really boycotting SC2..) because he obviously disfavors their decision to take away the only possible way he'd have a good experience online. He doesn't hate Blizzard (since he says so), but he's protesting against their decision to take away LAN by not buying the game all together, a game that he would have gotten if it weren't for that decision.

Since you're using my example, I'll piece it together.

Situation: Blizzard takes away LAN, SamuraiNinjaGuy is an avid MP Starcraft fan.

Reasoning: SamuraiNinjaGuy is obviously not happy with Blizzard's decision to take away LAN as it's always been how he played SC in the past.

Result: He's won't buy the game, unless they happen to add LAN again.

Is it true that the value of the game has gone down for him? probably. But does that mean he's not boycotting the game? no.

But is he actually "protesting"? 

And SamuraiNinjaGuy, if I've misconstrued your position, please point it out and I'll gladly eat crow. 

 

Look, find me a dictionary definition consistent with your claim (unless you think I have again misrepresented you) that you can boycott a product (not a company) all by yourself, without ever being part of any organized effort of protest/demand/threat/etc., and when the fact of non-purchase is due to low valuation of the product's worth instead of another form of disapproval. 

My favorite dictionary, Webster's Third New International, in fact says that to boycott is "to combine against (a person, employer, group, or nation) in a policy of nonintercourse for political or economic reasons ... as an expression of disapproval or means of coercion" or to engage in "concerted refusal to have anything to do with ... in order to force acceptance of certain conditions ..."

[edit:  and no, your earlier examples are not sufficient. 
[Dictionary.com
[1.  "as a means of intimidation or coercion" this clearly doesn't qualify
[2.  "abstain" this is a much more subtle disqualification.  "Abstaining" implies not doing something that you would normally be inclined to do.  Abstaining from drinking, or drugs, or whatever.  One abstains not because the thing is undesirable (like Cheetos taste bad or are messy) but for some other reason like ... Cheetos are made with child labor or whatever the reason was. 
[
[yourdictionary.com
[1. "join together", "so as to punish" double fail
[2. "to refuse" probably your strongest case.  Still, "refuse" seems to me to be a more purposeful sentiment than just not wanting to buy -- not as clearly as "abstain" but still there.  Plus, either "refuse" does mean something aside from not thinking the product worth buying, or that definition means that anything you ever decided against buying is a boycott.  I think you agreed that that's not the case. 
[
[Yahoo dictionary
["abstain" "as an expression of protest or disfavor" Abstain again, see above.  Also, "disfavor" again ought to be something else than just not wanting to purchase. 
[
[So only one of the five definitions you quoted could even arguably support your interpretation, and IMO not even that.]