Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'World of Warcraft' Candidate For Maine State Senate Wins Election

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the vows-to-rule-ruthlessly dept.

Politics 220

Teancum writes "Colleen Lachowicz, candidate for the State Senate District 25 of Maine, won the election yesterday against her opponent Thomas Martin. This race was notable in part because her World of Warcraft character that was mentioned earlier on Slashdot, where the Maine Republican Party turned her game playing into a significant issue. It is also notable that she was able to raise a total of $6,300 in campaign contributions from gamers who came to her defense in her successful campaign. The Maine GOP even tried to block these contributions where Lachowicz was cleared of any wrong doing and the investigation was dropped."

cancel ×

220 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FOR (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41909899)

FOR THE HOARDE

Re:FOR (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910507)

I guess this would be a "Leroy Jenkins" moment for the GOP:)

Re:FOR (4, Insightful)

pulski (126566) | about 2 years ago | (#41910597)

Lok'tar ogar!

Re:FOR (1)

Ol Biscuitbarrel (1859702) | about 2 years ago | (#41910927)

How'd the GP get that in? The whole post was like yelling.

Re:FOR (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911137)

GOP response:

We'll KEEP TRYING!

There's a Senator in my basement! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41909901)

Apparently you can run the state of Maine from your parents basement.

Re:There's a Senator in my basement! (4, Insightful)

FacePlant (19134) | about 2 years ago | (#41910021)

Where are my moderator points when I need them!?!

Re:There's a Senator in my basement! (4, Funny)

asylumx (881307) | about 2 years ago | (#41910913)

Where are my moderator points when I need them!?!

Locked away in a dungeon behind raid mobs.

Re:There's a Senator in my basement! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910047)

Apparently you can run the state of Maine from your parents basement.

Better this than running the state of Maine from your lobbyist's basement or worse. ^_^

Re:There's a Senator in my basement! (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 2 years ago | (#41910303)

What is wrong with that?

The most lucrative World of Warcraft profession... (5, Funny)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | about 2 years ago | (#41909943)

...is apparently running for Senate. According to my sources, that's enough money to buy 4.8 million gold!

Let me be the first to call her a (0, Troll)

Nerdasor (2728735) | about 2 years ago | (#41909963)

Noob

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (2, Interesting)

jgtg32a (1173373) | about 2 years ago | (#41910099)

Actually IIRC her toon was linked last time and judging by her spec and gear she is a noob

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#41910269)

Well I think her character hadn't been updated in a while. Perhaps she had RL issues (like running for office) that interfered with her time to play the game after the last expansion.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (4, Insightful)

X0563511 (793323) | about 2 years ago | (#41910685)

Or maybe she's one of the few who plays for fun, and not for gear?

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (4, Funny)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41910891)

Damn casuals.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910459)

Yes, her opponent tried to paint her as a hard core WoW player because she was level 85 and had made some posts of the WoW forums. Obviously just being max level isn't any sort of accomplishment in an MMO these days, and her armory profile is more telling. She was clearly a very casual player looking over it, provided this rogue was her only toon. I recall that she she was all in blues with zero significant raid or PvP experience. She hadn't logged in since late 2011, either. While I don't expect non-WoW players to recognize this, she was clearly a casual who likely spent very little of her time playing.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 2 years ago | (#41910697)

Everything you said can be understood by anyone who plays MMOs, given they generally all use the same semantics.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911401)

Judging by her spec? With no talents and no glyphs, she's clearly not much of a player right now at all. Because they're blank, and were reset as part of a recent patch.

Gear-wise? Same thing. So out of date, she even predates Transmogs.

Looking at her achievements, she has Glory of the Ulduar raider and a smattering of Icecrown Citadel achievements.

The description you're looking for is not that she's a noob. It's that she doesn't play.

Maybe once she did, but not now. Not for a long while.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (4, Funny)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about 2 years ago | (#41911437)

Shes a rogue, we already knew that.

Re:Let me be the first to call her a (5, Interesting)

pulski (126566) | about 2 years ago | (#41910581)

Admittedly, when this story first broke, I checked her Armory page, saw her Achievement Points (Low) and immediately knew her playing WoW was a non-issue.

Under Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41909991)

An assassin is not a rogue... well, depending on who is being assassinated.

Re:Under Obama (1)

subanark (937286) | about 2 years ago | (#41910465)

Assassination is one of three possible specializations for the Rogue class. According to her wow profile:
http://us.battle.net/wow/en/character/garrosh/Santiaga/simple [battle.net]
She did not do any end game content and hasn't logged on in almost 2 months (and even then only a very small amount). She seems to have been a much more active player back in 2010, but probably went to a much more causal play schedule once politics started up.

Precedent (5, Insightful)

techstar25 (556988) | about 2 years ago | (#41910029)

Fortunately she is very well qualified. It actually sets a nice precedent. Video game playing, as a hobby, should not reflect poorly on someones character or ability to hold a position of public office. From now on everyone will remember how this tactic backfired. Thank you Ms.Lachowicz.

Re:Precedent (2)

casca69 (795069) | about 2 years ago | (#41910109)

Even better?IF you have a better character, you can now Gank a sitting Senator, and not fear SS intervention!

Re:Precedent (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41910683)

... well there are 4,400 sworn officers with 87 offices filled with god-knows how many employees. Statistically speaking, there's bound to be gamers amongst that group. And there's a chance that they play WoW. And if there's any sense of humor in this world I'd say that SOMEONE of that subset needs to start doing some virtual bodyguard service.

Re:Precedent (1)

casca69 (795069) | about 2 years ago | (#41911171)

Maybe, but I wouldn't take virtual gold... ;-)

Re:Precedent (4, Insightful)

tnk1 (899206) | about 2 years ago | (#41910129)

As a gamer, I entirely agree. Although... there is being a gamer, and then there is the person who has a gaming command center in their parents' basement with the delivery tube for the Mountain Dew and Cheetos. I might consider an extreme amount of time playing to be a detriment.

On the other hand, if she has enough social skills to become a candidate, she's probably okay.

I'm guessing she's probably a tiny bit more on the casual side.

Re:Precedent (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 2 years ago | (#41910191)

I would consider golfing 8 hours a day to be a detriment too. Or weight lifting. Or knitting. Or pretty much any other hobby that takes up more time than a full time job. It's not about gaming, it's about priorities and the time sink.

Re:Precedent (4, Insightful)

chilenexus (2660641) | about 2 years ago | (#41910219)

don't forget shooting your lawyer friend in the face with a shotgun - and convincing him to apologize to you for it. That's a hobby that we really need politicians to do less of.

Re:Precedent (5, Funny)

BoredAtWorkWhatElse (936972) | about 2 years ago | (#41910461)

Politicians shooting lawyers? I don't really see the downside.

Re:Precedent (1)

pulski (126566) | about 2 years ago | (#41910561)

Why do you think he didn't get in any trouble?

Re:Precedent (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 years ago | (#41910607)

I do, when politicians start shooting their only real allies and get away with it, how long until they start shooting their detractors, ie - you and me.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910611)

Politicians shooting lawyers? I don't really see the downside.

The politician didn't get in trouble, and what's worse, the lawyer didn't die.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911281)

really! i'm thinking we need MORE of that action!

Re:Precedent (4, Insightful)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41910231)

Good example, no politician has yet been reprimanded for playing golf (I'm sure a lot of them do), I think this whole scenario reflects on how acceptable social norms are shifting. There was a time that PC gaming automatically labeled you a nerd with no social skills or chance of acquiring them. Golf has always been accepted, especially by rich white men.

Re:Precedent (4, Informative)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910297)

no politician has yet been reprimanded for playing golf

You might want to google "Obama golf".

http://theweek.com/bullpen/column/235844/deconstructing-the-5-most-ridiculous-myths-about-barack-obama [theweek.com]

Re:Precedent (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 years ago | (#41910661)

During Desert Storm, the amount of munitions we could ship to the front was greatly limited because the base commander refused to close the golf course, despite the fact that virtually nobody on base had any time to golf. (12+ hour shifts, 7 days a week, for months on end doesn't leave time for golf.)

Re:Precedent (1)

HornWumpus (783565) | about 2 years ago | (#41911291)

Damn this new lean and mean military. Didn't anybody consider that combining the roles of groundskeeper and C-5 pilot had a downside.

How does keeping a golf course open slow down shipments?

"Now watch this drive..." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911021)

Hehe...

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911317)

there was a time when playing D&D labeled you a satanist or at least a practitioner of witchcraft, all of which garnered great fear from the mindless masses. now i'm just a geek with some weird dice. sigh.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910307)

Let's not apply that to everyone, though. I pride myself in spending more time on hobbies (my "life") than I do at work. Not everyone has the same values you do.
Work = way to get money to fund things I actually care about.

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910377)

My work is my hobby you insensitive clod!

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910427)

I would say it depends. If a political candidate A has a big hobby interest in golf and political candidate B has a big hobby interest in, say, electronics, I'm going to judge candidate B as being more intelligent and worthy of the job.

Re:Precedent (1)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about 2 years ago | (#41910935)

Just remember not to base your decision on just what their hobby is. What if politician B's hobby consisted of building ever better computer controlled electric chairs for his pets?

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910499)

Per the WoW armory profile her opponent was kind enough to link, yes, she was a very casual player by anyone's standards.

Re:Precedent (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41910183)

Lachowicz’s campaign attracted international attention after the Maine Republican Party created a website to criticize her participation as a player in World of Warcraft, an online fantasy game.

"Colleen Lachowicz spends hundreds of hours playing in her online world Azeroth, as an Orc Assassination Rogue named Santiaga?"

...The Maine GOP is going after the Democratic state Senate hopeful, saying online comments she’s made using her World of Warcraft alias raise questions about her judgment and maturity.

I sincerely hope that Republicans are not hypocrites and go with the same zeal after candidates spending hundreds of hours playing the most popular offline fantasy game [skepticsan...dbible.com] . After all, it's not like they have nothing better to do, right?

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910509)

I sincerely hope that Republicans are not hypocrites and go with the same zeal after candidates spending hundreds of hours playing the most popular offline fantasy game [skepticsan...dbible.com]. After all, it's not like they have nothing better to do, right?

Republicans? Not hypocrites? You mean the same party who just got done putting who is, for all political intents and purposes, "John Kerry, But Republican This Time!"* up as their candidate for the president of the United States and somehow expected it to work for THEM? THAT'S the group you're hoping aren't hypocrites?

*: Both were stiff, robotic candidates from Massachusetts who were chosen solely on a "the best the party could come up with" basis against an incumbent president because their respective parties HAD to have SOMEONE, both had enigmatic platforms and no clear mission statement apart from "I'll do not the clearly evil, evil things the current guy is doing, and I'm not the current guy, so yay!", and both notoriously flip-flopped on issues when questioned on them... but hey, Romney was Republican!

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910211)

Wishful thinking, IMHO.

Politicians are frequently criticized for their choice of past times, whether it's hunting or basketball or the diety they pray to (if any).

Re:Precedent (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41910329)

...or the diety they pray to (if any).

I see what you've done there. All hail His Noodly Appendage!

Re:Precedent (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#41910923)

Until BHO admits he is an atheist, I don't know why Atheists think he is not, or worse, have two sets of rules one for "Magical Underwear" and one for Liberation Theology follower. Unless they think he is lying, which is probably worse. I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.

Re:Precedent (1)

scot4875 (542869) | about 2 years ago | (#41911425)

I'm always amused at Atheists who say they won't vote for a guy because of religion, then vote for another guy, ignoring his admitted religion. I find no logical consistency to this position.

It's entirely logical, actually; I'll even describe how using a cliched phrase with small words so you might understand: sometimes you vote for the lesser evil.

--Jeremy

Re:Precedent (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910223)

Video game playing, as a hobby, should not reflect poorly on someones character or ability to hold a position of public office.

I think the lesson is that it isn't a thing anymore. Nobody cares if you play video games, because so many of us either grew up with video games as a regular part of life, or at least your (now adult) children all did.

So the lower bound on the population that are even likely to care is probably in great-grandparent territory.

Obligatory: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910043)

For the Horde!

Re:Obligatory: (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#41910575)

Even better, they should have used I'm a Medieval Man [youtube.com] as her campaign song.

Getting stupid... (4, Insightful)

Genda (560240) | about 2 years ago | (#41910071)

Change that... gotten stupid. In the mad rush to distinguish themselves and demonize the opponent, campaigning in this country has just gotten ridiculous. One of the reasons that Romney lost was that he kept saying things about Obama that simply weren't true. The problem supporting Romney became trying to figure out what was correct and what was just flaming bat guano. He destroyed his own credibility (well his campaign manager did it, but Romney let him.) Of course in past elections, the bull pucky would have stood, but so many people have ways of validating claims now and there were so many independent fact checkers this election that BS on both sides got shot down in record time.

We live a diverse and interesting society. The fact that Conservatives want desperately to take the nation back to 40s is interesting but more than a little brain dead. By the way I distinguish social conservatives from fiscal conservatives. I'm talking about mostly Fundies, folks from smaller more agriculturally based communities, you know pretty much the entire middle of the country outside of big cities. If you look at the red and blue distribution, it should be clear. Maybe in a generation, the impact of technology will have stomped so hard on "Traditional Values" that it'l stop being the source of so much mischief in our society.

Re:Getting stupid... (2, Insightful)

SirAstral (1349985) | about 2 years ago | (#41910227)

careful slinging the guano around yourself... you get dirty too.

As an independent I find that people like yourself are too busy talking trash about the other side than to notice the trash you and your side are spewing.

Everyone should go and read George Washington's farewell address, he predicted the Civil War and our current state of affairs because people like you are to busy being what you are...

Blind and Hypocritical.

Both Sides lie, and 1 side is busy fooling you!

If you voted Red or Blue then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Re:Getting stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910351)

If you voted Red or Blue then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.

Except for my first two votes when I was 18 (congressional) and 20 (prez + etc), I'm proud to say that I've never voted anyone into office that worked tireless to eliminate my, or my neighbor's, rights. I chalked up my transgressions to being a stupid kid.

The problem is that fear is instinctual while reason has to be learned with discipline. People are afraid to vote their hearts because they're afraid of the side that does the lesser job of fooling them. Since 2004, I haven't really heard of anyone say why they like their side's candidate other than saying the other side's candidate would bring about the end of days.

As long as beer is cheap and TV is tawdry, we're not likely to see that change.

Re:Getting stupid... (2)

SirAstral (1349985) | about 2 years ago | (#41910501)

You are right, as long as beer is cheap and TV is tawdry so to speak the problem does not go away.

People are stupid and ignorant and just like a patient dying of cancer or cholesterol they would rather die than to put down that double bacon bacon extra cheesy melty burger.

Rare insight in the most obscene of places tends to reveal our true natures..

"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves"

T2

Re:Getting stupid... (2)

meerling (1487879) | about 2 years ago | (#41910741)

Let's accept that even if you hate all the candidates, you still find one slightly less deplorable than the other.
Not everyone agrees with your analysis.
It's possible either candidate could win, even the worst of a bad lot, they just need more supporters in key locations.

If you don't vote, you make their votes MORE powerful/valuable.
If you do vote, you dilute the impact of their choice, and may be enough to sway the course away from the worst choice.

There are serious issues with our current political system, but it you don't participate, you are making yourself the minion of those who win.

Re:Getting stupid... (1)

SirAstral (1349985) | about 2 years ago | (#41911011)

So you imply that not voting for a red/blue is the same as not voting at all?

Not sure what you are saying.

Voting for the lesser of 2 evils is not enough to get me to vote for that person rather than an alternative candidate.

Re:Getting stupid... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910239)

Playing fast-and-loose with the truth wasn't limited to Romney, but his campaign was the only one that got caught out on it.

if nobody else got caught (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910593)

if nobody else got caught, how do you know anyone else was doing it?

hope and pray?

Re:if nobody else got caught (1)

Americano (920576) | about 2 years ago | (#41910885)

We know because plenty of people got caught doing it on both sides. If you're not being willfully obtuse, you could have started reading here for some information on Democrat "spin": FactCheck.org [factcheck.org]

Re:Getting stupid... (5, Interesting)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910249)

I think it is funny that the Republicans demonized an activity that over 30 million Americans take part in.

http://www.vg247.com/2011/12/06/report-39-million-mmo-gamers-in-the-us-play-scifi-68-prefer-f2p/ [vg247.com]

Then again around 80 million Americans have smoked pot and they demonize that also.

Re:Getting stupid... (1)

CaptSlaq (1491233) | about 2 years ago | (#41910331)

I think it is funny that the Republicans demonized an activity that over 30 million Americans take part in.

http://www.vg247.com/2011/12/06/report-39-million-mmo-gamers-in-the-us-play-scifi-68-prefer-f2p/ [vg247.com]

Then again around 80 million Americans have smoked pot and they demonize that also.

I think demonizing pot is a bipartisan thing.

Re:Getting stupid... (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910569)

I think demonizing pot is a bipartisan thing.

True, and once they finally get it though their thick skulls that the public is ready for pot to be legalized then legalization will also be a bipartisan thing.

My family, that I was not raised anywhere near, are very conservative and even they say it should be legalized.

Re:Getting stupid... (2)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 2 years ago | (#41910347)

It's not taking back to the 40s that I have issue with. It's the apparent cognitive dissonance that the 40s were not a great time (end of a depression, a world war, etc). Neither were the 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s or 90s. Each decade had share of their own problems. Taking us back to one of them is a quick and shortsighted solution that time always marches forward.

Re:Getting stupid... (5, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 2 years ago | (#41911115)

The 50's were, assuming you were a white male of at least the "skilled working class" level of society, a great time. By feat of chance there was a conjunction of postwar prosperity, an entrepreneurial boom, and a government willing to invest in big things. It was a time when a man could, with a high school education, get a good job and support a family with a single income. For a good chunk of America it was a real golden age. It was also a time of tremendous racism, Cold War, and overt sexism, but those parts don't bother a lot of the more outer fringe of the right wing. There's several problems with trying to return to the 50's though.

First, the circumstances that created the incredible boom were not exactly pleasant. A good chunk of the reason for the insatiable consumer demand of the time was that the preceding decade and half had been dominated by war and depression... Eight years of not being able to afford anything followed by six years of not being able to get anything leaves people in the mood to spend. On top of that, the War had resulted in the creation or refinement of all kinds of new technology that people wanted to buy. People had money, both because they'd been saving during the War (when there was nothing to spend on), and because the boom created tons of jobs for them to come home to. It was a perfect storm of incredible pent up demand coinciding with equally incredible new products.

Second, and this is a real pisser, the government was a huge driver of the economy with spending in the 50's. Conservatives recall the social conservatism of the era, but for get the fact that government was a lot less afraid to spend money. Things like the Apollo project and the Interstate Highway project were hugely expensive government programs that employed tens or hundreds of thousands and pumped tons of money into suppliers and ancillary businesses. Sure, these were primarily Cold War defense or prestige projects, not "entitlement spending", but they were huge wealth redistribution engines regardless. They put a lot of money in the hands of working people.

We can't policy our way back to the 50's, they were a unique time with a unique set of very advantageous circumstances. Certainly we can't let our blinders tell us that all we gotta do is throw the women back in the kitchen, the gays back in the closet, and blacks back in the ghetto to bring them back. Those were the downsides of the 50's not the cause of the upsides. We can, perhaps, try to bring back some of the big government projects that helped drive the economy, but we'll need more tax revenue to do it (taxes were considerably higher by percentage in the 50's), and even with that we won't be able to manufacture the kind of boom caused by postwar euphoria and pent up demand. Looking to the past for inspiration to solve problems is one thing, but you can't ever bring it back.

Re:Getting stupid... (1)

Americano (920576) | about 2 years ago | (#41910853)

. In the mad rush to distinguish themselves and demonize the opponent

Given the tone and content of your post, I find this comment deliciously ironic.

You could have saved a lot of typing if you had just said, "I'm appalled that people are still allowed to disagree with and criticize my candidate." It would've been a lot shorter, too. It's completely disingenuous to give "your guys" a free pass for spin while blasting "those other guys" for doing it.

LFM: Bill Sponsorship (4, Funny)

Zephyn (415698) | about 2 years ago | (#41910087)

If she's ever successfully put together a 25-player raiding group, building a consensus of 18+ in the Maine Senate might not be that difficult of a transition.

Getting the other senators to understand a Suicide Kings style of vote management might be a bit trickier, though.

Re:LFM: Bill Sponsorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910903)

If she's ever successfully survived a 25-man Looking For Raid group, that'd be easier than getting 18 politicians to agree on something.

If Blizzard would be so kind... (1)

Nexion (1064) | about 2 years ago | (#41910105)

...please make an in game avatar dead on the ground somewhere so Santiaga can viciously v-bag it repeatedly.

Looking at the postcard (2)

TheFakeMcCoy (1485631) | about 2 years ago | (#41910135)

While some of the comments may not be the best thing in a political arena, there's a lot worse things that I have seen people say or post out in the wild. Also points down for the other candidates advertising committee for stating DPS stands for deaths per second. If you are going to criticize someone on their comments at least know what they are referring to.

$6300, really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910217)

I'm stuck on the contributions here, help me out.

Receiving $6,300 from a bunch of WoW players receives challenge.
Receiving $11mil from a super PAC goes unchallenged (and undisclosed for the most part).

What's going on here? The solution to corruption seems to be "more corruption".

Re:$6300, really? (1)

HeckRuler (1369601) | about 2 years ago | (#41910761)

The people with $11 million dollars can afford the lawyers to kill time in court and outlive their opponents, so no one even tries.

Politicians (5, Interesting)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41910279)

Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect. Had they never attacked her for playing world of world craft I'd of known nothing about her or even much cared. I'm sure this is true also for younger people in her state.

When they decide to attack her on this front they pretty much mobilized a larger portion of the young voter demographic for her than she would of otherwise gotten. Even though she herself brought it up the decision to attack her on this front brought it from being an irrelevant and kinda amusing factoid to front page news on many sites and news sources.

Re:Politicians (1)

Dyinobal (1427207) | about 2 years ago | (#41910339)

Actually it isn't the streisand effect, but it is an effect I just don't have a name for it.

Re:Politicians (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 2 years ago | (#41911337)

Blowback? I have no idea how well that fits, but I like whispering that word to myself.

Re:Politicians (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910367)

Politician's need to learn about the Streisand effect.

Let the fools look foolish, perhaps they'll change their behavior.

Re:Politicians (1)

T.E.D. (34228) | about 2 years ago | (#41911101)

That really was the case in this race. Apparently MMORPG players around the world got outraged and donated almost $200K to her campaign. That's just crazy money for a state senate race.

Re:Politicians (2)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 years ago | (#41911253)

When they decide to attack her on this front they pretty much mobilized a larger portion of the young voter demographic for her than she would of otherwise gotten.

[[Citation needed]]

Seriously, while this sounds "obviously true" to the /, demographic, the Streisand Effect has much less effect in real life than the amount it gets slung around on Slashdot might lead you to think. Especially since this emphatically isn't an example of the Effect [wikipedia.org] - which is the backlash that (sometimes) occurs when someone actively tries to suppress information.

So numbers or proof please.

A Nice Change of Pace... (4, Insightful)

SirAstral (1349985) | about 2 years ago | (#41910301)

I for one actually like the idea of a game player making it into office, regardless of their political affiliation.

People seem to forget that most people running for office are too busy to be down to earth or able to understand the common person. Once you get rich and powerful reality does not hang around for long unless you make a concious effort to keep it there.

Re:A Nice Change of Pace... (2)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910651)

Also co-operation is a requirement of playing these games.

You aren't some lone guy with a gun like with fps's, instead you are one of many in a group handling a specialized task trying to achieve a shared goal.

Re:A Nice Change of Pace... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911221)

I for one actually like the idea of a game player making it into office, regardless of their political affiliation.

Yeah, Democrat or Republican doesn't really matter. Now had she been a part of the Alliance, then we'd have had something to talk about.

FOR THE HORDE!!

Voting in virtual worlds (1)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41910317)

Maybe we should recognize that virtual worlds are second homes to many people, and often are preferred to everyday life. Should we set up voting booths in virtual worlds, and let people transition entirely to the digital worlds? It's not like they're going to miss out on anything by not physically standing in line for seven hours.

Re:Voting in virtual worlds (1)

Applekid (993327) | about 2 years ago | (#41910457)

I can see it now.

"It's great to be able to vote here in Second Life!"
"I agree! And isn't the penis skyscape lovely today?"

A better metaphor... (1)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#41910505)

penis skyscape

A better metaphor for American politics would be hard to find.

Re:Voting in virtual worlds (1)

Jeng (926980) | about 2 years ago | (#41910759)

Should we set up voting booths in virtual worlds, and let people transition entirely to the digital worlds

Wrong order, the only reason to put up "voting booths" in a virtual world is if the people in the virtual world are unable to go back to the physical world.

So at some point in the future when a person is able to transition entirely to a digital world there may be a need to set up voting booths in said virtual world.

Re:Voting in virtual worlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41910943)

Take a read of the short story "To Hie from Far Cilenia" by Karl Schroeder to understand what happens when people opt out of RL and participate in virtual worlds/alternative reality games/etc. It's seriously scary and potentially world shattering

Mess with PBS or WoW. Die like the Rest. (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 2 years ago | (#41910753)

Now, if you'll excuse me, my panda has to get back to farming.

From one elected representative to another... (2)

Wizard Drongo (712526) | about 2 years ago | (#41910921)

Well done, and congratulations to her. Disgusting scare tactics and gutter politics are offensive, and it's good to see positivity win for a change.

How is that a strategy? (2)

FilmedInNoir (1392323) | about 2 years ago | (#41911027)

Your a member of the GOP and your trying to win your local election but then you have the GOP sabotaging all your efforts.
Why would you join that party? I've dropped out just because the tank was too lightly geared. But at least he wasn't pushing aggro on the healer.

So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911031)

She gets recognition just because she plays WOW? Talk about pandering to a specific target audience with this story no matter how pointless it is.

Hate to break it to everyone, but her playing WOW doesnt make her a better person or a better politician. Of course nerds will love the news because it somehow lets them validate their gaming habits as noteworthy or cool just because a politician plays it also.

I play WOW and I couldnt give a shit if she plays and won or not because it doesnt matter even in the tiniest possible way.

Re:So what? (3, Insightful)

DrgnDancer (137700) | about 2 years ago | (#41911225)

No, she gets recognition because she won her election after her opponent tried to use her WoW playing against her. Given that most of us here have played games at one point or another, it annoys us when some tries to imply that doing so is disqualification for "important" jobs. It's vindicating that the voters did not agree. It's true that her playing WoW doesn't make her a better person of a better politician, but it the point is that it doesn't inherently make her a worse person or politician.

Re:So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911289)

That's the point, it doesn't matter if she plays or not. People got angry and supported her when the opposite side attacked her for playing WoW as it would make somebody unfit for office.

The real story being... (4, Funny)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | about 2 years ago | (#41911065)

That Blizzard nerfed the rogue class so much for MoP, that her time was better spent running for public office.

Nickname? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41911249)

They just call it "the blow" for short.

What people do for Achievement Titles... (2)

Brewster Jennings (2642639) | about 2 years ago | (#41911383)

I could have camped the 25th District, but I heard the drops suck.

Shocking revelation (1)

letherial (1302031) | about 2 years ago | (#41911441)

Someone who runs for office happens to play something that is easily available to the public. I might be jumping the gun here, but this huge revelation can only mean one thing:

It is the end of the world

of Warcraft.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>