User talk:TheGizzy

→ moved from Feedback talk:John Stumme#New Friend List Feature

I think it's a matter of personal preference, Freedom. I'm a pretty private person in general. I like to be able to choose what I disclose and to whom I disclose it. I'm not afraid of someone "doing" something to me, it's more a matter of my having very definitive comfort levels regarding my personal space and privacy, and I don't like having that breached without warning and with such limited options for circumnavigating such a change. TheGizzy 01:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

So people know where you are... in a game. They already know you're online. So what if they know you're also in Lion's Arch or your guild hall. Who cares? It's not a big deal, honestly. "invasion of privacy"? Are you ridiculous? It's not like these people are going to stalk you, and if they are, then you can take them off of your friends list if you're that bothered by it. It's a game, it's not like they're going to show up in person. And the comment on the ignore list being only 10 is 100% irrelevant to this comment, since it's mutual friends that get to see where you are. This is just my opinion, but you guys are paranoid. -- Konig/talk 01:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

^ –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 01:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) yet again have to agree with konig on this one. oh no someone who i have on my friend's list who also has me on there friends list. KNOWS WHERE I AM IN GAME oh no they showed up in the same town as me and what are they doing asking to join my party? THIS IS CRAZY MADNESS. but really what are they going to do besides spam invites or open trade?- Zesbeer 01:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

While I'm glad to know this is not an issue for some of you, the thread on Guru makes it clear that it IS an issue for others. Why is it so unusual to desire control over who has what information about us or what we're doing? Giving users control over their privacy settings is pretty standard internet-wide. GW has the least privacy controls I've experienced in a multi-player game. Removing more of our privacy, without discussion, without reasonable options for us to regain our previous levels of privacy AND functionality just isn't cool. You don't have to agree... and you are free to continue broadcasting your whereabouts to your heart's content. And I am equally free to feel differently and to desire additional options. Thank you for your input. TheGizzy 01:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. I don't really care about privacy in a stupid MMO, but I'm basically a sociopath, and most of my friends are even worse. I don't want to have to put up with their incessant bitching whenever I bother signing in. This is a nice feature in some ways, and if there was a "go to friend" button added it would be even nicer, but it really needs to be optional. –Jette 02:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) there are options in game to turn stuff off, if you don't want someone to know where you are in game then remove them from your friends list, be in dnd or offline mode. this feature isn't completely with out options you could even god forbid close the friends window. it is a game not a social website like facebook or myspace.- Zesbeer 02:11, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Last week, a Vabbian prince messaged me with an urgent plea, because his late wife had died and he couldn't convince the Xunlai Guild to release her funds to him; through some shady Canthan Ministers with influence on corrupt Xunlai Agents, he could certainly retrieve those ectos and share 30% with me, provided that I transfer a few platinum to get the people moving. He said he knew I was drinking some Aged Dwarven Beer with a couple of Sunspears, remembering when we all thought we could be a god and then some blind woman cockblocked us, in Kamadan, and that he could get to me in a little bit. I started looking over my shoulders, and haven't left the tavern since. Vabbian 419 scams scare me. -- Large 02:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

@Jette: How is this at all increasing their "incessant bitching" whenever you sign in? I'd think them merely knowing you're on would bring such up. Them knowing where you are... really doesn't affect much. The only thing this can effect is you lying that you're busy when folks ask for your help. @TheGizzy: There is a problem, but it isn't the new feature. It's the fact that people are control freaks, paranoid, and/or full of themselves. Just because people on Guru1 say it's an issue doesn't necessarily mean it is, it just means it's an issue in the eyes of a community which complains about 90% of the things Anet does. -- Konig/talk 02:18, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought about the lying thing, but here's a good thing to consider: lying is bad. Well, you can still lie, you just might not be able to say you're "in a mission." –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 02:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I lie about being busy more than I help people. I lie about helping party A to party B and lie about helping party B to party A, often several times a day. I hate most of my friends and can't stand playing the game with people, as heroes are better and more reliable. However, these dysfunctional friendships persist outside of the game, so it would be very helpful if I didn't have to go offline whenever I sign in in order to maintain them. –Jette 02:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I think has some merit, though not a huge priority. Maybe an 'Online without location' option. --Riddle 02:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you ever wondered where your friends were in the wide world of Guild Wars? No. I may wonder what they’re doing. When I do, I PM them. Knowing a friend's location is meaningless. Oh look, a friend is in the CTC. Who cares? Again, what are they doing?

• Glint's Challenge?
• Farming D-cores?
• Buying armor/weapons?
• ATFH?
• Buying/selling a Droknar's key?

Location does not answer these questions. A PM does. And if I didn't know where they are to begin with, a PM answers that question as well.

What advantage does this new feature add to the game? Even as I type this, a friend is in SJM on 9 rings. The new feature tells me they're in SJM, but I had to PM them to find out what they're doing. It just so happens that I'm on nine rings myself. Does the new feature allow us to meet up? No. A PM is required for that.

The new feature adds nothing advantageous to the game. It does have the potential to cause trouble, at least momentarily. Trouble, regardless of how anybody feels about it, that could've been averted had this meaningless feature not been added.

@Konig, way to minimize a person’s feelings about their privacy. If it doesn’t bother you, why are you trying to present your view as a view that all should hold? (And don’t say you didn’t " Are you ridiculous? You guys are paranoid.") You didn’t present any evidence that the feature is beneficial. Try again.

@Zesbeer "spam invites or open trade" Why should a person have to experience that or any other negative things, even if it’s momentarily? (Because you then ignore or take them off your friends list) Again, present evidence that the feature has any advantage in-game, rather than minimizing a person’s feelings about their privacy.

If this feature were removed, you'd notice no functional difference. It has no benefits and the potential to cause trouble. Sardaukar 03:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What trouble? Random strangers can spam you trade requests or talk to you in Local or send you unwanted party invites. The fact that people on your friends list can also do this doesn't strike me as a realistic liability – why you have people on your friends list that would do this is beyond me, but that's a different matter.

As to a benefit, I can think of a couple right off the bat: knowing that a friend is in Seabed Arena or Fetid River tells me exactly what they're doing, and the current system supports this. — Raine Valen 4:03, 30 Apr 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) One advantage off the top of my head would be for when folks need to catch up they don't have to ask where they are (e.g., having an item for them). Then there's what Raine said - knowing where someone is would give you an idea on if they're busy or not (if they're in LA, they're not likely to be busy but if they're in D'Alessio Seabed, they could be) and thus would affect whether someone would ask said friend for help or not or the ever too common "are you busy?" question. Anything else that I can think of would merely be situational and everything merely saves a few seconds (just as Embark Beach does due to having access to all missions). It holds no disadvantage - Zesbeer's example (to which you say you'd ignore/remove them to solve) shouldn't be an issue truth be told - and if it is, idk why the person's even on your friends list to begin with. Regarding me presenting my view as something all should hold - it's less of that and more that their reasoning is poor and exaggerated (yours, on the other hand, holds merit - "what's the advantage?">"I can be stalked in a game!"). Trust me, no one cares enough about you to stalk you in a video game. That was the only thing I was going against. -- Konig/talk 04:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

As a former guild leader in an alliance where all the guilds share the same rules and people are pretty tight-knit I would have dreaded this feature if I were still leading a guild. There would be people bugging me about why they weren't on my friend's list, and if I did add them they'd bug me for help "because you're obviously not doing anything". It would lead to people asking if they can come along on things when I want to be alone, not just my friends, but the unreasonable people that you always have to put up with in a big organization. Manifold 04:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Konig, while it may not hold any disadvantages for you, you can't really judge what disadvantages I might perceive. I've worked with the same group of people for nearly a year, and as avid gamers, we've played several together in that time. When I started playing GW last year, I of course told them I was playing, and did a few missions with the others, etc. One of those co-workers ended up fired, and it was a bitter separation. He and his guild proceeded to "stalk" and harass me and other co-workers for nearly a month. With a max ignore list of 10, against a guild of several dozen members, my only option was to be in "offline" mode constantly. It is a fundamental flaw of the existing friend list that any twatwaffle can add you to their list and see when you are online... whether YOU know about it or not. To then add in the ability for EVERYONE on your friend list...casual acquaintance or best friend forever... to be able to see your location, well... I'm glad you're comfortable with it. I'm not. I'm not asking John to take away your new toy. I'm asking him to give some thought to the players who, for whatever reason, are NOT comfortable with having even more of their privacy options taken away. It really doesn't matter if you consider our feelings valid or not, or if you find them reasonable or not, or even if you feel we are paranoid control freaks. I've already stated that I am a very private person and that this setup makes me uncomfortable. I don't think I need to give you my life story to justify why I feel that way. It should be enough that it is my opinion, which I have expressed here in the proper place for consideration by ANet. But, you know, thank you for the insults. I'm sure I must have said or done something to you in the past that warranted such behavior on your part. TheGizzy 06:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how your story relates to this feature. Longer ignore list and random people friending you don't have anything to do with this. Why does it really matter if your friends can tell your general area? Nobody has insulted you, so don't even try that. –~=Ϛρѧякγ (τѧιк) ←♥– 06:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The example you brought up is irrelevant, since only MUTUAL friends can see where you are. - Reanimated X 06:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

"The example you brought up is irrelevant, since only MUTUAL friends can see where you are."<---THIS. and what others have said about the spamming trade window/party invites people could already do that before they added this feature, and why would you be there friend if they were doing that?- Zesbeer 07:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The benefit of this feature lies in its convenience. Just another little thing to make playing with friends a little easier. If you don't want anyone on your friends list to know where you are, don't have friends. Though, chances are, if you're such a cold person as to avoid these people then you probably don't really have any friends anyway. In so being, you shouldn't have anybody on your friends list and therefore no reason to complain about this feature. Teddy Dan 13:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

What I am doing in GW is my information to give, not yours to take. A toggle option would allow me to at least partially participate in the community, but without it I was forced to remove certain players of my FList and I am forced to set my status to offline more often. If the only option I am given is to participate in the community by sharing information that I don't want to share OR not participate, then I am opting to not participate in it. It's a good thing that the game really doesn't need a community, right? Smelly Seaman 09:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so defensive? What about your character's current location could you possibly have to hide? A toggle option is fine and all, but to boycott GW without it is a bit much. You're probably being watched by your government right now, regardless of however deep the basement you may be living in is. Face it, privacy is an illusion. fighting for it is a waste of time. If you're okay with that, feel free to waste more. Teddy Dan 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The simple fact that stupid things happen shouldn't be an excuse to incorporate additional stupid things. If privacy is the default state (which seems to be the general theme of GW), then players do not need to justify their right to privacy, but rather any feature that reduces a player's privacy needs to justify said reduction of privacy or players need to be given an option to not use this feature. The only justification for this feature is so that players can be LAZY (because they do not need to PM their friends anymore to ask about their location) and this seems to be important enough to force this feature onto everyone. GG. Smelly Seaman 14:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The only justification for the removal of this feature is so that players can be PARANOID (because they're afraid of their character's location being known to people who should be their friends). Justification for it: It was asked for. If nobody asked for it, it wouldn't be there. Teddy Dan 16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Being friends with someone does not demand sharing one's every location with them. As for the rest of your post - you might want to read up previous posts, because you are just making things up. Smelly Seaman 17:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

First off, my original post was a sympathetic response to TheGizzy. It has nothing to do with a violation of privacy for me. If a friend needs help and I can’t offer help, I let them know. If someone on my friends list goes psycho, they get removed. I’m disappointed in what I personally feel is a worthless feature. It’s like getting a bell that doesn’t ring. What was the reasoning behind implementing this feature? The mutuality feature is nice, as it does prevent people from adding you and knowing where you are without your permission. Still, the feature has no practical function.

Raine, yes you can see a friend is in a PvP format now. Now you know what they’re doing. Now you can avoid asking them if they’re busy. This hardly constitutes a real advantage. Before the feature, if you PMd one of your friends and they were PvPing, was it that much of a bother? Personally I’m usually offline when I PvP anyway and if I’m not and someone does PM me, it’s not hard to either PM back “busy atm” or just ignore them. If you’ve got a friend that spams you when you ignore them, then why are they on your friends list?

Konig, if you have something to give to a friend, knowing there location is not advantageous. Where are they specifically? “Oh, I want to get this tonic to a friend. Let’s see, he’s in Kamadan.” Is he on the American, International, European or Asian server? What District is he in? Now you’re back to PMing him for that information. And again, the assumption that a person is busy because they’re in a mission outpost versus being idle in LA for example isn’t safe. I’ve been busy in LA or Kamadan trying to buy something and I’ve been willing to not start a mission or even leave a mission if someone needs help.

So location means virtually nothing without communication.

So if there’s no advantage, where is there a disadvantage? Again, I used the words potential and momentary in the last post.

Say you’re in Doomlore buying Rin relics. A guy PMs you and says “Add me; I have some on another character.” You do so and the guy opens trade with you, but now changes the price. You don’t consent to the change and the trade session is canceled, and you forget to delete him off your friends list. This guy is an uber prick, so instead of flaming you directly, he sends a message to his guildies. He knows where you are and lets them know. Now you’re being inundated with nasty PMs or perhaps the guildies come to Doomlore and harass you in local chat or all use the report function to say you were scamming. This is an example of where the feature can go terribly wrong. True, this could be done before, but let’s say you move. The relic seller sees where you’ve moved to and goes there, uses the Ctrl key to make sure you’re in the same district and calls his gang to torment you some more. You finally realize that you forgot to delete the relic seller. You do so and move and the problem is over hopefully, though your ignore list may be full now.

Seem far-fetched? Let’s not be naïve, there are some sadistic pricks in this game and they could do this or a number of other things to grief a person. The feature allows this potential. Yes it’s easily solved once you delete the trouble maker, but the experience can really take a toll. Again, why have a feature that adds nothing practical to the game and allows some potentially nasty scenarios to arise. Yes, there were jerks in this game before this feature was introduced and they're still out there, but why give them another tool to make another players life hellish?

Even if it's only a minority that wants it removed, why deny them that if it doesn’t adversely affect the majority’s gaming experience? And if there would be some adverse affect with its removal, let’s hear what it would be. Let’s not have a bell that doesn’t ring just for the sake of having it. Sardaukar 14:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

This ring you don't hear can be heard in the form of convenience, as previously noted. Just because it serves no purpose for you doesn't mean it doesn't serve a purpose for anyone else. I've already started using it to find friends who are afk so I don't have to wait for them to come back to tell me where they are so I can waste his/her time that could have been spent while they were afk.

Yes, being messaged in the middle of PvP is annoying. Do you only have one friend? Do you only ever play with one person? Message spamming doesn't always come from the same person, especially so if you have a full friends list (which I do, perhaps save for my ignore list). Depending on your role in whichever PvP arena you're in, you may not have the time for even a simple "busy". Teddy Dan 16:33, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The third sentence is convoluted Ted. Are you saying you're using the location feature to find friends while they're AFK?

Regarding PvP, you can go DnD or Offline to curb/stop incoming messages. Your location isn't a guarantee to stop incoming messages. Sardaukar 19:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I use the feature to find friends who are AFK or in the middle of another conversation at the time. Also, your location may not be a guarantee but it is an indicator to stop incoming messages. For example, if I see that someone is in The Deep or a PvP arena, I'm not going to ask them what they're doing. This new feature is passive. It doesn't require activation. Changing your status does. Teddy Dan 21:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I really don't know what's wrong with mutual friends knowing where each other is. The friendship is mutual for a reason (and if there's no reason for having someone in the friends list, you can just delete him.) Personally I would go even further: I'd like to see where each guild member is. The space in the friend list is limited and I don't add guild members to the list, because I see if they are online anyways ... but I don't see where they are. --195.202.166.190 00:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's Be Clear On Something

I'm seeing all sorts of odd stances being attributed to me or to others who feel similarly to me. It's beginning to get on my nerves. I am not advocating that the mutual friend locator be removed. I am not advocating any sort of boycott of GW. I am not someone who spends their time criticizing ANet for their decisions - if anything, I spend too much of my time on Guru DEFENDING ANet. My posting history, and the crap I've gotten as a result, demonstrates that.

I have a huge amount of respect for ANet and its staff. I find their business practices admirable. I learn from them and try to take what I've learned into my own work. And until this location feature was added, I've had no reason to complain to - or about - ANet or its staff.

I simply want the OPTION to disable this feature for myself. It isn't a matter of being paranoid or crazy or anything else... I simply am not comfortable with ADDITIONAL information about me or my activities being revealed arbitrarily without any reasonable means for me to choose to not have that information released unless I set myself to offline or start removing most people from my list. And I do object to such a change in my choices about my privacy being instituted without any warning whatsoever. I am in no way trying to have YOUR experience of the game changed, or YOUR access to such a feature among you and your friends changed. I simply want there to be a way for me to opt out of such a feature... a feature which REMOVES a layer of privacy. Whatever my reason for wanting that privacy may be, it is privacy which I previously had which was summarily removed without warning. And I'm not ok with that.

Why this has caused such vitriolic responses from some is really beyond me. I'm not trying to take something away from you... I'm asking that something taken away from me be returned - the option to maintain a level of privacy with which I am comfortable, a level of privacy which has been existent since I began playing and which has now been removed without warning. I am in no way asking that this be accomplished by removing the feature from the game. Please stop with the inaccuracies about what I want, who I am, or why I feel as I do. TheGizzy 17:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I was very surprised how many of the people, who are defending this feature in its current form, are being extremely rude and anti-social. Personally I see this feature as entirely useless since the given location doesn't actually tell what the person is really doing nor what he/she wants to do. But people seem to be defending it tooth and nail O.o Schmerdro 18:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of an opt-out. I just disagree with everyone who calls it useless. It is being used, thus proving its usefulness. 'Nuff said. Teddy Dan 18:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

you see the thing is that you already can opt out its called removing them from your friends list.- Zesbeer 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

That's not the same, Zesbeer. I put frequent trading partners on my friends list, but I don't consider them friends; they are business partners. I, too, think that there should be opt out for this feature (and, although the horses left the barn already, on who has access to your HoM calculator score).

And Gizz: I agree with you: sometimes people get really passionate about a feature...and lose all sense of politeness and grace when engaging in a discussion. I typically ignore the tenor of their comments and try to respond only to their relevant content. Life's too short, etc.  — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 02:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, many of us can be quite rude when people deem the things we use as useless, or when something as already nonexistent as privacy is fought so ardently for as if anything was actually lost. I can sympathize, I just can't agree. Teddy Dan 06:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Having read through most of the comments concerning this issue (or lack-thereof as I see it), I don't see much direct rudeness on any one side of the argument that isn't fully reciprocated. As noted by Teddy Dan, many people fighting against this friends list information keep saying that the information is worthless and therefore should be removed. Those defending it are simply asking what harm it is due to the mutual friends requirement.

I personally find the feature very helpful and only wish that I could know district-level information, too. If it is such an issue to some people, I don't see the harm in a toggle. I don't share the feeling, however. I really don't see the harm in a friend knowing where my character is. I could be busy trading or helping someone out no matter my location and my friends know and honor that. Some people's situations are different, and I can respect that fact, but I only personally see the inclusion of this information as a possible hinderance to somebody who is trying to lie. 75.201.45.55 14:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. If one feels the need to lie then simply saying "I'm busy." should suffice, especially if they are merely trading partners. Or perhaps even using the Do Not Disturb option and either assume good faith that those wishes will be respected or simply remove that person from your friends list as a repercussion. I do believe that this is but the first stage. We may see districts or we may not. I hope we do, as well. Personally, the more people I speak to, more people have been using this feature especially lately with the anniversary. It is less likely for someone to wait for another to return if the latter is set to Away whilst in Shing Jea Monastery during the event than if that same person is set to Away in some minor outpost which doesn't host an event. In so being, it is easier now to determine the degree of one's availability or the potential duration of their unavailability. This feature would benefit from greater depth as well as more options. Rather than forming an angry lynch-mob to selfishly remove it completely, we should all instead address what functions to add or change for mutual satisfaction. Teddy Dan 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent)

There's apparently confusion between how people are saying something and what they are saying. Let's ignore the how, since it's largely irrelevant to the discussion.

• A lot of people like the feature: their friends and potential group partners don't have to ask what outpost? or where are you right now? or are you free? They feel that the former functionality was annoying.
• A lot of people dislike the feature: not everyone on their friends list is a friend (e.g. some are business associates) and those people feel that they are losing some sense of privacy. They also feel that the new functionality is not that useful.

I would hope that, if folks want to continue the conversation on The Gizzy's talk, that they will focus on that disagreement rather than forming angry lynch mobs for any reason. Perhaps ANet can only devote 10 hours of programming time to adapting the feature. If so, that probably means the current functionality or the old one; it's unlikely that the developers have the resources to expand the feature set, except perhaps to add another category of friends, e.g. associates. (But I doubt there's budget for even that.) — Tennessee Ernie Ford (TEF) 18:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

@TeddyDan - Do please show me where you are finding these "angry lynch-mobs" who selfishly wish to remove the feature completely. To my knowledge, they don't exist, but I'm open to being shown evidence of them. Nor have I advocated or even suggested that the feature be removed. As to the entire lying thing... I'm not wasting my time on red herrings. I've been pretty clear that I am protective of my privacy. I do not like the fact that a measure of privacy previously afforded to me in this game has been removed without so much as a moment's advance warning. I want the ability to maintain the level of privacy I had previously. Is this really such a difficult concept to grasp? TheGizzy 23:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"If this feature were removed, you'd notice no functional difference. It has no benefits and the potential to cause trouble." - Sardaukar. "The only justification for this feature is so that players can be LAZY..." - Smelly Seaman. Both clearly against this feature as a whole, advocating its removal unless certain conditions are met.

The lying subject isn't truly a red herring as it does directly reflect the "privacy issue" so firmly held. To be honest, any time you step into an outpost, you forfeit some degree of privacy as you are no longer in a private instance but a public one. Any player could find you by chance or by design even before the introduction of this feature. During those such encounters, your privacy was never any more than it is now. This is especially true for those who typically travel through the same district(s), such as American and International. If you're in an instance, nobody can follow you there whether they know you're there or not unless they were in your party to begin with. If you did happen to lie about your current circumstances, there was still the chance that you could bump into someone you've lied to. The chance was lower than it is now, but truthfully not by much. One still had and has the Offline status option. This limits communication with those you may actually wish to communicate with at the time, but it also increases one's illusion of privacy if desired strongly enough.

If you truly desire this "privacy" you feel you held before, you do have options. One is to wait. Another is to aid in a compromise. Yet another is to use the options you have in-game. Lastly, you have the option of discontinuing your Guild Wars gameplay experience. Mind you, I don't encourage that option but I won't discourage it if you've committed to it. Teddy Dan 00:24, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I see, so people who hold a different opinion than you do are, in your mind, "angry lynch-mobs." This is rather amusing given the insults tossed around regarding those who do not appreciate this feature.

I thought I'd made it very clear that what I desire is the option to toggle off this "feature." The fact that you cannot understand my reasoning for being uncomfortable with said "feature" is rather irrelevant. As is this entire line of lying to people about where I am/what I am doing. I've never felt compelled to do so, I doubt I would in the future. There are four people on my friend's list who are actually friends... since I am married to one of them, best friends for decades with another, and usually playing with one of the remaining two unless I wish to play alone (something they have no trouble respecting), I have no trouble with any of them knowing where I am or what I am doing at any time (especially since if we're online at the same time, we're probably together anyway).

I also have other players who are on my list for various reasons... I party up with them once in a while, or we engage in trade (I collect a certain trophy for one of these people who is collecting them towards a "gag" they are playing on their wife on their anniversary in a few months), or I've helped them in-game, or they've helped me, whatever. I do not feel compelled to have my location broadcast to these people. I also do not wish to lose touch with them completely by having to remove them from my list in order to maintain the same level of privacy I've had since I started the game. I do NOT still have that option, despite your assertions, since in order to keep my activities private, I must set myself to "offline" mode - in which circumstance, I can no longer freely communicate with ANYONE on my list. I do not find this acceptable.

It's great that you're comfortable with the new feature, and I wish you joy of it. That does not mean I must also be comfortable with it, or that I must cease having and expressing my opinion regarding it. I will continue to advocate with ANet that this feature be changed to allow us to regain the same level of privacy and functionality we previously had, preferably through a toggle setting since I have no desire to change YOUR experience of the game despite your repeated insistence that I should conform to your perceptions on what level of privacy I should expect in game, how I should conduct my in-game interactions, etc.

What I do not understand is why my desire for privacy is such an issue for you. In what way do my preferences impact you or your game play? If you feel someone else is trying to take something away from you, go bug them about it on their Talk page... those people you are quoting clearly are not returning here to debate their position with you, so go take your argument to them. And stop trying to dictate what MY Guild Wars experience should be like, just because you don't feel the same about this feature as I do. TheGizzy 01:30, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ted, your forgetting the RoE. Where did I say I was against this feature? I said I was disappointed in the feature in its current form. Where did I say I wanted it removed? I merely expressed empathy for those that feel their privacy has decreased since its implementation and said that I wouldn't mind if it was removed to make them feel safer. Personally, for me, I don't care if it stays or goes. Again, I’m disappointed in its functionality. The only function that has been mentioned on this page that has merit is the fact that seeing friends in certain areas (e.g. Elite missions and PvP formats) now allows you to know what they’re up to and choose to not communicate with them. Although that argument has several flaws in it. Your own case for the feature that it allows you to meet up with friends isn’t too convincing either. Yes you can go to LA to meet up with them, but you have to search through the districts first (and possibly servers as well) to find them, unless you just happen to land in their district in the first attempt. I don’t call that functional. That’s why I used the bell, as in bells and whistles, to illustrate the point. In its current form it’s simply a bell that tells you the location. It has no clapper to make it ring. What would constitute a clapper?

75.201.45.55 mentioned the ability to travel directly to your friend’s location (rather than searching for your friend like a needle in a haystack).

The ability to trade with someone on your friends list, even if it’s a momentary addition, regardless of location. Such ability would save the headache of changing districts to trade with someone, especially when the person you’re trying to trade with is in a full district.

The ability to regroup with a party would be nice as well. Whether it’s PvE or PvP, you may have to leave your group momentarily (e.g. to get a Zaishen reward). To be able to regroup with a press of a button would be nice.

These (and other possibilities) would make the feature much more appealing and the ring would be wonderful. Right now, you’ve got some nice eye candy; maybe some other features will come down the pipe and make the feature have more worth. Sardaukar 04:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

@TheGizzy: This is getting ridiculous. You're putting words in my mouth just to diminish my logic. Should I now say "I see. So, people who disagree with you with logical points are irrelevant."? That would be a red herring. Speaking of, do you know what a red herring is? "A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue." The "lying" argument directly addresses the "privacy" argument. Thus, it is not a red herring. "I see, so people who hold a different opinion than you do are, in your mind, "angry lynch-mobs."" is a red herring as it does not address the original issue. Rather, it's an attack on my credibility through the efforts of putting words in my mouth. An ad hominem known as "Poisoning the well." If you're going to preach about red herrings and instances of irrelevance throughout this discussion, it would be wisest not to be guilty of the same. Truthfully, though, we're bound to commit to several red herrings. Several of the people who've commented on this page already have. Pointing out each instance is an irrelevant waste of time. This whole comment of mine in response to you is mostly a red herring. Get over it. Now, let's get back to the original issue.

When I spoke of the "angry lynch mob", I wasn't pinpointing you. In fact, I wasn't even talking about you. To be completely clear, the statement was made in reference to how defensive about this feature so many people have become. I did indeed include "... to selfishly remove it completely." That was the only instance (if at all) in which I may have exaggerated the circumstances. The rest was merely sarcasm. As noted on my userpage in a nice little userbox I recently keyed up, "This user is sarcastic. Get over it."

@Sardaukar: Your intentions were clear and I'm not going to dance around with you while you try to turn your implications around just so you can win an argument about something that we really should be working together to solve. This "ring" proposal would be fine except for one very important deterrent: The ring cannot allow you to jump into someone else's private instance. It would have to differentiate between where it can and cannot go. Passage scrolls work the way they do because one maps to the location itself, those locations are static and you have to already be in a specific outpost to use them. This ring feature is simply too complex. If you can think of something simpler then by all means I'm sure we'd be pleased to consider it. Teddy Dan 11:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

"Your intentions were clear and I'm not going to dance around with you while you try to turn your implications around just so you can win an argument"

You ignore my questions, which if answered truthfully, would have lead you to conclude that I am neither for the removal of the feature or even against it.

"If this feature were removed, you'd notice no functional difference. It has no benefits and the potential to cause trouble."

The word “if” is used first. Why? Because I don’t care if the feature stays or goes. There’s nothing in my comments that say “I’m against this feature” or “I want this feature removed.”

I simply pointed out what my opinion of the feature is. I find it ineffective at best. The potential trouble I mentioned was not to make a case for its removal, but rather just an observation of its possible harm.

You mention my intentions and implications. So your reading between the lines with a bias makes your statement true? And that somehow I’ve turned around? Please don’t be intellectually dishonest. You drew the wrong conclusions from what I stated.

I don’t consider the discussion of the feature an argument, just a sharing of opinions. If you think the new feature is great so be it. I don’t agree and that’s all there is to it. There’s no winner in an exchange of ideas. Everyone benefits. I just benefitted from reading your point on instances and the barrier they would provide to some of my brainstorming in the last post. Thanks.

If you choose to respond and are still holding onto your notion that I’m against this feature or want it removed, read everything I’ve typed again carefully. If you still believe your last post was without error and want to wrangle some more about my viewpoint, be honest and provide proof. Start by answering the questions I posed in my last post. In the future don’t tell others what they think, ask them to explain themselves. The results will be much more productive. That’s #4 of your RoE.

As far as I’m concerned this subject has been exhausted. Sorry Gizzy for taking up so much of your space. Hopefully you’ll be able to archive this soon. I hope your gaming experience continues to be fun and safe. Sardaukar 20:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to search for anything concrete for three reasons. One, it's possible that I was hasty and am simply unwilling to entertain debatable intentions. Two, diving deeper into it further derails us from the original issue. Three, finger-pointing is getting us nowhere. Bending my own rules, even so subtly, has cautioned me to reexamine how I'm communicating. Thanks for reminding me.

Now, then... It's unlikely that Anet will remove this feature so shortly after its introduction, so what can we do either until then or to change/add to it to suit all of our preferences? "Friend-Porting" is nigh out of the question. This toggle option is still on the table, its likelihood currently in question. Any other ideas? Teddy Dan 00:02, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Add an additional layer of "security" via a confirmation window when you add a friend to the list, so some friends (the real kind) can see your location, while other friends (associates etc) simply see your IGN. I guess you could also do that with a toggle system. I just prefer the by-person toggle over a "make it so nobody can see my location" toggle. -Auron 04:25, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

That is definitely better than all or nothing. The new option could even be listed under the preexisting options associated with the button directly to the left of the IGN, so as not to clutter the friends list. Teddy Dan 18:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)