Curse

Yoshikuni Mahsu · May 27, 2008, 02:28 AM // 02:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by fenix

They are rawr, have earned (albeit, sometimes controversially) 5 gold capes.

Whatever silver cape guild you're talking about, has not.

Rawr helped organise Rawr Cup. Silver cape guild DID NOT.

They hadn't gotten their 5 cape reward cape (STOP SAYING PLATINUM, IT'S THE SAME COLOUR AS SILVER YOU IDIOTS), so they should on their remade guild.

End of discussion.

Read savio's post, this IS NOT ABOUT RAWR BEING DELETED, I understand you're replying to my post (which was equally specific) but if you're going to be specific dont make it about rawr specifically, make it about any guild that wins 5 monthlies.

Anyway, I NEVER EVER EVER said I didnt respect rawr for what they've done for the game, if anyone deserves it they do.

Sadly the court wouldnt give a crap about what rawr has done for the game, a lawyer would simplify it to the point of "one paying customer was treated better than another paying customer".

HawkofStorms · May 27, 2008, 02:29 AM // 02:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yoshikuni Mahsu

Not really as of yet, but the current situation is leading down the road to the sort of thing.

Plat cape guild gets the cape restored.

Silver cape guild doesn't get the cape restored.

The leaders/members/officers of both guilds are customers. Some customers get different treatment than others? Perhaps if you could "buy" your stuff back it would be fair, but obviously that not the case. Sounds fishy to me.

I'm sorry, I missed the LAW passed by your state legislature saying a company can not restore a platinum guild cape without doing the same thing for a silver one.

Read the EULA. A.net can make their own decisions about the product they own. You pay for the right to play on their servers. You have no ownership rights to the characters you make or the digital items you "own" because a.net owns them as they are stored on their servers. That is why a.net can ban people.

As long as they don't discriminate based on race, sex, religion, or creed, a.net can do whatever they want. Until "guild rank" gets added to the list of things it is illegal to discriminate based on a US Supreme Court ruling (since a.net is a US based company) nothing is going to happen.

Grow up and stop ranting.

fenix · May 27, 2008, 02:33 AM // 02:33

As seen in the past, Anet can do what ever they want. They have our money, they can do what ever they feel like, be it bend rules, favour players, etc. I don't care much as long as they don't restore Awowa's account, as no one else gets that done for them.

Giving back a cape to a deleted guild is fine, they earned it after all.

SerenitySilverstar · May 27, 2008, 02:39 AM // 02:39

I <3 Ctrl-Alt-Del

Avarre · May 27, 2008, 02:39 AM // 02:39

ANet owns the servers and all the accounts players use, and have the right to do whatever they want with them.

The world, and more importantly, privately owned property are not always fair. You can complain, but ANet already has your money, so the chances they really care, deep in their hearts, is pretty low.

PS: The above comic becomes better if you remove the middle two panels which are just useless walls of text.

fenix · May 27, 2008, 02:43 AM // 02:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Avarre

ANet owns the servers and all the accounts players use, and have the right to do whatever they want with them.

The world, and more importantly, privately owned property are not always fair. You can complain, but ANet already has your money, so the chances they really care, deep in their hearts, is pretty low.

This post not only delivers, but summarises the entire situation.

Anet most likely don't care what people think, as they have our money, and it's their game. All you own is the right to access their servers. They own all your armor, they own all your heroes, they own all your skill bars. You are just paying to use it.

Ekelon · May 27, 2008, 02:47 AM // 02:47

@OP:
Where did you get the notion that Anet has already decided to favor [rawr]? As far as I know it's memorial day. That means most of America is taking a day off.

/closethread

p.s. love the comic and malice's words of truth

Yoshikuni Mahsu · May 27, 2008, 03:07 AM // 03:07

Ok, maybe I came off wrong, but im not saying they've done anything that could or ever would be considered illegal. What im saying is, the road that things have been going down, they are starting to adopt a dangerous CR policy, by that I mean the increasing mingling between Anet employees (or the company in general) and paying customers.

Now im not saying that "OMG DEVS SHOULDN'T EVER BE ON PUBLIC SERVERS", I know alot of other games have mods and the sort that are out in the populace daily, but the way its been going the mixing has been increasing, and as a result drama, conspiricies, and the sort (and yes, a good portion of those conspiricies are going to be plain stupid), have been increasing aswell. There are potential problems down the road if that trend continues, whether thats GW, GW2, or any other game Anet makes.

In most other games (atleast that I know of) mods or employees are around simply to regulate and ban dem noobz, or they play on they're own purchased account simply as another consumer. GW doesnt have mods obviously, and CR's or devs can go out and talk in purple chat or whatever if they want, as it is they're game, but that sort of uncontrolled, unregulated behavior, though harmless in itself, can lead to problems down the road.

Dr Strangelove · May 27, 2008, 04:42 AM // 04:42

On topic, I'm sure they have a general policy against restoring hacked guilds, lost items, deleted stuff, etc. Once you start allowing it, everyone is going to want it for every little thing, legitimate or not.

From what I hear of the latest [rawr] thing, they recreated the guild and were credited with the capes they earned earlier. It doesn't sound as if any data was restored.

Thom Banglooser · May 27, 2008, 12:40 PM // 12:40

It amazes me how when something bad like this happens in GW, the posts start flying about legality and how the player base will be upset.

Here are some observations of mine from reading the 1st post about raw's name being deleted, this one and the joke of a post on QQ forums.

1st. Anet can do anything they want, it is their game!

2nd. Allot of people are confusing getting their guild name and ladder standing back, with someone who gets their account hacked. Honestly people their is no comparison! Their are numerous reasons someone can have their account hacked, and because of that no way for anet to confirm what happened. In this case "If" and I say if because nobody has actually confirmed what happened.(but going by what people have said) It is pretty obvious even to a 2year old that this was a malicious act by someone, examples of this are all the alliance members being kicked, then guild members, then Awowa's name but not account being dleleted. So I say where is the egregious harm of giving the top guild for over a year their name and capes back when something malicious was done to them.

3rd. To those who say Anet would be setting bad precedent. Precedent to what exactly? for 99% of the prob 1% of teams this has happened to before you just go back to your guild registrar and get your name back, re-invite everyone and wooohoo the world is right again. To the 1% of the 1% of teams where nothing was done, well to be honest boohoo for you. You were not a guild that put prob 100's of hours giving back to the guild wars community, you were not the guild to hold 2 successful rawr cups that gave 100's of guilds the chance to play in a huge tournament, win lots of good prizes and put people who honestly shouldn't even be allowed to hold a pizza pizza sign a chance to be on a internet radio show.

4th As sated in sooooo many QQ threads, the guild ladder hasn't meant squat for along time. Also by Anet's own remarks the guild ladder is now more of a historical chart of a team. So if anyone can explain to me how history has been changed by someone deleting rawr's name I would love to read it. So I would say again what would be wrong with putting them back on the ladder where they were?

5th This whole thing about being disqualified is just annoying. Rule are rules all of you who say that are completely right on that matter. But what you are failing to grasp is when a group or company or anyone has to determine what the punishment for a rules violation they HAVE to look at intent. Did rawr go out and recruit anet employees NO, are the members of rawr anet employees NO, did rawr pick up the phone and call anet and say "please can some of you join our guild we want to win" No. What happened was Izzy asked to join their guild so he could communicate with them better about the collaboration of Anet+rawr+rawr's sponsor Guild Cafe on the rawr cup. So when any objective person in a position to hand out punishment for a rule violation looks at happened they would unanimously say their was no Intent to break the rule so no punishment is needed.

Also the whole disqualification point was brought up originally a few months ago by someone who by his own words hasn't played the game in over a year. Who also still has his nickers in a twist he was canned as a beta tester and is someone who, just by reading all of his posts thinks everything he writes is always correct and that is so high on himself the air must be thin around his head. (I'll let you all decide who I am talking about)

I wanted to be as objective as I could be, with these 5 posts. (except the last part, had to do that) please feel free to discuss if their are parts you think I am right and parts you think I am wrong.

Oh and 1 last point... Please Please Please To anyone that right now believes people create porn sites with key loggers so they can gain access to GW accounts STTTTTTTTTTTTOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPP pretty much their are 4 main reasons. You went and tried to buy free gold or hacks from a website. You gave your account information to other people. Someone took your email from a forum and used a password program.(doubtful) A forum administrator of a GW site you go too, gained access to your email and password and tried to see it is the one you use for Guild wars. (I think i read that guru servers don;t allow admins to see passwords.) But most forums do allow it. Also I know allot of programmers who could prob figure out how too if the site server didn't allow it.

Esan · May 27, 2008, 01:04 PM // 13:04

Unlike the OP, I find that Anet is depressingly aloof from their player base these days. When they created their wiki, I thought their talk pages would be a fast conduit to the developers with none of the fansite/forum/CR nonsense. Unfortunately, the reality is that the wiki is completely ignored by Anet. Izzy hardly ever responds to anything on his talk page (granted there is far too much stupidity there). Gaile used to respond mostly to frivolous stuff. Regina is as good as nonexistent. I haven't seen the other CRs ever. Their resolute silence over the pervasive botting in places like Melandru's Hope and all the reports of account hacking seem to imply that they have abandoned GW1 players. I don't remember Anet ever being this uncommunicative; certainly one of the things that got be interested in GW in the first place was how visible the Anet devs were in the player community.

Andrew is possibly the most interactive Anet insider we have ever had, and he was rewarded for his pains by being run out of town.

Ctb · May 27, 2008, 01:05 PM // 13:05

Quote:

Still, if you believe the conspiracies of an online game...

... you've probably witnessed, firsthand, how CCP operates Eve Online.

The problem with conspiracies is that you can't prove the difference between the tinfoil-hat wearing nutjobs and the dire warnings that just can't be proven yet.

Quote:

ANet owns the servers and all the accounts players use, and have the right to do whatever they want with them.

This statement's failure cracks an epic level.

Anet is responsible for providing whatever implied or express level of service came with the purchase of their product. If ANet failed to do that, ANet could be sued for damages.

That probably has nothing to do with this, specifically (I don't even know what this cry thread is about, frankly), but a company certainly cannot just do whatever they want because they happen to own a database and a few servers.
Take Anet to court and prove that they failed to provide whatever service was offered or implied for your $49.95 and you'll find out pretty quickly that ANet cannot, in fact, do whatever they want with your account.

Of course, I can't imagine having the spare time to argue a court case over a $50 video game, but whatever...

4thVariety · May 27, 2008, 01:18 PM // 13:18

I believe the precedence was not about any guild being deleted, but one that had a cape reward.

I am also reasonably sure that rawr needs no presents from Anet other than the instant clearance to play. Besides, loosing all the goods and then struggling back to the top makes for a far better storyline in any novelizations or subsequent movie deals.

I also remember Jeff Strain talking about GW being a "service" to the customer. In that regard most services run better if they follow a distinct set of rules and are not subject to arbitrary tyranny.

Avarre · May 27, 2008, 01:20 PM // 13:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ctb

This statement's failure cracks an epic level.

Anet is responsible for providing whatever implied or express level of service came with the purchase of their product. If ANet failed to do that, ANet could be sued for damages.

That probably has nothing to do with this, specifically (I don't even know what this cry thread is about, frankly), but a company certainly cannot just do whatever they want because they happen to own a database and a few servers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EULA

By agreeing to the User Agreement you agree that you do not own either the Master Account or Game Account (collectively, the "Account") you use to access the service, the characters created on the Account and that NC Interactive stores on NC Interactive servers, the items stored on these servers, or any other data from which the servers and accounts are comprised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EULA

YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT NC INTERACTIVE HAS THE RIGHT, BUT NOT THE OBLIGATION, TO REMOVE ANY CONTENT (INCLUDING YOURS) IN WHOLE OR IN PART AT ANY TIME FOR ANY REASON OR NO REASON, WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITH NO LIABILITY OF ANY KIND.

Quote:

Originally Posted by EULA

NC Interactive has the right at any time for any reason or no reason to change and/or eliminate any aspect(s) of the Service as it sees fit in its sole discretion.

You've already agreed legally that ANet can do whatever they want. Good luck pretending otherwise.

Esan · May 27, 2008, 01:21 PM // 13:21

EULAs are mostly legal fiction as they have never seen precedent setting litigation.

Avarre · May 27, 2008, 01:23 PM // 13:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Esan

EULAs are mostly legal fiction as they have never seen precedent setting litigation.

The EULA, however, is a higher authority than the random-armchair-lawyer gamer who is upset that ANet has no need to do anything.

JR · May 27, 2008, 01:42 PM // 13:42

This is a topic I could go on about for hours, so I will try and keep it short and to the point:

Establishing trust with your community is vital. If you want healthy relations and a good atmosphere to grow your playerbase through word of mouth then it is hugely important.

Trust is all about setting standards, hard rules and precidents, and then sticking by them absolutely - or having a damn good reason otherwise, which is the second part of building trust: Communication.

If your rules state that X action leads to Y with no exceptions listed, then that had better be the case for absolutely everyone. Even if you have simply made a habit of doing/not doing something you had better have a reason to give if you want to suddenly want to change that.

You must be air tight, impenetrable. Communities are good enough at inventing reasons to bitch without you also giving them ammunition. Every time you break one of your precidents or bend a rule for someone you are opening yourself up for criticism. It very easily triggers the snowball effect, and one example of 'favoritism' can spawn dozens of other conspiracies. Every time this happens your community becomes a little more jaded and unhappy with you, regardless of how well founded the original issue was.

On the same note, the message coming from your community staff and from your developers should be 100% consistent. If you want to build trust between your players and your community staff then people have to know that what they are reading is the god's own gosbel truth coming straight from mister chief head-honcho supreme lead developer.

I don't disagree with [rawr] not being disqualified, but I feel it was handled badly. We got no real explanation or statement, and as far as I am aware the rules have not been changed yet - though I believe that at least is in the pipeline.

I don't disagree with [rawr] getting their cape back either, but again there has been a complete lack of communication about the issue. (Not to mention [rawr] has had their cape badly restored before some other guilds have even been given their trims from the last monthly. If you are going to do it, at least do a proper job.)

This brings me to the final point in building trust: If you are going to bend rules, break precidents or do something out of the ordinary then you damn well better be open and honest about it. Release a statement explaining the issue, and you can in fact turn what would have been a negative into a positive. All it takes is one forum post:

"Dear community,

In light of [rawr]'s commitment and dedication to the Guild Wars community we have decided to make an exception and restore their gold cape trim that was recently lost in an unfortunate incident."

If you keep quiet on pressing issues and don't communicate then all you achieve is encouraging speculation and criticism. This is what leads to a jaded and bitter community, and an unhealthy environment. If you are open and honest then you can go from being the bad guy to looking like the good guy.

This part of the industry is not about what you do, but what people think of what you do. Anet already has a particularly bad track record in this field, one that I was sincerely hoping they would improve.

As I have said in other similar threads: I had hoped that the communication between Anet and the players would pick up with the introduction of the new community manager. Instead it seems they are ignoring this fanbase, as if it were an annoying child tugging on their apron strings. However, this community is the foundation for Guild Wars 2. Most of us registered on this forum will probably go on to play the sequel at some point, and probably again be active members of the community. If we go into that with an unfavorable impression of ArenaNet then it will undoubtably spread and taint the atmosphere of that community also. It would also be good experience and practice for Anet to actually work on stronger community relations now, rather than to go even further into uncharted waters with Guild Wars 2.

Guild Wars has become little more than a sandbox for ArenaNet to test ideas out for Guild Wars 2. GW:EN was a lot of fun, but everything since than has clearly had minimal planning, poor execution and next to no communication at all. That goes for game updates, additions, or simply how they have dealt with issues like this.

Anet, you are making a mistake.

Ctb · May 27, 2008, 02:21 PM // 14:21

Quote:

You've already agreed legally that ANet can do whatever they want. Good luck pretending otherwise.

I don't know what level of fail you get to once you've completely shattered "epic" levels, but you've managed to find it.

First of all, the status of an EULA as a binding agreement in any given case is skethcy at best.

Second of all, even if it is assumed to be a contract, any contract of any stripe given any circumstance is challengeable.

Finally, your agreement to the EULA does not absolve their responsibility to meet their obligations regarding your purchase of their software. They offered you a certain product for $49.95, and if they failed to provide it, the EULA becomes a moot point. If they breach their obligations, the EULA is irrelevant.

Want to see this in practice? Go buy a used car that's a lemon. You can agree to any damn fool thing you want, and, even without the lemon laws, if you can prove that the company or individual misrepresented what was being sold, you've got yourself a winning lawsuit.

Prove ANet failed to provide what was offered for the $49.95 asking price, and you've won yourself a lawsuit.

You can dig this hole deeper if you want, but the fact remains that click-wrap licensing is still on very shaky ground, any contract can be challenged in whole or in part for any number of reasons, and they are not absolved of their obligation to provide the represented product just because they put up some latte-addled peabrains brain droppings on your computer screen after you bought it.

ANet cannot not do anything it wants, nor can any other company. Unreasonable, intentionally deceptive, and outright malicious contracts can be nullified, are nullified, and will continue to be nullified, regardless of how many times they say "this cannot be nullified because you clicked an icon on your computer screen".

Whether any of this applies specifically to ANet or this instance, I couldn't say - though I'd wager it probably doesn't. The point is simply that you cannot make yourself immune to litigation simply by putting a bunch of mean-spirited garbage in your contract.

DutchSmurf · May 27, 2008, 02:23 PM // 14:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

...

In their defense tho, Regina has been out of office and probably didn't get back yet. Same for most other staff. Which leaves the European community managers, who can't really say much about this because they probably don't have the needed info to make a statement.
Also another thing in their defense, there is a complete lack of facts in threads like this. We have people saying all kind of things, but as far as I know there is no sign that Anet did more then giving them a gold trim. Awowa didn't get his stuff back, rawr didn't get their guildrating back. And remaking their guild was something they had to do on their own too as far as I know.

This is just another blown up story. Awowa lost his account, rawr got disbanded, sucks for them. Rawr remade itself, got the cape they won this monthly, end of story. If you can actually call it a story.
And about communication, if Anet has to make a statement every time the community starts making up things, they have no time to do their normal job anymore.

JR · May 27, 2008, 02:33 PM // 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

In their defense tho, Regina has been out of office and probably didn't get back yet. Same for most other staff.

The internet is a marvelous thing; you can get it almost anywhere!

That being said, my post was mostly about their long term track record as opposed to purely recent events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

Which leaves the European community managers, who can't really say much about this because they probably don't have the needed info to make a statement.

That's rubbish. It takes 30 seconds to send the relevant developer an IM message, a few minutes to get a response, and a little while longer to turn it into something postable and put it out there. You don't have to be in the Anet office to do that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

This is just another blown up story. Awowa lost his account, rawr got disbanded, sucks for them. Rawr remade itself, got the cape they won this monthly, end of story. If you can actually call it a story.

Indeed. As I said I don't really have a problem with what Anet did (other than the shoddy job on restoring the cape), and wouldn't ask for more than a simple forum post to explain it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DutchSmurf

And about communication, if Anet has to make a statement every time the community starts making up things, they have no time to do their normal job anymore.

It's hardly every day that something like this happens. My main point was that by not leaving issues open for speculation you do in fact save yourself time that would otherwise be spent squashing conspiracies.