I like these ones mostly because they’re interactive. Like Stinker and the rabbits from Easter.. they’re just more fun with that little extra bit of activity.

I agree that it would be a better situation if Blizzard either gave the entire $10 to the charity, or kept the pets for sale forever. But I think they’re also trying to cash in on the whole “get them before they’re gone” mentality too. Things are always more valuable to the consumer when they’re in limited supply. Especially something that’s essentially a novelty to begin with. Just look at the pet section of the AH.
Carrie´s last blog ..Even More Acetone Free!

That said, I do understand the point you were attempting to make and apologize for misconstruing it. I still feel that the exaggerated emotional responses over at PPI are out of place though — even a little ridiculous. A for-profit company is selling a product for profit (a product that some customers actually want!) and people are somehow surprised and disappointed? Really? O.o
Elleiras´s last blog ..Much Ado About Nothing

And that was that my comment on Elnia’s blog was not about the microtransaction of pets but the fact that Blizzard is using a charity to halt money-making accusations against them.

Let’s make this clear. You are not giving money to a charity. You are giving money to Blizzard, who are then donating to the Make-A-Wish Foundation. The charity themselves are not affiliated in this event, and other than getting cash paid to them by Blizzard are not involved. But this event is only until the end of December. Why stop? This is not a product that has an overhead like shelf space, warehouse storage, administration costs, etc. You pay money, they make a pet out of thin air. I think that would be an amazing gift to charity, endless donations for making nothing.

I, personally, find this sort of charity-selling so that a company can’t be accused of money-making , particularly … well… well, you get the idea.

So, on hindsight, perhaps ‘abhorrent’ was used out of place. I apologise.

And I wasn’t necessarily trying to evoke the immortal Godwin… although it does seem to be sort of related, doesn’t it?
Rhii´s last blog ..Building a Better Guild

*select whole post*
/agree

I do want to point out that I’m not reacting to Elnia’s argument, but to the words he used to express — and, presumably, elict — an emotional response. Strong words are great, but they have to be used appropriately; otherwise, they can distort or even undermine the argument they were written to support. I don’t feel “aghast” or “abhorrent” were used appropriately in either Elnia’s post or in subsequent comments, and said so. IMO, this is a far cry from fulfilling Godwin’s Law.

But the Core Hound Pup was datamined at the same time as those two pets… and THAT one might be enough for me. Because “loot the dog” never gets old.

Elnia isn’t trying to do that. Simply using persuasive writing techniques (like strong words) in a persuasive piece isn’t trying to equate WOW with tsunamis and famines the world over. Would you rather every blogger said “boy, I’m mad about Blizzard’s newest move… it makes me sad. If they would stop, I would be happy…” Using stock words is boring writing, using strong words is good writing. Using Elnia’s use of strong words as a way to devalue his argument is a kind of straw man argument, which is also a logical fallacy.

That said, I HATE criticizing anyone in their blog comments it makes me feel like a complete jerk, and I hope you know you’re a favorite blogger of mine and I almost always agree with you… that’s just a pet peeve and I think kind of a cheap move, and it comes up every time someone is trying to stay out of a hot debate, and I wanted to point it out.