MOO3 Demo on PCPP mag {australian}

[Xentax]

Originally posted by madmario
I'm rather disgusted at how some innocent gamers were treated with utter disrespect and never recieved an apology. Xentax in particular was exceptionally rude, and did not make any moves to apologize as would be expected in even the barest of human courtesy.

Is this an indicator of the kind of Customer Relations we should expect in the future?

-mario

I was rude? I don't know how I could have been more polite, given the circumstances. I told them that while I was skeptical, even they should be able to understand why, even though they're the ones with the "Demo" in their hands -- as Sencho said, it was well-understood that there would BE no demo.

I never attacked anyone personally, I simply questioned the sources and the nature of the so-called demo. And to be blunt, I was right -- it's NOT a demo. It's a leaked pre-alpha build of the game that the magazine should never have released (though IMHO they acted in good faith, just without the degree of caution and circumspection I'd like).

And as I'm not an employee of QSI, I don't see why my behavior (even if it was rude, which it wasn't), it has no bearing on the quality of Customer Service you could expect from QSI or Infogrames.

Skepticism isn't disrespect; Legitimate caution and concern isn't rudeness.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Sencho
Interesting, you're expressing your anger at 'rudeness' by being rude. I love irony.

I'm suprised that you are equating my behavior with Xentax's. I was terse, but I don't think I was rude. Notably, I haven't made a false accusation of Xantax (at least, I don't think so). Why do you accuse me of being rude? Did I make any ad hominems? Or am I just spoiling your image of your colleague, and that makes me rude? Did I say something that wasn't true?

Clearly, you find my position wanting, Sencho. I find this a little curious from someone who just wanted an apology from QS a few weeks ago himself for being mistreated after a misunderstanding.

I have followed the story on the Apolyton page (and thanks to MarkG for such a snappy site), but only now did I actually read this thread, and I was dissapointed, and voiced my concern.

The consumer who had done nothing wrong was accused of having done something very wrong. Xentax was very sure that the consumer was wrong. As it turned out, Xentax was wrong. No apology.

I'm just noting how the companies in charge of this game have dealt with their own mistakes. If Xentax is an example, then the consumer is blamed, and no apology is given.

Xentax's position is quite well defined and justifiable. When you go from the official position of 'no demo' to some fans reporting to have a 'demo,' you're allowed to cry hoax. When the 'demo' turns out to be a leaked, pre-alpha build, then it's just sad.

Right. And when you are wrong you say, "sorry," unless: you don't believe you were wrong, or you don't care about who you wronged enough to apologize. Not makin' me feel good here.

But if you wish to express the "barest of human courtesy" you'll not look at the 'pre-alpha', any screenshots from it, nor assist in transmitting it. After all, helping restrain this leak is the courteous thing to do.

I have not looked at the pre alpha. I haven't done any of these things. I find it pointed that you addressed my point using these pseudo-accusations against my character. IG is of course the one that screwed up. And frankly, that code couldn't affect my opinion in any case. I am as educated about what that code is worth as I can reasonably be.

I am much more interested in how this incident was handled (and indeed, continues to be handled), which is to blame the consumer when the consumer is innocent, and not apologize for it later. There are a lot of game companies which have handled consumers with disrespect, and I do not like them, and do not enjoy giving them my money. Misunderstandings are regrettable, but a bit of a professional attitude from the QS rep would have preempted any need for an apology.

-mario

[madmario]

Originally posted by Xentax
I never attacked anyone personally, I simply questioned the sources and the nature of the so-called demo.

This is "simply" that?

Earlier post by Xentax
Your post is almost certainly going to land you in hot water with QSI, whether the material you have is legit or not, and whether it was legally obtained or not.

This is a threat, dude.

Earlier post by Xentax
Most of the shots I saw are not new. The rest are as likely to be altered or downright fake, at least IMHO, until there's some external corroboration of Ibbz's claims.

They weren't.

And to be blunt, I was right -- it's NOT a demo.

Ill address that in a moment. But in any case, it was not the consumer's fault, and he was treated as though he was in the wrong.

And as I'm not an employee of QSI, I don't see why my behavior (even if it was rude, which it wasn't), it has no bearing on the quality of Customer Service you could expect from QSI or Infogrames.

I'll let you ask QS about that, since they feel otherwise. I believe they have expressed a vested interest in moderator behavior anywhere, and I imagine that the reason for this is related to my point.

The truth is that as a volunteer, you do enact the opinion of QS.

Skepticism isn't disrespect; Legitimate caution and concern isn't rudeness.

I feel you went beyond skepticism. You accused him as well as you could. You insinuated legal action.

If you were just skeptical, why didn't you say something more like, "Where did you acquire this 'so called' demo? I am curious since none are supposed to be released," instead of throwing "hot water" threat-type messages around?

And in the end, you were wrong. The consumer had acquired a product labeled "demo." He bought something called a demo.

Now, from QS's standpoint, it wasn't a demo. And certainly, from what I have heard, it isn't a good demo. It was probably labeled "demo" or "demonstration" in an office, as in a demonstration of certain product milestones, and I suspect that is the source of this whole fiasco.

But I am not really interested in that in any case. I am interested in the consumer's standpoint, since that is the one I will have if and when I purchase the game. And the consumer bought a demo by any consumer standard.


Look, clearly we dissagree here, and I have no desire to bicker this out with you or Sencho. I have no desire to get embroiled in one of those yin26 type arguments, since it's really pointless. I will just note this situation for what its worth from my perspective as a consumer, and encourage others to do the same.

Misunderstandings are understandable, if regrettable. Some of this could have been avoided, however.

-mario

[Sencho]

Well I first suggest you do your homework. Xentax isn't a QS rep, employee, etc. He's a fan of Moo3, a moderator at the official forum, and has been tapped on occasion for volunteer work (handling some technobabble descriptions). He's not an official rep, and doesn't portray himself as such, afaik.

As such he expressed a quite valid opinion as to the nature of the pre-alpha.

So there are two problems. 1) You misinterpreting what has been posted far more negatively than I have. 2) You wrongly assuming Xentax is some employee/rep for QS.

Based on that, I don't see your grounds for demanding an apology.

[Georgia]

If you don't want to fight, then why are you invoking attacks against Xentax?

Hmmm food for thought perhaps?

[Xentax]

Again, you're confusing a threat with a statement of fact. The fact remains that the posts DID lead to someone getting in hot water -- Ibbz's posts were generally restored after it was made clear his material was at least real.

Legal action _would_ almost certainly have followed had Ibbz's material proven to be illegally obtained. Distributing the "demo" at this point probably IS illegal; though I haven't read the terms if any of the magazine's CD so that's not necessarily the case. I know QSI's position is that it shall not be distributed via the official game forum.

While the screenshots were legit, I was taking care to point out that they COULD have been faked, to remind people that the demo's authenticity was not verified at that time. Are they real? Yes. Gee, I'm sorry I didn't state that myself; I figured since everyone found out from Cory that the "demo" was real, I didn't need to go back and say "yes, these are real screenshots". Do you really think anyone is still confused because I didn't refute myself later?

Ibbz was not wrong to post the material he posted (except perhaps for any links to the actual binary; I'm not sure if he did but others have). However, had I been in his shoes, I still would have exercised more caution and discretion -- I would have brought it up with QSI directly rather than publishing it on the forums (here and on Delphi). I'm not faulting him for that, I'm just saying that I would have acted differently.

I do not "Enact the opinion of QSI". I'm responsible for making QSI's stance on any game-related issues clear on the MOO3 forum, and maintaining general order on that forum. I'm free to share my own opinions about the game, and you can ask Cory Nelson if you doubt that -- I asked him directly and was told that constructive criticism is ok, even from moderators. If QSI has a problem with any of my actions, you can be assured you'll hear about it.

In short, I did nothing but act upon the facts available and the situation in general. I concluded that legal action might enter the picture if my perception of the situation was accurate; that later facts showed that isn't necessarily the case is simply an update to the situation, not a proof of wrongdoing on my part. Legal action may still be involved -- but it'd be against the Magazine or employees of it or of GameNation, not Ibbz, Nomad, or anyone else.

I didn't "accuse" -- I stated that a hoax was more likely (IMHO) than a legitimate "demo" (and, given that the demo is NOT legitimate...). We DID ask where he got the "Demo" from on the official forums, and discussed at length what might have led to him getting his hands on it -- granted that wasn't HERE, but Ibbz at least was privy to most of that discussion. You weren't.

This is one of those situations where you shouldn't assume you know the whole story. I don't think Ibbz or anyone else aside from you have a problem with me or my actions -- if Ibbz wants an apology from me (or even thinks he deserves one), he's more than welcome to talk to me about it. Ibbz is also welcome to say "I told you so" if he wants to.

[madmario]

Originally posted by Sencho
He's not an official rep, and doesn't portray himself as such, afaik.

Moderators don't do anything official w/ regards to QS's representation to the public? I thought that was why QS was so concerned with moderators' opinons.

I think insinuating legal action is pretty nasty, especially when the accused is innocent.


I read all the posts at once, and that may be why we dissagree. Still, if I was the aussie posters, I would have been very upset at how I was treated.

But we dissagree. I'll put that in my pipe and smoke it.

-m

p.s. and G-man there, I am expressing a concern. I'm not tossing insults. I may be "attacking" him in as much as I am critisizing him, but I am conceeding that we dissagree.

[madmario]

It's a dialoge so I'm taking it offlist.

-m

[Georgia]

p.s. and G-man there, I am expressing a concern. I'm not tossing insults. I may be "attacking" him in as much as I am critisizing him, but I am conceeding that we dissagree.

That would be G-woman to you, bucko.

[madmario]

Your profile didn't say either way. I really am sorry!

-m

[Xentax]

Well, madmario and I seem doomed to disagree on this one.

He's convinced I threatened Ibbz with legal action and, moreover, that anyone reading my posts would reach the same conclusion.

I don't see it that way, and I don't think Ibbz, Jackal, or practically anyone else sees it that way either.

I think it's time to just let it go, but I'm putting in this last message in case Ibbz or Jackal or anyone else DOES think I threatened legal action, or thinks there's still such a possibility. If so, speak up so the issue can be put to rest.

[madmario]

I just wanted to say that you are misrepresenting my position, but it's not worth arguing about. I didn't speak in nearly such absolutes.

-m

[Sarxis]

I am hoping to- perhaps- get my hands on this alpha demo. If it totally bombs, or is just bad/unrunable, will that change my opinion of MoO3? No! Because it is, afterall, an alpha build.

But it wouldn't bother me becuase I know that. What about those that think it is a full blown demo?

Think of the CHILDREN!

[Ibbz]

First off.
I originally posted about the demo because i thought people might be excited that there was one for their beloved MOO3. Unlike many other people, I NEVER saw the comment by QSI [if i had, things would've been different] that there would be no demo and so i assumed it was the real deal. I can understand somewhat people's reactions in hindsight now that i know the full situation so i dont particuly hold grudges against anyone after what they said.

If i had illegally obtained MOO3, you can sure as hell bet i would not go around posting it on the official forums or even fan forums. The fact that i continued to advocate that i had a legal demo, i thought would've somewhat made people believe me, but unfourtunately it took numerous others and the actual editor from the magazine.

For me personally, i've learned something from what has occured. Perhaps other people may have also learnt something from this experience.

[ElPresidente]

Thank you folks for the entertaining thread,

Thank you also for the complete and utter failure of recognition of how great Australia is a place to live.

But I'm not going into nation of origin fights here all I really wanted to say is that this seems to have all created quite a furor and people have been hurt and upset at the state of affairs.

What I wanted to do was make a suggestion for the future...

Next time something like this happens go to the source of the issue. If people had popped down to the PCPowerPlay Website they could have saved themselves a lot of heartache as the matter was cleared up within a day of someone posting the problem about the MOO3 'demo'.

For those who feel jealous about some of us having our hands on it, don't. I am yet to hear of someone who got it up and running (that is not a criticism of the MOO3 work, just an indication of exactly how alpha the build was). Don't stress peoples, just hug each other and await the dawning of the great MOO3.

Oh and don't start levelling blame (PC Powerplay will go down for this????) until you know the facts, it is unseemly.