The Surprisingly Unsurprising Reason Why Men Choose Female Avatars in World of Warcraft




When men play female avatars in online games, they change the way they speak to conform to female stereotypes—but the way they move betrays their masquerade.

In a recent study reported in Information, Communication and Society, researchers created a custom-built quest in World of Warcraft—the popular online game where players can work together to slay dragons and discover magical treasures. The researchers recruited 375 World of Warcraft gamers and ran them through the quest in small groups. The quest took an average of 1.5 hours to complete, and every participant’s movement and chat were recorded and meticulously coded.

The researchers found that the men were more than three times as likely as the women to gender-switch (23 percent vs. 7 percent). When selecting female avatars, these men strongly preferred attractive avatars with traditional hairstyles—long, flowing locks as opposed to a pink mohawk. And their chat patterns shifted partway toward how the real women spoke: These men used more emotional phrases and more exclamation points than the men who did not gender-switch. In other words, these men created female avatars that were stereotypically beautiful and emotional.

Although the gender-switching men could partially talk the talk, they completely failed to walk the walk. The researchers found that all the men in their study moved around in a very different way than the women. The men moved backward more often, stayed farther away from groups, and jumped about twice as much as the women did. When it came to moving around, the men behaved similarly whether they gender-switched or not. So if you’re trying to figure out if that female Night Elf is really a man, focus on how they move around. As study author Mia Consalvo, a professor at Concordia University, says, “movement is less conscious than chat, so it can be an easier ‘tell’ for offline gender.”

It gets stranger. The lead author of the paper, Rosa Martey at Colorado State University, told me via email that “it’s not necessarily the case that men are trying to appear female when they use a female avatar. Our interviews did not suggest that those who switched were trying to ‘pretend’ to be women players.”




In fact, it’s all about the butts. Because players see their avatars from a third-person perspective from behind, men are confronted with whether they want to stare at a guy’s butt or a girl’s butt for 20 hours a week. Or as the study authors put it in more academic prose, gender-switching men “prefer the esthetics of watching a female avatar form.” This means that gender-switching men somehow end up adopting a few female speech patterns even though they had no intention of pretending to be a woman.

In my own research in virtual worlds and avatars, my colleagues and I have found that people will conform to the expectations of their avatars without consciously being aware of it. For example, we found that college students given subtly taller avatars will negotiate more aggressively in a bargaining task than students given shorter avatars. Of course, people can only conform to stereotypes that they know. Perhaps this is why we see gender-switching men conforming to stereotypes of how women talk, while not conforming to the more nuanced movement patterns.

The butt theory could also explain another consistently puzzling statistic: Why do men gender-bend so much more often than women? Given that most AAA video games and thus most of these female avatars are designed by men for a primarily male audience, gender-switching based on esthetics makes sense for male gamers. But because male avatars aren’t created by female designers for a female audience, women may not have the same incentive to gender-switch. (And no, the equivalent is not an obscenely muscular male avatar in a tank top holding a machine gun.




Virtual worlds are often thought of as places where we are free to play and reinvent ourselves, but game design and psychology often conspire to encourage us to enact and perpetuate offline stereotypes and the status quo. The most fascinating irony of our contemporary virtual worlds may be how little they actually allow us to play.

Legal Weed Is Now More Popular Than Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump

We live in a time of political acrimony, a moment when both candidates for president are loathed by large chunks of the public and our elections have come to feel like quadrennial skirmishes in a cultural civil war.

But you know what voters are starting to agree on? Weed. Gallup reports today that 60 percent of Americans now say they favor legalizing marijuana, a new high since the pollster started asking about the topic 47 years ago. To put that in perspective, Hillary Clinton has an average favorability rating of just 43.8 percent, according to HuffPost Pollster. Donald Trump clocks in at a mere 34.7 percent. Even President Obama, who has enjoyed a late-term spike in popularity as America has pondered his potential replacements, only enjoys about 54 percent favorability—meaning pot is more popular than POTUS and his would-be successors.

Gallup isn’t alone in its findings, either; earlier this month, Pew reported that 57 percent of Americans thought marijuana should be made legal, up from 32 percent 10 years ago.

So, on the one hand, these are the kinds of poll numbers that make federal legalization feel like an inevitability, especially since they’ll likely get more lopsided as millennials become a larger share of the electorate. A full 77 percent of Americans under 35 think we should end the ban on pot, according to Gallup, compared to just 45 percent of those over 55. Hillary Clinton has already said she would take the baby step of moving marijuana to schedule II classification, which would make FDA-approved marijuana-based pharmaceuticals legal while leaving the current network of medical dispensaries and recreational pot shops in much the same legal limbo they currently operate in. But a solid majority of the public says it’s ready for more dramatic action.

In theory, at least. As ace Washington Post weed analyst Christopher Ingraham points out, the actual marijuana legalization initiatives on the ballot in several states this year aren’t quiiiite hitting the 60 percent support mark seen in national polls. In royal blue Massachusetts, where you might expect support to be higher than the national average, 55 percent of voters say they’ll vote to make recreational weed legal. “This is because there’s a significant difference between support for marijuana legalization in the abstract, and support for a concrete ballot measure with a lot of nuts-and-bolts proposals for how marijuana legalization would be regulated and enforced,” Ingraham writes. “A voter might support the idea of marijuana being legal, for instance, but not like a law that could lead to an actual marijuana shop in their neighborhood.”

So the details and logistics involved in legalization matter. But Americans are increasingly comfy with the broad concept. And if California votes as expected this November to join Washington State and Oregon and by legalizing marijuana, we may have to rename the West Coast ganja alley. My best guess is that federal legalization turns into an issue akin to allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, where after a series of unsatisfactory intermediate steps, Washington finally pulls the trigger once the idea has become so overwhelmingly popular it would be silly not to move on it. Give it eight years.

Drug used to treat cancer appears to sharpen memory




Can you imagine a drug that would make it easier to learn a language, sharpen your memory and help those with dementia and Alzheimer’s disease by rewiring the brain and keeping neurons alive?

New Rutgers research published in the Journal of Neuroscience found that a drug – RGFP966 – administered to rats made them more attuned to what they were hearing, able to retain and remember more information, and develop new connections that allowed these memories to be transmitted between brain cells.

“Memory-making in neurological conditions like Alzheimer’s disease is often poor or absent altogether once a person is in the advanced stages of the disease,” said Kasia M. Bieszczad, lead author and assistant professor in Behavioral and Systems Neuroscience in the Department of Psychology. “This drug could rescue the ability to make new memories that are rich in detail and content, even in the worst case scenarios.”

What happens with dementias such as Alzheimer’s is that brain cells shrink and die because the synapses that transfer information from one neuron to another are no longer strong and stable. There is no therapeutic treatment available that reverses this situation.




The drug being tested in this animal study is among a class known as HDAC inhibitors – now being used in cancer therapies to stop the activation of genes that turn normal cells into cancerous ones. In the brain, the drug makes the neurons more plastic, better able to make connections and create positive changes that enhance memory. Researchers found that laboratory rats, taught to listen to a certain sound in order to receive a reward, and given the drug after training, remembered what they learned and responded correctly to buy silagra.

Scientists also found that the rodents were more “tuned in” to the relevant acoustic signals they heard during their training – an important finding Bieszczad said because setting up the brain to better process and store significant sounds is critical to human speech and language.

“People learning to speak again after a disease or injury as well as those undergoing cochlear implantation to reverse previous deafness, may be helped by this type of therapeutic treatment in the future,” said Bieszczad “The application could even extend to people with delayed language learning abilities or people trying to learn a second language.”

This hypersensitivity in processing auditory information enabled the neurons to reorganize and create new pathways – allowing more of the information they learned to become a long-term memory, said Bieszczad who collaborated with colleagues in the Department of Neurobiology and Behavior at the University of California Irvine.



“People normally remember an experience with limited detail – not everything we see, hear and feel is remembered,” she said. “What has happened here is that memory becomes closer to a snapshot of the actual experience instead of being sparse, limited or inaccurate.”

FBI Agents Believe Bill Clinton Struck Secret Deal With Loretta Lynch in Plane Meeting




As you may have heard, in the week leading up to the FBI’s decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook, Bill Clinton had a secret meeting with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

Lynch later claimed they discussed golf and their grandchildren but people with brains know better. Even FBI insiders believe they were making a deal.

“According to The New York Post, FBI agents who worked on the Hillary Clinton email investigation are privately upset with the decision not to charge her and are quietly alleging that Attorney General Loretta Lynch must have struck a deal with her husband Bill Clinton during their private meeting.




The Post cites anonymous sources in the FBI who claim that agents investigating Clinton were subject to higher-than-usual scrutiny. Agents had to sign “Case Briefing Acknowledgment” forms, non-disclosure agreements keeping them from speaking to anyone about the case unless called to testify. As a result, agents cannot go public with their opinions of the case, whether they agree with the final result or not.

Some of those agents privately tell the Post that they are “disappointed” with FBI director James Comey‘s decision not to recommend charges. Some were even more vocal: ‘FBI agents believe there was an inside deal put in place after the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton tarmac meeting,’ said one source.”




Many people have also noted that the FBI didn’t record or even transcribe their interrogation of Hillary Clinton, which is odd.

America needs a change of guard on every level.

Why Is Transgender An Identity But Anorexia A Disorder?




The furor over the “bathroom bill” in North Carolina has given the trans movement the perfect kindling to continue fostering their campaign of nationwide acceptance. It has also sparked a semi-hysterical “transphobic” backlash of self-righteous traditionalists.

I do not consider myself in either camp. I approach this topic with a wrenching awareness of what it feels like to be disconnected from your body, to hate with every fiber of your being the way you look in the mirror, and to be willing to undergo great feats of self-mutilation to achieve a vision that is always just out of grasp. My perspective on the matter, however, probably would not go over well among most LGBTQ individuals. As a person who has struggled with anorexia nervosa since puberty, the transgender anguish resonates with me. The similarities between the two illnesses are striking. Yet one is an identity, and the other is a disorder. Why?

At the heart of gender dysphoria is a paradoxical desire to be characterized as something one simultaneously declares is ineffable (i.e. gender roles are illusory cultural constructs, but I yearn to concretely embody that illusion). The contradictory desire in transgenderism is similar in hopelessness as the desire in anorexia. The goal is to be thin, and one is never thin enough until one is dead. The goal is to be a sex other than one’s biological makeup, and one cannot alter one’s chromosomes and genetic makeup.

If a man wants to wear makeup, dresses, even get breast implants, who are we to stop him? If he wants to legally change his name to Maureen, great! But language policing, the implication that by misusing a pronoun we are savaging a person’s very core, is untenable. Using “he” instead of “she” may very well hurt someone’s feelings, but that is a level of sensitivity on par with agoraphobia (fear of crowded or enclosed public spaces). The onus is on the person to find ways of coping. The world cannot be responsible for validating a confusing, opaque issue that has been too quickly transferred from “disorder” to “condition,” from irrational to heroic.



An All-Consuming Desire to Alter One’s Self

Advocates insist that gender dysphoria is not a pathology. The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) describes a disorder as “a description of something with which a person might struggle, not a description of the person or the person’s identity.” This is an absurd string of verbiage. A person’s identity is not his or her biological sex. That is part of a person’s identity.

However, many individuals with gender dysphoria feel they must try to change their outward appearance to match this inner ideal. Due to the physiological makeup of the human body, however, this attempt is often a mighty undertaking. One may even go so far as to say it’s a struggle. The intensity of this all-consuming desire to alter one’s self is what I find most similar to my own illness. We cannot rest until the outside matches the inside.

Many individuals with eating disorders assume an identity centered completely on that disorder. According to an article on the Social Issues Research Centre website, pro-anorexia websites espouse starvation as “the right lifestyle choice for them, and will allow them to achieve happiness and perfection.” Imagine if someone with crippling obsessive-compulsive disorder about germs could impose his beliefs. We’d be obligated to all carry gloves and wear face masks.

The same could be said for a chronically depressed exhibitionist. Accommodation and what is essentially encouraging a delusion is bound to “improve” the life of an individual who has felt like an alien in her own body for years. Unfortunately social support will never change the basic biological facts. Clinging to an illusion does not make a person crazy, marginalized, or inferior. It makes him human.

Remember Your Descartes? Feelings Aren’t Reliable

We cannot rely on our “feelings,” as strong as they are. If I relied on my feelings, I’d be dead. Why? Because my feelings tell me that eating food means gaining weight, and gaining weight is intolerable. Transgender children are apparently absolutely sure they were born in the wrong body. It is a belief held so deeply that we throw out https://www.canadianpharmacy360.net/product/phentermine/.

People with anorexia can often trace their discomfort with their own bodies back to early childhood, as well. Both situations are abstract feelings that clearly contradict reality. The certainty that one is a woman despite being born a man sounds awfully similar to the conviction that one’s body is overweight even when body-mass index is at starvation levels. The feeling of hunger—the most primal, ingrained of physiological response—impels the individual to abstain. Can you question the depth of that belief?

No one with any understanding of the matter is denying that a mismatch exists between the person’s brain and her body. The approach to “wellness” however, is hopelessly backward. The brain is the component of this puzzle with the capacity for immense plasticity. Noninvasive reconditioning occurs every day. The body is the factor that is hardest to alter in any meaningful way. So why are sex-reassignment surgeries the gold-standard treatment method in gender dysphoria literature? Why is such a drastic, violent procedure championed so fiercely?




The question is not whether someone’s identity should be validated, but whether the validation should accompany an attempt to fabricate an impossible artifice. If a man feels he is a woman on the inside, this begs the question: What is a woman? The unswervingly nebulous explanations that abound in defense of transgender rights echo the desperate bravado of the pro-ana crowd.

Adults have the right to dress, act, and live however they damn well please. But the swiftness with which the transgender “condition” has been accepted as mentally healthy is unfair to both the public at large and the individuals themselves. There are no 100 percent effective treatments for anorexia nervosa, but that doesn’t mean that’s how my mind is supposed to work and I should embrace it. The same should apply to gender dysphoria.

700,000 Petition the US Government to Stop Monsanto-Bayer Merger




Hundreds of thousands have signed petitions calling on the U.S. Department of Justice and elected officials to block three proposed mega-mergers of chemical and biotech behemoths: Bayer-Monsanto, Dow-Dupont, and ChemChina-Syngenta.

“The continuing consolidation of seed and pesticide companies essentially creates a monopoly of toxicity in control of the world’s seed market and food supply. These agrichemical giants threaten the availability and genetic diversity of seeds that are critical to a sustainable food system and to our ability to respond to the impacts of climate change,” Andrew Kimbrell, executive director of Center for Food Safety, said Tuesday.

The petitions signed by over 700,000 people were delivered by nine consumer advocacy and environmental groups—including Food & Water Watch, Sierra Club, Pesticide Action Network, Friends of the Earth, and Center for Food Safety, among others—as the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee met Tuesday to examine the wave of consolidation in the biotech and agrochemical industry.




“I’m afraid this consolidation wave has become a tsunami,” said Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as the hearing opened.

“Just six corporations already dominate worldwide seed and pesticide markets,” commented Marcia Ishii-Eiteman, senior scientist with Pesticide Action Network, in a statement released by the groups. “Additional consolidation will increase prices and further limit choices for farmers, while allowing Monsanto and friends to continue pushing a model of agriculture that has given us superweeds, superbugs, and health-harming pesticides. Instead, we need to invest in agroecological, resilient, and productive farming.”

Kiki Hubbard, director of advocacy for Organic Seed Alliance, noted that all farmers “experience the negative consequences of seed consolidation. Organic farmers in particular are already underserved by the industry because the dominant players only invest in seed technologies and chemical production systems that are in conflict with organic farming practices.”

“The last thing that U.S. agriculture needs now is more concentration,” added Michael Sligh of the Rural Advancement Foundation International. “What farmers need is more regionally and locally-adapted seeds choices and more biodiversity. Concentration lead to higher seed prices for farmers and lower take home pay.”




“The shocking consolidation in the biotech seed and agrochemical industry turns our food system over to a cabal of chemical companies, undermining family farmers and consumers,” noted Food & Water Watch Executive Director Wenonah Hauter. “We urge federal regulators to block these pending mergers to prevent further corporate control of our food system.”

Son of world’s richest Chinese family causes Dota 2 commentator to cry and apologize




For Dota 2 fans in China, The International 2014 (TI4) is like their version of the FIFA World Cup. And we all know what it’s like staying up late to watch our favorite teams play, only to be met by horrible and completely inept commentators.

Now normally, we would just complain to ourselves. Some might even take it up on social media, but in the end nothing would happen. Well, that’s unless your name is Wang Sicong and your father is the richest person in China, in which case the commentator will end up crying and have to offer an apology on video.

Wang Sicong

Wang Sicong is like your normal Chinese Dota 2 fan. He loves his country, he loves the game, and he watches streams of TI4 matches in Seattle, despite the 15-hour time difference. Except he also happens to be the son of China’s richest man, Wang Jianlin, and he was really pissed off with the commentary by two lovebirds, Mik and her boyfriend Xiao Tian. So he decided to take it up on Weibo:

Ouch. Even before this case, commentary from Mik and Xiao Tian was already met with ridicule by players, with some saying that Mik’s unique yell while casting could “make a dog deaf”. Double-ouch.




But as a professional who knows how to deal with criticism, Mik responds in a standard fashion, saying that everyone should just respect each other:

Via her live broadcast, she also added:

Our commentary style is how it is. We’re not going to change because of some spoiled rich kid. If you don’t like it, just mute us, or switch commentary. I will give myself some self-criticism and provide even better commentary to everyone.

All is good, and Mik is clearly done with the topic. Or so we thought, until she took off her headset during a live broadcast and said to her partner: “is that Wang Sicong guy retarded or what?”

How do we know this? Because her microphone was still on. In fact, all of her viewers heard it as well, including Wang Sicong himself. Triple-ouch.

His response:

And you’re going to badmouth me on a live broadcast. Who the fuck are you trying to impress? I won’t say any more about the fact that you don’t understand Dota 2, but to display your lack of intelligence and manners on a live stream, stop losing face for China.

And of course, when someone screws up as royally as Mik did, especially when the other side is money-incarnate, you can bet there’s going to be a public apology involved.

Mik (left) and boyfriend Xiao Tian (right).

So there are two important lessons to be learned here:
First, ignore what anybody says online and learn to take criticism, because you can’t be liked by everyone. Second, make sure your microphone is muted.




$13.7m NZ Taxpayer Funds Pledged To Shady Clinton Charity




It has been revealed that millions of New Zealand taxpayer dollars have been donated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) to Hillary Clinton’s charity, the Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI), a non-profit organisation created from the Clinton Foundation with the stated goal to reduce HIV/AIDs in Africa.

An MFAT spokesman confirmed to the NBR that between January 2010 and June 2016, $7.7 million of taxpayer funds had already been donated and another $6 million was to follow, keeping to a pledge to donate $13.7 million made by the government organisation in 2013.

ACT party member David Seymour commented “In a world where New Zealanders can crowdsource to buy a beach, it’s not clear what role there is for the government to collect taxes and contribute it to a global charity which is more than capable of reaching out and raising its own money.”

The big question is, why is our government sending millions of dollars overseas while at the same time cutting funding for crucial services which desperately need the money here in New Zealand?

To fully understand how Clinton charities operate and decide whether a single taxpayer dollar should have been donated, we first need to look at some of the controversies.

Over the past 15 years, the Washington Post can reveal the charities have raised over $2 billion dollars, mainly from big corporates, foreign governments and political donors. Many have called the contributions ‘pay for play’, where powerful donors exchange funds for future political favours. Speeches make up a large part of the revenue stream, with the Clintons earning hundreds of thousands per speech from the likes of big Wall Street banks including Goldman Sachs as revealed by WikiLeaks.

Clinton’s charity has confirmed that in 2012, Qatar donated US $1 million to the Clinton Foundation raising a question of ethics after Hillary promised that while she was serving as secretary of the state donations from foreign governments would no longer be accepted due to the potential influence on foreign policy.

It was also been revealed the Clinton charities utilised the devastating Haiti earthquake to implement disaster capitalism, funneling funds into Haiti under the pretense of aid but only for the funds to flow away from the Haitians desperately in need and instead to companies who had made previously large donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Then there is the $145 million ‘pay for play’ contributions made to the Clinton Foundation by shareholders of Canadian company Uranium One, a mining company with concessions in Kazakhstan and the US. Uranium One sought to sell these concessions to the Russians, but the deal had to be approved by a government committee due to the implications to national security.

In return for the contributions and the extra $500,000 Bill Clinton received in speaking fees from a Russian investment bank, the 20% purchase of US uranium assets by the Russians was approved, knowing this purchase would mean the production of more nuclear weapons against America’s own interests.

The Clinton Health Access Initiative has also had its share of controversy.




US Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn recently released a 71 page report which slammed CHAI’s “self-serving” philanthropy in Africa, after the charity was found distributing watered down HIV/AIDS medications to sick Africans.

According to the report, these cheaper drugs which were provided by Ranbaxy Laboratories “subjected patients to increased risks of morbidity and mortality”. Ranbaxy later was found guilty of selling badly made generic drugs and fined a record US$500 million.

If Hillary is elected president, she has committed to changing how the Clinton Foundation operates. Bill Clinton has said “The Foundation will accept contributions only from U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and U.S.-based independent foundations, whose names we will continue to make public on a quarterly basis. And we will change the official name from the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation to the Clinton Foundation. While I will continue to support the work of the Foundation, I will step down from the Board and will no longer raise funds for it.”

However, CHAI, which receives around 60% of the funds from the Clinton Foundation, has yet to decide whether it will also refuse foreign government donations if she was to win, and when asked for comment on CHAI the Clinton campaign spokesman declined.

There’s no doubt the Clinton charities have done some incredible work overseas through CHAI, but the manner in which these charities are utilised as vehicles for personal benefit can not be ignored. With strong financial ties to Wall Street, big pharmaceuticals and other large corporate sponsors, it’s clear the charities are being used as avenues to channel funds under the guise of philanthropy.

What is of great concern here in New Zealand is the level of taxpayer funded donations made to Hillary’s charity without public knowledge, and how quiet the mainstream media has been about it.

John Key and the National Party clearly have no issue using millions of taxpayer funds as bribes, revealed by the corrupt Saudi sheep deal, so it should be of no surprise to see the government fund a shady charity found to be acting only for ‘self serving’ interests.




We need to hold our government accountable for where taxpayer funds are being applied, especially when gifted to charities operated by corrupt American political figureheads.

Our country currently can not afford to be sending millions of dollars overseas. Instead of donating the remaining $6 million pledged to CHAI, we demand that MFAT reallocate the funds within New Zealand to help assist those struggling under our poverty and homelessness crisis.

For an excellent review of the Clinton Foundation, please have a read through the Washington Post’s feature ‘Inside the Clinton Donor Network’.

Future expansions planned by Blizzard, from late 2003.

So my computer died yesterday, leaving me no choice but to dig up my old laptop as my newer one is currently on loan to my mom. What an ancient thing. 8 gig hard drive, Windows 98, and just enough RAM to have a PDF file and internet explorer working at once…with a wait time of about 30 seconds every time I change windows. Useless for everything except surfing the internet for help reviving my desktop PC. As I waited for replies on tech support forums, I dug around a bit and found an old folder filled with crap I saved from my old desktop. I had kept the stuff there to transfer to my new PC, but it looks like I didn’t care enough to go through with it.




Stuffed inside the folder were a crapload of documents and stuff pertaining to the World of Warcraft alpha and beta, back before I even cared about the game. I had been sent the stuff from my friend, who was in the friends-and-family beta that preceded the general closed beta in early 2004. Most of the documents were plastered with ‘2003’. A lot of them were boring, and I can’t remember reading any of them. Maybe I looked at a couple and decided it was boring crap.

However, nearly four years later, I had enough of a mind to peruse them all. A lot of PDF-format conversions of early Gamespy previews, patents Blizzard took out for WoW, and so forth. I did find, however, a list of ‘possible expansion sets’ that looks really interesting. Some of the stuff looks a bit off, especially some of Outland and Northrend, so Blizzard isn’t liable to stick to the rest of the plan down to the letter. But the quaint little PDF lists five expansion sets and the regions within. It goes as high as level 100. Nothing about it looks very official, though…it was nothing more than a wordpad document pasted into a PDF document, but I think it’s of Blizzardly origins. I assume no responsibility for your actions if this list spurs you to run to the nearest auction house and buy thousands of golds’ worth in armor so you can be ready for the Maelstrom.




Draenor Set

Azuremyst Isle – 1 to 10
Bloodmyrk Isle – 10 to 20

Eversong Forest – 1 to 10
Quel’thalas – 10 to 20
Hellfire Peninsula – 58 to 62
Zangarmarsh – 60 to 64
Terokkar Forest – 61 to 65
The Deadlands – 63 to 67
Nagrand – 64 to 68
Blade’s Edge Mountains – 66 to 70
Netherstorm – 67 to 70
Shadowmoon Valley – 69 to 70

Northrend Set

Borean Tundra – 67 to 70
Howling Fjord – 67 to 70
Dragonblight – 69 to 72
Grizzly Hills – 70 to 73
Crystalsong Forest – 72 to 75
Zul’drak – 73 to 76
Sholazar Basin – 75 to 79
Storm Peaks – 76 to 80
Icecrown Glacier – 78 to 80




Maelstrom Set

Gilneas – 77 to 80
Grim Batol – 78 to 81
Kul Tiras – 79 to 82
Kezan – 81 to 86
Tel Abim – 83 to 85
Zandalar – 84 to 87
Plunder Isle – 86 to 88
The Broken Isles – 87 to 90
The Maelstrom – 89 to 90

Plane Set

Pandaria – 1 to 10
Hiji – 10 to 20

Wolfenhold – 1 to 10
Xorothian Plains – 10 to 20

The Green Lands – 88 to 91
The Dying Paradise – 91 to 94
The Emerald Nightmare – 94 to 97
The Eye of Ysera – 97 to 100

Deephome – 88 to 91
Skywall – 91 to 94
The Abyssal Maw – 94 to 97
The Firelands – 97 to 100

Legion Set

K’aresh – 96 to 99
Argus Meadowlands – 97 to 100
Mac’Aree – 99 to 100
Maw of Oblivion – 100+
The Burning Citadel – 100+++

I’m not sure what the plus signs indicate. I’m trying to get in touch with my friend (we had a falling-out a year and a half ago) to ascertain the origin of this strange little file.

Nearly Half Of Americans Have Less Than $500 In Savings: Survey




Nearly half of Americans don’t have more than $500 saved up, according to a recent study by CreditDonkey.com, a credit card comparison company. Of the roughly 1,100 Americans polled, 41 percent reported having less than half a grand of readily-accessible savings at hand.

With the country struggling to recover income lost during the recession, the study isn’t the first to make clear the desperate state of so many Americans’ finances. Back in March, it was estimated that less than a third of American workers had savings of $1,000 or less, according to a study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute.

That lack of savings means most Americans have little in the way of a backup plan when things get tough. Indeed, over two thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck, a survey by the American Payroll Association found last month.




Perhaps that explains the retirement anxiety, which has begun to afflict some people still in their thirties. Many Americans have even more pressing concerns: 45 percent told CreditDonkey.com that they fear they’ll never be able to save much money at all.