Silq ~ Anarchy Online
I felt the easiest way to describe my dealings with Funcom support was to do submit a letter I sent to various people at Funcom by recorded delivery, along with the time line that was enclosed. None of the recipients responded. All of my email correspondence with FC can be found here. Some of it is cringe worthy to read now, but I was pretty upset at the time, and I've submitted it in it's entirety despite any embarrassment - not least at how much I'm capable of writing when upset.
This represents about half of all my documented communications, as there were letters to lawyers, the Norwegian Ombudsmen, Consumer Direct run by The Office of Fair Trading in the UK, the BBB, advertising companies, and a few phone calls for good measure.
Of course I know when I accept the EULA, I'm signing my soul away. After being on the receiving end of what that means in practice, however, and the research I've been doing in the last couple of months, it's my opinion the EULA contravenes consumer rights laws - as well as a few others - and is close to worthless as a legally binding 'contract'. I'm not alone in that belief.
The sentiments of a Blizzard customer echo mine perfectly: 'As I see it, unreasonable suspension of an account is the same as theft.'
~ Silq, Nov '06
Sep 6th
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you on the recommendation of the UK Consumer Board, a government body run by the Office of Fair Trading. As I wasn't sure who I should send it to, I have written to all the people listed below via recorded delivery - I believe all of you would surely be concerned about the reputation and ongoing profitability of Funcom: Trond A Aas, CEO Funcom; Olav Sandnes, CFO Funcom; Morten Byom, Game Director; Torlief Ahsland, Chairman of the Board; Geoff Higgins, Funcom Support Manager; Craig Morrison, Community Support Manager.
I have detailed my own experience herein, in the hope of obtaining a resolution. What is described however, is indicative of a more widespread issue experienced by your customers on an increasingly regular basis.
Please find enclosed a timeline of events surrounding the suspension of my accounts on Sunday 13th August - a suspension that is effectively permanent as I cannot return to Anarchy Online until my name is cleared. After investing 5yrs into the community and my reputation, I am sure you can understand.
Naturally I have an abundance of logs and emails to back up my assertions of innocence. There is a quantity of anecdotal evidence coming to light, equally as damning. Some of the staff at Funcom are doing an excellent job, but others are severely lacking and you are losing business because of them - and will continue to lose business if these customer service issues are not addressed.
There is at least one employee at Funcom who is surely fully aware of the veracity of these statements, and perhaps is hoping a 'few geeky gamers' won't cause much of a problem, and recent incidents will blow over. That would be a mistake.
I am outraged and incredulous at the lack of customer care, fundamentals that I expect with every other product or service I buy. I am also embarrassed that I never noticed the lack of support and training supplied to customer facing staff, as is evident in some of the more farcical handling of account suspensions recently. For example an account that was permanently suspended, had it lifted to a temporary suspension, then had it revoked to permanently again - and finally it stood at 14 days. In another example, one of your GMs told a customer 'I will ban first, and sort it out later' when she complained about being trained, and the GM threatened to ban all of them. Needless to say she did not petition again. If the employees don't know their own policies well enough to stop knee-jerk reactions and such poor handling of their responsibilities, how can the customers be expected to know?
May I also humbly suggest use of a spell checker would greatly increase the appearance of professionalism of employees who communicate with customers via mail or forum. It speaks volumes that a few seconds to spell check a communication is considered too much of an effort.
I can only assume that upper management is either unaware, or simply don't see enough of a cost-benefit ratio in customer service to address these issues. The rate the MMO gaming industry is growing however, this must change; it is no longer a niche market, and we deserve fair treatment. I certainly don't expect to be patronised and treated like a child when I expect I am senior to most of the staff I have been attempting to communicate with.
I'm sure I don't need to point out implications of the company's rapidly decreasing credibility with the customer base the longer customer service such as this continues, or the long term impact of this and similar examples of arbitrary and draconian treatment of customers. A temporary spell of 'being nice to customers' will not suffice. If I have to contact every customer personally with the information I have, and it takes me another 5 years, I will consider it time well spent. This has gotten out of hand and your customers are listening, even if they do not like what they learn - as indeed, neither did I.
I assure you I have the time and resource to pursue this matter, and will not rest until my name has been cleared, and there is a commitment from Funcom to implement some of the more basic policies that exist elsewhere to ensure consistent, professional and fair treatment of your customers. I strongly urge you to take a personal interest in securing a resolution.
Time is of the essence, and I would like a response within 10 working days. If I do not receive a satisfactory response from Funcom I will be seeking other avenues of redress.
Yours sincerely,
Heather *****
('Silq' on RK2)
Aug 13th
[~9.00AM]: Logged in with character Macbuff on ********** account.
[~10.05AM]: Logged in Fury on ****** account, after seeing tower attack messages in All Towers channel. Joined the chat channel. Logged Barabajagal on laptop for fgrid and buffs. Asked if a lvl 60 was any use, and was told I was too high for towers but might be useful if any defenders showed up. Went to Clondyke 3, the base was tagged for BANDA, and everyone was told to stay on towers while BANDA ensured damage. I followed them around, while moving Barabajagal to CAV on laptop in case needed. Fury sent to reclaim in OA by omni twink. Looked for buffs. Gas in CAV went to 25% as per intended game mechanics.
[10.50AM]: Attacked omni base in SAV, along with 4 other guilds. Prior to the attack requests were made in chat bot to temporarily join Genesis to ensure they got the base. A couple of people joined. I didn't. It has been made clear many times over the years org switching for CT damage is acceptable.
During the attack, we were asked to let Genesis get 70% on the ct. We were also asked to remain for an hour's defence as Omni twinks were logging in. Chat logs will prove the intent of org switching was to get damage for a specific org, not, as stated in the public forums, that any kind of conspiracy was taking place. (I have asked for these logs repeatedly - if they exist they prove innocence).
I mention this as it has since been inferred that org switching can now be deemed an exploit if used to manipulate gas. This was not what was happening on August 13th, and I have an abundance of logs to demonstrate this, available on request.
[11.10AM]: CT was destroyed. Gas went to 25% (as per game mechanics). Two twinks logged to save buffs, and I asked for rebuff for defence. Omni showed up, there was some talk of petitioning him for training, both myself and another clanner asked people not to.
'The Power of Petition' has become an expression utilised by your customers after several cases of customer facing staff perceived to be taking actions, or rescinding on them, due solely to volume of petitions.
At this point clanners started disconnecting one by one. When I tried to log back in, assuming it was an LD, I saw that my account had been blocked.
[11.20AM]: On Barabajagal, still logged in on my laptop, I told my guild my second account had been banned, that I didn't know what for, but that I better log until it was cleared up.
[11.38PM]: Standard e-mail received telling me my account had been suspended, and 'Your Actions include; use and direction of known Exploit in Tower Wars.' Replied asking what I had done, expressing my confusion and bemusement, as I have not so much as typed a four letter word in AO out of respect for parents of minors, let alone broken any rules. Nor had I witnessed anything any different from hundreds of other Tower battles attended, since NW was released.
Sent two further emails as it sunk in what had happened, detailing everything that I had witnessed since logging in and asking at what point had I broken any rules.
[1.59PM]: Craig Morrison, the Community Support Manager posted on Life on Rimor (LoR), regarding the incident in an announcement. This was before some had received any email from FC at all. He stated "In the instance today it was intentional abuse of the system to ensure they did not have to defend what they had just won."
The base just won, however, had gone to 25% on the clan CT being placed, exactly as it should of. As all bases that morning had, bar the first, when some of us were not even online. It is ludicrous to suggest failed attempts at deliberate manipulation:
This announcement left me more confused. At this point I remained confident the matter would be cleared up.
[2.24PM]: Craig Morrison posts "We suspend people when the action is calculated, specifc and very much intentional. i.e. when players know exactly what they are doing, and that it is exploiting the system in a way that is not intended."
This surprises me given the number of suspensions that have lifted and rescinded on in the last few months, usually within a day or two. To have the Community Manager make such an unequivocal statement within a few hours strikes me as highly unusual. Not to mention unprofessional given some customers involved still have not been contacted.
[6.30PM]: Craig Morrison posts "We are never biased in any GM actions."
Very few of your customers believe this due the highly questionable practice of allowing paid members of staff, who have autonomy over customer accounts, to play in the game they effectively police.
This practice compromises impartiality, only the most naive could believe otherwise. Though it is of course, very common in MMO games - this does not make it any less controversial however.
[3.00PM]: Craig Morrison posts "Any situation which allows the winning side to place before 20 mins is up without having to have a 25% period is considered an exploit."
I can only repeat that the only base that didn't have a 25% period was one attacked in the early hours, and only 2 of the 10 people banned were present.
I can only assume that the suspensions were based on a belief that there was an intention to avoid the 25%, while all 10 of us were there 4 hours later. I can't think what this belief might be based upon when all the evidence I know of points to the contrary.
This raises other questions, however, over apparent contradictions, which come later.
[4.17PM]: Craig Morrison posts: "They were pre-meditated and very much deliberate, and to be honest didnt give the GM much option but to suspend those involved."
At this point some of those suspended had still not heard from Funcom, the forums were their only source of information.
I defy anyone to show that I was involved in anything 'pre-meditated' or 'deliberate'. At this point I am upset and angry. My name, and others, are being left uncensored in the forums so other customers know who is involved, despite Craig's official stance that it's 'not fair to those involved'.
[18.44PM]: Craig Morrison posts "'guilt by association' as you put it would only result in a suspension if chat logs supported the fact that the person in questions was not only aware of the exploiting but complicit in its planning."
This one is very important, as it is contradicted by Geoff Harrison in the following days in his private emails to me.
I have repeatedly asked for these chat logs, and ask them to be reviewed, as I know they will most certainly not show I was 'complicit in it's planning' - I still don't know what 'it' is, so I would regard it as no mean feat to contribute to planning it. I no longer believe these chat logs exist, as they would prove me innocent of this charge.
Aug 14th
[15.02PM]: Receive a reply to my four emails from Geoff Higgins:
"The issue at hand is not just the actions take in order to exploit the system, but the fact that some players knowingly engaged in the battle and subsequent placing of a new tower, fully aware of the exploit being used."
In this initial mail, he echoes the same tone as Craig Morrison, that I am 'fully aware'. He also states the matter is closed, and will not be reviewed.
I reply, asking for evidence that I have 'knowingly participated' in the alleged exploit. I reassert that I have played the game for 5yrs, with a spotless record and a reputation that has been hard earned.
[14.22PM]: Pleasantly surprised to receive another response in reply to my follow up. It includes the line:
"If you are simply an innocent player caught in the middle of something because of some of your guildmates, then I am really very sorry."
This contradicts my understanding that Funcom believe me to be 'fully aware' and 'complicit in it's planning', and I'm now more confused. He apologises again, and states that he must trust the findings of his staff.
I send another reply, urging a review, and further explaining how deeply distressed and upset I am over the situation.
Aug 16th
[7.30AM]: In the absence of any further response, I send a mail of complaint to the following recipients, asking for their help.
To: trond@funcom.com,
Cc: investor@funcom.com pr@funcom.com recruit@funcom.com mbyom@funcom.com account@anarchy-online.com martin.hoff@funcom.com ahlsand@northzone.com frank@funcom.com
[14.17PM]: Receive a lengthy reply from Geoff Higgins, 9 paragraphs in all. The second again appears to contradict the stance taken in the public forums:
"As far as the level of participation in said exploit, it could range anywhere from being the player who is doing the exploit (ie: hopping from org to org to disrupt the timer) to simply being grouped with the person coordinating the execution of the exploit."
I draw your attention to 'Simply being grouped with' Vs 'not only aware of the exploiting but complicit in its planning'.
Paragraph 6:
"The GMs who were there to witness the tower battle and subsequent exploit, spent hours compiling evidence, via person eyewitness account and logged data. When they finally had the list of players they considered involved (even tangently), they felt it was the correct list. Your character name was on it."
I remain confused over this, were these hours spent prior to the suspension or after it? If before then does this mean the exploit was related to the tower battle early in the morning hours before I even logged in?
If afterwards, does this mean that the GMs were reviewing their own decision? In light of the comments made within a few hours of that decision, no room had been left to manoeuvre or rescind on any errors, so such a review could only be token.
"nothing is an absolute and there is always the possibility that your ignorance to the exploit taking place leaves you bewildered (or nonplussed) as to why you were included with those penalized. It is this that I apologize for and empathise with. Unfortunately it does not compleetely absolve you from the guilt, as it is assessed in the exploit."
Another interesting paragraph. This implies to me that 'guilt, as it assessed in the exploit" is very different from 'guilt' in the Common Usage of the word, although this was not what was conveyed to the community. Very confusing and vague.
Finally:
"This has been a very unpopular decision in the community (so don't worry about your reputation, it is ours that has taken the hit) and we can appreciate the feelings of those that are outraged."
This demonstrates to me that unfortunately Mr. Higgins has no concept at all of the scale of my outrage. Being told not to worry about my reputation is something I find patronising in the extreme, and only serves to fuel my outrage.
Aug 17th
[14.03PM]: Geoff Higgins replies to another mail, where I carefully detail what had occurred and ask how I might knowingly have conspired in an alleged exploit that so closely resembled normal gameplay, no-one could reasonably be expected to detect it:
"As for your situation, it sounds like you fall under the category of people that was simply guilty by association. A few people were suspended for being in contact with those orchestrating the exploit, as well as allowing the exploit to continue. Basically, the guilt lies in the association aspect. It is against policy to knowingly consort with players active in exploits.
Now Mr Higgins has reverted to the standard of 'knowingly' allowed the alleged exploit. Again, I defy anyone to provide a scrap of evidence I was 'knowingly involved', much less 'complicit in it's planning'.
The only way this policy holds up if those with in the vicinity are guilty until proven innocent, as I am certain that nobody at Funcom is able to show any of the statements levelled at me to be based in fact.
I also highly doubt any exploit had taken place. There is much evidence to suggest a part of gameplay that has been in existence for years is now retrospectively considered an exploit 'in certain circumstances' that not even the staff are fully sure of, to justify the actions of the 13th. No-one has ever been suspended on such grounds, tenuous as they are, prior to this.
Summary
I have repeatedly requested information regarding the alleged exploit, or any evidence I was knowingly involved as stated in the public forums, and received nothing but vague and contradictory replies alluding to a dubious exploit policy that translates to 'guilty until proven innocent' as far as I can see - and am quite able to demonstrate more importantly. The following queries remain outstanding:
- Requests for any evidence that I was 'knowingly involved' or 'knowingly conspired' to commit an exploit. By this I mean Common Usage of the word 'knowingly' as used in the public forums, not the internal exploit policy that interestingly appears to encompass a broad range of circumstances that constitute 'knowingly' and 'guilt'.
- Contact details so that I may escalate this matter via complaint or appeal. Requested three times, each time ignored. I have never had the misfortune to deal with a Customer Service department that did not provide this as a matter of course when a matter was deemed closed, should the customer wish to pursue it.
- An apology for the inconsistent moderation in the public forums. Although FC staff members did not mention names, our character names were left uncensored, littering the forums. I have copies of course should they disappear. This is a failure to uphold your own company policies. The treatment in the forums following the suspension ensured I will not let this matter rest, I consider it as appalling as the injustice of the suspension itself.
In short, I would like to know why my account was suspended, with any evidence whatsoever that I was 'knowingly' involved, and 'conspired' in the alleged exploit - or a full retraction and public apology, with reimbursement for the 7 days I have paid for on both accounts.