EVE General Discussion

I would express what seeing this kind of thing feels like but it's probably far too dangerous to even draw an analogy most people would regard as fair.

Maybe you should actually read posts instead of truncating them .






Yes - I am very well aware of this. And as a matter of fact I have received all petition responses via the F12 menu ingame as well as the respective accounts email address. (also Iirc, I issued all my petitions from within the client, in case that matters).

Anyway, If you had read my post instead of 'truncating' it, you would have noticed I wasn't talking about petition responses at all.



Okay - once more and step by step for those impaired in text apprehension:

1. I do not bother with the original ban.
2. I've already made that clear in the first petition I raised.
3. The second petition was about the fact that an impendent ban was impossible to perceive from my POV. Instead I received a lengthy and obsessively compulsive reply on why I was banned in the first place, which already was already entirely irrelevant when the first petition was raised.
4. After thoroughly checking all my eve-associated mail acounts (assuming warnings work accross several accounts), I couldn't find a single warning other than the one that dates from 21 minutes before the actual ban on any account. And no, I never delete mails.

Therfore, I constructively criticise that:

- I have never received email notifications about some warnings that - according to CCP - have been issued
- If you want warnings to be effective, you should send a CC (thats an abbrevation for 'carbon copy', anachronistically used in email headers) to the characters evemail inbox.
- Sending a CC means it's a 'copy'. Sending a copy doesn't mean exclusively sending it to one address or the other. If you don't understand the meaning of copy, please check wikipedia or merriam websters (those are sites on the internet - a worldwide computer network).
- You need to understand people don't check alternate webmail accounts every minute when they're busy reposting things that were deleted due to volunteer moderators illiteracy or hordes of imbeciles and their alts pushing the 'report' button.
- I know that what you practice is legally correct.
- I presume you want warnings to work, but what you currently practice is to start shooting at someone immediately after you sent a letter by snail mail saying 'hands up!'.
- To improve warnings effectiveness, you should consider implementing the suggested change.

Best regards

LCO

Truncated, meaning to shorten so that other people don't have to re-read your post again and I'm not spamming the forums with the same thing. Truncated doesn't mean I didn't read it.

You're complaining that we're not CCing you in via EVEMail, and I'm saying the following as per my previous post :



Once again, we do not send EVEmail. The petition system is entirely different to the moderation system we use to govern the forums so the fact that you may receive an account warning in game from a GM is completely different to the fact you will not receive one from a forum warning. Forum warnings and Account warnings are two different things.

We do not send EVEmail to people regarding forum warnings and bans, this is fact and is not up for debate. Once again, it is your responsibility to ensure you check the email address associated with your EVE Online Account. Not ours.



I'll also say flat out that you need to be very careful about how you're posting. Insulting members of CCP and ISD is not looked upon in a good light. You're treading very close to the edge, but I'll let it slide this time.

O if only CCP had not changed there office phone numbers from when they first launched the game.

The amount of rage calls would shut down Iceland's phone system.

I still have the old office number but its listed as disconnected when u call sad days.

I must say I am somewhat flabbergasted.

One of the most aggressive sounding, issue deflecting and downright rude customer service messages I have ever read in around a decade of managing large scale gaming forums and online communities.

In particular when you take LCO's post as a part of the context. It doesn't even try to address the underlying concerns.

I'd be asking questions of the legitimacy of this kind of threat given the nature of the posts of CCP in this thread directed towards the customer.

Simply astounding.

Thanks for the explanatory response for that particular instance, but I was using it as an example only. I wasn't particularly interested in getting the reason for that instance, so much as a statement about how the moderators *should* generally be treating duplicating threads versus (perhaps) how they *are* treating them.

My gut feel, and I freely admit that my gut may be leading me astray, is that absent some super-compelling reason, the older thread should be allowed to stand and the newer one be locked with a reference back to the older thread.

Going back to this instance, at the time that the older thread was locked, the newer thread appears to have had 19 posts in it (one page). This includes CCP Falcon's clarifying post regarding ship bumping (threw me for a moment there: I thought you meant thread bumping) at 21:04. Why the moderator didn't close the newer thread at 21:04 and put the explanatory post in the older thread is a mystery. I also find it curious that the moderator's explanatory post, reportedly involving consulting the GM team, was made an astonishingly fast 22 minutes after this newer thread was created.

At the time that the moderator made the explanatory post (21:04), the newer thread had 8 posts in it. Furthermore, none of those posts seem to constitute a super-compelling reason for this duplicate thread to be spared the lock.

If duplicate thread locking depends solely upon moderator judgment, then I think the moderator is in error in this instance. If duplicate thread locking has a formal rule component, please provide it so that we can determine where it may need adjustment.

MDD

In this instance, the older thread was locked because the newer one specifically involved something a dev (in this case, myself) said that was relevant to the discussion.

In the general case, we prefer to lock the thread which has gotten the least discussion in it. In most cases, that is the newest thread, but at times it can be an older thread that has less relevant content.

Except no ban was discussed in the thread.

It was a thread about poor customer service.

How would you feel if you complained to a company about poor customer service and they said 'Our Customer Support contact details are listed on our website'

I think you guys really could benefit from some customer service training.

I wasn't complaining, I was suggesting supposedly easily to implement features to avoid escalations.



Yes - I am all too well aware of that. In fact that was the very point I was criticising.




I didn't post any insults. Constantly missing the point and continuously implying hostile intent when there is absolutely none just implies a lack of reading apprehension unless CCP staff members are trolling, paranoid or intentionally hostile towards their customers as indicated by threatening them for offering constructive criticism.

Since all the latter options are clearly impossible, the former is the only logical conclusion.

So I kindly ask:

Why is sending CCs of warnings to customers evemail accounts non-debatable?

I raised several examples of why it would greatly improve the effectiveness of warnings, but I'll refrain from repeating them to not spam the forums with the same thing.


My sincerest apologies for anything that could be misinterpreted as sarcasm in any of my posts. I'm clearly incapable of any form of sarcasm due to being too dumb and English not being my native language, so that would be flat out impossible.

My humblest regards

LCO

Thank you for your lack of assistance, complaint sent.