PC1 Pcars: A community divided

[Nathan Robinson]

Continuation of Part 1: http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/banned-for-no-reason.47384/

Its hard to believe a game has taken a community over like this. Now with legal proceedings, its kind of become a joke for simmers. I have been at this a while now and have never seen a game invoke so much negative and positive reaction. May the discussions continue


Ps. While i continue to support pcars, i respect RD for allowing the freedom of expression to all its members.

 

[RobVR]

Actually it was a mistake on my behalf. I googled Automaniax VirtualR and clicked this one below as it said in legal trouble. Presumed that was the one, see posts deleted and couldn't find mine or Bells posts. So no making things up, this is what i saw

http://www.virtualr.net/automaniax-porsche-online-in-legal-trouble

How about some common courtesy? Like saying sorry for making wrong accusations or use the complete names of people involved?

 

[Nathan Robinson]

Fair is fair I still dont feel like RD was attacking you Ian. People say a lot of things that may not be true but that goes for the positives as well. It is a forum and i dont think anyone with a level head can expect to silence criticism. Confidence in the final release should be enough to not let any bad publicity get to you. In business, the "the customer is always right" rule will take you farther in the long run than getting defensive. Would have been more effective to settle the thread title behind closed doors. Not to tell you what to do because you have been successful in life but just my opinion from my experiences

 

[Nathan Robinson]

How about some common courtesy? Like saying sorry for making wrong accusations or use the complete names of people involved?

It was an honest mistake but i agree an apology is due here

 

[Ian Bell]

How about some common courtesy? Like saying sorry for making wrong accusations or use the complete names of people involved?

I couldn't agree more. The accusations were fairly serious, especially from a member of staff- me threatening a letter bomb apparently, and questioning his sanity' yet not so much as an apology.

Posts such as:
'WOW that's some poor tactics from VirtualR and SMS. Trying to cover their tracks, every Bell post has gone in reply to me and others like when he said he would spank peoples arses etc and talked about letter bombs etc. 90% of my posts are deleted.'

and:

'Quite a coincidence that you are suing RD and now all the stuff from you at VirtualR in the AutoManiax debate has dissapeared. You questioned my sanity with saying you were a doctor and you would like to work out what was wrong with me for no longer supporting your game. Everyone see it.

WOW this is crazy'

don't read very well chaps.

I'm glad the exchange between us is there for all to read Lee. It's a completely different flavour than you were portraying it to be when you thought the posts were removed.

 

[Megasoum]

My view on this is that the "banned" thread's title was merely an opinion; posted in the heat of anger, but an opinion nonetheless. I find nothing libelous in that at all. I find it hard to see how these remarks will truly hurt SMS's business plan, and while the tone of some of the negative posts was over the top in my opinion, who the hell cares anyway?

Exactly, the thread could have been left like that and it would have fallen off the first page after a little while and people would have forgotten already. Instead, because of all those lawsuits threats flying around it brought a TON more attention to the thread and is really a terrible move PR-Wise.

Sometime the better way of action is to simply "suck it up" (sorry but that's the only expression I know in english that explains what I mean) and let it die down naturally. Threatning to sue a community (because yes, if you attack a website built on and by it's community then you attack the whole community at the same time. Sure all those usernames won't be on the court papers but it doesn't change that fact) it will only bring forward the whole problem even more and now even more people are aware of it...

 

[Andy_J]

It was an honest mistake but i agree an apology is due here

Agreed. An apology is due.

 

[Ian Bell]

Fair is fair I still dont feel like RD was attacking you Ian. People say a lot of things that may not be true but that goes for the positives as well. It is a forum and i dont think anyone with a level head can expect to silence criticism. Confidence in the final release should be enough to not let any bad publicity get to you. In business, the "the customer is always right" rule will take you farther in the long run than getting defensive. Would have been more effective to settle the thread title behind closed doors. Not to tell you what to do because you have been successful in life but just my opinion from my experiences

Hi Nathan.

I've said this many time in the threads here but I'll do it again. I fervently uphold the right of anyone to detest pCARS and to post that in any way they see fit anywhere. My issue here is simply the attempt to correct a lie that's been tacitly supported by site admins and my request refused.

 

[David Dominguez]

Hi Nathan.

I've said this many time in the threads here but I'll do it again. I fervently uphold the right of anyone to detest pCARS and to post that in any way they see fit anywhere. My issue here is simply the attempt to correct a lie that's been tacitly supported by site admins and my request refused.

Can you reply to my question from the 2nd page? How is that a lie when the banned guy never asked to be banned.

 

[Mapu]

Still here Ian? Haven't you been serious about the message below?

http://www.racedepartment.com/forum/threads/banned-for-no-reason.47384/page-75#post-1231454

 

[Lee Ross]

Yes i agree i should apologise and sorry. As said i see legal trouble and that is how i remember the thread. Then when you scroll down see deleted posts and can not find mine or Bells posts

 

[Ian Bell]

Exactly, the thread could have been left like that and it would have fallen off the first page after a little while and people would have forgotten already. Instead, because of all those lawsuits threats flying around it brought a TON more attention to the thread and is really a terrible move PR-Wise.

Sometime the better way of action is to simply "suck it up" (sorry but that's the only expression I know in english that explains what I mean) and let it die down naturally. Threatning to sue a community (because yes, if you attack a website built on and by it's community then you attack the whole community at the same time. Sure all those usernames won't be on the court papers but it doesn't change that fact) it will only bring forward the whole problem even more and now even more people are aware of it...

The thread title has been here for months, and has been wrong for months. It's normal that we point this out and request an amendment. The thread title was also quoted elsewhere as fact. That could start to materially harm us.

We did hope it would die down but the thread became a haven for spewing vitriol about pCARS (which is anyone's right) and would not sink. Hence we advised the staff of the title being in error.

 

[Xosé Estrada]

Hi Nathan.

I've said this many time in the threads here but I'll do it again. I fervently uphold the right of anyone to detest pCARS and to post that in any way they see fit anywhere. My issue here is simply the attempt to correct a lie that's been tacitly supported by site admins and my request refused.

We disagree on that precise thing, as I told you it's an opinion from the user when he received a ban without any specific reason. That's objective, we can't remove that!

If you want our personal opinion, check Bram defending WMD on the first post of the thread.

So if you think this small thing it's enough to destroy this community...

 

[Lee Ross]

The thread title has been here for months, and has been wrong for months. It's normal that we point this out and request an amendment. The thread title was also quoted elsewhere as fact. That could start to materially harm us.

We did hope it would die down but the thread became a haven for spewing vitriol about pCARS (which is anyone's right) and would not sink. Hence we advised the staff of the title being in error.

But it's an opinion of a member and not RD. A screen was posted yesterday of a guy being banned for liking a post? Which is really being banned for no reason. I'm pretty sure i was still around then when that happened and you said the car was behaving like that because it was on the limiter or something. Ben Collins then came on a while after and agreed with the guys who posted.

 

[Ian Bell]

You never mentioned it, but considering that you want us to remove critics to the software (without any objective reasons) I can't imagine any other reason to do that.

I don't think you are a bad person, I don't think you are a dictator or evil, so the only reason I can find for you doing this, threatening a community, is that you want to protect your product against critics, thing that I don't share but in some way understand.

But I just can't do that, I need to sleep well at night, I can't sell my soul.

So you accuse me of asking for it then say I never mentioned it?

I want to remove blatant lies that's all. I pointed them out.

 

[Johannes Kunkel]

As a random spectator I have to say the way the SMS Staff and Associates act in here is far beyond ridiculous.

The biggest risk of financial harm SMS is facing currently is probably if a serious investor sees how many hours SMS Staff spends engaging in personal discussions threatening to waste investors money on lawyers. I would suggest getting to work instead and let people talk, as they do. It´s easier to convince people with results then with such acting. But that ship has probably sailed long ago.

 

[Peter]

''We did hope it would die down but the thread became a haven for spewing vitriol about pCARS (which is anyone's right) and would not sink. ''
I was also heaven for WMD members

 

[Ian Bell]

But it's an opinion of a member and not RD. A screen was posted yesterday of a guy being banned for liking a post? Which is really being banned for no reason. I'm pretty sure i was still around then when that happened and you said the car was behaving like that because it was on the limiter or something. Ben Collins then came on a while after and agreed with the guys who posted.

Lee, if that was his first post I'd be very surprised. There is usually a long history of 'not working as if in an office with colleagues' before a ban happens.

 

[Mapu]

I love people who impose dual standards. Guess the past has been forgotten to a degree that these things can be reapplied.

Ian, I wish for a response to my previous message.

Thanks in advance!

 

[Xosé Estrada]

So you accuse me of asking for it then say I never mentioned it?

I want to remove blatant lies that's all. I pointed them out.

I'm not accusing you of anything, and I find this mind games pretty pathetic.

I said you WANT us not that you TOLD us, so please be precise when speaking, and apologize for twisting my words in a try to make me look bad.

You are asking me to remove critics to your product without any other reason than "are lies", without providing any objective evidence of them being lies and not opinable.

In my opinion it's obvious you want to censor simracers voice regarding your product, I can't find any other motivation.

I repeat again: WE WON'T CENSOR CUSTOMER REVIEWS ON RD

 

[Tom]

The thread title has been here for months, and has been wrong for months. It's normal that we point this out and request an amendment. The thread title was also quoted elsewhere as fact. That could start to materially harm us.

We did hope it would die down but the thread became a haven for spewing vitriol about pCARS (which is anyone's right) and would not sink. Hence we advised the staff of the title being in error.

Ian,

I've posted the exact same message in the other thread and you didn't reply or tell us what you think about this. I'd still be happy to hear what you think, honestly, because I've been playing pCARS myself. I (and 99.9% of all the people involved in the other thread) actually can't know who's right in this case, so I just won't think about it - matter of fact. I like the explanation posted here, tho.

However, what I, not as RD moderator but as a person, *DO* keep thinking about is how you damage your project by trying to defend it - now you're continuing to do so, in my eyes. The aforementioned thread is merely an example of someone who's embarassed by how the project is being represented on one of the most important sim racing fansites on the globe.

Many game companies try to silence critics but that's just not the right way to deal with a community nowadays, in my opinion. This message is almost completely copied / pasted but I'd still really like to know your reasong behind this. Why can't you tell the community why someone has been removed from your project (as much as data protection law permits) and / or provide proof that it wasn't unreasonable? I'm sure this could settle down nice and easy if you'd do.

People can hardly believe you without evidence when they're seeing stuff like this from "the other side of the argument". What if it really was just what I'm quoting below?

So this whole discussion is now focusing on the first post of Rob Every?

The way I read it: He logged into WMD and noticed he was banned (fact). As WMD is a forum powered by old fashioned vbulletin software that we used to run here at RD for years as well. I do know the ins and out of the backend and that that you can specify a specific reason for the ban that will be displayed to the user when he logs in.

Rob logged in and because SMS didn't specify a reason it displayed "No reason given" (fact)

Hence: Banned (fact) for no reason (fact).

Hoping for an answer,

Tom