BuzzerBeater Forums

Suggestions > Prevent GMs to decide on issues...

Prevent GMs to decide on issues...

Set priority
Show messages by
This Post:
00
277748.73 in reply to 277748.72
Date: 4/8/2016 11:09:11 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
Phishing. It's the same as phishing.

What is clear is that there is no customer service on this site because there are no customers, only "users." And that goes all the way to the top, because it was the top guy who wrote that my appeal was being considered (contradicting your assertion that there is only one way to appeal) and then ignored it. Why would you contradict the top guy?.

There is no excuse for lacking an appeals system on site.

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/9/2016 5:45:38 PM

This Post:
00
277748.76 in reply to 277748.75
Date: 4/9/2016 5:47:39 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
There is no excuse for lacking an appeals system on site.

You realize that those who do need the most an appeal system are the banned users, those who can't access BB once banned ?
And (1) that isn't everyone who might use the appeals system, and (2) that is no excuse for lacking one onsite.

This Post:
11
277748.77 in reply to 277748.76
Date: 4/9/2016 11:48:28 PM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
There is no excuse for lacking an appeals system on site.

You realize that those who do need the most an appeal system are the banned users, those who can't access BB once banned ?
And (1) that isn't everyone who might use the appeals system, and (2) that is no excuse for lacking one onsite.


I can understand your frustration, but the thing is that for as infrequently as the appeals process is anticipated to be used, it would be inefficient to have multiple contact points to initiate an appeal, including increasing the opportunity for appeals to be missed. Furthermore, having the single point of contact be onsite would be impossible by definition for anyone who has been banned.

While I won't comment on your opinion that a non-email system would be better, as that's an opinion you're entitled to, I will remind you that the Terms of Service that govern all of our accounts does specify (section 4, Registration, last few sentences) :
"The registration form will ask you for other information about yourself ("Registration Data") which you represent and warrant is at all times true, accurate, current and complete, and which you agree to update in order to maintain as such. If you breach this representation, or Digital Field Theory has reasonable grounds to suspect that you have, Digital Field Theory has the right, upon notice, to suspend or terminate your account and this agreement and to refuse your current or future use of BuzzerBeater or any portion thereof. "
''

The section on "Privacy" and the "General Provisions" section are also interesting reading, and if you're not comfortable with the idea of your email address being on file, i'd definitely suggest re-readng those.


This Post:
00
277748.78 in reply to 277748.77
Date: 4/10/2016 1:51:36 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
I can understand your frustration, but the thing is that for as infrequently as the appeals process is anticipated to be used, it would be inefficient to have multiple contact points to initiate an appeal, including increasing the opportunity for appeals to be missed. Furthermore, having the single point of contact be onsite would be impossible by definition for anyone who has been banned.

It would be fair to your customers to have an on-site point of contact to initiate an appeal, and not particularly "inefficient" at all. What you call my opinion that a non-email system would be better is an interesting spin, one I don't see the point of. An on-site system would be fair, that is my point. I don't know why you call it a non-email system.

As for your quoting the Terms of Service, I don't see the relevance of that quote in the current context. It has nothing to do with an onsite appeals process I am talking about.

This Post:
11
277748.80 in reply to 277748.78
Date: 4/10/2016 9:11:18 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
32293229
It would be fair to your customers to have an on-site point of contact to initiate an appeal, and not particularly "inefficient" at all. What you call my opinion that a non-email system would be better is an interesting spin, one I don't see the point of. An on-site system would be fair, that is my point. I don't know why you call it a non-email system.


I do feel like I'm not responding to your actual concern, whatever it may be, because you've gone from calling the appeals process a sham to a phishing attempt to now something that is unfair because you can't do it directly onsite. I am only currently focusing on the 'not onsite' part because I don't see any reason whatsoever to engage you on the other parts.

On the fairness/unfairness of the actual mechanics of submitting an appeal: What is 'fair' is to have a formal avenue for appeals that anyone has the right to freely avail themselves of, regardless of their current status within the game. I am delighted that I am now a week away from celebrating ten years outside of the health insurance industry, but even a professional industry of that magnitude subject to ERISA and all the regulation on both the state and federal level still was quite within their rights to require that all formal appeals be submitted in writing to an address specified by them. It's a very specific, very formal process - you submit your case, you receive a notification that your appeal was received and then you receive a notification when a determination is made (plus any requests for information, etc).

When the point is made that there should be more notification given here, I wholeheartedly agree - and it appears that there is notification being given based on comments earlier in the thread, but I do think formalizing that would be an improvement. But the only way to respond to someone who no longer has access to the game is by communication outside of the BB site, and the only way for that person to initiate said appeal is also outside of the site. Requiring written notice of appeal to be physically delivered would undoubtedly be a ridiculous requirement, given the international scope of the community playing the game and the fact that it is entirely an internet-based game. Email is simply the standard administrative notification system above the game itself - you register for a team, you receive the email that it's ready. I presume the lost password/ password reset mechanism is also email based, but honestly I've never needed to test that. If you need to send legal notices regarding BB, those are also sent via email.

The short answer is that there will always need to be an offsite appeals process to handle appeals of bans from the game. Duplicating that process on site can open up the door to human error, so that for example a person who was banned from the forums and appealed in game might have his mitigation sent to his email address (since that's where game bans are necessarily sent to) and if the person doesn't check that email address routinely, would never know their appeal had actually prevailed.

This Post:
00
277748.81 in reply to 277748.80
Date: 4/10/2016 11:42:58 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
When the point is made that there should be more notification given here, I wholeheartedly agree ...
I searched your post for something to agree on, and found it. I also found no actual disagreement in your post with a point I made: "It would be fair to your customers to have an on-site point of contact to initiate an appeal, and not particularly "inefficient" at all."

Nice to start the day with agreement!

This Post:
00
277748.83 in reply to 277748.82
Date: 4/11/2016 1:00:49 AM
Overall Posts Rated:
370370
[/]"... if the person doesn't check that email address routinely, would never know their appeal had actually prevailed. "And that is SO likely under this circumstance, isn't it? *cough cough* stop blowin' smoke, okay, and address the issue without putting words in my mouth, okay?

Last edited by Mike Franks at 4/11/2016 11:52:05 AM

Advertisement