Discussion: Rule change May 2011

[DeletedUser]

There's so much anger in this game from everyone about everything.

 

[DeletedUser]

These are the forums, not the support system. If you wish to receive customer support you should send in a ticket via our support system. All players are treated equally on the forums whether they pay for premium or not. If they act in a rude or disrespectful way we will not spend our time dealing with them when polite and courteous customers require our attention.

You are right though. When we spend large amounts of unpaid, volunteer time (we're not paid to do this specific task) improving the rules to improve the game for players only to be accused of doing so so we can ban players and earn more money then I have very little care or regard for their opinion. I'm paid to do one or two hours work per day. I started at 9am today, and it's now 11:16pm and I'm still working on things. If you have any other expectations then I'm sorry but they are grossly unrealistic.

@candidus: Sounds fine.

Do not sit here and whine and complain about your job satisfaction. I run my own business, and I can tell you that my clients do not care whether I like my job or not. They do not care whether I have to put in extra time or not to get the job done. They simply care that I get the job done. Your problems with your job are your problems, it's not the customer's responsibility to accommodate you. You say that I'm making wild accusations. I say that I'm not. I know how business works, I know how predatory practices work. And the fact that you are here bashing me for my complaints provides evidence toward two conclusions.

1. You do not actually respect your customers at all.
2. You are engaging in predatory business practices.

Shifting the blame to the customer for the customer's loss is a classic example of predatory practices. Sit here and deny it as much as you want, sit here and insult me as much as you want (BTW, insulting me does not actually disprove what I have said. It merely makes an illogical detour in hopes of AVOIDING having to support your own position). But you are showing your true colors with everything you say, and everyone reading this is seeing it. You're not fooling people. At least, not the majority of people.

As a businessman, if my clients raised a concern about our written agreements for services rendered, especially if their concern was in regards to a new change that I was making, there is no way in HELL I would react the way you are reacting. Even if I thought what they were saying was wild speculation, there is no way that I would insult them the way you are here insulting me. There is no way I would dismiss them. I would address their concerns, I would listen to my clients, and I would match my services to fit what my clients want.

The issue of 13 year old kids was mentioned earlier. I find this very telling. It's clear that the tribalwars team explicitly favors 13 year old kids playing the game, as opposed to a more mature client base. You insist on "protecting" them, even at the expense of slighting your other customers. I expect this is because it's easier money. Kids don't complain, they simply take what they are given. Adult clients will have specific desires and will object to services rendered that do not live up to their expectations. So once again, the words of you and your staff are demonstrating that your intentions are to engage in predatory business practices.

Now, if I am wrong, then it's going to be up to you to demonstrate that fact, not through your words, but through your actions. Because it's clear that I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion. And as much as you might try to insult your way out of it, I've raised entirely valid points which other people understand.

 

[DeletedUser77522]

There's so much anger in this game from everyone about everything.

I had my little whine about rule 268 something about restarting.
I'm happy compared to a few people here complaining about customer satisfaction.

I still think that if you manage to 'trick' a player into restarting (weather you bribe them or not). Its their own fault for restarting and that should teach that person, not to trust the first person that talks to you or replies to your mails.

You can only trick a person with the same thing once.

Perhaps instead of punishing the tricker you could just treat the fool with an extra tutorial upon restarting for the first time... Just a thought

 

[DeletedUser]

Soon, it will be against the rules to send fake trains at one village to draw support away from your real target.

I like how it's being said that this is a minor change that has no real effect on the game. If that is the way innogames feels, then why did they make the change? And why are they so resistant and rude to people raising objections to it? That's like saying a bank robber doesn't expect to actually get any money out of the job. Obviously they believe it will have an effect.

I also like how Morthy talks about how they don't intend their rules to have the level of detail of a legal contract or a law. Yet they've made extremely minor changes which they say don't actually change the rules, for the sake of "clarification." Morthy even points out how it was apparently a problem for them that the old rules said "log in" instead of "access," and how technically the way the rule was written would allow you to play your brother or sister's account after they did the logging in. That sounds like an awful lot of splitting hairs and asinine obsession with technicalities, for what's supposed to allegedly be a set of rules that are as short and simple as possible, and are not meant to have the level of detail so described.

 

[DeletedUser]

...

So on one hand you want tribal wars to be less of a community and more of a business, yet on the other complain about the amount of rules? :icon_confused:

I agree with what Morthy must be thinking right now about you.

 

[A humble player]

Soon, it will be against the rules to send fake trains at one village to draw support away from your real target.

I see

I like how it's being said that this is a minor change that has no real effect on the game. If that is the way innogames feels, then why did they make the change? And why are they so resistant and rude to people raising objections to it? That's like saying a bank robber doesn't expect to actually get any money out of the job. Obviously they believe it will have an effect.

Lets say you own a store. I walk in one day and tell you your customer service is crap, in an extraordinarily crowded room, fill of many of your customers. I know many a store owner that would tell someone to leave, as a business owner (or worker in morthy's case), that is his right.

I also like how Morthy talks about how they don't intend their rules to have the level of detail of a legal contract or a law. Yet they've made extremely minor changes which they say don't actually change the rules, for the sake of "clarification." Morthy even points out how it was apparently a problem for them that the old rules said "log in" instead of "access," and how technically the way the rule was written would allow you to play your brother or sister's account after they did the logging in.

Actually no, there are some ways of accessing an account without logging in through normal channels, this precipitated the rule change.

That sounds like an awful lot of splitting hairs and asinine obsession with technicalities, for what's supposed to allegedly be a set of rules that are as short and simple as possible, and are not meant to have the level of detail so described.

And I don't see an issue with changing a single word, the problem would be changing "log in" to "log in, or access an account other than your own through any means including but not limited to using the log in page, the email log in link, and using someone else to log into the account for you.'
Also nice straw man, or as you like to say "AVOIDING having to support your own position"

Do not sit here and whine and complain about your job satisfaction. I run my own business, and I can tell you that my clients do not care whether I like my job or not. They do not care whether I have to put in extra time or not to get the job done. They simply care that I get the job done. Your problems with your job are your problems, it's not the customer's responsibility to accommodate you.

You volunteer all your extra time? Didn't think so.

You say that I'm making wild accusations. I say that I'm not. I know how business works, I know how predatory practices work. And the fact that you are here bashing me for my complaints provides evidence toward two conclusions.

4 fallacies: 3 appeals to authority, 1 ad hominem, meaning this section is entirely fallacious.

1. You do not actually respect your customers at all.
2. You are engaging in predatory business practices.

Well erm, I can say the first is a blatant lie. I could get many a person to flood this thread with posts about how morthy is an extraordinarily involved, and great head, and quite a funny guy too. That also removes much argument from the second.

Shifting the blame to the customer for the customer's loss is a classic example of predatory practices. Sit here and deny it as much as you want, sit here and insult me as much as you want (BTW, insulting me does not actually disprove what I have said. It merely makes an illogical detour in hopes of AVOIDING having to support your own position). But you are showing your true colors with everything you say, and everyone reading this is seeing it. You're not fooling people. At least, not the majority of people.

Actually, last time I checked, most predatory buisness practices had to do with fees and pricing. Crappy customer service (which is what you are saying they have) is nothing at all related to predatory practices.

As a businessman, if my clients raised a concern about our written agreements for services rendered, especially if their concern was in regards to a new change that I was making, there is no way in HELL I would react the way you are reacting. Even if I thought what they were saying was wild speculation, there is no way that I would insult them the way you are here insulting me. There is no way I would dismiss them. I would address their concerns, I would listen to my clients, and I would match my services to fit what my clients want.

Even if this client publically complained about the fact that your cake had too much icing, and when you politely explained that there was nothing unusual about the icing, as a matter of fact it was the same icing as the previous 30 cakes he had purchased, he proceeded to publically proclaim you an idiot and someone

The issue of 13 year old kids was mentioned earlier. I find this very telling. It's clear that the tribalwars team explicitly favors 13 year old kids playing the game, as opposed to a more mature client base. You insist on "protecting" them, even at the expense of slighting your other customers. I expect this is because it's easier money. Kids don't complain, they simply take what they are given. Adult clients will have specific desires and will object to services rendered that do not live up to their expectations. So once again, the words of you and your staff are demonstrating that your intentions are to engage in predatory business practices.

I've found exactly the opposite to be true, kids are much more demanding of games, and wish for things to fit their needs much better, hence the large portion of skilled players are 18+ (and since I know the ten players who have been rank one the most times in all of TW, I can say that with more proof than anything you have claimed).

Now, if I am wrong, then it's going to be up to you to demonstrate that fact, not through your words, but through your actions. Because it's clear that I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion. And as much as you might try to insult your way out of it, I've raised entirely valid points which other people understand.

The burden is in fact not on him to disprove you, it is on you to make an argument with facts too.
Otherwise I could simply say this:
Super jew is a 6 year old child with no experience in anything other than heckling well run and well established businesses. He is also an internet troll.
That statement had as much proof as anything you have said, even while you demand proof. Mine is in the posts.

 

[DeletedUser]

If I had such a shop, and my customer service credentials were challenged in front of other customers, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate my excellent customer service skills. Insulting the customer would only serve to prove him right.

And, just so you know, a straw man is when you argue against a point that nobody made. But that's not what I did. I specifically argued against what Morthy has said.

 

[A humble player]

If I had such a shop, and my customer service credentials were challenged in front of other customers, I would take the opportunity to demonstrate my excellent customer service skills. Insulting the customer would only serve to prove him right.

And, just so you know, a straw man is when you argue against a point that nobody made. But that's not what I did. I specifically argued against what Morthy has said.

Actually no, morthy said that he intended to clear of confusion that players had had.
You twisted that into an argument about semantics, when apparently multiple people had in fact been confused by it, hence straw man. You twisted his statement into one that better suited your needs, and responded to it.

Also, feel free to reply to my entire post instead of ignoring the majority of it because you have no intelligent way to respond.

 

[DeletedUser]

You have nothing intelligent to say in the first place. You want to talk about twisting things around and semantics games. You are the only one doing that.

 

[DeletedUser]

You have nothing intelligent to say in the first place. You want to talk about twisting things around and semantics games. You are the only one doing that.

[SPOIL]I also like how Morthy talks about how they don't intend their rules to have the level of detail of a legal contract or a law. Yet they've made extremely minor changes which they say don't actually change the rules, for the sake of "clarification." Morthy even points out how it was apparently a problem for them that the old rules said "log in" instead of "access," and how technically the way the rule was written would allow you to play your brother or sister's account after they did the logging in. That sounds like an awful lot of splitting hairs and asinine obsession with technicalities, for what's supposed to allegedly be a set of rules that are as short and simple as possible, and are not meant to have the level of detail so described.[/SPOIL]

You brought up the semantics in the first place? :icon_neutral: Your entire rant has been about semantics, and now you're trying to brush everyone else's arguments off as "semantics"? Are you... What... Huh? :icon_confused:

 

[DeletedUser]

The semantics of this situation is just like every situation since world 1 (where I began). Rules change, people "discuss", and people flame... check every other thread, you will see the same.

Anyone can "spin" anything to be bad or good, with a little creativity and cleverness. Voicing your opinion is just that, it's opinion, if it turns into a "rant", it's a matter of opinion in the end, isn't it?

This thread was created to discuss the rule changes and (unless I'm mistaken) ask for some clarification for specific instances. NOT to discuss if the discussion is appropriate or not... If someone doesn't like the change, so be it, if someone doesn't like the responses, so be it... it's at the very least a good read

 

[A humble player]

You have nothing intelligent to say in the first place. You want to talk about twisting things around and semantics games. You are the only one doing that.

I have nothing intelligent to say?
In addition to what harbinger said, lets look at this:
You joined (on this account) around 2 weeks ago. Since then you have made 27 posts.
Your first complained about no hauls, your next 4 were discussing how to best go about playing on it.
Your 6th post was actually slightly entertaining, a joke about the end of the world guy.
Your next 3 posts ignored the suggestions and discussions forum rules, and in the wrong place suggested quite horrifying world settings.
Post 10 was pro barb nobling.
Post 11 was, and I quote "bashing is gay," yes sarcastic, however still unnecessary.
Your next 5 were about world PnP. Every post since then has been complaining about either no hauls or this rule change. So, of your 27 posts, 11 complains about something, 3 ignoring rules. Half your posts are complaining about something, or ignoring the forum rules. ANd yous ay that I have nothing useful to say...

 

[mattcurr]

Do not sit here and whine and complain about your job satisfaction. I run my own business, and I can tell you that my clients do not care whether I like my job or not. They do not care whether I have to put in extra time or not to get the job done. They simply care that I get the job done. Your problems with your job are your problems, it's not the customer's responsibility to accommodate you. You say that I'm making wild accusations. I say that I'm not. I know how business works, I know how predatory practices work. And the fact that you are here bashing me for my complaints provides evidence toward two conclusions.

1. You do not actually respect your customers at all.
2. You are engaging in predatory business practices.

Shifting the blame to the customer for the customer's loss is a classic example of predatory practices. Sit here and deny it as much as you want, sit here and insult me as much as you want (BTW, insulting me does not actually disprove what I have said. It merely makes an illogical detour in hopes of AVOIDING having to support your own position). But you are showing your true colors with everything you say, and everyone reading this is seeing it. You're not fooling people. At least, not the majority of people.

As a businessman, if my clients raised a concern about our written agreements for services rendered, especially if their concern was in regards to a new change that I was making, there is no way in HELL I would react the way you are reacting. Even if I thought what they were saying was wild speculation, there is no way that I would insult them the way you are here insulting me. There is no way I would dismiss them. I would address their concerns, I would listen to my clients, and I would match my services to fit what my clients want.

The issue of 13 year old kids was mentioned earlier. I find this very telling. It's clear that the tribalwars team explicitly favors 13 year old kids playing the game, as opposed to a more mature client base. You insist on "protecting" them, even at the expense of slighting your other customers. I expect this is because it's easier money. Kids don't complain, they simply take what they are given. Adult clients will have specific desires and will object to services rendered that do not live up to their expectations. So once again, the words of you and your staff are demonstrating that your intentions are to engage in predatory business practices.

Now, if I am wrong, then it's going to be up to you to demonstrate that fact, not through your words, but through your actions. Because it's clear that I'm not the only one who has drawn this conclusion. And as much as you might try to insult your way out of it, I've raised entirely valid points which other people understand.

:icon_neutral: I kick people out a theme park all day and I normally kick 10-30 people off of my ride per day, with no refund(one of the rides costs 40 usd per person).. And my father, who owns a business refuses service to people as well.:icon_neutral: The costumer is not always right.

 

[DeletedUser93439]

:icon_neutral: I kick people out a theme park all day and I normally kick 10-30 people off of my ride per day, with no refund(one of the rides costs 40 usd per person).. And my father, who owns a business refuses service to people as well.:icon_neutral: The costumer is not always right.

You own a theme park? I worked at one and kicking of people is usually the most fun part... all the stupid reasons they can come up with.

 

[DeletedUser]

You brought up the semantics in the first place? :icon_neutral: Your entire rant has been about semantics, and now you're trying to brush everyone else's arguments off as "semantics"? Are you... What... Huh? :icon_confused:

That's not at all what I'm doing. Morthy is the one who made the claim that at least one of the changes was nothing more than rewording, that did not actually effect the meaning of the rule, but then pointed out that the earlier rule, based on its particular wording, actually allowed such and such. Thus, according to Morthy, the change is essentially a semantics change. That, I would have no issue with in and of itself. But Morthy then goes on to complain that someone has a "problem" if they expect the rules to be highly detailed "like a legal contract or law." Morthy's objection is rather puzzling, seeing as innogames, by making a change to the rules that is nothing more than semantics, seems to demonstrate that they too want to make the rules explicitly clear. It also shows that, according to what Morthy has told us, the effect of the rule did change, and was apparently necessary in order to make the rule have the specific effect that they intended all along.

All I did in pointing all this out is that Morthy's comments do not add up. Either they want the wording of the rules to have the kind of detailed and specific effects that would be found in a legal contract or law, or they do not. Morthy says they do not, but his further comments, as well as the action of changing this rule, demonstrate otherwise. Me pointing this out does not constitute a semantics argument. It constitutes a logic argument, specifically that the sum total contradicts itself.

Humble then went on to accuse me of making straw man arguments. That was not at all true, and I explained why. Then he accuses me tries to contort the meaning of a straw man so that he can accuse me of playing semantics. So, as I said, the only one actually playing the semantics game is him.

He then goes on to complain that I'm apparently making fallacious appeals to authority (which I never did, I merely pointed out that have an understanding of the subject) and ad hominems, all while calling me a six year old, calling me unintelligent, and trying to smear my image by presenting a false overview of my posting history. You can agree or disagree with my opinions on these rule changes all you like, that's my prerogative. But I certainly am not that kind of hypocrite. Humble has demonstrated very clearly that he has no interest in having an intelligent conversation about anything here. He just wants to try to find someone to try and pick on.

 

[DeletedUser]

I have nothing intelligent to say?

No, you don't. You complain about alleged fallacies, that are not there. You then commit those very same fallacies. That's not intelligent. You jumped in, out of nowhere, and take a hostile position against someone whom you don't even know, for nothing more than having an opinion which you, presumably, disagree with. None of that is indicative of someone who even wants to have an intelligent conversation. More so of a person who just wants to act like an ass because you seem to think you're so big, bad, and tough.

Your first complained about no hauls, your next 4 were discussing how to best go about playing on it.

Okay, you want to go through and pick crap apart. Fine. My post was not a complaint about the no hauls setting. It was a question about how this came to be. I never would have thought that I'd come back to the game and found a world with a no haul setting. It was rather shocking. I did call the situation "mess" but perhaps you simply didn't grasp the sarcasm. It's kinda like when you introduce your best friend to your new boy/girl fried as a jerk. In that very post, I made it clear that I intended to play w56. It was IN THAT FIRST POST, that I asked for advice from people on how to adapt to the settings. Now how can you call that post a "complaint" about the the settings, when that very same post makes it clear that I wanted to play the world? Obviously, if I didn't like the world settings, I just wouldn't play it. It's amazing, that yet again you're playing semantics in an attempt to look bad.

Your next 3 posts ignored the suggestions and discussions forum rules, and in the wrong place suggested quite horrifying world settings.

You can dislike the settings that I suggested all you want. But none of that has anything to do with this discussion here. Why are you going off on tangents?

Post 10 was pro barb nobling.

Er, no, that post was in a thread that posed the question about whether the settings of w56 created strategic reasons why nobling barbs might be more acceptable than would generally be the case in other worlds. My post merely conceded that, given the world settings, I'll have to be more open minded about which targets I choose to noble.

Post 11 was, and I quote "bashing is gay," yes sarcastic, however still unnecessary.

Wait, it's okay for you to object to barb nobling as a tactic, but it's unnecessary for me to object to bashing as a tactic? That makes no sense.

Your next 5 were about world PnP. Every post since then has been complaining about either no hauls or this rule change.

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the rule changes. The fact that you object to me discussing them is, well, not intelligent.

So, of your 27 posts, 11 complains about something, 3 ignoring rules. Half your posts are complaining about something, or ignoring the forum rules. ANd yous ay that I have nothing useful to say...

Here's a question for you....if you find my posts so apparently useless, why have you bothered yourself to take so much notice to my posts that you can give a complete (albeit misrepresented) history of my postings? Maybe no hauls has left you with too much spare time on your hands.

 

[DeletedUser]

:icon_neutral: I kick people out a theme park all day and I normally kick 10-30 people off of my ride per day, with no refund(one of the rides costs 40 usd per person).. And my father, who owns a business refuses service to people as well.:icon_neutral: The costumer is not always right.

I never said that the customer is always right. I think Raven might have said that, but not me. Just today, I had to take care of a guest who wanted me to do something that would have been illegal. She certainly was not right, she was very wrong. But do you think that the proper response would have been for me to call her names? Of course not. That would have been horrible customer service. Instead, I had to listen to her concerns, I had to explain to her the reasons I could not do what she was asking, and I had to make what efforts to still offer her services for which she would be willing to pay me.

I understand that you can't make everyone happy, and that not all products are for all people. My objections to Morthy's customer service, or lack thereof, is that he simply does not seem to care much for the people who are paying. He's all to willing to simply tell them "I don't care, don't want to hear it, so get out." His approach is all wrong, and based on his and the of the staff's behavior, I challenge whether innogames actually values their customers. They claim that they are doing such and such to "protect" their customers. But I question the truth behind that because they are, at most, protecting a minority group of their customers, to the dissatisfaction of overall service and product experience of the majority. And, because the history shows a noteworthy loss of customer base that customers continually attribute to said actions.

 

[DeletedUser]

All I did in pointing all this out is that Morthy's comments do not add up. Either they want the wording of the rules to have the kind of detailed and specific effects that would be found in a legal contract or law, or they do not.

So your whole 5000 word ramble is about a post he made in between 4 or 5 of these update threads, handling the in-game updates, dealing with a whole lot of people like you, general admin stuff, etc not making sense?

He just wants to try to find someone to try and pick on.

You really think he has the time or interest in singling out someone to argue over pointless stuff with? You're not even ranting about the change, you're ranting about his post? What is the point? :icon_neutral:

 

[A humble player]

That's not at all what I'm doing. Morthy is the one who made the claim that at least one of the changes was nothing more than rewording, that did not actually effect the meaning of the rule, but then pointed out that the earlier rule, based on its particular wording, actually allowed such and such. Thus, according to Morthy, the change is essentially a semantics change. That, I would have no issue with in and of itself. But Morthy then goes on to complain that someone has a "problem" if they expect the rules to be highly detailed "like a legal contract or law." Morthy's objection is rather puzzling, seeing as innogames, by making a change to the rules that is nothing more than semantics, seems to demonstrate that they too want to make the rules explicitly clear. It also shows that, according to what Morthy has told us, the effect of the rule did change, and was apparently necessary in order to make the rule have the specific effect that they intended all along.

All I did in pointing all this out is that Morthy's comments do not add up. Either they want the wording of the rules to have the kind of detailed and specific effects that would be found in a legal contract or law, or they do not. Morthy says they do not, but his further comments, as well as the action of changing this rule, demonstrate otherwise. Me pointing this out does not constitute a semantics argument. It constitutes a logic argument, specifically that the sum total contradicts itself.

Humble then went on to accuse me of making straw man arguments. That was not at all true, and I explained why. Then he accuses me tries to contort the meaning of a straw man so that he can accuse me of playing semantics. So, as I said, the only one actually playing the semantics game is him.

He then goes on to complain that I'm apparently making fallacious appeals to authority (which I never did, I merely pointed out that have an understanding of the subject) and ad hominems, all while calling me a six year old, calling me unintelligent, and trying to smear my image by presenting a false overview of my posting history. You can agree or disagree with my opinions on these rule changes all you like, that's my prerogative. But I certainly am not that kind of hypocrite. Humble has demonstrated very clearly that he has no interest in having an intelligent conversation about anything here. He just wants to try to find someone to try and pick on.

You write 500 word posts, I then write 22 words that tear them apart. I love to waste time picking on people.

 

[DeletedUser]

You really think he has the time or interest in singling out someone to argue over pointless stuff with? You're not even ranting about the change, you're ranting about his post? What is the point? :icon_neutral:

Apparently he does, because that's what he's doing. And I'm not ranting about anything. I've been here discussing Morthy's and innogames' poor record on customer service and how their actions do not match up with their claims to be interested in "protecting" their customers. Meanwhile Humble keeps ranting about frivolous tangents, seemingly more interested in provoking a personal flamefest that has no bearing on this discussion. Why you want to come here and defend him on it, I don't know.