#127 - May 15, 2008, 3:54 p.m.
Addressing multiple points here, so please bear with—
Q u o t e:
That is unfortunately... untrue in my experience.
I value your opinions, Meirneth, and believe you an insightful individual. Regardless, our experiences differ greatly, and while such a method may work elsewhere, it will not hold sway within the
World of Warcraft. I further explain this below (the next quote down).
As for your suggestions, I respect them greatly, though do believe you've inapt understanding of our role. We are not a jury or institution that provides due process; we are, more or less, a benevolent dictatorship. To state otherwise would be a horrible fallacy and I do not wish to present myself or my department otherwise.
Even so, we do create both internal and external checks and balances—ones which
work. Is it a perfect system, though? Absolutely not. No system is. That this particular case has gained so much attention, however, is inaccurately skewing perceptions regarding its efficacy and value, that our procedures are ill-crafted, essentially without positive structure, and that our goals are anti-customer. While do place ourselves in a position to dictate, our goals are exceedingly positive and player-centric...though are, I admit, also aimed at managing a population in the millions.
Q u o t e:
Then maybe think of it this way. I doubt that many would feel much of a loss if the Moonwood Rangers disbanded under the same circumstances even though we as a guild are about the same age perhaps older than the Juice was. However the sheer size and presence of the Lemmmings made the circumstances of that disbandment more of a personal impact on the culture of the community itself.
One's contribution, status, and specific attitude—while remarkable aspects of in-game interaction and invaluable assets to a community—are irrelevant to the Naming process. They should not come into play when deciding whether a particular name
is or
is not against present policy. Such a decision will not be wholly empirical in nature (since there are elements of context which are key), of course, but it should attempt to be as unbiased and forthright as possible.
Even if a particularly well-known and civil citizen within a specific RP community claimed the name "Jesus" and managed to maintain this moniker for three years, this player should still receive equal scrutiny under the "Law" if reported. As one's community is fluid—that is, there are constantly new players coming and going—one's status will never be known universally and thus proves ultimately irrelevant on the whole.
Continuing: Sallysue, seeing the name "Jesus" and not knowing of this particular person's contributions, is dismayed, believing the appellation inappropriate for her realm. She reports the name via in-game petition and goes about her way. Had she known this player more closely, it's likely her perception of the name would change. This is all well and fine. But...our goal is to ensure an environment for
all players, not just those who may have an understanding of everyone within the community.
If a name is inappropriate, then it shouldn't matter what sort of "standing" its holder may have. The same applies in reverse: <Moonwood Rangers> should receive the same review as anyone else.
Q u o t e:
Given that the Lemmings would still be around if it were not from an action that ultimately wasn't warranted by Blizzard's final ruling that the name passed, I'm not going to let them dodge the bullet of responsibility that easily.
Actions have consequences, actors have responsibilities.
Pardon me, but: This is ridiculous.
We are happy to accept responsibility for providing what proved to be an inaccurate decision. That is our burden to bear. We are not, however, the progenitors of this guild's disbandment. We contributed to the ultimate outcome, yes; we did not
force anyone's hand. Please place responsibility equally.
There are many,
many unfortunate circumstances herein to be accounted for. Each sparked notable human reactions on both sides. Nobody behaved perfectly. While perhaps truly tragic in the long run, this situation is an excellent educator—for both sides.
We've learned from our error. I hope the same holds sway elsewhere.
Q u o t e:
Tickets that go unanswered for protracted periods, capricious rulings later reversed after long battles and an over all attitude that the customer must be wrong.
The initial ruling was not capricious. It was not rash. It was not impetuous.
It was, however, in error. The customer was right; we were wrong.
To reiterate a previous point, the name <Lemming Juice> is definitely a borderline name. I use the phrase "borderline," as it 1) does not confirm to the more strict, clear RP naming rules; 2) is a touch silly (which is by no means negative, just a simple truth); and 3) has resulted in numerous petitions in the past. Many within the community for the last 3 years have believed this name ill-fit for Earthen Ring—likely due to the name's more fluid fit and also likely due to its jovial nature—and for the last 3 years we permitted the name to continue despite these reports, erring on the side of caution and customer.
Given the fact that this name is borderline (a name can be borderline and still appropriate) and given a rise in reports, we finally weighed a decision which—which put under a more fine lens—was discovered incorrect.
My point in this explanation is that simply because a choice ends up being inaccurate or contrary does not mean it was hastily wrought. I'm sure the same applies for the Guild Master of <Lemming Juice>.
Lastly, Melatha — I wish you all the best and apologize for my part in this confusion. That you've taken the high road is inspiring, and I only hope that you trot down occasionally to visit. :)
