You can try to sway me or even judge me all you like but my decision to thank him, just like his decision on forum names, is ultimately not yours to make.
Your decision to thank him is yours to make.
But when you said, like above, that everyone should log and thank him, here is where some of us remind you that there is, in fact, nothing to thank him about.
If violence doesn't solve your problem...
... you simply haven't been violent enough !
They're also still a business, and if the RealID on forums was going to result in a net loss of revenue (which, judging by the problems people had cancelling their account, was probably going to occur), they're not going to go through with it. Money always talks.
This is why I think that the "at this time" stuff is more generic corporate face saving than anything else. Completely independent from the negative publicity, this seems to establish that the amount of financial pain inflicted for "real name on forum" exceeds what Activision Blizzard can tolerate. That is encouraging regarding future returns to this idea or mandatory Real ID from Armory or in-game. The howling and the financial hit would undoubtably be much worse if they did another 180 or tried to go even further.
If there's one thing you can trust a corporation to do, it's to act in their own financial self interest. They may be very dumb about realizing what that is until they screw up (BP...) but once they do, they generally get the point.
What kills me is that if they would just drop the 'real' part of RealID and make a single login ID for your b.net account that people could friend across all games in your account that you choose to make yourself 'findable' in, I would probably use it in a heartbeat.
This is the part of the equation that boggles my mind too, and is the reason why I suspect (even more than the veiled "WE'LL BE BAHK" threats in Morhaime's release) that they are intent on turning RealID into a much more sweeping form of social network for gamers, and that we'll be seeing more of these kinds of changes sooner rather than later.
I was wrong. I honestly thought that Blizzard was in cahoots with Activision and willing to suck up relatively heavy losses now. Clearly that wasn't the case. If it had been like that, and they suffered greater reverses than anticipated, I would expect them to to try and weather it a week more at least.
To me at least, it seems those who postulated that Blizzard might in fact have been thinking this up to show some real proof, might just be right. Those that cancelled in disgust or out of a wish to change the decision will now come back. And I'm sure Blizzard knew and expected that. Some will not come back, we all know them, those who are personally insulted that their game was even considered for something as aprehensible as that. But then again they are the same ones that cancel when their class gets nerfed.
The many loopholes were present, the people with the jokenames, the new people getting new names, the anonumous John Smiths etc. If we can see it that fast, I'm sure they can too. Not a one post that they would move to close those holes.
Regardless of who is right, I think we can safely be happy for now.
I have mostly been pretty confident in Blizzard, and while the last years have hardened me a bit, I'm still willing to see them as somewhat more interested in making good games/features than most, rather than purely making money.
I find it funny how far reaching this debate has gone. It's becoming news in places you would least expect to hear about gaming, and despite the fact blizzard has rescinded the forced use of real i.d. on their forums the debate about online privacy continues.
I do suspect, however, that they're going to have this as a goal, and continue trying to inch towards it.
Well, it's vastly unlikely that they'd abandon their whole "social gaming" vision of the future over a forum spat, so yeah, I'm sure they will keep trying to edge us towards accepting greater integration into social networks (and the reduction in anonymity that likely accompanies this).
Regarding the "we should thank them" dispute, this is a mostly irrelevant point of courtesy, but yes in the "threatening to key my car" example, I actually would say "thanks" - if someone points out he can screw me over and I can't stop him, then decides not to because I asked him not to, I would thank him for that decision. I wouldn't overflow with sincere gratitude, but saying "thanks" is common courtesy when he didn't have to listen to me at all.