Limelight Forums

We noticed there were flaws, so took on the constructive feedback (on top of staff opinion too, most of us contributed a fair amount of opinions internally too) to make a change. When we get slammed with unconstructive, troll posts or people who just take the opportunity to bash the decision rather than providing reasonable input, it's quite hard to take that forward.

(Mar 25, 2019, 12:18 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]I like how defensive they where at first and now they suddenly bend over

Just to confirm, you want the team to ignore community feedback?

(Mar 25, 2019, 12:18 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]I like how defensive they where at first and now they suddenly bend over

What exactly do you want them to do, they took in proper criticism, reached out and organised a meeting and reached a solution that worked in everyone's best interest.

I don't get why you have to bash on them for taking a step back and hearing us out.

(Mar 25, 2019, 12:18 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]I like how defensive they where at first and now they suddenly bend over

So because we listened to people said, and had a meeting with them. Means we bend over? 

Not sure about that one chief

(Mar 25, 2019, 12:18 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]I like how defensive they where at first and now they suddenly bend over

This is why no one wants you at these meetings.

”So to summarize, while normally we would ask for community input for any changes, as the decision had legal weight to it, potentially putting company officers and shareholders at risk, we couldn't leave this to community input where anyone can post anything with zero risk. There are times we'll seek community input and let the community have their voice, but when it comes to matters of a legal nature, it's best left to those with the responsibilities for the company.”

You literakly wanted no feedback whatsoever and pretty much said that our feedback wouldnt matter. Then you bended over.

(Mar 25, 2019, 07:30 PM)Insert Wrote: [ -> ]”So to summarize, while normally we would ask for community input for any changes, as the decision had legal weight to it, potentially putting company officers and shareholders at risk, we couldn't leave this to community input where anyone can post anything with zero risk. There are times we'll seek community input and let the community have their voice, but when it comes to matters of a legal nature, it's best left to those with the responsibilities for the company.”

You literakly wanted no feedback whatsoever and pretty much said that our feedback wouldnt matter. Then you bended over.

couldn't have said it better myself

(Mar 25, 2019, 07:30 PM)Insert Wrote: [ -> ]”So to summarize, while normally we would ask for community input for any changes, as the decision had legal weight to it, potentially putting company officers and shareholders at risk, we couldn't leave this to community input where anyone can post anything with zero risk. There are times we'll seek community input and let the community have their voice, but when it comes to matters of a legal nature, it's best left to those with the responsibilities for the company.”

You literakly wanted no feedback whatsoever and pretty much said that our feedback wouldnt matter. Then you bended over.

Because they realised they were clearly mistaken (a 2 second Google or some common sense would have helped them) and took things way out of proportion. At least we have a compromise now instead of a complete blanket ban. So can you chill out bro?

(Mar 25, 2019, 07:48 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]

(Mar 25, 2019, 07:30 PM)Insert Wrote: [ -> ]”So to summarize, while normally we would ask for community input for any changes, as the decision had legal weight to it, potentially putting company officers and shareholders at risk, we couldn't leave this to community input where anyone can post anything with zero risk. There are times we'll seek community input and let the community have their voice, but when it comes to matters of a legal nature, it's best left to those with the responsibilities for the company.”

You literakly wanted no feedback whatsoever and pretty much said that our feedback wouldnt matter. Then you bended over.

couldn't have said it better myself

So next time we do something, then don't 'bend over', I bet £10 that you're the first to moan.

(Mar 25, 2019, 07:30 PM)Insert Wrote: [ -> ]”So to summarize, while normally we would ask for community input for any changes, as the decision had legal weight to it, potentially putting company officers and shareholders at risk, we couldn't leave this to community input where anyone can post anything with zero risk. There are times we'll seek community input and let the community have their voice, but when it comes to matters of a legal nature, it's best left to those with the responsibilities for the company.”

You literakly wanted no feedback whatsoever and pretty much said that our feedback wouldnt matter. Then you bended over.

We made a series of mistakes with how we initially handled it. We then clarified our stance at the time, and while we still can't 100% verify the lack of legal risk (that's a job for a lawyer), the manner in which we clarified it and doubled down on limiting input was also a mistake. Luckily we weren't quite dumb enough to lock this thread and prevent further discussion; while there was some trolling and nonconstructive behaviour, there were also many community members who responded maturely and gave very valid points. Therefore, we reconsidered and realised that we had been hasty and that it was worth speaking to these community members. There were still reservations about a complete reversal of the rule - as the staff vote identified there were issues with discriminatory RP in-game - we were more than willing to come to a unified compromise with these people who were spending time providing constructive criticism of our actions and stance in order to benefit the community.

This, to me, seems to be a positive turn of events and positive actions on our part to fix our initial mistakes while still resolving some of the previous issues. You're implying however, that it's actually a negative action for us to change our stance on a topic and to take into account overwhelming community feedback. 

Do you not realise how dumb this implication can be? If you try to humiliate people and imply that they're "bending over" for doing a good thing and listening to feedback and having a more democratic discussion, then people are going to be less likely to listen in the future. Are we also bending over when we listen to player's thoughts in ban reports? Or in suggestions to change or remove a feature?

Fortunately recent events are fresh in our minds therefore we aren't dumb enough to take your comment seriously. We're going to continue listening to constructive community feedback; your low-effort shitposts won't change that.

Big oof, but seriously why y'all complaining? They made a rule which had flaws, everything has flaws, they then listened to the community and changed it to suit their opinions as much as they could. I don't see the issue? If you're here to say they "bent over" because they listened to the community then you should probably ask your doctor for some oral Pepto-Bismol tablets. 

Here's one website you can buy them from if you want: https://www.pepto-bismol.com/en-us

>acts fast to respond to a controversial issue
>community goes haywire
>explains why
>community still goes haywire
>takes a step back to rethink with community feedback
>bends over

mm yes

These reactions omegalul, you guys are the kind of community that would applaud EA for removing microtransactions in a 60$ single player game.

(Mar 26, 2019, 04:59 PM)Glofenduck Wrote: [ -> ]These reactions omegalul, you guys are the kind of community that would applaud EA for removing microtransactions in a 60$ single player game.

pls leave