policy
Latest
Enforcing RP
The rogue Grenthar sighed as he slowly walked through the crowd at the main entrance of Stormwind. It had been a long day of slaughtering boars and thinning out the Gnoll population, but it was worth it-- he had a pack full of skins and trinkets to put up for auction. He entered the House, sticking to the shadows by instinct, and when his turn came, dealt quickly and quietly with the auctioneer, firmly setting each starter and buyout price for his goods.Suddenly, there was a yell from outside in the city: "OMG did you just see what happened on 24? Jack BAuer ROXXORS!!"Yeah, personally, I'm not that big on roleplaying, but I can see what people get out of it-- complete immersion in a world where they're the hero. Unfortunately for those really interested in it, the illusion is so easy to break that even on RP servers, Blizzard doesn't really enforce roleplaying that much. From what I've gathered, the majority of it takes place in groups and guilds of people committed to doing it right.So when Patsie asks why Blizzard even has an RP policy when they don't enforce it, I can see what he's saying. And maybe Blizzard should crack down on non-RPers, just as they've cracked down on gold spammers and AFKers. What if everyone on an RP server could report someone with just a right click, and if enough reports came in on that person, they earned a suspension or even a ban from the server entirely? You have to think that if Blizzard made a serious effort to shut down non-RP activity on an RP server, they'd become what they were meant to be in the first place-- servers where everyone actually played a role.Then again, people who don't roleplay are paying their $15 like the rest of us, and, as Patsie says, there are lots of people on the RP servers who didn't join them to RP. But if Blizzard is advertising these servers as RP, shouldn't they be taking steps (beyond enforcing the naming convention, which is iffy itself) to make them so?
Insure your iPhone, because AT&T won't
Since I've owned a variety of regular mobile phones and smartphones over the last couple of years, I wasn't surprised to see fine print during the iPhone activation process which warns users that AT&T won't offer their insurance policy on Apple's darling new gadget. I've been on nearly every major mobile phone network in the US - Cingular, T-Mobile (and VoiceStream), Verizon and Sprint - and not one of them covered smartphones with their policies. In fact, if you were upgrading an existing AT&T account and swapping out your old phone that had an AT&T insurance policy on it, you too were warned that the policy would be automatically removed from your account. Gee, you'd think these companies don't trust us with small, easy-to-drop expensive electronics. Who knew?To help remedy this lack of a contingency plan for the iPhone, I decided to call a few insurance companies in the Colorado area to see if they could cover it. What many people might not know is that these companies typically cover electronics like mobile phones and even notebook computers, often at prices far cheaper than extended warranty plans from manufacturers and retail stores. While I'm not entirely familiar with how fast actin' or comprehensive this kind of coverage is from every provider, I do know that mine - State Farm - will cover both hardware failure and accidental damage (though accidental damage will cause my premiums to increase, while an incident like theft will not).Back to getting coverage for your shiny new phone, however, the summarized rundown I got from calling three of the big general insurance providers (Allstate, Geico and State Farm) is that attaching a clause to a renter or homeowner insurance policy specifically for covering an iPhone would add only $5-20/year to a policy. Keep in mind these were estimates based on a $600 iPhone, and it appears that you can't simply ask these guys to insure a phone; you need to have some kind of a primary policy with them first, then attach this specific clause. Surprisingly, every representative I spoke with knew exactly what an iPhone was, and a couple of them asked me whether I was happy with mine.As far as coverage through companies like specialized electronics or computer insurance providers is concerned, I had a much harder time finding anything substantial. Most of the companies I spoke with didn't have policies in place, and only Safeware confirmed that they were "seriously considering" introducing iPhone coverage. They do, however, cover other smartphones, and a quote for a BlackBerry Curve (a $400 smartphone) was $65 for a year, covering accidental damage, loss and theft. A downside, however, is that repairs for damage have a turnaround time of 7-10 days, with no loaner options available. If being without a phone is a primary concern, the loner option included in AppleCare for iPhone might be a good 'plan b' to consider in combination with one of these insurance policies.Ultimately it's a good thing to at least have insurance options in addition to AppleCare, since Apple doesn't cover any sort of accidental damage. Since insuring an iPhone through one of the larger companies seems to be so cheap, it's basically a no-brainer to pick up at least some kind of a policy. If y'all have other ideas or options for insuring your shiny new iPhone, please enlighten the rest of the class with a comment.
British pols look to teach parents about game ratings
Website MCV reports that prominent members of British parliament will work with various groups in early 2007 to create a policy to educate parents "protect children" from violent video games. Looks like politicians and the game industry are learning to play nice and work through their issues. Following the "interesting" announcement two weeks ago that US Senator's Clinton and Lieberman would work with the games industry in support of an ad campaign to teach parents about the ESRB rating system, it looks like the British will follow their lead. Labour party member Keith Vaz says the discussion will center on implementation of TV advertising to educate parents. The meetings will include politicians, industry reps., retailers and parents. Vaz says, "It's an opportunity to reach a consensus on what actions, including a potential television advertising campaign, should be implemented to protect the UK's children." Whatever gets these guys thinking it'll get them reelected and moves them along to bother another industry is fine by us.
On Apple, blogging and policies
For some time now, Apple's hush-hush policy on public communication has been the focus of much debate. The discussion escalated, however, with the debut of the Masked Blogger, an Apple employee blogging under the radar (or directly in the middle of it, depending on your perspective). Today, John Gruber linked a couple of interesting posts on the subject, one from Chuq Von Rospach (a recent ex-Apple employee), and another from Dave Winer. The more interesting of the two is Chuq's post, where he discusses at length Apple's policies on communication, the fact that the company and its employees actually *do* communicate and blog (though without affiliation), and why Apple's lack of a blogging-specific policy doesn't matter in the grander scheme of things. Chuq's essential point is that Apple's employees do a lot to communicate and interact with the public - they just do it over traditional systems (like email lists) for the purposes of helping and solving problems. Further, 'blogging' is just one more way of communicating (albeit a new and hyped one); it isn't an end-all solution for these purposes. While I think Chuq makes some great points about the focus of blogging and the importance of considering it as a tool for a company like Apple, I still think the company could use one, especially in light of one of its many facets as being closely involved with creative media (see: iLife, which they even brag about on TV). While blogging doesn't have to become a public focus for the company, it certainly wouldn't be difficult to fire one up, and having a blog or two for anything from pimping new products (see: the Google Blog) to offering an easily accessible forum for discussion couldn't hurt (after all, not everyone likes checking in on forums or having one more email list to organize), and they could capitalize on a popular and buzzing new medium. The blog(s) could be treated with a formal touch (like many company-focused promotional blogs) or have a more personal touch from a company-sanctioned individual, like the Scobelizer. Of course, being powered by iWeb, or having a corporate Photocast (or podcast!) couldn't hurt either. Ultimately though, I think one of the good points Chuq makes about how well (yet quietly) Apple's employees actually are communicating is the true Achilles' heel of the idea of an Apple blog to begin with: most of the communication efforts of Apple's employees are quiet or under the radar - right where the company wants them to be. Apple, like most of its products, has a very shiny, polished exterior, which is exactly the kind that does not lend itself to opening the holes and flaws that blogging would puncture, no matter how personal or cute they may seem. One only needs to glance at the company's quiet handling of problems like battery recalls and MacBook RSS to see what I mean. Apple may be a purveyor of some of our favorite creative and communication tools, but donning a more personal side by *using* them just doesn't seem to be in the cards.
