Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazortag
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
So far very little evidence has been provided that meaningful posts in the petitions/exploits forum are "unread" and "unacknowledged". There is a pretty transparent system for seeing if GM's respond to posts (a) reporting players that commit offenses and (b) disputing bans/suspensions etc., because you can see how many views a post has gotten. As was said, proving you were trained, getting some views on your petition but no responses doesn't mean that the GM's did nothing about it - it just means the GM's don't have the need or the time to disclose someone else's punishment.
The thing is, Everquest is a pretty addictive game and for most players, not being able to play for a whole day is like the end of the world, so they make posts whining about how it takes "forever" to get their issues resolved when the staff is so ridiculously overburdened with shit already. The staff has already said that they like to deal with issues in a triage-like manner: the most important/easiest stuff ideally gets resolved first, with updates/bug corrections coming second, and then if there's time to acknowledge your request to know if someone who trained you was banned or if your last name can be changed, they might help you out, but don't count on it happening within a short amount of time.
While I don't like the facile responses from GM's about how it's their server and they can do what they want (which is trivially true and not really addressing the real issue - of whether it's okay to censor criticism, especially considering the time it must take to delete all critical posts), I think that most people here are either overreacting or need to provide more evidence for their claims. The server is fine. I've gotten screwed a few times, I've bitched about it (that's what guilds/moms are for), but I still can't genuinely say that I have any significant problems with the server.
TLDR: people, quit whining and learn to use "evidence"; GM's, it looks bad when you censor criticism rather than engaging with it.
|
I appreciate a well thought out and intelligent post. Furthermore, you even added a TLDR line. I'm not that considerate, so props to you, my friend.
I believe the portion I bolded sums up what I've experienced. It's amazing how this stuff works: if your claim is supported by sufficient evidence, action can be taken. If your claim is based upon conjecture and hearsay, action will not be taken.