Question about wording


Aett_Thorn

 

Posted

This came up on a SG forum and damn if it's not bothering me cause I thought i read it too. People have been quoting posi saying the bans would be looked at on a "case by case basis". I DON'T WANT TO BRING UP ANY ARGUMENTS. I was just wondering where that was taken from? Originally I thought it was in the Dev digest posts but i don't see it there. A good friend suggested it was a "bandwagon" thing where someone paraphrased and then everyone just used it. I remember there being a Q&A I read (not the dev digest) but now i can't find that (too many sites visited to remember where i read it) and I was wondering if it was in that.

So honestly i am just wondering where the heck that came from and quit honestly i figure most of the people here would know. I would appreciate any input just on this thank you.



"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"
-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events

 

Posted

I am quite sure that it came from this post by Posi. However, I can't see that phrase being used specifically. However, in several places, he mentions that the support staff will play the arc to find out if it's an exploit, so that may be what they're paraphrasing.

I'll keep reading it and see if I find anything out.

Edit -> Maybe this:

[ QUOTE ]
Q) “You say not to use the word “Farm” in the mission or description. Is that how you are blanket banning things?”
A) We do not do blanket banning based on keywords or phrases. When customer service bans an arc, they are looking at the arc in question when they do it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

"I was just the one with the most unsolicited sombrero." - Traegus

 

Posted

Aett beat me to it. I was checking redname posts as far back as closed beta I-14 to see if I could find it there, but I think Aett is right.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite


Dark_Respite's Farewell Video: "One Last Day"
THE COURSE OF SUPERHERO ROMANCE CONTINUES!
Book I: A Tale of Nerd Flirting! ~*~ Book II: Courtship and Crime Fighting - Chap Nine live!
MA Arcs - 3430: Hell Hath No Fury / 3515: Positron Gets Some / 6600: Dyne of the Times / 351572: For All the Wrong Reasons
378944: Too Clever by Half / 459581: Kill or Cure / 551680: Clerical Errors (NEW!)

 

Posted

Well, I don't know about the 'bandwagon, thing, but I feel qualified as a government certified linguist and language analyst that the quoted text makes the case fairly clear that banning of arcs will indeed be on a case by case basis. There is no other way to accurately parse the statement made that CS will not ban arcs by keyword and that any arc being considered for banning/removal/action will first be checked by CS. That's pretty plain. "Case by case basis" is a standard colloquialism in English for "individually".


Ninus Lvl 50 Bots/Dark/SM Mastermind Badges: 1384 @Ninus on Global
Put an Ebil MasterMind in the Obal Office: It wont be the first time
Campaigning for Global Global Ignore Champion since 2009!

 

Posted

No this was in refrence to players though not arcs.

From this statement:

Q) “If I powerlevelled a character, am I going to lose them?”
A) Probably not. Only the worst of the worst, exploitive, powerlevelled characters will be removed from the game. We don’t take retroactive punishments lightly, but some offenses are so egregious that no one would question their intent and those ill-gotten gains should be dealt with. I just want to emphasize that no one is looking to ‘punish’ anyone here, but rather remove the rewards of exploitive behavior.



"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"
-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events

 

Posted

Yes. I was addressing the first quote (having to do with arcs), and I mean no offense nor am I really trying to argue. I have read many of your postings on the subject; and while I may disagree with your 'take' on the matter, I do believe it is a valid one. So, what I am saying is that 'case by case basis' is not a mistranslation of any of Posi's statements, but rather it is a valid interpretation of his statements both concerning Mission Arcs and subscribers/accounts which specifically transgressed the spirit and letter of the EULA in using known exploitable content for ingame gain. I am not making a judgement on the situation only on the terminology used.

Posi's words are valid, the interpretation that CS will look into the whole 'event' and make judgements/take action on a case by case (or individual) basis is valid in the way he worded the statement. Only time will tell if the actions are implemented in a just and equitable manner. I would hope so, but I don't know anyone who particularly abused any exploitable content; so I will only know anecdotally. All I can say from past actions by CS is that they appear to be fair although some consider them heavyhanded. That is an individual judgement call.


Ninus Lvl 50 Bots/Dark/SM Mastermind Badges: 1384 @Ninus on Global
Put an Ebil MasterMind in the Obal Office: It wont be the first time
Campaigning for Global Global Ignore Champion since 2009!

 

Posted

[ QUOTE ]
Yes. I was addressing the first quote (having to do with arcs), and I mean no offense nor am I really trying to argue. I have read many of your postings on the subject; and while I may disagree with your 'take' on the matter, I do believe it is a valid one. So, what I am saying is that 'case by case basis' is not a mistranslation of any of Posi's statements, but rather it is a valid interpretation of his statements both concerning Mission Arcs and subscribers/accounts which specifically transgressed the spirit and letter of the EULA in using known exploitable content for ingame gain. I am not making a judgement on the situation only on the terminology used.

Posi's words are valid, the interpretation that CS will look into the whole 'event' and make judgements/take action on a case by case (or individual) basis is valid in the way he worded the statement. Only time will tell if the actions are implemented in a just and equitable manner. I would hope so, but I don't know anyone who particularly abused any exploitable content; so I will only know anecdotally. All I can say from past actions by CS is that they appear to be fair although some consider them heavyhanded. That is an individual judgement call.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no, no offense taken matter of fact I posted the first part in answer to you to see if that interpretation still applyed. My thanks to you for that explination and taking the time to give your input



"Play Nice and BEHAVE! I don't want to hear about any more of your shenanigans brought up in our meetings at Paragon"
-Ghost Falcon @Tritonfree @Philly's 2nd Convenient CIGAL BoBC/INOANN Arts&Crafts Sporks
Average Joes FAP THE MENTOR PROJECT Justice Events