D3 Go! CS Failures & Selective Alliance Harassment (Take 2)
Comments
-
The Bob The wrote:Of course, if you kind of say it fast and mumble it a little bit, it may phonetically resemble a certain curse. Whether or not this was intentional is besides the point.
Come on, man. If you liked the name, fine, but don't be coy about your intentions. As for "therapists," pretty much everybody here has probably seen the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy sketches, so in the context of your previous attempt, it's not like it was any great stretch for them to guess what you were going for. You tried and you got caught - it happens.
If we can't be coy, what is there left? A conversation like this takes a certain level of finesse, and judging by the crazy signature in your name, you aren't into finesse. So that's fine. If you read the comments and don't rely on literal "Drax-Like" interpretations, you can see my admission of guilt. However, as far as Therapists goes, we even have an alliance member named TrebeksMother. It's not supposed to be a secret, but it is silly to blacklist it. The word "Association" is not blacklisted, for example, and it has a curse built into it. It's OK to disagree, but a comment like this isn't additive to the conversation at hand.0 -
Normally I would support people fighting the system... but in this case, it may just be the fact that they have filters on alliance names and possibly usernames. However it doesn't catch all the names that get through. The ones that go past the filters (probably your alliance's), they will have to manually override and change. The thing is, there are a ton of alliances and user names out there. They can't possible patrol and enforce all names that get past their filters. So generally, what happens is that the enforcement of names that get past the filter are done through people sending tickets. Your alliance's name just so happens to have been reported and thus it is changed. If anyone decided to report the alliance names you mentioned that were not appropriate, it may very well be changed as well.
The developers are not going to go out of their way to over enforce the name system. They can't possibly have someone look through every single alliance name to make sure it is appropriate. Having a filter and the report feature is enough of an effort to satisfy any regulation or law in a country. They aren't picking on you, just that unfortunately, your alliance name was reported by someone else as inappropriate and thus action was taken.
If you sent separate tickets about all the other names you found offensive, I am sure they would also take action. To be honest, they may already have begun the process of changing the alliance names you mentioned anyway.0 -
$200,000 bank roll for this game....I really hope you've got 5,000 people in your alliance.0
-
We_are_Venom wrote:$200,000 bank roll for this game....I really hope you've got 5,000 people in your alliance.
I have one member who has reported spending over $50,000 on this game, and three others with comparable rosters. That doesn't account for the rest and what they've invested. Probably in the 4 digits. My personal spendings are in the very low 3 digits. It's a serious hobby for some, and they have the means to spend on their hobby.0 -
It feels like people aren't getting the entire picture.
When one creates an alliance, one must pay 2,500 iso. In this case, San Narcisco paid 2,500 iso for Al[words on ben affleck's paddle in dazed and confused] up. That was step one.
Step two was d3 changing the name. I think we all agree that this was a stern move. Stern, but fair.
Step three is where d3 begins showing their true colors. They refused every suggested name for San Francisco's alliance. Then they refused to give him back his 2,500 iso. Then they wouldn't refund his 2,500 iso for creating a new alliance. The real issue that Saint Francis is upset with is the fact that d3 has been so draconian about this, and still refused to make a concession that any reasonable businessperson in the world would make. If you order a custom football jersey, the NFL simply doesn't let you make an offensive one. They don't charge you for a custom jersey, just send you whatever the heck they feel like, and then refuse to give you a refund when it's stupid because NFL stands for "no fun league."
*Last paragraph containing inflammatory and misleading commentary deleted by Admin.0 -
The fact that you tried to change the name to Therapists and try to pretend that you do so inoffensively, shows that you are very, very intent in having a subversive name for your alliance, but puzzlingly, are not capable of owning to it and try to whine and paint yourself as a victim of harrasment. Whether such names should be censored or not is a discussion possibly worth having. Making a fuss and pretending to be a victim is not worth of even sympathy.0
-
San Narciso wrote:The Bob The wrote:Of course, if you kind of say it fast and mumble it a little bit, it may phonetically resemble a certain curse. Whether or not this was intentional is besides the point.
Come on, man. If you liked the name, fine, but don't be coy about your intentions. As for "therapists," pretty much everybody here has probably seen the SNL Celebrity Jeopardy sketches, so in the context of your previous attempt, it's not like it was any great stretch for them to guess what you were going for. You tried and you got caught - it happens.
If we can't be coy, what is there left? A conversation like this takes a certain level of finesse, and judging by the crazy signature in your name, you aren't into finesse. So that's fine. If you read the comments and don't rely on literal "Drax-Like" interpretations, you can see my admission of guilt. However, as far as Therapists goes, we even have an alliance member named TrebeksMother. It's not supposed to be a secret, but it is silly to blacklist it. The word "Association" is not blacklisted, for example, and it has a curse built into it. It's OK to disagree, but a comment like this isn't additive to the conversation at hand.
I'm not referring to the coy quality of the alliance names, but to your defense quoted above. Like Pylgrim and others have pointed out, you tried to get away with a double entendre and were caught out. It sucks that you can't use a name you thought was funny, no doubt, but don't play the innocent when it's clear what you were going for.
And hey, thanks for the free signature psychoanalysis!0 -
Many seem to be missing many of the points here. I believe Peej summed it up well a few comments up. Also, it seems as though some comments are made before reading previous comments. I own "getting caught" but that's not the big picture item here.0
-
If you'll recall, the KA alliance group was the Kick Azz group. Their names got changed to Kick Ball and they got to KA instead. Don't think it was because of their playstyle that they were targeted, so that argument isn't gonna hold that much weight.0
-
In regards to the last username you quoted, am I missing something...
I thought he was just a Seminoles fan.0 -
anyone accusing narciso of whining over not getting to keep the alliance name has missed his point.
The point is not whether or not this alliance deserved to keep their name, which cleverly concealed an obscenity.
The point is that d3 can't claim to actually care about said obscenity because the game is full of alliance names and igns that baldly have obscenities in them. If d3 cared, they could at least take a shot at this with some simple code -- not that I care about obscenities myself; the point is, d3 can barely be bothered.
Therefore, d3 allows itself to be weaponized. Does anyone really think the complainant was oh-so-offended by the clever hidden obscenity? No. They were just taking a poke at narciso's alliance over an in-game grudge.
D3's job is to make a game that is fun. A customer service metagame where you can sic the censors on your in-game enemies seems kind of petty to me.
kbmartin
ign thankyoumrdata0 -
D3go developers are either too lazy or too incompetent to create a name filter that actually fits their "imaginary policy" that isn't effectively stated anywhere. It's borderline illegal to treat some customers this way and not others. It may actually be a civil offense and punishable in court to do so.
The funny thing is that D3go Cs places their hypocrisy on a shining pedestal when they enforce the forums, in seconds, but not the game content, given years to do so. They deleted the post so quickly because it "contained (phonetic) profanity", the verbatim "profanity" they allow in game, which is the whole point of this post.0 -
kbmartin wrote:anyone accusing narciso of whining over not getting to keep the alliance name has missed his point.
The point is not whether or not this alliance deserved to keep their name, which cleverly concealed an obscenity.
The point is that d3 can't claim to actually care about said obscenity because the game is full of alliance names and igns that baldly have obscenities in them. If d3 cared, they could at least take a shot at this with some simple code -- not that I care about obscenities myself; the point is, d3 can barely be bothered.
Therefore, d3 allows itself to be weaponized. Does anyone really think the complainant was oh-so-offended by the clever hidden obscenity? No. They were just taking a poke at narciso's alliance over an in-game grudge.
D3's job is to make a game that is fun. A customer service metagame where you can sic the censors on your in-game enemies seems kind of petty to me.
kbmartin
ign thankyoumrdata
they wouldn't allow me to change my username to something that had the word cucumber in it because the word "cum" is flagged. it's not a conspiracy, no one cares about their alliance.0 -
lukewin wrote:If you'll recall, the KA alliance group was the Kick Azz group. Their names got changed to Kick Ball and they got to KA instead. Don't think it was because of their playstyle that they were targeted, so that argument isn't gonna hold that much weight.
Also that other alliance with that fake chinese name that phonetically sounded like a curse (I forgot the actual name, though
)kbmartin wrote:anyone accusing narciso of whining over not getting to keep the alliance name has missed his point.
The point is not whether or not this alliance deserved to keep their name, which cleverly concealed an obscenity.
The point is that d3 can't claim to actually care about said obscenity because the game is full of alliance names and igns that baldly have obscenities in them. If d3 cared, they could at least take a shot at this with some simple code -- not that I care about obscenities myself; the point is, d3 can barely be bothered.
Therefore, d3 allows itself to be weaponized. Does anyone really think the complainant was oh-so-offended by the clever hidden obscenity? No. They were just taking a poke at narciso's alliance over an in-game grudge.
D3's job is to make a game that is fun. A customer service metagame where you can sic the censors on your in-game enemies seems kind of petty to me.
kbmartin
ign thankyoumrdata
Next time I get a speeding ticket, I'll refuse to pay referring to how almost everybody speeds once in a while....let's see how that works out
0 -
Here's the big picture as I see it:San Narciso wrote:Many seem to be missing many of the points here. I believe Peej summed it up well a few comments up. Also, it seems as though some comments are made before reading previous comments. I own "getting caught" but that's not the big picture item here.
-D3 is lazy on the name filter. They have a vague "no offensive names" policy with some hard keywords excluded, but for the most part, it's easy to get around. But they probably have some sort of "I'll know offensive when I see it" definition and not a hard and fast one.
-You came up with a clever phonetic way of spelling something that you knew would absolutely be flagged as offensive if you spelled it out correctly. You came up with a shaky, but decent enough double entendre to allow you to offer an explanation of why the name could be sincere. That took some wit and you should be commended for it. Having said that, you knew exactly what you were doing- you created a smart end-around D3's filter.
-Right or wrong, your name would have probably flown right under the radar were it simply a top-500 alliance that no one pays much attention to. But it's a fairly prominent alliance, that plays a way that tends to be discouraged among high-level players. So somebody cared enough about you to report it.
-D3 gets the report, sees an obvious attempt to circumvent their policy, and changes your name. Again, they're lazy, so they don't go combing through every 2-bit alliance trying to find clever ways to use offensive language.
-You get mad because you thought you got around it, and you want D3 to either go after everyone (which they are too lazy to do) or refund your ISO, or let you change to another double entendre name that is much less clever and much more obvious.
-D3 says "no," probably because you've just broken one of their rules, wasted their time in having to look it up, change it, and deal with you, and even though you "own 'getting caught,'" you show zero contrition by trying another end-around with TheRapists. Which I highly doubt engenders any good will with D3.
So... bottom line big picture: you tried to beat the system to break and admittedly nebulous rule and thought you were smart enough to get away with it- and likely would've been if not for those meddlesome alliances that don't like the way you play- and it cost you ISO and wasted both your and D3's time. You then expected that D3 would allow you to do the exact same thing with the next name, for reasons I can't fathom. And now you're mad about it. So you're pointing to everyone else with a questionable name, claiming that D3 has been "weaponized" (this one is really silly... if you report a murder, you didn't "weaponize" the legal system, you just reported a murder), or implying that there are shady practices all around at D3. These are all just tactics to convolute a very simple situation: you broke a rule and you got caught, and D3 didn't give you a chance to do it again.
My advice is to become even wittier, or stop whining.0 -
Well, shoot. My analytical therapist group is going to have to find something else. David Cross will be so sad.0
-
Why do I get the feeling this is the sort of person who would name their alliance '); drop table alliances?0
-
jobob wrote:
Here's the big picture as I see it:San Narciso wrote:Many seem to be missing many of the points here. I believe Peej summed it up well a few comments up. Also, it seems as though some comments are made before reading previous comments. I own "getting caught" but that's not the big picture item here.
-D3 is lazy on the name filter. They have a vague "no offensive names" policy with some hard keywords excluded, but for the most part, it's easy to get around. But they probably have some sort of "I'll know offensive when I see it" definition and not a hard and fast one.
-You came up with a clever phonetic way of spelling something that you knew would absolutely be flagged as offensive if you spelled it out correctly. You came up with a shaky, but decent enough double entendre to allow you to offer an explanation of why the name could be sincere. That took some wit and you should be commended for it. Having said that, you knew exactly what you were doing- you created a smart end-around D3's filter.
-Right or wrong, your name would have probably flown right under the radar were it simply a top-500 alliance that no one pays much attention to. But it's a fairly prominent alliance, that plays a way that tends to be discouraged among high-level players. So somebody cared enough about you to report it.
-D3 gets the report, sees an obvious attempt to circumvent their policy, and changes your name. Again, they're lazy, so they don't go combing through every 2-bit alliance trying to find clever ways to use offensive language.
-You get mad because you thought you got around it, and you want D3 to either go after everyone (which they are too lazy to do) or refund your ISO, or let you change to another double entendre name that is much less clever and much more obvious.
-D3 says "no," probably because you've just broken one of their rules, wasted their time in having to look it up, change it, and deal with you, and even though you "own 'getting caught,'" you show zero contrition by trying another end-around with TheRapists. Which I highly doubt engenders any good will with D3.
So... bottom line big picture: you tried to beat the system to break and admittedly nebulous rule and thought you were smart enough to get away with it- and likely would've been if not for those meddlesome alliances that don't like the way you play- and it cost you ISO and wasted both your and D3's time. You then expected that D3 would allow you to do the exact same thing with the next name, for reasons I can't fathom. And now you're mad about it. So you're pointing to everyone else with a questionable name, claiming that D3 has been "weaponized" (this one is really silly... if you report a murder, you didn't "weaponize" the legal system, you just reported a murder), or implying that there are shady practices all around at D3. These are all just tactics to convolute a very simple situation: you broke a rule and you got caught, and D3 didn't give you a chance to do it again.
My advice is to become even wittier, or stop whining.
You make good points, are very rational about your explanation, and you only delve into the third grade once, by saying Mr. Narcisco is whining.
I have to disagree on two points:
1. Perhaps the alliance actually is a group of therapists. There was nothing to say they attempted to use the name ("TheRapists"), with the R capitalized. Thus, your argument that a word in the English language - a profession, in fact - is "much less clever," "much more obvious," and showing a lack of contrition, fails. Sure, subjectively, that looks bad, but without an opportunity to explain, d3 might be seen as stifiling free expression.
2. I think the real concern is the lack of notice. D3 says that "offensive" names are a violation of the terms of service, but said terms are nowhere to be found. If you can help me find those, I'd really like to take a look.
Selective enforcement is afoot, just like the selective "one time only exceptions" given to some, but not all, people who call d3 on its inconsistencies. It is correct that pointing out that other people are speeding will not get you out of a speeding ticket, but showing that you were pulled over for a discriminatory purpose (enforced against one person, not all, in an arbitrary or capricious way) just may. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this in any way is like discriminatory traffic stops, but the way customer service tends to handle things is, at the very least, unfair at times.
Call me a whiner, or whatever, but when everyone is not being held to the same standard, or allowed to play on a level playing field, the folks in charge are not doing things right. At some level, even those of you who think this is a silly discussion have to be able to see the bigger picture, and realize that there is a point to be made here.0 -
Peej13 wrote:jobob wrote:
Here's the big picture as I see it:San Narciso wrote:Many seem to be missing many of the points here. I believe Peej summed it up well a few comments up. Also, it seems as though some comments are made before reading previous comments. I own "getting caught" but that's not the big picture item here.
-D3 is lazy on the name filter. They have a vague "no offensive names" policy with some hard keywords excluded, but for the most part, it's easy to get around. But they probably have some sort of "I'll know offensive when I see it" definition and not a hard and fast one.
-You came up with a clever phonetic way of spelling something that you knew would absolutely be flagged as offensive if you spelled it out correctly. You came up with a shaky, but decent enough double entendre to allow you to offer an explanation of why the name could be sincere. That took some wit and you should be commended for it. Having said that, you knew exactly what you were doing- you created a smart end-around D3's filter.
-Right or wrong, your name would have probably flown right under the radar were it simply a top-500 alliance that no one pays much attention to. But it's a fairly prominent alliance, that plays a way that tends to be discouraged among high-level players. So somebody cared enough about you to report it.
-D3 gets the report, sees an obvious attempt to circumvent their policy, and changes your name. Again, they're lazy, so they don't go combing through every 2-bit alliance trying to find clever ways to use offensive language.
-You get mad because you thought you got around it, and you want D3 to either go after everyone (which they are too lazy to do) or refund your ISO, or let you change to another double entendre name that is much less clever and much more obvious.
-D3 says "no," probably because you've just broken one of their rules, wasted their time in having to look it up, change it, and deal with you, and even though you "own 'getting caught,'" you show zero contrition by trying another end-around with TheRapists. Which I highly doubt engenders any good will with D3.
So... bottom line big picture: you tried to beat the system to break and admittedly nebulous rule and thought you were smart enough to get away with it- and likely would've been if not for those meddlesome alliances that don't like the way you play- and it cost you ISO and wasted both your and D3's time. You then expected that D3 would allow you to do the exact same thing with the next name, for reasons I can't fathom. And now you're mad about it. So you're pointing to everyone else with a questionable name, claiming that D3 has been "weaponized" (this one is really silly... if you report a murder, you didn't "weaponize" the legal system, you just reported a murder), or implying that there are shady practices all around at D3. These are all just tactics to convolute a very simple situation: you broke a rule and you got caught, and D3 didn't give you a chance to do it again.
My advice is to become even wittier, or stop whining.
You make good points, are very rational about your explanation, and you only delve into the third grade once, by saying Mr. Narcisco is whining.
I have to disagree on two points:
1. Perhaps the alliance actually is a group of therapists. There was nothing to say they attempted to use the name ("TheRapists"), with the R capitalized. Thus, your argument that a word in the English language - a profession, in fact - is "much less clever," "much more obvious," and showing a lack of contrition, fails. Sure, subjectively, that looks bad, but without an opportunity to explain, d3 might be seen as stifiling free expression.
2. I think the real concern is the lack of notice. D3 says that "offensive" names are a violation of the terms of service, but said terms are nowhere to be found. If you can help me find those, I'd really like to take a look.
Selective enforcement is afoot, just like the selective "one time only exceptions" given to some, but not all, people who call d3 on its inconsistencies. It is correct that pointing out that other people are speeding will not get you out of a speeding ticket, but showing that you were pulled over for a discriminatory purpose (enforced against one person, not all, in an arbitrary or capricious way) just may. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this in any way is like discriminatory traffic stops, but the way customer service tends to handle things is, at the very least, unfair at times.
Call me a whiner, or whatever, but when everyone is not being held to the same standard, or allowed to play on a level playing field, the folks in charge are not doing things right. At some level, even those of you who think this is a silly discussion have to be able to see the bigger picture, and realize that there is a point to be made here.
I think you are both are right. As for OP's original post, I think they admitted that they were trying for a tongue in cheek name, so saying that they honestly wanted to be called therapists is false. As for the double standard, you are completely right. CS has always held everyone to different standards. That is nothing new. I wrote a post here about month to 2 months ago and it was taken down within 10 minutes. I didn't even see the replies because I went to shower. The one time exceptions seem to happen for certain people more than once and others never. As long as posts get moderated in a way where no one is allowed to actively say something wrong about CS, this will keep going on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 44.6K Marvel Puzzle Quest
- 1.5K MPQ News and Announcements
- 20.2K MPQ General Discussion
- 3K MPQ Tips and Guides
- 2K MPQ Character Discussion
- 171 MPQ Supports Discussion
- 2.5K MPQ Events, Tournaments, and Missions
- 2.8K MPQ Alliances
- 6.3K MPQ Suggestions and Feedback
- 6.2K MPQ Bugs and Technical Issues
- 13.5K Magic: The Gathering - Puzzle Quest
- 496 MtGPQ News & Announcements
- 5.3K MtGPQ General Discussion
- 98 MtGPQ Tips & Guides
- 417 MtGPQ Deck Strategy & Planeswalker Discussion
- 293 MtGPQ Events
- 60 MtGPQ Coalitions
- 1.2K MtGPQ Suggestions & Feedback
- 5.6K MtGPQ Bugs & Technical Issues
- 548 Other 505 Go Inc. Games
- 21 Puzzle Quest: The Legend Returns
- 5 Adventure Gnome
- 6 Word Designer: Country Home
- 381 Other Games
- 142 General Discussion
- 239 Off Topic
- 7 505 Go Inc. Forum Rules
- 7 Forum Rules and Site Announcements