About the massive loss of good manners

Chrynos1989

First off, I’m not going to defend that retroactive rewards, they were poorly made!
Although, retroactive rewards aren’t a must in a game, the way they were handled and especially communicated was horrible, that one’s  on you D3, take it as a lesson of how not to do it.
Am I angered too? Yes, of course! But...

What happens the last days here has reached a point of toxicity that’s unbearable

First
Justins comment on Discord
Was it not well-thought? Was it poorly written? Yes, but he was surprised from the feedback, maybe he was tired (from what I know about the timezones he might just have come to work in the early morn), maybe he tried to be funny but made things worse, doesn’t matter, he made a mistake and excused for it. But some of the guys here still have to bash on him. That’s like you step on my foot, excuse for it, but still I punch you in the face every time I see you the next 10 years. You call that excessive. It’s enough, everything has been said, just stop.

Second
Threats of clawbacks
First off, an unfounded clawback can lead to a ban of your account, that’s in tos, read it.
Then, where is your reason for a clawback? You bought a Stark during hp sale and got your 26k and your 7 CP, how you spend it is your thing and has nothing to do with retroactive rewards. There was no promise of certain champ rewards tied to that buy.

Third
1*-ratings in AppStore and google play
While I think that’s the right way to express your anger besides your comments here (as long as they are not insulting), how some people handle that option is super toxic.
I saw comments in which people nearly celebrated that the rating went down by 0.1.
You guys remind me of that little Grimmar guy Saruman sent to king Theodin.

*wheez*cough* The rating went down from 4.2 to 4.1! *snicker*wheez*

That‘s not helping the matter nor constructive just trolling and sarcastic!


While, as I already stated, the reward updates were poorly made, we all should calm down and act like civilized humans.

Last thing to the devs directly: you should think about changing the reward updates, that would only be fair. And in the future, try to make information easier to understand and make updates earlier, that would prevent such situations that are unpleasant for both players and you too I’m sure.



that are my 5 Cents to that situation, please accept that everyone has a right for an own opinion, please don’t flame and stay civilized

EDIT:
not gonna response to all single posts since that would take forever and create more responses to respond to

Just to make sure, I’m absolutely not content how that rewards were handled, I’m as pissed as you and see it as one off the greatest let downs in the history of this game
also I won’t defend the devs, they made mistakes here and before and they seem to repeat some of them

what i say is

Don’t  threat and insult people, won’t help, you probably get banned and said person is more likely to just block at all

About clawbacks, I still say you got what you paid for, but I won’t tell anyone what to do with their money/purchases. You earned it, you spend it, you just run the danger of getting banned and lose all, but that‘s a thing everyone has to know for himself/herself

And for the 1* movement, of course spread the word and the progress but I just think people won’t take you serious when you sound like the grinch, but again, that is a thing everyone has to know for himself/herself, not trying to tell anyone what to do

Chrynos1989

OJSP said:

Good points, but I think you probably meant manners instead of manors? (although maybe some players lose some of their manors while playing and spending in this game too..)

Lol, sorry my fault XD gonna fix that

DAZ0273

Colognoisseur

First
Justin’s Comment on Discord

it showed the contempt that the Demiurge team hold for the people who pay their hard earned money so they can be successful game designers.
As I said in a different thread that attitude doesn’t come from nowhere.

Second

Threats of Clawbacks

Despite screenshot evidence of a few who did that it is mostly bluster. Most realize they received what they paid for as you stated.

Third

1*-ratings in AppStore and Google Play

As you say in OP this is probably the correct response if you’re frustrated. I agree since it was my post that originally asked players to do it.
If you want people to join a protest it helps to let them know its working.
Thus the message I posted to let others know that if they think this is also an effective way to voice their displeasure it is working as the score trended downward within a few hours.
It was a way of saying we are having an effect even if it is small.

It is obvious you are content with the current situation. It is not a lack of manners, or manors, to hold a different view and express it in the official forum.

randomhero1090

First:  He represents the company, the game, the brand.  The timing was extremely poor.  The audience was packed full of vets and spenders.  It was just bad.  Should he burn for the rest of time?  Of course not.  But it has been a couple of days.  Stepping on someone's foot is normally an accident.  His comment....  yeah, I don't think it was.

Second:  People can do what they wish with their own accounts and money.  I will tell you this much, the forum post outlining 4* rewards screams misrepresentation.  "We want to ensure that players receive those rewards for the level they have reached."  Well, that wasn't done.  Personally, that post alone should force the hand of D3 to issue 5* feeder rewards based on the updated 4* champ levels.

Third:  Ratings and reviews exist for a reason.  Voice of the customer.  You'll find ratings are usually 4.5 or 1.  That's it.  I could quote a number of studies that people are ~80% more likely to post a review after a negative experience than a positive one.  This happens all the time with mobile games.  Bad patch, resource change, whatever.  People flock to the review sites to voice their displeasure since they might not have a voice otherwise.


I think the lack of manners came from the way this was handled.  Poor communication, odd timing of sales, some snarky comments in discord...  adds up to a very poor customer experience.

I actually do this for a living.  I have been in the exact, THE EXACT, same position as D3.  Guess what we did?  We honored the customers' feedback and made changes.  But i'll tell you the impacts have been outgoing for 2+ years now.  I still have upset customers to this day.

Vhailorx

Enh, generally speaking I view calls for civility as a tacit endorsement of the status quo (i.e., only those content with the way things are have the time to focus on niceties).

I do not endorse personal attacks on demi/d3 personal (even if they make some unfortunate comments), and actual harassment or abuse is beyond the pale.  

But being abrasive or angry on the forums?  That seems in-bounds to me, even though I personally don't think it's at all productive to rage and curse and swear. if people feel upset and want to express it that way, I don't see a good justification for saying they shouldn't.

AXP_isme

there’s a lot to be said for civility. Using inflammatory language tends to polarise debate and decreases the likelihood of finding common ground. There’s a trade-off, evident in a lot of politics at the moment, where using colourful, dramatic, inflammatory language tends to galvanise support amongst those who already agree with you and also reinforce the dislike amongst those who already dislike you. It doesn’t help if what you’re looking for is constructive discussion. You have to remain respectful and civil if you want the person, or people, you’re discussing with to do the same in return. 

I like complaining loudly and colourfully as much as the next person, possibly more, but it doesn’t make it helpful. Expressing my complaint in a way that denigrates the person I’m complaining to, regardless of whether it’s their fault or not, will just make them feel victimised and feel bad. If they help me subsequently it will be because they feel they must, not because they want to. 

Vhailorx

I don't mean to suggest that I see no value in civility.  On the contrary, as I said in my post, I tend to think that rage and uncivil criticism is rarely productive.  And actual harassment or abuse is **** and should not be permitted.

What I was addressing are general appeals to civility in the face of some other problem.  So for example, consider this:

(1) person X says some thing truly hateful.

(2) person Y calls X out for the reprehensible comment, but does so rudely.

(3) person Z issues a general call for civility and laments the lapsing standards of the modern age.

I would argue that person Z in my scenario is effectively supporting person X. Z's statement is a tactic that is used to seem impartial and above the pettiness.  But really is just protects the status quo by establishing a false equivalency.

Dogface

Vhailorx said:

I don't mean to suggest that I see no value in civility.  On the contrary, as I said in my post, I tend to think that rage and uncivil criticism is rarely productive.  And actual harassment or abuse is tinykitty and should not be permitted.

What I was addressing are general appeals to civility in the face of some other problem.  So for example, consider this:

(1) person X says some thing truly hateful.

(2) person Y calls X out for the reprehensible comment, but does so rudely.

(3) person Z issues a general call for civility and laments the lapsing standards of the modern age.

I would argue that person Z in my scenario is effectively supporting person X. Z's statement is a tactic that is used to seem impartial and above the pettiness.  But really is just protects the status quo by establishing a false equivalency.

I honestly can't see how person Z supports person X here. That's some strange mind step.

Vhailorx

OJSP said:

I've been reading about debating tactics and logical fallacies just earlier today and that feels like something that I found there https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

But, I don't know if this thread was meant to be a debate or not or even trying to convey that message. You're probably reading too much into the intention of the OP. Or, maybe I was wrong, which is also entirely plausible.

C'mon OJSP.  If you are going to accuse me of a classic logical fallacy, at least tell me which one! 

I don't mean to suggest  Chrynos was intentionally supporting demi/d3 by calling for civility.  I just think it's an almost inevitable result of the type of statement Chrynos made. 

randomhero1090

OJSP said:

I've been reading about debating tactics and logical fallacies just earlier today and that feels like something that I found there https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

But, I don't know if this thread was meant to be a debate or not or even trying to convey that message. You're probably reading too much into the intention of the OP. Or, maybe I was wrong, which is also entirely plausible.

That's a great article.  I passed it on to the sales teams here.  I highlighted Equivocation and Bandwagon.

Therealsmkspy

So we entered that phase where people are telling other people how they should behave. Should make for an entertaining thread.

Godzillafan67

randomhero1090 said:

OJSP said:

I've been reading about debating tactics and logical fallacies just earlier today and that feels like something that I found there https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

But, I don't know if this thread was meant to be a debate or not or even trying to convey that message. You're probably reading too much into the intention of the OP. Or, maybe I was wrong, which is also entirely plausible.

That's a great article.  I passed it on to the sales teams here.  I highlighted Equivocation and Bandwagon.

Because you want them to use those fallacies correctly? If I'm the sales team, that's what I'd get out of your forward. 

broll

Colognoisseur said:

First
Justin’s Comment on Discord

it showed the contempt that the Demiurge team hold for the people who pay their hard earned money so they can be successful game designers.
As I said in a different thread that attitude doesn’t come from nowhere.

I don't think that's necessarily the case.  I took it more as ignorance.

When my alliance started freaking out I had a similar reaction, until someone explained to me what was missing (at the time I hadn't read the middle of the night not noted in the title update of what to expect and hadn't done any calculations on my roster on what to expect.  It's long suspected that most of the devs don't or barely play, he admitted later that day that his roster was so low he didn't apply for any retro rewards.  I think this was just ignorance and failure to think through tact.  I don't feel this shows that the devs clearly hate us.  That's an emotional response rather than a reasoned one IMO, as much of the last couple days have been.  

Vhailorx

Dogface said:

Vhailorx said:

I don't mean to suggest that I see no value in civility.  On the contrary, as I said in my post, I tend to think that rage and uncivil criticism is rarely productive.  And actual harassment or abuse is tinykitty and should not be permitted.

What I was addressing are general appeals to civility in the face of some other problem.  So for example, consider this:

(1) person X says some thing truly hateful.

(2) person Y calls X out for the reprehensible comment, but does so rudely.

(3) person Z issues a general call for civility and laments the lapsing standards of the modern age.

I would argue that person Z in my scenario is effectively supporting person X. Z's statement is a tactic that is used to seem impartial and above the pettiness.  But really is just protects the status quo by establishing a false equivalency.

I honestly can't see how person Z supports person X here. That's some strange mind step.

Because Person X did something hateful/reprehensible, while Person Y did something appropriate, but in a rude fashion (and for purposes of my thought experiment, Person X's comments are indisputably bad).  By equating those two transgressionss, Person Z is minimizing the severity of Person X's transgressions.

I can try to make the example even clearer using more specific examples:

Person X: I really want to commit genocide against [insert racial/ethnic group here].

Person Y: what the ****?!  That's a **** horrible thing to say?  Are you **** serious?  You are such a **** bigot.  You ****!

Person Z: I strongly condemn this shocking lack of civility from all sides.  What is becoming of the modern world!?

Whatever the intent, the effect of Person Z's statement is helpful to Person X.

Dogface

That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. 

How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.
Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. 
I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X.

Vhailorx

Dogface said:

That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. 

How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.
Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. 
I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X.

Right, Person Z at has completely elided the horrible statement that Person X made, and has instead focused on a totally different, and less important, subject where Person Y is at least as culpable as Person X. 

Person Z "should" politely refute Person X's  statement.  Refocusing on a different topic lets X off the hook.

IIAlonditeII

Criticisms on a web based forum are not akin to punches in the face, and the timeframe of "the following day" is not akin to "the next 10 years". I appreciate the thing you were going for, but if you're attempting to show that someone was / is going to far, hyperbole is not your friend, since grossly exaggerating the comparison makes your attempt to quell the flames just seem invalid.

IIAlonditeII

Dogface said:

That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. 

How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.
Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. 
I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X.

That's kind of the thing though. In the given example, if X says something heinous and Y is rude to X over the statement, and Z believes in Civil Discourse, then Z's civil responsibility is to politely dress down X over the heinous comment. By instead saying "hey Y, you need to be Civil", the message that is sent is that "you being uncivil towards X is worse to me than X's inflammatory comments. You can tell this is the case because that is the problem I chose to address."

Vhailorx

IIAlonditeII said:

Dogface said:

That is the point. You talk about equating those transgressions, whereas it is never made clear that that is what person Z is doing. 

How I see it, person X makes a horrible statement, person Y justifiably counters that, but in a inappropriate manner.
Person Z says nothing about the horribleness of person X, but rather (as I see it) points out that a severe reaction to a horrible statement isn't going to help the cause. 
I see it that in a debate, the person that first turns it into a shouting match loses. In this case, person Z is if anything more on person Y's side, cautioning him/her to make their point in a calm, constructive manner, thus making a stronger counterargument against person X.

That's kind of the thing though. In the given example, if X says something heinous and Y is rude to X over the statement, and Z believes in Civil Discourse, then Z's civil responsibility is to politely dress down X over the heinous comment. By instead saying "hey Y, you need to be Civil", the message that is sent is that "you being uncivil towards X is worse to me than X's inflammatory comments. You can tell this is the case because that is the problem I chose to address."

Yes, thank you for stating my argument in a much clearer way!

I would even argue that this message is sent when Z says "Hey X and Y, you both need to be Civil!"

The rockett

Chrynos1989 said:

First
Justins comment on Discord. 

Second
Threats of clawbacks  

Third
1*-ratings in AppStore and google play. 

I saw this and wanted to comment on these. 

Justin’s comment:
i was on Discord when he said this comment and it blew up.  The issue is what he does for Demi, he has no idea of what we were talking about since that is not his job, but that comment really got the community together like I have never seen before. He came back with us “hat in hand” and said he was wrong and apologized.  He asked a lot of questions to truly understand what happened.  While the comment was wrong, I give him credit for facing the mob and asking the right questions. 

Clawbacks:
Yea...if people want to do this, good luck.  I can see some major issues with this due to the fact they even said they were looking into it. Not touching this one with a ten foot pole 

Ratings:
This was a great idea from @Colognoisseur to do this.  Was it an “extreme” move?  Yes.  Was it necessary and did it grab their attention?  OH HECK YES!!  We as players have very little power at times.  We pull out our trump card and played it was the desired result.  
While on Discord and I posted the updated rating, you could clearly tell that this had a big effect on them. 

At the end of the day, the community won. The buy clubs stopped, the community was active in the forums/discord/reddit/facebook/ Line/ etc.  We spoke at them arm in arm
to tell them why this was wrong and what the issues were.  
Did some people go to far?  Of course. Were some very rude?  Heck yes. Should some be ashamed of what they did?  Very much so. 
Should the community be proud that we were able to take action and make them understand the power we have?  Heck yes!!!  

I know I am very happy and proud to have helped with all of the others to truly dig into the details of what this first update meant and how it hurt us and truly was unfair.