Blizzard has lost my support

I asked for this thread to be reposted, folks; I'd like to provide response, even as ineffective as it may be. In the meantime, please keep things friendly. Thanks. :)

Repeating for emphasis:

Q u o t e:
I asked for this thread to be reposted, folks; I'd like to provide response, even as ineffective as it may be. In the meantime, please keep things friendly. Thanks. :)

Given the length of my responses, I'm going to address each point separately. Even so, I apologize for any overt delay in communication; as likely assumed, I've other duties to oversee and regrettably cannot devote my full attention to your queries and concerns, Flucksha. Nevertheless, please know that I will touch upon—to the best of my abilities—each grievance you've expressed herein. It just make take some time. :)




Point, the first — forum moderation.

This particular topic garners quite a bit of attention, though its fame, I fear, is typically furthered only by miscommunication—or, more appropriately, misunderstanding—rather than an overabundance of merit. I am firm believer that ignorance often begets malcontent, so, in effort to assuage some of your concerns, I'd like to—at the very least—attempt to provide clarity on this perceived issue.

Q u o t e:
Upon the release of a new game, the once passive forums listed above erupted into an orgy of preteen bratspam. Despite having an infinitesimal resource pool in relation to Blizzard, the Facepunch Studios forums manage to stay mature, sensible and free of abuse and trolling. The exceedingly simple but innovative smartness and rating system force forum visitors to adhere to the conventions of etiquette and courtesy.

As you've stated previously, the World of Warcraft is, by and large, an entity, largely incomparable to most other online games and communities. Given this, why do you choose to contrast this collection of forums with any other? Your point is easily assessed without drawing fallible parallels between two disparate companies and their respective moderating strategies.

I could easily delineate a fair number of reasons why the listed strategy would likely not translate well to these boards, though such a discussion would only prove long-winded and pedantic—qualities which are rarely valued in these forms of discussions. Suffice it say, these boards both support and appeal to wholly different demographics, as well maintain predominantly dissimilar populations. Providing comparisons herein, while idealistic and pretty, will neither serve your desires nor clearly articulate your point, as, in the end, should any new method of moderation be considered, such a method would need to be chiefly unique. Why? Because this bastion of public expression is, again, nigh peerless in size, in purpose, and in composition.

Q u o t e:
Your filters keep out inoffensive, unobtrusive words like g#!#! and lea***e while the forums are filled with trolls abusing and insulting each other using the same insulting, unfiltered phrases (qq, l2, gtfo, etc.)

Our filters search for both complete and partial phrases, thus words which contain profane syllables fall victim to moderation. While perhaps inconvenient, the overall impact of this mechanism is negligible, rarely successfully impeding communication. That said, I'm fairly certain that if filtering of this nature were discovered to hinder dialogue more than previously reported, potential modification to its functionality would likely come under review.

To continue, broaching censorship of singular words which are not clearly identified as "profanity" (obscene/vulgar) or wholly inappropriate (racial slurs/phrases which indicate excessive forms of violence) is risky, as everything outside of such statements is subject to extreme interpretation. The occurrence of "inoffensive, unobtrusive" words being filtered would escalate, as, more often than not, the phrases in question only largely become defamatory when paired with similar expressions. The purpose of our filter is to censor, as I said, clearly-defined profanity; it is not meant to purify intent.

Q u o t e:
Refusal to create an environment in which a sensible dialogue about the game can take place. Consistent ignorance of requests from customers to enable discussion in the one place where positive change may happen.

We possess no ignorance of those concerns expressed by our player base, Flucksha. In fact, I dare say it would be relatively impossible for anyone to remain nescient of such grievances. Unfortunately, it's not always possible to relay consistent awareness evenly—nor is it necessarily our duty to stipulate as much. As each individual possesses different standards to which he or she holds these forums, there is honestly little we can say beyond "We are working for you, and we are listening" that will serve to satisfy more than just select groups of forum denizens.

That all said, it's imperative to realize the workload your moderators confront day in and day out. The World of Warcraft Forums boast over 270 separate boards, with 260 resting under the purview of our Forum Moderation team. Given that all reports are addressed in the order that they arrive—and given that many players like to abuse awarded privileges—it not unreasonable to assume that certain facets of communication will not witness immediate, authoritative attention. Is this ideal? Perhaps not. Could it improve? Of course; there is always room for improvement. Are we refusing or otherwise dismissing a desire to provide a sensible environment? Good heavens, no. You're welcome to disagree with our efficacy, but insinuating a lack of consideration (or cognizance) is regrettably absurd. All of us—Community Managers, Game Masters, and (especially) Forum Moderators—are in this business because we care.

Point, the second (and speaking from a strictly a Support representative's point of view)—

To be honest, I'm unsure how you associate the parameters of the Grimtotem Spirit Guide removal with Blizzard's inability to communicate with or consider their customer base. Even so, let's touch upon this.

To quote Drysc:
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=3907976716&postId=40043300562&sid=1#15

The removal of the spirit guide has been debated within design discussions for a while now as to what impact the pet and its precedent has on the game.The unintended nature of the taming, the undead status of the guide, appearance of the wolf in relation to the feel of the hunter class, and the complex processes of taming were all issues touched upon and discussed.

Ultimately the discussions brought us to the conclusion that this should not be a permanent addition to the pet selection available to hunters; however, those that have already tamed them should be allowed to keep them due to their efforts in obtaining one.

This particular correction was not a gesture of cruelty. It was not an example of epicaricacy or Schadenfreude. It was an intentional modification—one designed to amend an unintended side-effect—made after nearly two months of careful, tedious deliberation—and, even then, it was a difficult call to make, as evidenced by Drysc's explanation. That players were allowed to maintain acquired Guides should act as a testament to the fact that the decision was not one meant to wholly inconvenience the Hunter class. Should our desire have proved otherwise, should it have proved in any way malicious or spiteful, such consideration—by way of both time and respect to those who already acquired said pet—would not have been given.

To expand, this decision was not so constricting that all players need have Guides removed from their inventories, but pressing enough to merit intervention. Following this idea, it was not so game-breaking that it need be included within 2.3.2 patch notes, but held enough significance to permit official response at a later date. Simply because you disagree with this process does not make it poor, irrelevant, or insulting; it makes it a process with which you don't agree—that's all.

Q u o t e:
I shouldn't have to go through patch notes to highlight innumerable changes that were done in spite of the community or worse - changes made simply to sate the most vocal portion of the community without properly rebalancing the game.

First, this:
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/patchnotes/

Live Patch Notes Disclaimer: While we make every effort to include all upcoming changes in our patch notes, please be aware that occasionally some changes are unintentionally omitted.

Though, I suppose it really boils down to this (and I'm going to use the provided example to continue):

Should players have been entitled to participate in the above debate? No. Should players have been entitled to foresight or a "heads up"? No. Were players' opinions and concerns taken into sincere consideration, though? Absolutely.

While it would prove incredibly kind and convenient to have all such deliberation disseminated to the public, it often remains counter-constructive to do so, as—given the myriad of viewpoints possessed by our fans—fluid discussion would likely regrettably (and quickly) turn into a cacophony of head-butting, unfortunately rendering the provision moot. Does this mean that all topics will be precluded? Not really. Does this also mean that you're unrepresented? Nope—we employ the aid of Community Managers to relay expressed ideas and grievances on behalf of our players, effectively functioning like a Senator or House member within the US government. In this same vein, though as representatives for our development team, there are some things that our CMs will make public, and some things that they will not—whether or not future development intentions are revealed is solely at their discretion. This said, such discretion is always tempered with reason and I dare say that it's quite likely our Community Managers, producers, and developers know more than those not in their position what information is apt to share with the world-at-large and what is best kept off the table.

Further, modifications are made to benefit the game, Flucksha, not to spite it. I can assure you—beyond a shadow of a doubt—that those responsible for creating, managing, and fostering the World of Warcraft are, first and foremost, gamers. They develop to play. They do not, contrary to whatever negative belief you may hold, develop in some vain hope of getting to run around a plush office, half-naked (running is a strenuous activity), thwacking piñatas made of and filled with $100 bills while gleefully boasting their dominance as exemplary members of the human race. It would be exhaustingly silly, then, of our development team to disregard the player base when they are, in fact, part of it.

Q u o t e:
http://forums.wow-europe.com/thread.html?topicId=1782078645&postId=18049985401&sid=1#3
http://forums.worldofwarcraft.com/thread.html?topicId=3907976716&postId=40043300562&sid=1#15

How many times have you, in whatever position you've held, provided an incorrect response? How many times have your places of employment shifted stances on policies and procedures? While it is unfortunate that the community was given what proved to be an inaccurate assessment of things to come, this isolated incidence is not evidence of Blizzard "lying" to its customer base or failing to provide good customer service; it's merely proof that—hey!—we're not infallible. It appears you're placing judgment of an entire company, its employees, and its operations based on one solitary event, an event which, by and large, is not indicative of the whole. It's completely reasonable to believe the matter could have been handled better—you've said as much; it remains, however, incredibly fatalistic to assume that we are incapable of transcending past grievances and growing as a company (or, more pointedly, wanting to).

Q u o t e:
Unless they complain en mass, you ignore or push aside your customers and you refuse to acknowledge this.

This is an allusion. Does it appear as though the squeakiest wheel gets the oil? Sure, but appearances are deathly deceiving, and this situation is a prime example of how incorrect the "perception is reality" fallacy can be.

Consider the following—

• Not all provided suggestions are compatible with our developers' vision or our designers' capabilities.
  
• Not all provided suggestions are immediately compatible; many take time to implement.
  
  
• Not all provided suggestions are read by every player within the game.
  
• Not all implemented suggestions are visible to the average player.
  
  
• Not all suggestions provided en masse are implemented, for those reasons stated above.
  
• Those suggestions championed en masse that are implemented, are implemented for the sake of the game; such implementations are more apparent than others and thus garner more attention.

Disregarding the above even, you assume that only the vocal are favored, Flucksha; unfortunately, this is a myopic viewpoint, as there are a plethora of means by which we can gather information beyond those opinions expressed herein—the forums are only one avenue. Please understand that our interaction and comprehension is not limited to only one specific resource. :)



In the end, you're looking from the outside-in. I realize this; I realize it may seem that we're uncaring or cruel or disconnected. I encourage you not to jump to conclusions, though. We, as a company—and as proud gamers—share your same thoughts and goals: we want to assist in creating an expansive, enjoyable environment in which to play. It would make little sense for us to do anything but.

Quick (sincere) question, Faen—did you read beyond that first sentence? I only pose the query, as I believe I addressed your specific concern—at least in part, as it referenced a slightly different topic (Flucksha's and not yours, that is).

Let's let this go quietly into the night now.

Glad you had the last word, Flucksha.