And you have no idea which of those people this woman might be.  No idea where on the “spectrum” she might be.  Why are you so determined that your arbitrary math is more valid than anyone else’s?  You can’t just say “She has a level xx character, so I can therefore tell you she spends this much time a day gaming.  You just can’t.

Also, if you look at her in the WoW armory, based on her “recent” achieves, she plays pretty casually, and has for a while.  She’s also still 85, while I, playing only 30-60 minutes a day since MoP release, am level 87.

I think democracy is safe if we elect this woman.

“Colleen Lachowicz spends hundreds of hours playing a holy priest… but doesn’t she know about the separation of church and state? Or does she just think she’s holier than thou?

Colleen Lachowicz: not holy, not a priest.” 

Your results may differ.  You can’t just spend two seconds sniping/bragging with an anecdote about how you and your friend are more efficient levelers and call it a day.

But that’s exactly what you’re doing — you’re claiming on the basis of (I guess) your own anecdotal experience that this woman must be obsessive because because because.  Look at your numbered points.  It’s all innuendo.  You’re implying this all applies to this woman but you’ve done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that’s the case.  You accuse others of basing their arguments on anecdotal evidence but what evidence have you provided?

That’s ignoring the fact that this isn’t the argument being made in the flier so it’s not really relevant to the thread. 

I think his point is that if real violence doesn’t necessarily make someone unfit for office, video game violence definitely doesn’t make someone unfit for office.

I don’t think GAMING is the problem.  At all. I think this thread demonstrates that gamers may be a little more touchy and defensive than other hobbyists. But that’s with good reason. There’s always been some idiot crusader claiming Mortal Kombat or GTA was going to rot our brains and morally bankrupt us. And in part, this flier tries to capitalize on that sensationalism (the whole ‘I love poisoning and stabbing’ part.  Like duh, she’s a rogue). I should be clear that I don’t think gaming is any more or less valid than any other hobby.  I enjoy – and overindulge in – a lot of different hobbies, including tons of gaming.  

Generally, I don’t begrudge anyone, of any age, the right to spend their time as they see fit.  But we are talking about public office. So I think the stakes are a little higher. Let’s say this election was in my State.  We’d be talking about an EMPLOYEE of mine. Of ours. An agent who might completely represent my interests, or who might completely negate them. I think it’s perfectly fair that if I suspect the person has too many balls in play to zealously represent my interests, that I won’t vote for them. It’s a little bit like issue voting. Say a politician has ties to Halliburton.  Say I’m ambivalent towards, but don’t actively dislike Halliburton (this is a hypothetical). It still hurts that politician if I suspect they’ll have to spend a considerable amount of time and effort courting Halliburton and its interests.  That’s time and effort that won’t be spent elsewhere, on my interests.  

I’m happy that you can balance your work life and hobbies so well, DoC.  In fact, I’m a little jealous. But this anecdotal stuff still doesn’t do it for me. Not every person who has a level 85 character will let it hurt their work performance. You’re a great example of this. But by the same token, not every person who has a level 85 character WON’T let it hurt their work performance. There’s no magic number of hours. It’s a spectrum, a window. And I think she’s solidly within the window where, without an exceptionally fastidious sense of time management like yours, her work performance is probably going to suffer a little.  And you know what?  Probably – when it comes to someone speaking (or not speaking) on my behalf when laws are written – is all I need. None of us can know for certain in advance how politicians or going to perform or vote. We can ONLY infer. We don’t wait until AFTER her term – when we know for certain that WoW didn’t affect her work performance – to vote.  

In reference to your numbered points:

1. Sure, there’s plenty of evidence that people with addictive personalities have problems with online games. This ad doesn’t claim that.

2. Is that point reached most often by max-level characters? I cannot agree with that blanket statement. I can agree that some addictive-types are probably max-level, but that does not infer that players with max-level characters are addictive personalities. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit is apples.

3. Yes, there are a finite number of hours per day, and yes, people do need six or more hours of sleep.

4. Not really sure where you’re going with number 4 – separate activities are separate. And yes, politicians do flake out on responsibilities – although that point is not made in this attack ad. Again, she’s being smeared for playing a game, not for avoiding her job responsibilities.

5. Yes, past performance is an indicator of future performance. She’s played WoW in the past, she may play it in the future. How is that relevant to anything?

You CAN be successful, ambitious and a gamer. It’s called good time management. Where some people choose to veg out in front of the TV for leisure, I play video games. That doesn’t mean I am doing it when I’m supposed to be working. That would be stupid. As I’m sure this woman would agree.  

What it really comes down to is people choose to use the free time they have differently – some camp, some travel, some read, some watch TV or go to sporting events and some game. If I’d rather level an orc to 85 (which I have), than go to the movies or the mall or whatever, that’s my own business. But it’s ridiculous to assume that how I spend my free time (as a responsible adult) is a hindrance to my professional life or my ability to get things done.

Which world is “ours?”  Certainly not the real one.

And if I know that a candidate has a record of spending so much time hanging it with her kids that it’s per se detrimental to her work performance, I’m going to LIKE that candidate a lot.  But I would still have valid reservations about voting for her. By the same token, I really like that Santiaga is a fellow gamer. But there IS a point where it’s too much.  And she’s crossed that threshold.

And stop making this about yourselves.  I get it, you play even more than Santiaga. Who cares? I’m not attacking you by proxy. Your gaming habits are just fine by me.  Do you speak for thousands of people in a legislative body?  No?  Then grind away.