Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
I, the Guild Master of a guild with a Full Tier 1 City just got banned
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
Looks like you have a ticket registered for your complaint and have yet to receive an official response. You've received confirmation from Funcom that your email was received and will be processed. So then you were banned on the 31st of May and this is the 1st of June, perhaps there are a few other customers ahead of you in the queue to receive support?
My apologies you are dissatisfied with the time required to give your email proper review and that other customers might have submitted a support request prior to you.
Adam
Even if they decide to unban his account this is a service based game. He's losing play time... technically it would be the equivalent of your phone company wrongfully turning of your phone for a few days and trying to get it turned back on. WIthout the service there should be compensation -- which I doubt he'll receive.
I hate that all fairness in business nowadays has happily leapt from the tallest building and lies shattered in pieces on the pavement below.
Also, before I bid adieu to this thread (though I may post again if something uniquely interesting happens), I'd like to say thank you to those who supported clean and intellectual conversation here and not just rampant flames and fanboism.
Some of what I've said may duly be regarded as flaming against Funcom, but for their policies, it was rightly so.
Here's a deal Adam, paypal me my $50 back, and I'll never speak of Funcom again.
Oh, and the $10 for early access that wasn't really 3 days, it was more like 1.5 days with all the downtime. Let's not even go into the numerous days since launch with 4-8 hours of downtime.
Gee, well, at least I got a pretty red box with a sword on it for $50 bucks!
Maybe its because of my Chaotic Good alignment, but so what?
I mean its HUMAN, if there is a shortcut, people will take it. It is like Blizzard banned people for taking pathways to places who were supposed to block. Isnt a MMO about exploring ways, about finding clever solutions no one else has?
If there is a bug, that is FUNCOMS problem to close it. They MAKE pitfalls and then BAN people for using them to their benefit. I still think thats hilarious.
People don't ask questions to get answers - they ask questions to show how smart they are. - Dogbert
As I was not privy to the correspondence between both sides to date, pointing out the clause in the EULA is a valid point; given Baseline's claims of not having been informed as to why his account was banned.
However, in light of Baseline's most recent disclosure of correspondence. It is clear that he has yet to receive official word as to why his account was banned.
Might I emphasise the time-line involved, 31st of May and today is the 1st of June.
Adam
What the hell does the underlined above have to do with him getting banned? Also, why did you change your sig and take out your Funcom info?
What the hell does the underlined above have to do with him getting banned? Also, why did you change your sig and take out your Funcom info?
It's just more unprofessional BS. Now he's going after my opinions of the current state of MMO's.
Grats Adam. I sincerely hope you're not really working for Funcom.
What the hell does the underlined above have to do with him getting banned? Also, why did you change your sig and take out your Funcom info?
It's just more unprofessional BS. Now he's going after my opinions of the current state of MMO's.
Grats Adam. I sincerely hope you're not really working for Funcom.
He probably got fired over this threadBut if we look at this issue from the reverse: Mind you I am not saying this is the case, in Baseline's situation.
Let's first assume Funcom is a business that relys upon customer subscriptions. Pretty safe assumption.
Now with this assumption in place, why would Funcom randomly ban a customer without any sort of reason?
Baseline would have you believe he was banned because he is a guild leader and had pooled guild cash, and that Funcom incorrectly banned him because his guild had X amount of gold. In Baseline's own words he has stated that that was an assumption on his part and not yet verified through official channels with Funcom.
Yet I've clearly stated that could not have been the case because any account that was banned for gold related issues was done so immediately after the maintenance window on the 27th of May. I've also stated that those effected by the gold related bans were investigated prior to bans being issued, in a rather involved methodology far exceeding the conspiracy theory that anyone with X gold was banned.
Now back to that initial assumption about it being rather odd for a company to ban an account without reason. With that in mind, one would expect that Funcom would have had sufficient reason to ban an account prior to issuing said ban, vs the conspiracy theory that Funcom is just randomly banning innocent players without any reason.
It simply defys all logic that a company dependent upon customer subscriptions would just randomly ban an account for no reason. Long and short of the situation, Funcom conducts research before issuing a ban.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
*added in the sig. and thanks for the concern as to my state of employment. And here I thought we were all having an open and mature discussion accepting of all opinions and input.
Wouldn't the time arguing publically be better spent getting some of these cases closed, one way or another? =D
Agreed, fortunatly I've the day off. After 96+ hours worth of work this week, having a day off is always appreciated. Funcom's customer service department is still at work 24/7 addressing petitions and emails as they are received.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
But if we look at this issue from the reverse: Mind you I am not saying this is the case, in Baseline's situation.
Let's first assume Funcom is a business that relys upon customer subscriptions. Pretty safe assumption.
Now with this assumption in place, why would Funcom randomly ban a customer without any sort of reason?
Baseline would have you believe he was banned because he is a guild leader and had pooled guild cash, and that Funcom incorrectly banned him because his guild had X amount of gold. In Baseline's own words he has stated that that was an assumption on his part and not yet verified through official channels with Funcom.
Yet I've clearly stated that could not have been the case because any account that was banned for gold related issues was done so immediately after the maintenance window on the 27th of May. I've also stated that those effected by the gold related bans were investigated prior to bans being issued, in a rather involved methodology far exceeding the conspiracy theory that anyone with X gold was banned.
Now back to that initial assumption about it being rather odd for a company to ban an account without reason. With that in mind, one would expect that Funcom would have had sufficient reason to ban an account prior to issuing said ban, vs the conspiracy theory that Funcom is just randomly banning innocent players without any reason.
It simply defys all logic that a company dependent upon customer subscriptions would just randomly ban an account for no reason. Long and short of the situation, Funcom conducts research before issuing a ban.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
*added in the sig. and thanks for the concern as to my state of employment. And here I thought we were all having an open and mature discussion accepting of all opinions and input.
I don't think you read a single one of my posts other then this one.
But for giggles lets take into account that Funcom DID ban him for whatever reason they banned him -- at this point it doesn't matter.
Now they give him a chance to dispute this ban. As they rightfully should. Now if they decide to unban him then obviously one of two things happened. Either Funcom was wrong, or there was a settlement on the issue that resolved itself in the account bein unbanned. Either way you look at it, they would have banned him just to unban him later. He's still losing service time, and therefore with each passing day he's losing money he already spent.
Thats bad business. It just is. As I said previously if funcom didn't want them to use said exploits.. they shouldn't have put them in the game. If they don't want people ganking other players in a group, then they shouldn't allow that in the game either... they can't do something in a certain way and not expect people to take advantage of it if they can.
If theres anything people should've learned from politics is that people will take the rules and they'll twist them. If you don't want them twisted, make them untwistable. If your not going to do that, then don't BAN someone for making use of them.
It stopped being mature when you decided everything was a conspiracy theory, I think that was post 1 from you. Discounting someones opinions as conspiracy isn't mature or accepting of their opinions and input, its condescending.
But if we look at this issue from the reverse: Mind you I am not saying this is the case, in Baseline's situation.
Let's first assume Funcom is a business that relys upon customer subscriptions. Pretty safe assumption.
Now with this assumption in place, why would Funcom randomly ban a customer without any sort of reason?
Baseline would have you believe he was banned because he is a guild leader and had pooled guild cash, and that Funcom incorrectly banned him because his guild had X amount of gold. In Baseline's own words he has stated that that was an assumption on his part and not yet verified through official channels with Funcom.
Yet I've clearly stated that could not have been the case because any account that was banned for gold related issues was done so immediately after the maintenance window on the 27th of May. I've also stated that those effected by the gold related bans were investigated prior to bans being issued, in a rather involved methodology far exceeding the conspiracy theory that anyone with X gold was banned.
Now back to that initial assumption about it being rather odd for a company to ban an account without reason. With that in mind, one would expect that Funcom would have had sufficient reason to ban an account prior to issuing said ban, vs the conspiracy theory that Funcom is just randomly banning innocent players without any reason.
It simply defys all logic that a company dependent upon customer subscriptions would just randomly ban an account for no reason. Long and short of the situation, Funcom conducts research before issuing a ban.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
*added in the sig. and thanks for the concern as to my state of employment. And here I thought we were all having an open and mature discussion accepting of all opinions and input.
I don't think you read a single one of my posts other then this one.
But for giggles lets take into account that Funcom DID ban him for whatever reason they banned him -- at this point it doesn't matter.
Now they give him a chance to dispute this ban. As they rightfully should. Now if they decide to unban him then obviously one of two things happened. Either Funcom was wrong, or there was a settlement on the issue that resolved itself in the account bein unbanned. Either way you look at it, they would have banned him just to unban him later. He's still losing service time, and therefore with each passing day he's losing money he already spent.
Thats bad business. It just is. As I said previously if funcom didn't want them to use said exploits.. they shouldn't have put them in the game. If they don't want people ganking other players in a group, then they shouldn't allow that in the game either... they can't do something in a certain way and not expect people to take advantage of it if they can.
If theres anything people should've learned from politics is that people will take the rules and they'll twist them. If you don't want them twisted, make them untwistable. If your not going to do that, then don't BAN someone for making use of them.
Right, if Funcom wants to salvage their rep. at all they'll give compensation to those who are innocent. But judging by Adam's post, Funcom went through some kind of verification system to make sure those they banned were actually guilty. So obviously everyone who was banned deserved it, and if by chance there was an innocent person, they should just send an email and wait a long time for it to get resolved. While they can't play and their money goes down the drain. Unless, of course, Funcom compensates. Part of me actually doubts they will.
--------------------------------------
A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
Order of the White Border.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
Go have a break then, away from the computer! Arguing the day away is hardly going to refresh you at all
http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,74406/
Ok two points here to address:
*And these responses are just my "personal" opinions, and yes I expect that some people won't be able to seperate my personal opinon from Funcom policy, hence the need for this sentence. My personal opinions are not to be taken as those of my employer.
First point:
Let's assume someone is banned for say 24 hours, they have lost access to a product they pay a monthly subscription to. The first 30 days are free, and there after we'll work with $15 / month.
A free month of access ( yes one could argure it's value is also $15 /month) => free nothing lost or see the $15 /month calculation.
A $15/month access => ~$0.54 /day if you assume 28 days or ~0.50 /day is we assume 30 days
In such case that an account was banned unjustly, Yes I "personally" agree the customer is entitled to compensation in the amount of the subscription fee for the time they could not have accessed the game.
MMOs are not guranteeed to be available for play 24/7 so any downtime experienced during the unjustly banned time period would not be reimbursed as the game was not available.
So on point one you and I agree.
Now onto point two:
If an unintential bug, design flaw, oversight, exploit exists in a game which gives a player an unfair advantage over another player, is a company entitled to ban a customer for using unintentional content?
Your opinion is that the customer should be free to use whatever is offered as is in the game.
My "personal" opinion is that they should not.
We will simply have to agree to disagree.
I see it from the big picture where the potential negative impact and loss of customers should a company not remove those who take advantage of an unintentional design to achieve an advantage over those who do not use it; is far greater a loss than to remove the handful of individuals who do take advantage of such issues.
So on point two, we simply have to agree to disagree.
Adam "De`Valos" Young
Lead Database Administrator
Funcom Inc.
Is this a joke?
Funcom tech staff blabbering about legalities on public forums?
Don't they have PR and community management for this? Cause if that sig is real ... you better stop talking before PR notices. So unproffesional ...
It stopped being mature when you decided everything was a conspiracy theory, I think that was post 1 from you. Discounting someones opinions as conspiracy isn't mature or accepting of their opinions and input, its condescending.
OK good point, I honestly felt the conspiracy theory comments would have been received as intened as an attempt to interject some levity into the thread.
But given that the thread is based upon assumptions and conjecture. The "
" seemed rather appropriate did it not?
Adam
It stopped being mature when you decided everything was a conspiracy theory, I think that was post 1 from you. Discounting someones opinions as conspiracy isn't mature or accepting of their opinions and input, its condescending.
OK good point, I honestly felt the conspiracy theory comments would have been received as intened as an attempt to interject some levity into the thread.
But given that the thread is based upon assumptions and conjecture. The "
" seemed rather appropriate did it not?
Adam
It's not assumptions and conjecture for the OP. He sure as hell knew what was real and what wasn't when he got permanently banned. (Yeah there's still a possibility he's lying about all this, but with the stuff he's posted so far, I remain unconvinced that he's making it all up.) For the rest of us, of course it is, since it didn't happen to us.
--------------------------------------
A human and an Elf get captured by Skaven. The rat-men are getting ready to shoot the first hostage with Dwarf-made guns when he yells, "Earthquake!" The naturally nervous Skaven run and hide from the imaginary threat. He escapes. The Skaven regroup and bring out the Elf. Being very smart, the Elf has figured out what to do. When the Skaven get ready to shoot, the Elf, in order to scare them, yells, "Fire!"
Order of the White Border.
De Valos, being in the management business for many years myself I know that your statement that you are separating your personal opinion from your affiliation with Funcom just doesn't work like that. You are a representattive on Funcom plain and simple, anything you do and say will reflect on Funcom as you are a known employee of Funcom and thus a representative.
Your attitude and reactions to the OP are unprofessional in all manners and damages the waining credibility of Funcom on the eyes of the gaming world. At one point saying it may take a few days to solve it, to next saying "ALL" cases have been solved and he must have been cheating IS DISCUSSING HIS PRIVATE information as you are a representative of the company and CAN NOT even give opinionated answers like this. You have given the community the appearance that Funcom is not a reputable company, along with the actions they have taken recently. From looking at all the postings, it appears this "Bug" WAS known about even before EA, yet Funcom proceeded to continue the release without fixing it. This is not the fault of the players, but the fault of Funcom and to ban players for your own doings is sadly disappointing and just as bad as the poorly launched Anarcy Online.
I would expect major repercussions from this whole affair and it will cost Funcom greatly, and the attitudes and actions of its representatives such as you, will also greatly affect its reputation among the gaming community.
Some may not think that the community of a site like this would affect a game, but remember there are over 800k members here and many who just come here and don't even join up. With as bad as this ordeal has been, that is no small number to influence. Remember 1 bad comment or experience will spread to 10, and 1 good comment or experience will spread to 1 other. This is a common experience in customer service.
Originally posted by De_Valos
And here I thought we were all having an open and mature discussion accepting of all opinions and input.
On an open forum? You have GOT to be kidding.
By the way, the game is great, and I'm having a hell of a lot of fun in it.
sadly you probably didnt exploit but received exploited money from someone in the guild...guilt by association ftl!
1) i highly believe that "Adam" is a employee with Funcom. All MMORPG companies have a community rep, and if he was legit in anyway he would get in crap after all the posts he made in this thread alone. Sure anyone could say they work for a company, hell i could say i work for Blizzard and no one would actually know (not like id want to work for them anyway). So Adam...quit the BS...STFU...and stop pouring more gas on the fire with ur crap and lies.
2) i read that the OP sent in many emails to Funcom and barely got a response back...typical. Hes not getting any help back from them because they dont even know how to reply, and fix the damage that they already dealt.
De Valos by bringing up the EULA you were highlighting that Funcom can ban someone with no justification as that is their right.
I didn't dispute this, what I was highlighting is that this attitude is exactly the attitude SOE used with NGE in that the game is their property and the players have no rights. How is that in anyway a conspiracy it is simple fact.
As stated I will not be renewing AOC just as I left SWG, I will not fund a company with these attitudes. That is my right as it is every other players right.
If your opinions are yours and not a reflection of funcom's why even bring up the fact you are an employee.
When I post on a forum that is in anway linked to my job I do not bring up who I work for, my employer's would take a very dim view that I was in anyway representing them without official sanction.
So either you are here as a representative of Funcom in which case declaring yourself as an employee is fine and your opinions reflect Funcom's or your not and declaring yourself as an employee is irrelevant.
Sorry, you're statement and your signature are contradictory. If you're trying to lend weight to your arguments by stating you're an employee of Funcom, then quess what ... you're representing Funcom in this argument. That's exactly how posters will take your opinions whether you intend them to or not.
Innocent players get erroneously pegged all the time in blanket operations. Does it make sense to ban paying customers? No, but it happens. SOE famously banned innocent players during the myriad of credit duping scandals; most where merchants who's goods were bought with bad credits. SOE's excuse was the same as I'm seeing here: it's better to remove a few innocents than to allow a few bad credits into the economy.
Ico
Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned. Ask not for whom the bone bones. It bones for thee.