text:
The Wizard's Edition of Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch pulled a magic trick of its own—and vanished before customers could get a copy they'd already ordered.
Even great games can't avoid controversy.
This time, Namco Bandai, publisher of the recent PS3 exclusive Ni No Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch, is at the center of a pre-order fiasco involving an eBay merchant and a shortage of special Wizard Edition copies of the game.
Apparently, the eBay seller, PlayCanada, purchased hundreds of copies of the Wizard's Edition which then somehow led to an overall shortage of the special edition—meaning that other customers never received their copy.
Namco Bandai has decided to send out $20 PlayNamco credits and a strategy guide to all the affected customers. Here's their full statement:
NAMCO BANDAI Games America would like to officially offer clarification to certain stories and sentiments surrounding the Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch – Wizard's Edition.
NAMCO BANDAI Games America would first like to acknowledge our fans that will not be receiving their copy of Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch – Wizard's Edition. This situation is truly unfortunate, having come about due to a glitch within our E-commerce provider's ordering system. NAMCO BANDAI Games America continues to monitor the situation and is actively working with our E-commerce provider to offer remedies to each and every order. We are also working to ensure that a situation like this never happens again. We respectfully ask for our fans' patience during this time.
NAMCO BANDAI Games America is not, nor has it ever, worked with or in conjunction with the EBay seller known as "PlayCanada" to sell units of Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch – Wizard's Edition at a price premium on EBay .
According to our records, this individual or group of individuals purchased Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch – Wizard's Edition during the NinoStarter promotion period (August 2012); at which time, no limits were placed on how many units an individual could order.
PlayCanada's claims that they officially worked with NAMCO BANDAI Games America to obtain their stock is entirely false.
We understand the $20 clubNamco voucher that has been offered to our affected fans may give little solace in place of an actual Wizard's Edition package. It is unfortunate that we are unable to produce additional Wizard's Edition units to fulfill all the extra orders; with that in mind, NAMCO BANDAI Games America will be giving the affected fans a 400 page hard bound copy of the Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch strategy guide which includes an exclusive code to unlock a Gold Hurly Familiar in the game in addition to the original $20 clubNamco voucher. Our E-commerce provider will be contacting the affected customers in the coming days with instructions on how to obtain their copy of the Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch strategy guide. We hope that this can give the affected consumers some comfort; NAMCO BANDAI truly does value and care about its fans.
Cold comfort, indeed. The game, as I noted in Part One of my review, is excellent, and it's a shame that it's already shrouded in controversy.
The publisher's statement doesn't quite clarify what happened behind the scenes beyond a "glitch" with an E-Commerce provider. These things happen, but it would be nice to know more details.
I don't believe for a second that Namco Bandai would purposefully jeopardize their reputation and the game's sales by actively working with a scalper on eBay, either, and unless some proof of that emerges, I would toss that notion into the rubbish pile. The fault appears to be with the E-Commerce provider, and Namco Bandai stands to gain nothing and lose quite a bit from the foible.
Nor do I fully understand how difficult or expensive it would be to manufacture more Wizard Edition sets, which include:
[...] a copy of Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch for PlayStation®3, a 340 page hardcover physical copy of the Wizard's Companion, the spellbook Oliver uses throughout his journey in the game. The full-color Wizard's Companion contains a full bestiary of all the creatures found in the game along with in-depth item descriptions of the other world's items, spells and background of its rich history. The limited-run Wizard's Edition will also contain a plush doll of Drippy, Oliver's guide through his adventures, as well as exclusive "golden mite" and "golden drongo" DLC familiars. An exclusive Wizard's Edition coin, Ni no Kuni: Wrath of the White Witch Wizard's Edition Special Music Selection CD and a set of 5 Ni no Kuni artwork cards.
So this is sort of an awesome package, especially if you end up loving the game. I know I'd be pretty disappointed if I got a gift-card and a strategy guide instead of a plush Drippy, the CD, and the bloody Spell Book. In fact, I'm a little disappointed I didn't get this to begin with.
My take is simple: however difficult or expensive getting more of these made may be, a "spare no expense" approach would be in Nacmo Bandai's best interest—especially in the long run.
The publisher has an opportunity here to really shine: mistakes are often perfect PR opportunities if managed properly.
Namco should send out a copy of the game to everyone affected by this along with the $20 card and the strategy guide and then, when new Wizard Edition sets become available, send those out as well.
Better still, have some people at Level-5 (art director, perhaps, or get the composer in on it) sign them. Make these special editions even more special. We love to feel special; we hate to feel like we're being bought off by something second-best.
In the end, it's a small price to pay to spin this fiasco into gold—gold that will surely find its way across social media and the internet, that lightning-fast distribution network that has so revolutionized the concept and importance of word of mouth. Similar to the way news of this mistake has spread, like a wildfire, across the web.
The flipside is that this is supposed to be a limited edition, and if you start producing more you could run into trouble. Fix that by calling it the Wizard's Edition Plus or something and you've got an even more limited edition. But maybe there is legalese in the background that I'm missing.
For my part, I don't believe a supply error, however egregious, is any reason to avoid this game. I've heard already from people who are refusing to play it now because of this mistake. I think that's selling both the game, its developer, and potential players short on a great experience with Wrath of the White Witch. I understand the reasoning, I just disagree with it.
Mistakes happen, and while I think Namco Bandai is not going nearly far enough to make amends, I also don't have any reason to believe they're doing it out of spite. There are decisions and decision makers and we're simply not privy to the behind the scenes.
Maybe in the end they'll decide to spend whatever extra money it might cost to produce more Wizard's Editions and send them out to the gamers who, before the game even hit shelves or was reviewed, were willing to spend their hard-earned dollars on it. These are their most committed customers, after all.
Follow me on Twitter or Facebook. Read my Forbes blog here.


text:
Always a great choice that will be a keepsake for a long time. These are adorable in person. Add a playful touch to any kid's room. This tile is inspired by a love for patterns, textures and collage. The design is heat-sealed into a ceramic tile for a long lasting keepsake.
Heat-sealed from Original ArtworkCeramic Wall Tile w/ Ribbon
Size: 6" x 8"
Made in U.S.A.
This item can be rushed for an additional $5 and will SHIP within 5 business days.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Cosmopolitan Carryall in Key Lime Cream Cake
Cleverly capable, traveled and trim, the Cosmopolitan Carryall diaper bag holds all the necessities for outings near and far. This elegant assembly of well-placed pockets and charm is exclusively available in our richly-tactile and vibrantly-colored cut velvet.
Out of Stock
- Overview
- Vintage doctor bag-inspired silhouette
- Spacious interior has 3 organizational pockets, 2 bottle pockets and a key clip
- Exterior features 1 front patch pocket, 2 side bottle pockets and 2 back pockets, one with additional cell phone pocket
- Hidden plush changing pad in zippered pocket at base of bag
- Matching removable coin purse
- Cake monogrammed wipes case in coordinating color
- Muslin dust cover that doubles as reusable bag
- Metal feet on bottom to protect bag
- Custom-stamped antique brass hardware
- Padded shoulder handles for easy shoulder carry
- Exterior features an olive and lime Parisian-inspired framed lily wallpaper design in European cut-velvet with coordinating olive tweed handles and trim, and olive water-resistant lining
- Care: Dry clean only. Spot clean liner with damp cloth.
- Cosmopolitan Carryall 13" W x 16" H x 5" D
- Changing pad: 14.5" x 17"
Returns are simple, exchanges are free.
For more information: Petunia Returns
- Reviews


text:
Castleton constable facing deer baiting chargeStaff Report | December 04,2012A Castleton constable and part-time police officer in that town and neighboring Fair Haven has been placed on administrative leave by the municipal departments after a state game warden issued him a criminal citation for allegedly baiting deer near his tree stand in Castleton.
Scott Stevens is due to appear in Rutland criminal court next month to answer to the misdemeanor charge.MORE IN This Just InThe family of a Connecticut man who was killed in a car accident on Route 4 last Friday night is... Full StoryAssociated Press Full StoryIt seems like I just started to warm up from last winter and I see back-to-school displays. Full Story
- Most Popular
- Most Emailed
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day 1739, 'Richard Palmer' identified in prison at York Castle as the notorious outlaw DICK TURPIN; IN 1836, Battle of the Alamo begins near San Antonio de Bexar, Texas; 1896, the Tootsie Roll invented by LEO HIRSCHFELD.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1472, Orkney, Shetland islands put up as collateral by Norway to Scotland in lieu of dowry for MARGARET OF DENMARK on her marriage with JAMES III, king of Scotland; 1962, JOHN GLENN first American to orbit Earth.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: City mayoral candidates debate campaign issues; Hartford, Conn., woman still missing; Neal Goswami reports attempts to legislate suicide; local woman loses 100 pounds through TOPS program.
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1878, JOHN TUNSTALL murdered near Lincoln, New Mexico, by the outlaw JESSE EVANS; in 1930, ELM FARM OLLIE first cow to fly in aircraft, first to be milked airborne; 1955, nuke test WASP; '79, snow in Sahara.
- TOMORROW'S HEADLINES TODAY: Rutland Herald News Editor Alan J. Keays and staff writer Gordon Dritschilo discuss stories planned for the February 18, 2015, edition of the newspaper: Winter budgets maxed, legal marijuana, Springfield bank job, USPS slowdown
- RICHARD'S POOR ALMANACK: On this day in 1249 AD, ANDRE of LONGJUMEAU is dispatched by LOUIS IX of France to meet the KHAGAN, ruler of the Mongol Empire; in 1804, during 1st Barbary War, STEPHEN DECATUR scuttles the pirate-held USS Philadelphia in Tripoli.


text:
Have questions about SingleHop?
I'm here to help.
Call us toll free at 866.349.0689
Introducing LEAP3, our industry-leading client portal.
Winner of The Cloudy's Most Innovative Cloud Enablement Tool, LEAP lets you design, deploy, and manage your infrastructure in any of our global data centers from one centralized, unified portal.
Control from Any Device
Whether it be from your computer, iPad, iPhone, or Android device, you can manage your servers using our extremely powerful LEAP interface. This interface offers a complete degree of control over not only your infrastructure, but also your SingleHop account. We give you the power to manage your infrastructure from anywhere, any time. We are continuously working on new applications for other platforms and will be deploying them soon.
Build on Top of It
LEAP's DropZone and Tandem interfaces offer a wide range of developer-friendly functionality. You can fully integrate your applications with the infrastructure platform and enhance your ability to scale and manage growth down the line. Design the perfect command center for your infrastructure, deploy servers and cloud VMs however you want and whenever you want, and manage your infrastructure using our full arsenal of automation commands. Not only that, our RESTful API gives you the ability to tightly integrate third-party software to your control panel.


text:
Tuesday, April 1, 2014
At this point, its already clear that Obamacare is doing far more harm than good. Weve all become familiar with the soaring premiums, lost coverage, and the dismal sign up numbers.
Families and young people are routinely being priced out of the market, hourly workers are seeing their workweek slashed, and individuals are losing access to their doctors. We know now the promise that if you liked your health care, you could keep it turned out not to be true, and even after sinking $1.5 trillion dollars into this program over the next 10 years, there will still be 31 million uninsured people in the U.S.
One of the burdens Obamacare has created for many is a shorter workweek and the resulting lower take home pay. The Affordable Care Act has taken the liberty of redefining full time work from 40 to 30 hours per week, causing many workers to see their hours cut from 40 down to only 29 with a corresponding 25 percent cut in income.
For a family who is managing resources carefully to make ends meet, this can be devastating.
While our first goal is the full repeal of Obamacare, I introduced an amendment earlier this year to restore the 40-hour workweek that has been unraveled by bad legislation.
This and other examples, such as a broken website and costly taxes on small businesses, have been in the headlines almost from the beginning. However, Obamacares harmful effects on Medicare Advantage are now beginning to have real world consequences for our seniors.
Senior citizens living in Elgin, Santee, and other small towns across South Carolina are already finding that their monthly incomes are stretched thin with rising health care costs. Many are currently spending 30 percent or more of their monthly income on insurance, co-pays, and the prescription drugs they need; further hikes could mean a choice between heating their homes or buying groceries for the week.
As a direct result of the Affordable Care Act, many seniors who now rely on Medicare Advantage almost half of whom live on under $20,000 a year are seeing benefits slashed and painful premium increases.
Increases of between $65 and $145 a month can be devastating to an older American living on a fixed income, and there is no end in sight. Further cuts to the program projected through 2015 will likely make a bad situation even worse.
This past week, I joined 40 of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in sending a letter to the administration asking them to make providing consistent care to Medicare Advantage beneficiaries a priority and to minimize disruption to payment levels in 2015.
Our seniors are the cornerstones of our communities. They are our parents and grandparents, and they have made tremendous sacrifices to provide all of us the opportunities that we have today. We owe it to them to keep the promise and preserve the Medicare Advantage that they are counting on.
From legislation to letters to federal agencies and addressing burdensome new regulations, fixing our health care system so that it actually works for people rather than politicians should be the goal we all work toward. I have consistently opposed Obamacare and will continue in my efforts to relieve the American people of the burden this bad law has imposedfor our families, our small businesses, our seniors, and our communities.
Tim Scott is a United States Senator representing South Carolina.
The Gazette is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. We do not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not The Gazette.
If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website. Read our full terms and conditions.
© 2015 The Gazette an Evening Post Industries company. All Rights Reserved.
Registration on or use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service, Privacy Policy and Parental Consent Form.


text: MissionThe mission of the Cash Management Office is to protect Florida Atlantic University's financial resources and to ensure the validity of all banking transactions. The Cash Management Office must manage the University's cash and make certain that there is a sufficient cash balance to fund daily disbursements. It is also the responsibility of Cash Management to maximize investment income and to comply with both internal and external regulations.


text:
- ‹
- 5 of 19
- ›
- Start Over
Mixed Kitchen Lighting
A distressed harvest table contrasts glam cabinets and lighting.
A kitchen lighting system that layers an antique chandelier, antique wall sconces, pot lights mounted under the cabinets and a candelabra with taper candles is visually stunning but also allows the flexibility to create any type of mood. Herringbone patterned hardwood floors only add to the European country, luxe look. Framed French doors and leaded glass cabinet doors elevate the kitchen's high style even more while milk stools used as seating around the harvest table keep it casual and comfortable.
Comment Guidelines
We welcome your feedback on Houseandhome.com. H&H reserves the right to remove any unsuitable personal remarks made about the bloggers, hosts, homeowners and/or guests we feature. Please keep your comments focused on decorating, design, cooking and other lifestyle topics. Adopt a tone you would be willing to use in person and do not make slanderous remarks or use denigrating language. If you see a comment that you believe violates any of the guidelines outlined above, please click "Flag as inappropriate." Thank you.


text:
Find it here.
And here:
(Via MTV)
Monday, February 11th, 2013
Wednesday, December 14th, 2011
In case you missed it: Near/Far is The Bulletin's free, legal, two-disc compilation of some of the best songs of the year. The 2011 version — all 36 tracks of it, including Fleet Foxes, Yuck, Washed Out, Other Lives, The War on Drugs, Shabazz Palaces, Larry and His Flask, Laurel Brauns, Empty Space Orchestra, Erin Cole-Baker, Anastacia and more — can be downloaded by clicking here.
We've been doing Near/Far annually for the past five years, and you can still grab 2007 and 2008 here and 2009 here and 2010 here. That's 174 awesome songs … for free. Get 'em.
But that's not enough! Each year, there are inevitably tracks I can't use on the official Near/Far, either because I run out of space, or I can't get permission to use them. So I've put together a "bonus disc" of great songs that didn't make it onto the 2011 comp, and by "bonus disc" I mean YouTube playlist for super easy streaming.
Click here to listen. (Please note that some tracks — and one band name — may include coarse language.)
Here are the artists in this mix: The Decemberists, Frank Ocean, Wilco, Patrick Stump, The Vaccines, Big K.R.I.T., Robin Pecknold, F–ked Up, Givers, Kendrick Lamar, Pistol Annies, Clams Casino, Wavves, Purity Ring, Purling Hiss, Archers, Peaking Lights and Jovontaes. Again, you can hear all this right here.
Also, sorry if you run into an advertisement. I tried to avoid them. Ditched Foo Fighters, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and more because of 'em. But they're sneaky little dudes.


text:
Did your recent beach vacation leave you wanting more? Or do you have constant visions of seashells, white sand, and the beautiful blue ocean on your mind? At Village Candle, we also are inspired by the beach which is why we've chosen our Walk on the Beach Décor Collection candle as our July Candle of the Month.
There's no better time than now to share some of our favorite beach-inspired home décor ideas. From decorating tips to DIY ideas, your "beach get-away" is closer than you think!
DIY Wooden Bathroom Shelves
These shelves are shown in a bathroom, but would look great in any little nook. Complete with a rustic finish and you've got a beach inspired look (plus additional storage) without spending too much.
DIY Thrifty & Pretty Driftwood Mirror
We are obsessed with this mirror, and it only cost $3 to make! It is absolutely gorgeous and makes for a beautiful statement piece in any home.
Seashell Letters
The letters spell "BEACH" but you could spell anything – think child's name for a nursery, last name for a casual family room, "BATH" for a bathroom, or something fun for the kitchen. Purchase the letters shown here or make them yourself!
Seashell Embellished Sconce
This sconce is amazing and will add drama to an otherwise empty wall space.
Nautical Inspired Rope Ties for Grommet Drapes
These drape ties are yet another fabulous, inexpensive way of adding beach-themed décor to your home. Added bonus – they are easy to install!
7 Steps to Casual Beach Décor
Coastal Living magazine offers tips to transforming your home into a casual, beach inspired environment.
Do you like this beach-inspired decorating theme? What ideas do you have to transform your home into a beach oasis? Which of our beach-themed scented candles would you use?


text:
Thunder in the Vicinity
Wind: 3 mph
To The Editor:
I read in wonder last week at Mr. Thomas' letter that ranted about WDEV's biased news coverage based on John McLaughry's daily viewpoint . Is that the only time of day that Mr. Thomas tunes into the station? He must not be tuned in when Equal Time is on in the afternoon for a full hour with its biased leftist views. He must not be tuned in Friday afternoon for the Thom Hartmann/Bernie Sanders Socialist hour nor the daily evening "Democracy Now" which is decidedly not conservative. How about Jim Hightower's daily mostly anti-business addresses? Then there is the two hours per day of the Mark Johnson show that must be the most evenhanded political talk show out there.
Hey, I don't agree with some of what John McLaughry says, but to say that this radio station is biased is surely a joke. Whoa, say, you weren't punking us, were you?
Tom Mehuron


text:
Most Scenario Paintball Players prefer the G36 look and Lapco has decided to use their top quality parts to bring that to us. The Lapco G36 stock is the buttstock of choice for so many other style SMG weapons as well. The Lapco G36 stock is a lightweight, durable alternative from a company known for their quality parts and accessories. The specially designed hinge clicks and locks the stock when open or folded to the side.
Now available in Flat Dark Earth.
Punishers Paintball Supply © 2003-
All Rights Reserved.
All photography and text on this site is the original work of Punishers Paintball Supply and manufacturers.
Contents may not be used for any commercial or non-commercial purpose without prior written consent from www.punisherspb.com.
eCommerce Hosting by Resposio


text:
Laptop and iPad Carts
Hertz Furniture's laptop storage carts offer the perfect place to charge and store computers at the same time. They are designed to keep equipment in great condition to maximize lifespan and quality. Whether you need a laptop cabinet for a professional or educational setting, all of our models are excellent.
Unlike regular equipment, electronics require special care to keep them in proper working condition. If computers overheat or overcharge on a regular basis, their battery life will shorten significantly, causing quite an inconvenience. Ventilation is critical for maintaining proper working condition. When there is adequate airflow in a laptop cabinet, each computer will stay properly functional for a longer period of time.
No matter how much you trust employees, students and staff, you don't want to take chances with costly items. Locking laptop storage carts enable teachers and professionals to remain worry-free throughout the day, even when they have to leave the room. These units have sturdy shelving which provides proper support to maintain correct positioning. With a design that maximizes space while keeping each computer positioned correctly, you can fit many laptops in a small area.
No classroom has enough outlets for all students to plug in laptops at the same time. The seemingly simple solution to this predicament is to fill the modern learning space with power strips and extension cords, so you can bring technology into the classroom. However, this arrangement will create a significant tripping hazard which is dangerous for students and potentially damaging to computers.
The simple solution for bringing laptops into a learning space without having to add lots of wires and outlets it to charge laptops before you need them. Laptop charging and storage carts enable many units to be powered up at once so they are ready to be taken out and used - no cords needed. With this simple solution, when you bring computers into the training seminar, you won't have to worry about participants losing work due to low battery and automatic shut offs.
Keeping a computer in proper working condition for a number of years can be quite challenging. With repeated plugging in and charging, the battery life of a laptop will quickly deteriorate. Many of our laptop storage carts have built-in timers which can be programmed to shut off after a certain amount of time. This simple solution prevents overcharging, while ensuring that computers are powered-up and ready to go when you want them.
When electronics are carried from one place to another, there is always the risk that they will be accidentally dropped or bumped into things. Laptop storage carts roll into position on casters, so you can move many computers at once while minimizing the risk of damage. They lock into place so there won't be any accidental cart movements when computers are being put in or taken out. This arrangement is ideal for schools and businesses because it keeps multiple units in one place and so they are easy to transport when needed.
Not all companies or schools need a high-capacity cart. If a professional or teacher needs a place to store and secure an individual laptop, wall-mounted laptop cases are quite convenient. They can be mounted right next to or behind a desk so they are easy to access, and won't take up very much space.
Great laptop storage is essential in any modern institution. Hertz Furniture's selection of secure, sturdy reliable laptop storage carts will keep computers charged, stored and ready to use. Don't take chances with your equipment, invest in proper storage for your laptops, so they will remain in great working condition for a longer period of time.


text:
|120 posts found
Novice Member
Joined: 1/09/09
Mr Flibble is VERY cross
NGE, thats written in MMO lore as what NOT to do with an MMO, you shouldnt have even ask this. I never played SWG but neither did a lot of people, and everyone knows this.
Also, that was 7 years ago. Get over it, move on, its ancient history in MMO terms
Cluck Cluck, Gibber Gibber, My Old Mans A Mushroom
Login or Register to never see this panel
Novice Member
Joined: 12/26/11
Originally posted by Gravez
Novice Member
Joined: 7/16/11
This is why: "We really just needed to make the game a lot more accessible to a much broader player base," said Nancy MacIntyre, the game's senior director at LucasArts. "There was lots of reading, much too much, in the game. There was a lot of wandering around learning about different abilities. We really needed to give people the experience of being Han Solo or Luke Skywalker rather than being Uncle Owen, the moisture farmer. We wanted more instant gratification: kill, get treasure, repeat. We needed to give people more of an opportunity to be a part of what they have seen in the movies rather than something they had created themselves."
Apprentice Member
Joined: 3/20/06
Don't Prove Mark Twain correct by opening your mouth and removing Doubt.
Originally posted by RefMinor
Heres the thing Nancy missed.
75% of the 2003 to 10/30/05 player base LIKED being the Supporting Cast member and didn't have any desire to be Luke or Han or Leia or Lando or Vader or Palpy or Tarken or Thrawn et al.
We wanted to Sit in Camps and chat for hours while grinding out Camping Xp for Scout or Ranger. We liked crafting Swoops to sell on Vendors to get Merchant XP. We loved running for Election to get new abilities for our cities as a Politican.
I liked Spin Groups at the Dant MO or Dath Smug Outpost while I was grinding through Carbineer and Rifleman and BH.
I didn't mind working my butt off in the Village during phase the Build Phase or the Sith Invasion Phase. I didn't even whine over the Double Incap to increase Decay in PvP crap that people pulled while grinding their PvP Rating.
I loved the RIS Armor Quest.
I didn't mind grinding my butt off in Space for a Black Sun Helmet...or on Yavin for a Jet Pack Base...or the DWB for Liquids...or the Avatar Platform just because.
The NGE screwed a lot of things up.
The NGE also Fixed a few things...
PvP was Unbalanced....and there would never be True Balance in PvP unless you removed the majority of the combat professions and limited Customization. Multiple Template options introduced too many variables that the developers could not balance out. Plus Legendary weapons with EPIC DOT's that you only ever saw come out in PvP. Plus people Buying up every ADK they could so that their weapon and 95% resist armor and epic CA's and AA's and WA's would NEVER Break.
Heck...I sold an ADK on one of my alt accounts 3 months before it was Due for 25m on Intrepid and on another account on Lowca for 30 m....3 weeks before the NGE announcement.
Decay had problems with Implementation and with how Buggy the Repair Kits were.
Space was the Only thing Post Publish 9 and Post NGE that the Developers didn't change or screw up.
I didn't like Losing as many professions as we lost in 2005. But there were so many Non-Combat Professions that they should have left alone...Merchant and Bio Engineer and CH and Doctor and Scout and my beloved Ranger....
There are things I would have done differently....and I would have started the discussion in 2004 with LA about the CU with a hearty "do it your own darn self." comment.
MMO History: 2528 days in SW:G
Novice Member
Joined: 10/05/08
As I have said countless time, the moment it all went wrong was NOT the NGE or CU but the doc buff.
SWG was rather unique game in that you had three "mana" bars. Health, Action, Mind. The HAM bar, if any of them reached zero, you fell down and could be killed (not all PvE enemies dealt death blows).
You could to a slight degree set how fast you wanted each of your stats to generate and your race also had an influence.
Each skill use cost a number of points from any of the three bars, sometimes more then one. This had a unique effect in gaming, you could knock yourself out by casting to hard.
In combat, damange from enemies would also be directed to one or more bars. So the entire trick was to keep all your bars above zero. If you used mind based attacks and faced an enemy who targetted the mind bar, you could go down very fast.
Now here is the final piece of SWG fundemental original design. Armour would provice a defense BUT also hamper your regeneration. This allowed the game to make EVERY type of armour viable, my Terra Kassi did very well in regular clothing with no armour value and instead focussing on regeneration lost HAM points...
BUT there was a flaw, many a kiddy could not life with the fact that donning heavy Bobba Fett style armour did NOT turn them into instoppable fighting machines... in fact, very much not so. The whole idea about heavy armour is that it would protect you, for a whole but any damage you did take lasted because you did not regenerate anymore. So two fighting choices, risk a lot of damage but hope you outheal it OR take less damage but if the fight lasts to long you die a slow inevitable dead...
And the heavy armour wearers did not accept this, the game HAD to be changed so they could wear heavy armour all the time... existing food buffs were not good enough for them, the demanded SOE "fix" the game...
And so, we got the doc buff...
It was a massive buff to your regeneration that doctors could create and when I say massive, I mean massive. And thanks to SWG unique crafting methods with random quality matierials it wasn't long before doc buffs became truly insane.
It soon became possible for ANY player no matter what they were wearing to walk up to a Rancor nest and go AoE mad on it forcing all the enemies to spawn and die as they simply could not damage you fast enough to be healed. If a enemy mob does 300 dps and you heal 2000 dps, you just can't go down. Ever...
It saw the rise of the solo group, people grouping to qualify for the highest missions then completing them solo... it KILLED group play. The SWG that is fondly remembered is the pre-doc buff MMO. Rancor hunts? Pre doc buff. Dathomir was a place politicians/dancer classes went to slap Rancors post doc buff.
New players could not find any groups for low level content and often relied on a high level player funding their first dose of doc buff to get them started. It also totally ruined the economy, use a 2 hour doc buff to quest and you would get more then enough money to buy a dozen more shots... all that money had to go somewhere leading to an insanely inflated market.
And all this because SOE listened to whiners who wanted their cake and eat it to... SWG was designed to make heavy armour a very distinct play style choice, remember that in the movies, very few wear heavy armour and those that do, DIE. But kiddies love Boba Fett and so they wanted the heavy armour and they got it, and the game died.
Age of Conan was designed to not have significant stats on items to make the game less depended on loot... and the players moanded and groaned until Items became bing on equip so that rare items could be sold for lots of money and nost just passed down and stats on loot became the primary motivator for questing just like every other game...
And the same people complain that every game is a WoW clone...
Players killed SWG because SOE listened to them. The CU and the NGE are just the aftermath of the clusterfuck that was the Doc Buff when SOE stopped believing in their own design and tried to satisfy a vocal minority.
Novice Member
Joined: 12/25/11
This game is dead. Let it stay dead. Move the hell on with your life.
Elite Member
Joined: 2/17/07
NGE, LOTRO, STO, KOTOR, Lego Star Wars > NGE 2 (SWTOR). SWG>ALL. Above hopefully subject to change.
Originally posted by xr00t3dx
No, not until it either comes back or there is another game that is very similar to it, as SWG is the only game I got stuck into and did not get bored with in my whole 30+ years of gaming, but considering I have lost a load of stuff with SWG, I very much doubt I will spend loads of time on this new game. SWG coming back is the only answer.
I also would have moved on if SWG shut down when it was dead, but it was shut down when it was having a population boom, and populations were rising - It makes no sense to me.
If they announced the shut down in April instead of doing the free CTS or if all servers became dead AFTER SWTOR released, then SWG shutting down would have made more sense. SWG was too much on a high, and there is more chances of it getting resurrected than any other MMO that got shut down.
If anybody can make SWG into F2P then they will have a hit on their hands.
Anyway, I am doing other RL things now, so have moved on, but also got a few minutes each day to discuss SWG still, and keep it alive, and SWG is the only MMORPG that I will put all my gaming effort into. I will not move on to another one MMORPG now, but loads of others and Xbox 360 games where most of them will still be playable in 8 years guaranteed, even if you lose any offlline elements. The shutting down of SWG has killed my enthisiasm and security for playing online only games / MMOs - Get in and play as much as you can and then quit before it closes / changes. WOW should be safe though until at least Titan comes along, either it will get shut down like SWG did for SWTOR even though populations are high or shut down instead of going F2P when populations dwindle - Blizzard said that WOW would go F2P if populations dwindle but if Titan is P2P and millions are playing that instead of WOW, then I doubt they will make WOW F2P then, but instead just shut it down.
If SWG returns and does not shut down until it is totally dead, then it will restore my faith in MMORPGS again, so it is not just SWG for me, but all MMORPGs
Novice Member
Joined: 9/22/11
Short story :
SOE instead of IMPROVING current game design (working out bugs, add content ,etc ) CHANGED game design and concept.
That's why it ultimatelly failed.
Original pre-NGE concept was very good - it just was unfinished ,unpolished and bug ridden - it just needed more work.
Instead it got trashed and changed at it's core - this caused player's leaving and game failing.
Elite Member
Joined: 2/17/07
NGE, LOTRO, STO, KOTOR, Lego Star Wars > NGE 2 (SWTOR). SWG>ALL. Above hopefully subject to change.
SWG ultimately failed due to business decisions, contracts and licences which caused it to shut down, and lack of marketing to push past the stigma of NGE. A lot of people bashing SWG are ones who mainly played pre-NGE and never put in enough time with the NGE over the 6 year period. SWG when it shut down, was the most fullest MMO to exist - to attract plenty of players with loads of varying interests, but as it got no marketing and all the bad reviews from 2006 all over the place, it kept people away. The unintended marketing from the hacking and the free CTS brought loads of players back to SWG, but other MMOs like Vanguard still did not get a population boom. Players did not just come back and check it out for a week or less and thenlog out, they stayed and played sustaining high populations for the whole 45 days. The only thing that stopped people playing then was the shutdown announcement, it came before people had the chance to sub to it.
If the NGE ultimately failed SWG then it would have shut down in 2006 or 2007, not the end of 2011
Advanced Member
Joined: 1/16/12
Originally posted by evicton
Be funny if he did though.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/28/08
I think an easier question to answer would be "where did SWG go RIGHT..."
Tecmo Bowl.
Joined: 3/19/06
Trolls will be ignored
Originally posted by sfc1971
Currently Playing: Star Wars The Old Republic
Novice Member
Joined: 1/06/07
Hype (noun)
Originally posted by fenistil
The original design was brilliant but needed some work. What they did to destroy what could have been a great game borderlines on criminal, especially how they deceptively rolled out NGE after charging for an expansion.
That's what happens when you have a bunch of incompetent blowhards dictating a company.
"Censorship is never over for those who have experienced it. It is a brand on the imagination that affects the individual who has suffered it, forever." - Noam Chomsky
Advanced Member
Joined: 3/20/06
"Denial does not change reality."
Originally posted by Zekiah
Yeppers. Forcing theme park game elements of the NGE into SWG marginalized (or entirely removed) the very exceptioanl and innovative systems SWG had. No matter what was added the last six years, the NGE was the cancer that ended SWG.
Novice Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Originally posted by AzurePrower
SOE is not involved in ToR and it is WAY better off for it, EA is not going to do what SOE did and kill a game mid flow.
Elite Member
Joined: 2/17/07
NGE, LOTRO, STO, KOTOR, Lego Star Wars > NGE 2 (SWTOR). SWG>ALL. Above hopefully subject to change.
Originally posted by Kalmarth
No, they just killed it from the off
Anyway EA does nothing to the game, only market it. LA tells Bioware what to do, like they told SOE what to do.
LA is what went wrong with SWG, and what went wrong with SWTOR. Why do people keep forgetting LA? SW games would not exist without LA
SOE / LA created a masterpiece, and then dumbed it down further with the NGE
Bioware / LA then dumbed down the NGE further and created SWTOR
Novice Member
Joined: 9/18/04
Originally posted by superniceguy
On 16 March 2000, LucasArts Entertainment announced a partnership with Verant Interactive Inc. and Sony Online Entertainment to create the first massively multiplayer Star Wars online role-playing game.[2][3] The then unnamed game would be developed by Verant with online play supported by SOE. This was the same team responsible for creating and supporting the popular EverQuest multiplayer online game. LucasArts would be responsible for all distribution of the Star Wars online game.
nothing about them having anything to do with the way the game progressed
Lucas had final say on all the Star Wars properties but did not have anything to do with the CU or NGE, he just signed off on it as ok by him.
This was all SOE.
And I really dont find that SWTOR is a dumbed down version of SWG, the two games are nothing alike, and were never ment to be, the only thing they hold in common is that they are both set in the Star Wars Galaxy
Elite Member
Joined: 2/17/07
NGE, LOTRO, STO, KOTOR, Lego Star Wars > NGE 2 (SWTOR). SWG>ALL. Above hopefully subject to change.
Originally posted by Kalmarth
Actually what you wrote says LA was responsible for it it all. Nothing there says that SOE has anything to do with it either except online play supported by SOE. It does not say it will be created and suppoted by SOE, like it says they do for EQ. The bit in red states LA would be responsible for it it all
AH but Verant is now part of SOE, Bioware is like Verant - EA acquired Bioware, SOE acquired Verant. LA tell what SOE and EA (or Bioware) what to do.
Look at this video, Julio Torres of LA who was also producer for KOTOR, Obi-Wan, SWG and Force Unleased, explains the NGE. It was not Smedley or anyone from SOE.
So LA got nothing to do with it eh?
Julio Torres instructed the SOE devs what to do.
Also when the CU and NGE were done, LA came to the forums to explain.
SWTORs crafting is dumbed down, the space is dumbed down, and everything SWG had (like BM or CH/BE and Player Cities and the Chronicles system etc etc) and other MMOs have, SWTOR does not have. All SWTOR has is questing and nothing else, and from what Bioware says SWTOR will get none of it. You can not even reanme your companions. The game is just restrictive that it makes it virtually unplayable as a MMO. It works great as a single player game like Mass Effect but it is not very customisable, as restricted by the story that Bioware put out.
At the end of the day, the NGE was just a mistake and a bad business decision, and so to blame it all on SOE is just misguided, especially when LA were clearly involved. Julio Torees knew people would quit but then come back when realised the NGE was for the better - he says so in that above video. When the NGE was not the success they hoped, LA abandoned SWG, and it was mostly done by SOE from then on, and LA never visited the SWG forums at all from 2006.
I bet if LA were still in full controil of SWG after the NGE, SWG would not have had things like camps or BM brought back. SOE did the best they could to bring back SWG of old with the NGE coding.
SWTOR is only a more polished product because LA gave them over 3 years to develop it. LA only allowed SOE to do the NGE with only a few months, and was done as fast as possible to try and boost subs to WOW levels before it was too late, and to change a game.
Apprentice Member
Joined: 2/28/08
Bait and switch (which SOE later offered refunds, etc), secretly developing a new game while running the existing one, and arguably the dumbest business decision in the history of video gaming, and here are a select few SOE fanboys defending it... LOL...
Both SOE and LEC were involved, both were wrong, both paid the price, to the tune of over 250,000 cancelled subscriptions in a few short months.
I would say they got what they deserved.
You need to read Dan Rubenfeld's blog, it has a more in depth account of how it happened.
Tecmo Bowl.
Joined: 8/04/09
Always remember that you're unique. Just like everyone else.
Originally posted by hipiap
This is actually the best, and most reasonable, post I've ever read of yours. Good summary actually.
It's also a sad reminder that makes you wonder where the game would have gone had the NGE/CU never been developed and instead they had focused on the issues the game had. I have to think that between NGE and CU, we lost close to 3 development years as well as 300-400k players...that's impossible to recover from.
We may disagree on who is at fault, but I'm very impressed with your post.


text:
Spurs have moved up to third in the standings after winning four games and scoring 11 goals during December, including a 3-0 win at Fulham and a 4-0 success at Aston Villa.
"It's been an excellent December for us and we've managed to put ourselves in the kind of position that we want to be," said Villas-Boas.
"We sit third in the league, but it is where we finish at the end of the season that matters."
Robin van Persie took the player honours as he continued his impressive form for the Premier League pace-setters Manchester United.
The Dutchman found the net five times as United won five of their six Premier League games during the month.
Van Persie told Sky Sports News: "I do feel we are getting stronger every time we play and we are getting better.
"We are only seven points ahead and we have to play everyone one more time, nothing is decided. It will be tough this weekend against Liverpool. It is a massive game for lots of people.
"But in the end it's about the three points. We have to look at it game by game."


text:
Insurance claims.
Grant Gallicho February 15, 2013 - 5:58pm
Last week, in a tour de force of intellectual humility, Matthew J. Franck treated First Things readers to a catalogue of my confusions. He didn't take kindly to my analysis of Cardinal Timothy Dolan's response to HHS's new proposals for the contraception mandate. First, Franck claims that I am "confused...about what the government actually announced." Second, he says that my analysis of the moral culpability of religious employers is unreliable because I am "confused about the economic reality of insurance." This confusion, Franck informed me via Twitter, is profound: He sees "no sign from you either of an argument, an ability to read, or an understanding of arithmetic." Given those impairments, I may not be able to formulate a successful response to Franck's confident critique, but I beg your indulgence as I give it a shot.
Let's start with the Franck's first complaint. Do I have the foggiest idea of what HHS actually announced? Here's how I summarized the latest proposals: "The new rule scotches the previous iterations much-maligned four-part definition of 'religious employer,' and proposes arrangements to make sure religious employers including colleges, hospitals, and charities wont have to pay for or refer for contraception coverage in their employee health plans." Later in the post, I wrote that "any religiously affiliated employer that has nonprofit status simply has to self-certify with HHS in order to opt out of the contraception mandate."
Franck alleges that I conflated the categories of religious employers proposed by HHS: "Gallicho fails to understand that the new, tax code-derived definition of 'religious employer' is perfectly irrelevant when it comes to the new second category, and insists, quite wrongly, that 'any religiously affiliated employer that has nonprofit status simply has to self-certify with HHS in order to opt out of the contraception mandate.'" But that isn't my only error, according to Franck. No, I've made "several mistakes at once":
First, the tax codes borrowed language does not apply to "any religiously affiliated employer that has nonprofit status,' but to a much tighter category of churches and their 'integrated auxiliaries." Second, the employers in the new second category who are nonprofits that 'hold themselves out as religious' do not get to 'opt out' at all, if by that is meant that their employees are not covered by the mandate; they get the new (essentially fake) "accommodation."
What is he talking about? When HHS floated its initial proposal for the contraception mandate, it counted as "exempt" only those employers that had religious inculcation as their purpose, that employed and served "primarily" co-religionists, and that operated as a nonprofit. I joined the bishops and many others in criticizing that definition of "religious employer."
A few weeks later, the Obama administration announced a new proposed rule that would "accommodate" religiously affiliated employers that failed to qualify for the narrowly defined exemption by allowing them not to include contraception coverage in employee health plans. Instead, the insurance company would offer employees of such institutions separate contraception coverage at no cost. (At the same time, the administration floated a series of complex arrangements that might address the situation of "self-insured" companies that pay directly for employees' medical care; those have been distilled in the latest HHS proposals.)
So, on the one hand there were "exempt" employers (dioceses, parishes, parish schools) -- their employees would not be eligible for the proposed free contraception coverage. And on the other hand there were "accommodated" institutions (hospitals, colleges, charities) -- they wouldn't have to contract for, pay for, or refer for contraception coverage, but their employees would be able to receive it at no cost from a third party. That difference is preserved -- but clarified in such a way that could expand the range of exempt employers -- in the most recent proposed rule, and that's what upsets Franck. He believes that there is a significant moral difference between a religious employer whose employees will not receive contraception coverage at all and a religious employer whose employees will receive contraception coverage from a third party. He thinks the only true "opt out" is available to fully exempt employers, whereas I see a moral significance in an "accommodated" employer's ability to choose not to contract for contraception coverage. I could have been clearer about this in my post, but in the final analysis, it makes little difference to the moral calculus because neither exempt nor accommodated institutions will have to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans. I agree with Bishop Robert Lynch that this arrangement amounts to "a distinction without difference." More on that in a moment.
Back to Franck: "When the Obama administration claims that employers will not 'fund' the contraceptive coverage provided by insurers," he alleges, "it speaks falsely." He continues:
When it [the Obama administration] claims that the free contraceptive coverage can be afforded by the insurer because cost-savings will result from improvements in womens health and fewer childbirths, the administration is admitting that the contraception is already being paid for by the employer, if its policy covers childbirth and womens health in general. The insurer is not being told to lower its premiums because of the cost-savings on procedures and ailments already covered; it is being told that it can put the cost-savings toward the expense of providing contraception. The existing premiums, paid by the employer, will be the funding source.
Leave aside, for the moment, the fact that actuarial studies have already shown that adding contraception coverage doesn't end up costing insurers extra -- it's not relevant to the moral question. What matters is who pays for it and why. Franck says that "the existing premiums, paid by the employer, will be the funding source." Unfortunately for his argument, that's not how health insurance works.
When a group like, say, EWTN pays monthly premiums to its insurance provider, the insurer does not take the money, deposit it in an account used only for the TV network's premiums, and then pay EWTN employees' medical bills out of that account. Rather, the insurer pools EWTN's payments with those from other customers. So when an EWTN employee gets an X-ray, the money that pays the bill may or may not come from EWTN. It may come from a company whose insurance coverage includes abortion. The insurer's risk assessment of its policyholders determines whose monies fill the pools. If the same insurer covers EWTN and NARAL, the two organization's monies will be mingled. Indeed, it's the pooling of premiums that provides the incentive for insurers to offer contraception at no cost to their customers. (In 2002, the Kaiser Family Foundation published a useful primer on health insurance [.pdf]. If you have trouble getting your head around our strange health-insurance system, it's well worth reading.)
So, pace Franck, when it comes to determining who's really funding contraception for employees of accommodated organizations, "the existing premiums, paid by the employer" will not "be the funding source." It may be one of the funding sources. It may not. The point is, there's really no way to know, because insurance companies are in the business of spreading risk. It would be like trying to determine whether any of Matthew Franck's federal tax dollars ended up paying for an abortion for a rape victim. Once he's paid taxes, that money is no longer his. It's collected with other people's money and dispensed by someone else. He's not on the hook for what's done with that money unless he's willed something evil. That is, of course, the point of money. Did the change I got from Starbucks this afternoon come from a drug dealer? I don't know. Was the banana I had this morning picked by a child? I hope not, but did I try hard enough to find out? Did the money I saved by not buying organic cover life-saving medical treatment for a loved one? An electric bill? An iPad mini? The Catholic tradition accounts for the complexity of moral agency in a fallen world. We are never disentangled from sin. So the tradition helps us think through these difficult questions: What did I intend? What was the effect? Could it have happened without me?
Franck doesn't give those questions their due. He seems to suggest that every time someone pays an insurance company he has illicitly cooperated with evil, regardless of intent. After all, major insurers cover abortion for at least some of their customers. (Would he also say "self-insured" religious employers that engage the services of an insurance company to administer their health plans are morally culpable [most do]?) Franck says the latest contraception-mandate proposals are no good because they still involve religious employers in morally illicit arrangements. But everything the Obama administration has proposed is designed to distance the religious employer from the coverage it objects to. It frees religious employers from having to say, "Yes, I want to include contraception coverage in my employee health plan." It allows "self-insured" religious employers to say, "No, we won't pay for contraception out of the monies we've saved to cover our employees' medical care." It transfers responsibility to a third party. If an employee of an "accommodated" religious institution avails herself of the contraception provided by a third party, her employer is no more responsible than it would be were she to use her wages to purchase condoms. In the United States, benefits are considered part of an employee's compensation.
Franck is hung up on whether the HHS proposals will actually work, whether insurers will recoup the upfront costs of providing contraception, even to people who aren't in their risk pools. But who cares? For "self-insured" companies, not a dime from their health-care kitties will pay for contraception. For companies that pay insurance premiums, they won't have to contract or refer for contraception coverage. Might their premiums end up paying for services to which they have religious objections? Yes. But they already are. That they don't intend to fund such services is what frees them from moral culpability.
And that's precisely why I believe the latest proposals for the contraception mandate pass moral muster. If Franck wants to counter my moral argument, he'll have to acquire a clearer understanding of how insurance works.
Commenting Guidelines
Mark--I appreciate your spirit of charity. But I wonder whether it might be possible that your objection really isn't about contraception or about culture? Perhaps there is something else at work here. To illuminate it, as you kindly observe, is something to which I should not give much time.
John Hayes, thanks for posting the link to Bishop Lori's letter. Unfortunately, I am not able to access it. So I can't say any more about it. Nonetheless, your posting it was a service. Again, thanks.
"The notice would be provided directly to plan participants and beneficiaries by the issuer"John Hayes --Isn't "the issuer" of the policy the insurance company? If so, then this means that it will be the ins. co. that notifies the individuals covered that that contraceptives are available under another policy. The ins. co. wlll, of course, already have the names of all of the individuals covered.This means that the hospital, university, whatever, will not be involved at all in offering contraceptives insurance. Problem solved.
Matthew Franck has responded at First Things. That hole he's digging just keeps getting deeper! "I must still look at the situation, if I am one of these employers, and say 'I am arranging and paying for my employees to have contraception in their health insurance coverage.'" Well, no, you really mustn't.It's touching that there are people still attempting to find consistency in the bishops' shifting objections. But the "illicit coverage" thing is a tell: at this point they seem to be objecting first and then making up the reasoning after the fact. Stephen Millies is right: the bishops and their right-wing allies missed their chance to advocate for the single-payer system that would have taken this concern off the table. It's time to stop claiming absolute exceptional status as an injured party, admit that religious-freedom claims are complicated matters in a democracy, and work within the system like we have so many times before.
Well, no, you really mustnt.Forgive me, but this sounds tantamount to shut up, she explained. I dont understand all the intricacies of the insurance mechanism, but Francks conclusion that employers are effectively arranging for and paying for this coverage for their employees sounds about right. If the employers are not paying for it/arranging for it, then who is?
His conclusion makes a strong point, though:
Remember, the Obama administration itself recognizes there is a genuine religious freedom claim here, overriding any compelling interest in the employer provision of contraception coverage, when it wholly exempts one class of employers. The existing exemption amounts to a recognition that the fullest expression of religiously conscientious opposition is fulfilled by the ability to purchase coverage that really does not include (and is not merely said not to include) contraception coverage for any of ones employees. . . . There is no good argument for not exempting every other party seeking an identical exemption on religious freedom groundsthose like Belmont Abbey College and those like Hobby Lobby. All, as I have previously argued, are identically situated where their religious freedom is concerned. Why does the Obama administration think it is within its power to parcel out full religious freedom in one place, less of it in a second, and none at all in a third? And why does it have any defenders among those who wish religious freedom well?
If Obama's defenders really believe what they are saying about how the accommodation completely erases any connection between the employer and the coverage, such that no claim of conscience can still exist, then why exempt anyone, even churches?
20% of America's children lack food security. Wouldn't it be so much more productive for the USCCB to oppose child poverty with the same aggressiveness it is opposing contraceptive access? Why would people want to have children they can't afford to feed? Let's drop the Fortnight of Freedom stuff and have a Year of the Child; something we can all get behind.
Ann Olivier wrote: "Isnt the issuer of the policy the insurance company? If so, then this means that it will be the ins. co. that notifies the individuals covered that that contraceptives are available under another policy. The ins. co. wlll, of course, already have the names of all of the individuals covered."Yes, the insurance company is the "issuer"However, Bishop Lori complains that the employer is involved because it provided he names to he insurer:"Second, if a religious organization is not exempt, its insurance company or third-party administrator will impose the full mandate automatically on the organizations employees and their female children, using the personal information that the employer had entrusted to them solely to provide a plan consistent with the organizations faith."That does't make sense to me. It's a variation on an earlier argument that the employer was involved because if it hadn't employed these people they wouldn't be able to get this free contraception.They both sound like real stretches to me.
Why don't we see the USCCB in a similar snit about vasectomies, Viagra (Cialis, Levitra, whatever) and IVF?Health plans most certainly include the 1st 2 categories and, if not the 3rd, then employee benefits plans usually cover that if the cover adoption services.
Irene Baldwin wrote: "Who is Matthew FrancK? I googled and found a lawyer. Is that him? Does he have any expertise in insurance?"He's the director of a program at Robby George's Witherspoon Institute in Princeton. See: http://www.winst.org/corac/scholars/franck.phphttp://www.winst.org/corac...
Franck's argument doesn't work for self-insured plans because the administrators who provide the separate contraception policy are paid for it by HHS*. It's easy to demonstrate that the employer isn't paying for it. It would simplify things a lot if HHS did the same for insurers of employers who don't self-insure. The current scheme in which they provide the contraception coverage free in return for savings they make in reduced maternity costs on the employer's policy is not something that people can grasp intuitively and leaves the door open to the kind of arguments Franck is making.
*The mechanics are that they get a credit against fees that they have to pay to sell insurance though the state insurance exchanges
"Francks conclusion that employers are effectively arranging for and paying for this coverage for their employees sounds about right. If the employers are not paying for it/arranging for it, then who is?'Mark -- The issuer, the ins. co., is simply *not requiring payment* from anybody. In other words some employees will get the coverage free. It is to the insurer's advantage to do so because it thereby eliminates having to pay for the possible babies that will come without such coverage.
"However, Bishop Lori complains that the employer is involved because it provided he names to he insurer:"John Hayes --Sheesh. OF COURSE THE EMPLOYER GIVES THE NAMES OF ALL THE COVERED PERSONNEL TO THE INS. CO. BUT the free contraceptive coverage is independent of the coverage that the employers and employees pay for. The ins. co. will know which employees will get contraception coverage independently of the others because THOSE employees fill out a form and ask for it. It looks like the employers themselves won't know who is getting the free coverage. Excuse the shouting. Bishop Lori drives me up the wall, back down, then back up...
Ann--You're avoiding the question. Who's paying for the contraception? There's no such thing as a free lunch. Someone's bearing the cost.
Mark --Oh, c'mon. Many things do not call for payment, e.g., when you're given a free sample of a new product, or when you get some water from a public fountain, or when a kind soul gives some money to a beggar, etc., etc., etc., etc.......
And don't forget Wikipedia, shareware, etc., etc., etc., etc............
"Why dont we see the USCCB in a similar snit about vasectomies, Viagra (Cialis, Levitra, whatever) and IVF?"In a sense, the church has been "in a snit" over these things for years. But they don't have the same level of engagement right now because the government isn't mandating that employers or insurers provide coverage for them.Maybe the way for the Democratic Party to accomplish its goal of eviscerating the GOP would be to capture the male white vote by forcing employers to provide free Viagra.
Mark Proska, the company that sells health insurance to he employer pays for the contraception out of its own pocket. Them employer sends the insurer a "self-certiication" that it is exempt from providing contraceptive services.As the proposed regulations say:"The proposed rules would direct the issuer receiving the copy of the self-certification to ensure that the coverage for those contraceptive services identified in the self-certification is not included in the group policy, certificate, or contract of insurance; that such coverage is not reflected in the group health insurance premium; and that no fee or other charge in connection with such coverage is imposed on the eligible organization or its plan.The proposed rules would further direct the issuer receiving the copy of the self-certification to provide contraceptive coverage under individual policies, certificates, or contracts of insurance (hereinafter referred to as individual health insurance policies) for plan participants and beneficiaries without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge."The Notice of Proposed Rule Making asks fr comments on his poposed rrangement, so we should hear from inurance companies as to whether they agree this is fair to them. HHS explains why jt thinks this is fair:"Actuaries, economists, and insurers estimate that providing contraceptive coverage is at least cost neutral, and may result in cost-savings when taking into account all costs and benefits for the insurer. [12] In this instance, contraceptive coverage without cost sharing would be provided to plan participants and beneficiaries through individual health insurance policies, separate from the group policy through which all other coverage would be provided to plan participants and beneficiaries. The Departments believe that issuers generally would find that providing such contraceptive coverage is cost neutral because they would be they would be insuring the same set of individuals under both policies and would experience lower costs from improvements in women's health and fewer childbirths."
John has offered a clear, concise explanation of why the costs argument is off the table.I cannot understand how opponents are left with anything better than an objection to the fungibility of money, the sense in which we all are remotely culpable for every evil thing done with money because we participate in the financial system. I'll ask a question I've asked many times since 2001--How many abortions-via-smart-bomb have our tax dollars funded? It's an unknowable number, largely because our government won't collect that data. All we can know is that zero is an improbable number. The debate about the mandate has reached a point where this moral problem is greater than anything being proposed by HHS. Can we not simply accept that and move on to greater concerns??
I agree that providing the list of names to the insurer constitutes a form of cooperation; cooperation in evil may take any number of forms and needn't be strictly monetary.But, as Grant has pointed out many times, the Catholic moral tradition recognizes degrees of cooperation: such as direct, formal, mediate, remote. I remotely but unintentionally cooperate with contraception because I purchase non-contraceptive prescriptions from a pharmacist that also dispenses contraceptives, so to the extent that my purchases keep the pharmacist afloat financially, I'm enabling the distribution of contraceptives. But I view that cooperation as sufficiently remote that I don't have any moral qualms about my participation in contraceptive distribution by patronizing that pharmacist.I believe it's reasonable for an exempted Catholic employer to conclude that it is remotely and unintentionally cooperating in the distribution of contraceptives to its employees by providing the list of benefits enrollees to its health care insurer. It's not for me to say so; each employer should have the freedom to make that determination to the best of its ability, and to the extent it no longer has that freedom, the mandate is unjust. If the actuarial case for subsidized contraception is as compelling as the White House claims, then we should expect that, even without the HHS mandate, the marketplace would provide similar arrangements on its own. (I believe we saw Obamacare give the marketplace similar nudges while the recent Supreme Court case was pending; a number of insurers had announced that, even if the Supreme Court overturned Obamacare, they would continue to allow the children of policyholders to be enrolled as dependents through age 26.). Perhaps after 2016 we'll get the opportunity to test that hypothesis, but I doubt it.
...the company that sells health insurance to he employer pays for the contraception out of its own pocket.JohnThanks, but I dont think it can be that simple. Health insurance companies are not charitable organizations; they dont simply provide employers with a free lunch. Lets say the healthcare cost for an employee who contracepts is $700, plus $100 for the free contraception (so $800 in total), and its $1200 for an employee who does not contracept. To recoup its costs, the insurer must charge the employer, in total, $2000 for the 2 employees. So it must be the employer whos paying the $100 for contraception. If the insurer only charges $1900, he goes out of business, because his costs are $2000.Direct cooperation, no?
Jim Pauwels, a company that provides health insurance (even without contraception coverage) for its employees has to tell the insurance company the names and particulars of each person to be covered under the employers no-contraception policy. The employer adds and removes people from that list during the year. There is no list that the employer has to provide to the insurance company in connection with the free contraception program. The insurer already knows who it insures under the employees policy. The HHS proposed regulations authorize the insurer to use that information it already has to contact those people and provide free contraception to them. The employer has nothing to do with that.
Mark Proska, back several posts ago, I said that it would be simpler if HHS paid for this contraception in the same way they propose to pay for self-insured plans - because this system opens the door to endless arguments of the kind you've proposed.It may come to that, but, in the meantime, the HHS explanation isEmployer Premium to insure one employee with no dependentsA. $600/month including free contraceptionB. $600/month excluding contraception. (Possibly more than $600)In other words, excluding contraception but paying for more maternity care is at least as expensive as paying for free contraception.Therefore, the insurance company can afford to provide contraception because it will reduce he amount of money it would otherwise have to pay out under its policy with he owner.If the insurance companies don't agree, then HHS may need to pay them. But that's an argument between the insurers and HHS hat we don't need to be involved in.
"the HHS explanation is" should have been "my understanding of the HHS explanation is"
Therefore, the insurance company can afford to provide contraception because it will reduce he amount of money it would otherwise have to pay out under its policy with he owner.JohnI am fairly certain your last comment only supports my point. You are saying, and I would agree, that with the free contraception coverage, the employer, instead of paying the insurer for maternity services, would be paying the insurer for contraceptive services. Though the cost to the employer may not increase, in fact, it may even decrease (as in the example of my earlier comment), the reality is that the employers premium now goes not to provide maternity services but to provide contraceptive services.I think the Bishops have this one right.
According to this way of thinking, which does not even come close to comporting with the Catholic moral tradition, the bishops whose diocese do not self-insure have been illicitly "funding" abortions for years.
Mark, no. The Catholic employer has paid the insurer for an insurance contract that excludes contraception. Independently of the employer, HHS has set up a program that provides free contraception to people whose employers exclude contraception for religious reasons. That is absolutely clear in the case of employers who self-insure. HHS pays for the contraception.In the case of employers who don't self-insure, HHS is is trying to use the savings the insurance company realizes from providing contraception to reduce HHS's bill. This is rational, but creates a lot of confusion.
"Jim Pauwels, a company that provides health insurance (even without contraception coverage) for its employees has to tell the insurance company the names and particulars of each person to be covered under the employers no-contraception policy. The employer adds and removes people from that list during the year. There is no list that the employer has to provide to the insurance company in connection with the free contraception program. "I guess if we want to get more in the weeds on this, we could think about the 'providing lists of employees to the insurers.' My own experience as an employee is that I enroll - the employer doesn't enroll me. There is no doubt that the employer enables it in various ways (in the old days, by holding employee meetings; nowadays, by providing web links to enrollment sites). Would an employee who doesn't enroll in the group insurance be eligible for the direct-from-the-insurer subsidy?"The HHS proposed regulations authorize the insurer to use that information it already has to contact those people and provide free contraception to them. The employer has nothing to do with that."I would expect (and hope!) that the agreement between my employer and my insurer includes non-solicitation language. I guess the HHS regulation would have super-powers that override that private agreement.
Jim Pauwels wrote:" My own experience as an employee is that I enroll the employer doesnt enroll me.In order for you to enroll, your employer has to tell the insurance company that you are its employee and enough information so they can verify that they are dealing with the right person. If you leave your job, he company will notify the insurance company when to terminate your coverage. And "Would an employee who doesnt enroll in the group insurance be eligible for the direct-from-the-insurer subsidy?Employees can refuse the employer's insurance. This happens most often when your spouse or parent works for a company that provides a better deal. If you refuse your employer's plan, the individual mandate requires you to obtain health insurance from some other source. As I understand it, you only get free contraception if you are enrolled in the plan of an employer who is exempt from providing contraception coverage. And also wrote:"I would expect (and hope!) that the agreement between my employer and my insurer includes non-solicitation language. I guess the HHS regulation would have super-powers that override that private agreement."Whether the language is on paper or not, i suspect that an insurance company that sells insurance to a Catholic hospital wouldn't solicit its employees for contraception coverage without being required by the HHS to do it. They would worry that the hospital wouldn't renew with them - or might even sue them for using the information.
"As I understand it, you only get free contraception if you are enrolled in the plan of an employer who is exempt from providing contraception coverage."John Hayes - just to clarify this sentence: as I understand it, this mandate sets up at least four classes of consumers:1. Employees of employers who employ a certain minimum number of employees (50?), and who aren't exempt or accommodated for religious reasons. I believe that all of these employees who enroll in the group plan are eligible to receive free contraception - that is, free to the employee, but funded by the employer. This is the category Hobby Lobby falls into.2. Employees of religiously exempt institutions. They don't receive free contraception.3. Employees of accommodated institutions. They'll receive free contraception, paid for by the insurer or, in the case of self-insured accommodated institutions, by the third party benefits adminstrator (who in turn will be subsidized by the government).4. Employees who don't meet any of the above criteria. I guess they'll go to the insurance exchanges or pay the fine.
GrantFirst, you would need to explain how basic economics does not even come close to comporting with the Catholic moral tradition. Second, youve (tellingly, in my view) not explained how it is that you think that bishops who purchase health insurance have been funding abortion for years. Im sure you must agree that an insurance company will not charge the bishops a premium for abortion services, if it does not in fact provide those services to the bishops.What, exactly, is your point?JohnFrom the way youve explained it, the HHS is taking savings that belong to the employer/Church (the $500 in my earlier example) and using those savings to fund contraception. So the employer/Church pays the HHS (in terms of the HHS taking the savings that rightfully belong to the employer/Church) and the HHS then uses those funds to reimburse the insurance company for providing the contraceptive services to the Church employees. I agree that the HHS is removing transparency by inserting itself into the process (likely on purpose) but it gets back to the basic economic reality that the Church is now paying for contraception where it had paid for maternity services.
Hi,Jim. You're right. I should have spelled out that if you are an employee of an organization that qualifies for the accomodation and has self-certified as exempt, you only get free contraception from that organization's insurer or plan administrator if you are a participant or beneficiary of that organization's employee health insurance plan. The HHS Notice says:"the health insurance issuer providing group coverage in connection with the plan would assume sole responsibility, independent of the eligible organization and its plan, for providing contraceptive coverage without cost sharing, premium, fee, or other charge to plan participants and beneficiaries.
Have you read anything I've written about this? Do you know how insurance works? Read the Kaiser document.
Mark, a Catholic university (or whatever) that doesn't self insure is not paying hospitals, doctors or pharmacies for anything. It is paying an insurance company an agreed amount per month for each employee to take the risk of paying for whatever medical care that employee may require that is described in the contract between the employer and the insurer. If he insurer spends more than it gets from the employer, it is the insurer who takes the loss; if it spends less, it is the insurer who makes a profit. The contract between the employer and the insurance company does not require the insurance company to provide contraception (the employer insisted it not be included). If the insurance company provides free contraception to the employees at the insurer's own expense and that increases its profit, that is not money that belongs to the employer (or the Church).
GrantI may not be an expert in how insurance works, but I dont need to be an expert to see that you are avoiding the question. You're just flailing now.JohnThat is simply not correct. If the insurance company is using the Churchs funds (premiums) to provide contraception to the Churchs employees , so that it does not have to use the Churchs funds (premiums) to provide maternity services, thereby increasing profits, then the Church is indeed paying for the contraception (regardless of what the contract language tries to obscure). To work with the figures of my earlier example, the insurer is taking the $500 extra the Church is paying and using $100 to pay for contraception services and pocketing the rest as profit. The Church is paying for free contraception for its employees.
Try this: If paying insurers anything counts as funding whatever they cover for anyone, then any diocese, any person, has been "funding" abortion, because insurance companies cover abortions for some of their customers. There is no "abortion premium."
Mark.Insurance is a competitive marketplace. The employer should buy the insurance from whichever insurer offers the best balance of qualifications and price based on the same coverage (in this case, not including contraception).Once the employer has agreed to the price and paid it to the insurer, it is no longer the employer's money.
"If paying insurers anything counts as funding whatever they cover for anyone..."That's not what I said, it's just what you wish I had said. I will give you one more chance: Will insurance companies that do NOT provide abortion services to an insured (Archdiocese) jack-up the premium as if they were providing abortion services to the insured? Please don't tell me to read some other report, just answer that simple question.
JohnThat is true, but not relevant. When an insurer says to the Archdiocese: Look, I will now provide contraceptive services and not charge you any additional premium for itIll just give it to you as a freebie then, since (as you say) insurance is a competitive marketplace, it will only do that if it can take the premium the Archdiocese is already paying and use the funds to cover the insurers costs of providing free contraception. What it is doing it using the premiums paid by the Archdiocese and, instead of using them monies for maternity care, it is using the Archdioceses money to provide contraception, and increase the insurers profit.
"The reality is that the employers premium now goes not to provide maternity services but to provide contraceptive services." That is not the reality, and if you had the weakest grasp of how insurance works, you wouldn't say such a thing. I don't think you really want to know. Or admit to knowing. You think premiums are determined mainly by services covered. They are in fact governed mostly by risk assessments. So your question will illuminate precisely nothing.
Does anyone have an attempt at a response to the argument I highlighted above, viz., that if conscience arguments are so ridiculous here, then why bother to exempt churches? One can't have it both ways, after all -- one can't suggest on the one hand that conscientious objections are completely nullified if the contraceptive coverage is "free," while suggesting on the other hand that churches' right of conscience must be preserved. To bring forth such a combo package is to be disingenuous at least once.
Mark, saying the bit of dialog you propose would never happen. The insurance company is not providing contraception to the employer. It's excluded from the employer's policy.As I said in an earlier post, the problem with this part of the HHS proposal is that it lends itself to endless discussionsI'll stop here.
Mr. Gallicho -- your Kaiser link does not support the surprising conclusion that insurance companies set rates without reference to what services are covered or not covered. The opposite, in fact: it says that insurance companies set rates based on claims histories, and also treats government coverage mandates as if they are somehow relevant (which would not be the case on your view).Notice, if you will, that claims histories are always tied to some actual product or service, and do not occur in the abstract -- it's not as if a company says, "Oh, this group of people files 50 claims per person while this other group files 100 claims per person," without noticing that the first group is filing claims for heart transplants while the second group is filing claims for basic checkups. The claim that increasing or reducing coverage is irrelevant to pricing isn't believable. Moreover, as Mr. Proska has said, the mere fact (if indeed it is one) that an insurance policy with contraceptive coverage is just as cheap (or cheaper) than a policy without such coverage does NOT nullify the fact that the insurance company is quite literally making payments to drug companies for contraception. Where do you suppose this money comes from? Handwaving about fungibility is no answer, unless you mean to take the radical position that because money is fungible, you can buy an insurance policy for absolutely anything and then claim that you have no moral connection to the coverage because after all the dollars weren't labeled.
You're putting words in my mouth, Mr. Time.
You said, "You think premiums are determined mainly by services covered. They are in fact governed mostly by risk assessments."Risk of what, one might ask? Risk of losing a job? Risk of being lost at sea? Risk of having one's house burn down? Or, perhaps, risk of needing reimbursement for the "services covered"? Anyway, it makes no sense to deny that money will be flowing in exactly the way I and Mr. Proska described (from Hobby Lobby, let's say, to the health insurance company, and from there to the drug company to pay for contraceptive and possibly abortifacient drugs). The fact that one can't trace the exact dollars is neither here nor there.
What is gratuitously asserted may be gratuitously denied.
Some of the arguments here seem to presuppose that insurance companies are in a position to make fixed profits regardless of what the demand for their products are. When demands are lowered, profits are lowered. If the Archdiocese says to its ins. co., "We're not going to pay you for contraceptive coverage", then it simply is not true that the ins. co. will pay for the contraceptives AND increase the Archdiocese's premiums to cover the cost. The ins. co. could well be willing to absorb the costs rather than lose the lesser profits when the Archdiocese takes its business elsewhere.
Ann, I agree with you that there probably isn't a direct line between subsidizing contraception and an increase in the premium. At any rate, my observation is that group health care insurance policy rates have been rising at a rate considerably higher than the inflation rate, for many years now - for years before the HHS mandate kicked in. If insurers raise their rates due to the contraception mandate - how would we know?
Mr. Gallicho -- you haven't denied anything (except for the claim that I misinterpreted you in some unspecified way).


text:
Click Here to Watch the Whole Video in HD at Hot Barebacking
SX Videos Hot Barebacking is the best high quality bareback sex video site. New bareback sex videos and pictures added weekly.
Fresh-faced 19 Year Old Diego Reyes Thinks His Smooth Sweet Ass Has What It Takes to Tackle Juan Steel's Ten Inches of Monster Cock In This Video. the Latino Studs Enjoy Some Sixty-nine Action. Then Juan Rims His Hole to Get Him Wet and Lets Him Have It, Showing the Boy What It's Like to Take a Man's Dick. Diego Loves Every Second of It and Jumps on Top of Juan to Ride His Massive Cock, Gyrating and Moaning With Pleasure. Juan Unloads His Seed Into Diego's Young Hole Then Fucks the Cum Into Him Until the Boy Busts His Own Nut, Which Juan Graciously Feeds Him.
Pixels: 320X240 | Bitrate: 350K
Pixels: 640X480 | Bitrate: 700K
excellent video.
nice bottom bot, horrible boring top
The hottest video