Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 5077777" data-attributes="member: 1">They did - and then went further,&nbsp;Lone Wolf wanted them to edit people's post so that any conversational reference by the public to an army builder not produced by Lone Wolf would be referred to as a generic term (such as &quot;unit roster application&quot; or something). However, references to Lone Wolf's product &quot;Army Builder&quot; would be left alone.&nbsp;PP decided that any mention of the worlds &quot;army builder&quot; would now be automatically edited to read &quot;iBodger&quot; (their own application which does the same thing). They declared that this was because they could not police every post to contextually edit each appropriately (which would require a human to physically read every post), so they imposed a blanket ban on the term &quot;army builder&quot;.&nbsp;LW's proposal that PP read every post and contextually edit them if they referred to an army builder other than LW's Army Builder clearly isn't possible (imagine if someone asked me to read every one of several million posts on EN World). So they adopted a blnaket overkill approach, and at the same time prevented anyone from ever mentioning LW's product at all. Obviously this is partly practicality- demanding that they monitor every post is impossible - and partly an emotional reaction.&nbsp;The problem here is that LW chose not to say &quot;Hey, PP guys, we have a problem - would you be so kind as to work with us to resolve it?&quot;&nbsp; They said &quot;We demand you do this within 72 hours or we'll take legal action&quot;.&nbsp; That's gonna get your back up when you're on the receiving end.&nbsp; Then claiming that everyone read the initial email out of context is just a little insulting, and that it was meant as a friendly request,&nbsp; rubs salt in the wound.&nbsp; You don't incude legal threats in friendly requests.&nbsp; &nbsp;It was a bad judgement call.&nbsp; They could have achieved their goal by being friendly.&nbsp; They chose to be antagonistic - and then compound it by claiming they weren't being antagonistic after everyone read the email.&nbsp;They threatened PP, pure and simple.&nbsp; Take the legality out of it - it's bad PR, and it's an amateur choice of professional interaction.&nbsp; Don't be a bully when you can smile - it may have worked in high school, but in the grown-up world it makes you look like a douchebag.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 5077777, member: 1"] They did - and then went further, Lone Wolf wanted them to edit people's post so that any conversational reference by the public to an army builder not produced by Lone Wolf would be referred to as a generic term (such as "unit roster application" or something). However, references to Lone Wolf's product "Army Builder" would be left alone. PP decided that any mention of the worlds "army builder" would now be automatically edited to read "iBodger" (their own application which does the same thing). They declared that this was because they could not police every post to contextually edit each appropriately (which would require a human to physically read every post), so they imposed a blanket ban on the term "army builder". LW's proposal that PP read every post and contextually edit them if they referred to an army builder other than LW's Army Builder clearly isn't possible (imagine if someone asked me to read every one of several million posts on EN World). So they adopted a blnaket overkill approach, and at the same time prevented anyone from ever mentioning LW's product at all. Obviously this is partly practicality- demanding that they monitor every post is impossible - and partly an emotional reaction. The problem here is that LW chose not to say "Hey, PP guys, we have a problem - would you be so kind as to work with us to resolve it?" They said "We demand you do this within 72 hours or we'll take legal action". That's gonna get your back up when you're on the receiving end. Then claiming that everyone read the initial email out of context is just a little insulting, and that it was meant as a friendly request, rubs salt in the wound. You don't incude legal threats in friendly requests. It was a bad judgement call. They could have achieved their goal by being friendly. They chose to be antagonistic - and then compound it by claiming they weren't being antagonistic [I]after[/I] everyone read the email. They threatened PP, pure and simple. Take the legality out of it - it's bad PR, and it's an amateur choice of professional interaction. Don't be a bully when you can smile - it may have worked in high school, but in the grown-up world it makes you look like a douchebag. [/QUOTE]

Verification