I think you're confusing "democracy" with "aristocracy". Ultimately, however, "democracy" is "mob rule", where the voting majority gets to dictate to the voting minority (which I think you're actually driving at). In contrast, the US is a "democratic republic", where the "mob's" voted representatives do the dictating (*cough* presumably in line with wishes of their constituency *cough*).

"Is this like Microsoft asserting control over what programmers may code for Windows?"

Absolutely not! Windows is an operating system whose principal purpose, like all other operating systems, is to provide a platform on which applications can run without having to control hardware directly. Who writes the applications is largely irrelevant, just as it is not in the operating system writer's interest to restrict who can write those applications or under which terms (that's not say they can't do so, just that it's not in their best interest).

The simularity between WoW's "engine hooks" and and Windows' APIs is merely that -- a simularity. WoW is itself an application written with Windows' APIs. WoW /needs/ the operating system in order to run, just as WoW's players need Windows to be able to play the game (Mac version and Wine notwithstanding). Windows, however, does not /need/ WoW in order to exist (though it certainly doesn't hurt Microsoft's bottom line).

One can, of course, state the parallel with WoW addons -- that they /need/ WoW's "engine hooks" to function, but WoW does not need user addons to provide a playable game experience. The principal difference, however, is a commercial one...

Applications, not operating systems, are what sell PCs (and its hardly deniable that a large percentage of WoW players likely have PC's in the first place just to play WoW :-p ). Yet, the applications need the operating system (nevermind that an application /could/ be written to talk to the hardware directly), thus it is in Microsoft's interest to make their operating system APIs available "without restriction" to application writers -- in order for the operating system to sell, there must be applications written for it.

Contrast this to whether WoW needs third-party addons written for it for WoW to sell... it does not. If you, a WoW player, bought WoW (and pay monthly fees to Blizzard), simply for the sake being able to use, say, QuestHelper or Auctioneer then you, "sir" are... well, let's just say among a great minority of players from whom the addon writers are also justified in charging fees and claiming the right to do so...

Yet, were this case, then I'd argue that Blizzard would be equally justified in charging additional "license fees" to the addon writers as well. They do not, of course, since though addons might make the game more "enjoyable" for some players, without them Blizzard would probably still have the most successful MMO currently running.

Nope, I got it immediately, and laughed, too. :-p

Technically, WoW, as with most other MMOs like it, is a [computer] role-playing game (CRPG), not an adventure game.

Adventure games are distinguished by their puzzle-solving and exploratory aspects, where exploration is a fundamental component of the puzzle solving.

CRPGs, on the other hand, are distinguished by the player taking on some "bad-ass killing dude" persona and performing "quests" (aka "missions") -- which typically means playing the part of a "bad-ass killing dude" on behalf of a beleaguered NPC. Puzzle-solving has no part in it -- "bad-ass killing dudes", after all, don't want to think and solve problems, they want to kill and become increasingly "bad-ass" (aka "level up"). Likewise, "exploration" is merely a necessary side-effect -- often a despised one -- of finding the target(s) of the NPC's anguish, if not the NPCs themselves. This is most recently exemplified in Blizzard's decision to limit flying mounts in Northrend (site of the Wrath expansion), to level 77+. Their reasoning for this: to ensure players have the opportunity to "explore" their new land, rather than merely passing over most of it from above. An understandable desire considering the amount of work they put into creating it. Yet, this one decision has arguably received more criticism than any other from their many millions of beleaguered "bad-asses" who just want to home in on and kill the latest targets.

As before, no puzzles here... move along all you thinkers.

Privilege against "self-incrimination" means you can't be forced to give testimony, make statements, or generally divulge information about all the naughty little things you've done when suspected of wrong-doing (or not). In most circumstances, this also includes in written form. Iow, you can't be forced to "confess". However, if you willingly provide such information -- even if unwittingly so during a police "interview", on your tax forms, etc. -- then your "privilege" is not violated...

Note that this has nothing to do with having your papers and personal effects seized and searched -- which is what this person was actually arguing against in the wrong context, even if he thought he was doing otherwise. If you've already committed the information to a form which can be seized, then you've already done the harm to yourself... and your "privilege", which you've already 'waived', is not in danger of being violated when they do seize the information. To use the judge's analogy, the police were not forcing him to confess anything, they were merely demanding access to his "house" so they could search it for evidence which they believe is already there! This is something different and, apparently, this person made no objections to that. Did they have a warrant for the search? Did they need a warrant for the search? Those are the questions this person needed to argue.