(sigh)

One guy from this thread said: "No Lan = no buy.... torrent then"

Another one seemed so disgusted that he went on to talk about Blizzard as if they're doing some horrible deed then goes on to imply that he'll also pirate the game.

Based off the posts from those people, you can easily tell that they are disgruntled by Blizzard's decision and method but they still want the game due to the fact that they plan to torrent it, illegally. Heck, if they didn't want the game, why some people be so fired up about the removal of LAN support?

So..."I hate you / what you did, so I'm not buying this even though I want it"

Doesn't that sound familiar?

Some people are disfavoring the decision to take away LAN and are not buying the game as a result to show it. It's not as simple as: "oh, the sole purpose of having starcraft is so I can play via LAN" or "SC2 MUST have LAN for me to deem it valuable". In that case, you're all telling me that they wouldn't torrent SC2 if it did have LAN? Think about it. They're not buying SC2 because they want to express their disfavor towards Blizzard's decision, which ultimately hurts the company.

It's not hard to grasp at all, especially if you read. I suppose some of you happen to think that a boycott without riots, hate signs and an attempt to bring a dealer down doesn't exist. If that's the case, it'd be a waste of my time to expect any reasonable outcome from continuing.

@Theshrike: Well first off, I never directed my boycott statement towards anyone in this thread, you assumed that I did, that's how it started. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether a definition is "widely" used over another, that doesn't negate the fact that another meaning exist. Third, your example (as well as c0rd's) is nothing like how some people in this thread expressed their decision in not buying SC2. And finally, 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.

Don't be stupid.  If they pirate it because of no LAN then they don't want it ENOUGH TO PAY FOR IT.  At least not when piracy is an option.  Assuming they were telling the truth about buying it in the first place, the value was enough with LAN that they would choose to pay for it even though piracy was an option, but not without LAN.

[edit:  "It depends on the context of the situation, the reasoning of both parties' actions and the results."  Lacking any sort of explicit protest, the result of a boycott and simply not buying a product is exactly the same.  You've said so yourself if I'm not mistaken.  Thus, the difference you're talking about is entirely within the possible boycotter's mind.  You are making assertions about other people's thoughts with no evidence.  How am I wrong?] 

Are you kidding me? calling me stupid?

Look man, I'm not going to throw around any name calling to feed the fire because it looks like you're way in over your head. ANYONE can tell that some people want this game... how? look at how some people are reacting because blizzard took away LAN. You'd have to be blind to think everyone is just brushing it off their shoulders and saying "oh, no lan? then I'll just pass." Instead, people are saying "Blizzard doesn't care or want us for customers", "Blizzard screwed us", "They're going to force it down our throats", etc.

As far as not wanting it "enough to pay for it" and "value" goes...

What the heck is keeping them from pirating the game if it actually did have LAN? Is there ANY other reason than supporting Blizzard? 

There are people out there that are saying "no" because they are clearly pissed about the removal of LAN, and in turn, they've decided to pirate the game.

@ your edit: I'll tell you how you're wrong. 

1. People are upset about the removal of LAN, even if they understand why Blizzard took it out or not.

2. People still want the game since they willing to voice their disapproval, and many opinions are heated, to the extent of a protest or disfavor.

3. People are publicly telling others that they'll absolutely not buy the game and even torrent it as a result of Blizzard's choice to take away LAN.

The problem isn't that I'm making assertions with no evidence, because you are. I'm not the one that's attempting to measure the extent of other's value.

One more thing, I'm actually glad that SamuraiNinjaGuy came to post here, 1st post and all. Because we all know, his post clearly hurts your side of the conversation and hopefully may end it (Since in retrospect, it only started with "the definition of boycott"... which I won... and mutated into this). Especially this quote: "I consider myself boycotting Blizzard, not because I hate them, but because without LAN, I won't play StarCraft 2"

So basically, your theory of "people not getting SC2 because without LAN, it holds not enough value of them having to buy it" is now considered a boycott, based off of an opinion of someone that has actually specifically stated that he's boycotting the game for that very reason.

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.