To Devalos, Yes you have the right according to the EULA to ban someone and deny them the service.

If you are a Funcom employee and I was your boss I would fire you right now. That type of attitude stinks, MMORPG's rely on people subscribing for a long time due to their investment in the game. You have just displayed the attitude that SOE had with SWG.

You have just made my mind up not to subscribe at the end of my thirty days, I will not pay a company that has these sorts of business practices.

And the moral of the story goes, you guys just banned a bunch of people without any real reasoning. It's across many forums now.

I wouldn't have even bothered this much if I didn't feel like I was robbed of $50 bucks. You MMO companies get away with robbery these days.

I'm done here. Your unprofessional attitude in this thread is a credit against Funcom, and I hope to see you working at the nearest Burger King next month.

Adios.

Greetings,

Thank you for submitting your request to Funcom Customer Service.

There is no need to reply to this message right now. This mail simply confirms that your ticket has been created and assigned an ID of [Funcom Support #XXXXXXXXXX].

Please include "[Funcom Support #XXXXXXXXXX]" in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. Alternatively, you may reply to this message.

Regards,
Funcom Customer Service

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

Originally posted by De_Valos

 

Greetings,

Thank you for submitting your request to Funcom Customer Service.

There is no need to reply to this message right now. This mail simply confirms that your ticket has been created and assigned an ID of [Funcom Support #XXXXXXXXXX].

Please include "[Funcom Support #XXXXXXXXXX]" in the subject line of all future correspondence about this issue. Alternatively, you may reply to this message.

Regards,
Funcom Customer Service

 

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

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!

Originally posted by Cymdai

Heh... you know.

If you want to ask the details, ask around in OOC why the leader was banned.

Apparently, they weren't banned for gold-storing at all, rather, abusing the Ravine Resource bug.

In other words, they had accumulated more resources than they were legitimately allowed to have total.

Seriously... ask around on OOC on the Deathwhisper server. That's what multiple different people have said to me, all from different guilds.

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.

Originally posted by Ulfar

 To Devalos, Yes you have the right according to the EULA to ban someone and deny them the service.

 

If you are a Funcom employee and I was your boss I would fire you right now. That type of attitude stinks, MMORPG's rely on people subscribing for a long time due to their investment in the game. You have just displayed the attitude that SOE had with SWG.

 

You have just made my mind up not to subscribe at the end of my thirty days, I will not pay a company that has these sorts of business practices.

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

 

As I've stated, Funcom does not discuss an individuals account with the public.  Assuming you are who you say you are and are innocent, contact Funcom via official means at:

Game account or subscription issues - account@ageofconan.com

Then there is the EULA which states a customer's account can be terminated at any time without reason.  It's called the right of refusal of service and is at the discression of the any company to refuse service so long as the basis of such refusal is not on the basis of religion, sex, political preference, or some other means of discrimination.

 

 

Baseline, I seem to recall you mentioning having an issue with having to run back and forth from point to point being a gripe with MMOs:

"killing 50 million deer, bears, rabbits and taking the 40 minute hike back to the quest giver"

Perhaps that was your downfall?

 

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?

Originally posted by convict

 

As I've stated, Funcom does not discuss an individuals account with the public.  Assuming you are who you say you are and are innocent, contact Funcom via official means at:

Game account or subscription issues - account@ageofconan.com

Then there is the EULA which states a customer's account can be terminated at any time without reason.  It's called the right of refusal of service and is at the discression of the any company to refuse service so long as the basis of such refusal is not on the basis of religion, sex, political preference, or some other means of discrimination.

 

 

Baseline, I seem to recall you mentioning having an issue with having to run back and forth from point to point being a gripe with MMOs:

"killing 50 million deer, bears, rabbits and taking the 40 minute hike back to the quest giver"

Perhaps that was your downfall?

 

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?

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.

Originally posted by Baseline

 

Originally posted by convict

 

As I've stated, Funcom does not discuss an individuals account with the public.  Assuming you are who you say you are and are innocent, contact Funcom via official means at:

Game account or subscription issues - account@ageofconan.com

Then there is the EULA which states a customer's account can be terminated at any time without reason.  It's called the right of refusal of service and is at the discression of the any company to refuse service so long as the basis of such refusal is not on the basis of religion, sex, political preference, or some other means of discrimination.

 

 

Baseline, I seem to recall you mentioning having an issue with having to run back and forth from point to point being a gripe with MMOs:

"killing 50 million deer, bears, rabbits and taking the 40 minute hike back to the quest giver"

Perhaps that was your downfall?

 

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?

 

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't the time arguing publically be better spent getting some of these cases closed, one way or another? =D

Originally posted by bee52

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.

Originally posted by De_Valos

 

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.

 

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.

Originally posted by De_Valos

 *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.

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.

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

Originally posted by De_Valos

 

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.

 

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.

---

Originally posted by De_Valos

---

Originally posted by bee52

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.

---

Originally posted by maskedweasel

 

 

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. 

I am glad this case is settled :P

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. 

So what?

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.

True, but maybe FunComs decide to compensate him for the loss -- maybe not /shrug

Thats bad business. It just is. 

Sometimes, unfortunately, its only possible to decide between plaque and cholera ...

As I said previously if funcom didn't want them to use said exploits.. they shouldn't have put them in the game. 

They didn't put in an exploit on purpose. It's a bug people exploited -- two different things entirely

If they don't want people ganking other players in a group, then they shouldn't allow that in the game either...

Thats a different thread ...

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.

LOL -- if you don't want people driving drunk, you prohibit cars?

http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,74406/

 

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.

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 ...