BuzzerBeater Forums

I thought I made a fairly reasoned statement, without accusation, without malice. I really don't see what your problem is. I also don't see what it has to do with you.

"If you delete this it is because you want to hide that you are wrong"

"The suspicion that stuff is being swept under the carpet is cool and does not affect the game in any conceivable way. If anything, it clearly encourages people to buy supporter and play longer." How about this other statement?

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2015 5:08:23 PM

For my presence here, it is called BB Global (English).

I would like to reiterate that I'm simply concerned we have actually forgot a key element which is necessary to user retention and should be added to the list Sid originally made. I understand this might rub people the wrong way, but it is what it is. Are the GMs too few (Perpete point)? Nobody stops anybody from making new ones. Nobody stops them from being more transparent.

The fact that we forgot because we're always kept in the dark it doesn't mean it isn't there and I believe the suspicion alone and even more the knowledge of cases like the one which emerged today is really damaging for the game as a whole. Of course we will never know how the case ended and why, all we can do is to trust that the 30 GMs are doing an excellent (certainly demanding) job. Do you think stuff like this has no impact on people playing?

Sorry I edited while you were typing, CaptainTeemo, but clearly my message is exactly the same, I just reworded it a little, to make it clearer.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2015 5:42:59 PM

Discussing this with you seems pointless, as neither I nor Lemon need to justify anything we've said to you. However, I stand by my post, which I feel was both reasonable, and logical. Using observation of past events and comparing them to one happening now isn't specious at all.

What might be specious would be if I said you were only responding here in order to cause an argument in order to get all these posts deleted. But I'd never think that.

None of us knows and I'm sure there is a reason for what happened, but the lack of information and these kind of situations damage the game as a whole and entire communities, much more than design flaws. I hope you do realise this.

It seems like you floated this before and it was answered:

The fact that people will not know in details what happened will just make things worse (....) So you could rename the point: "More transparency" or whatever you like

If we explain why an user is ban, it means that other users will know more how to cheat without getting caught.

No point in beating a dead horse.

The fact this debate has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows that even the GMs suspect a mistake may have been made.

Hogwash. The fact that this rant has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows how incredibly tolerant the GM's are of unsupported speculation, wild rumor and conspiracy theories.

Hogwash. The fact that this rant has been allowed to go this far without deletion shows how incredibly tolerant the GM's are of unsupported speculation, wild rumor and conspiracy theories.

I've only taken an example to make a point. My point is relevant to this thread: it's that the lack of transparency and the suspicion something against the stated rules is allowed and tolerated by the GMs/staff, while something that is not against the stated rules (and in the example was fine for 20 straight seasons) is banned is incredibly bad and I would like to have the option to vote for improvements in the area. I, for one, am much more likely to quit today than I was yesterday because of it.

As to which improvements, without compromising other aspects, I'm open to ideas and thinking about it myself. I did stop at CaptainTeemo's suggestion which, as usual, seemed very reasonable, I decided to follow the line he recommended and to end it there and then. However since you, as you normally do, decided to ignore other people's points, I can repeat here the same concept above as many times as it takes for you to actually write something somehow relevant to it.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 1/5/2015 11:02:23 PM