DeletedUser
Guest
There's so much anger in this game from everyone about everything.
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.
There's so much anger in this game from everyone about everything.
I seeSoon, it will be against the rules to send fake trains at one village to draw support away from your real target.
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 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.
Actually no, there are some ways of accessing an account without logging in through normal channels, this precipitated the rule change.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.
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.'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.
You volunteer all your extra time? Didn't think so.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.
4 fallacies: 3 appeals to authority, 1 ad hominem, meaning this section is entirely fallacious.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.
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.1. You do not actually respect your customers at all.
2. You are engaging in predatory business practices.
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.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.
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 someoneAs 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.
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).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.
The burden is in fact not on him to disprove you, it is on you to make an argument with facts too.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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:
Your first complained about no hauls, your next 4 were discussing how to best go about playing on it.
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...
: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.
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.
He just wants to try to find someone to try and pick on.
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 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: