Posted by joshkvt on 11/18/2015 11:16:00 PM (view original):
Replacing owners is the biggest crapshoot of all in terms of hoping the right person handles the ticket. Usually sending TC/SM confirmation with the ticket gets it done. Occasionally the support response asks me to have the leaving owner confirm that his message asking to be replaced means he wants to be replaced. Whether an owner has checked in on other worlds has never been a factor. If it is a factor, logically it would reinforce the request, not cast doubt on it. I've replaced many owners who were still active in other worlds and that has been brought up exactly 0 % of the time.

If there were some reason for extra scrutiny, support should be doing that instead of asking someone else to do it. Especially in a public world. If the update being mentioned triggered the response, it should have been "We want to check in with Owner X to make sure our recent mods have not caused him to change his mind. If we don't hear back from him in X hours, the request will be approved." Though again, the fact that he is checking on other teams and not this one pretty much confirms the request.

and how many of those owners you replaced that were still active in other worlds did you put in the ticket 18 days after they told you to do it?  I'm guessing exactly 0% of the time.

If there's no follow-up message from the owner saying he changed his mind, what possible difference could that make? You now have an otherwise active owner who has not checked into just one world for 2 1/2 weeks instead of a few days. After 18 days, you shouldn't even need the TC confirmation.

If it's 3 days after the TC and the owner checked into other worlds, support might think he just didn't have time to visit this world. If it's been 18 days and he's been checking into other worlds, it confirms that he no longer wants the team. I have 4 teams. Sometimes I only check 1 or 2 of them if I only have a few minutes. I've never gone 18 days only checking 3 of them.

As an expert in replacing owners, how often has support told you to find out why the departing owner wants to leave?

And your guess is wrong. In one case an owner told me shortly after rollover that he wanted to be replaced. With other openings, I wanted to wait until we were otherwise full to find a replacement to take on a free team. After we filled, I found a replacement, sent the ticket including the TC as confirmation, and support made the transfer. It was about a month after the original TC.

Posted by alogman1 on 11/18/2015 10:57:00 PM (view original):
Wrong guess.  I'm guessing I've replaced more owners than you have.  And my experience with it is where I speak from.  Your case is one based on my experience where they would not replace the owner without further corroboration.  The circumstances that require extra scrutiny are a) the request is based on a trade chat that is 18 days old and b) the owner is still logging into the site.  Makes sense to me.  I guess it doesn't to you. 

As I pointed out previously, the age of trade chat was irrelevant, as is the fact that the owner in question was checking into other worlds.  The owner had not checked into this particular world since 11/2, a full 16 days.  That's beyond what's always been the WIS standard for "abandoned team", which is 14 days.

I'm not being confrontational.  I'm telling you that based on my vast experience with replacing owners, the request for further corroboration is consistent with how they've handled replacements in the past.  If you and your cronies don't want to believe me, feel free to go on thinking you were greatly wronged by CS and that they suck.  It makes no difference to me.  

In my vast experience with replacing owners, a TC, SM or post in the forums has been enough to get it done.   Without the obligatory waiting period of 14 days.

As evidenced by my first post, I don't think CS sucks in general.    I think, sometimes, you get an incompetent employee incapable of reasonable thought.   You seem OK with that.    I'm not.   If you don't know, pass it on to someone who does.   That did not happen in this case.

The reason I did NOT choose to attempt to contact dwoolery to get him to jump thru their hoop is because it's a public world.   He's also in the other league.   Someone else should have noticed he's been gone since 11/2 and acted.   Evidently, no one has.  

BTW, the use of "cronies" is what everyone says when NO ONE agrees with them.     They think "It can't be me.  Must be a bunch of his buddies disagreeing with me."   Here's a hint.   Sometimes you're just wrong. 

They're taking away a team that the owner paid for without giving the owner a refund.  You typically can't do that.  Yes, I know he didn't ask for a refund, that's not my point.  I don't find it unreasonable that they would want additional confirmation when the owner is still logging into the site, and the request is 18 days old. It also seems to me consistent with how they've handled replacements in the past, based on my experience.   They don't want to replace owners unless they are absolutely sure the owner has abandoned the team.  That makes sense to me. Apparently it doesn't to you and your opinion is their actions were unreasonable in this case.  We have a difference of opinion.  Not sure that makes either of us right or wrong, we just see the situation differently.   

i recently took over a team from an owner that wanted out. instead of the switch taking place quickly/immediately, it took days. when i sent a ticket in to admin saying i was ready and willing to take over said team, they replied that they were waiting to hear back from the departing owner. so maybe it's a new thing with the whole 'wanting to know why they're leaving' policy

Posted by alogman1 on 11/19/2015 6:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm not being confrontational.  I'm telling you that based on my vast experience with replacing owners, the request for further corroboration is consistent with how they've handled replacements in the past.  If you and your cronies don't want to believe me, feel free to go on thinking you were greatly wronged by CS and that they suck.  It makes no difference to me.  

I've replaced dozens of owners over the years as well.  A ticket with a reference to trade chats, world chats, or sitemails from both (a) the owner being replaced, and (b) the new owner coming in, is sufficient around 98% of the time.  The other 2% where it's not sufficient is likely because the "B" team from support is on the case and don't know what they're doing.

That's pretty much what happened.   I got the "A" team with regards to my MG problems(and the owner was replaced immediately when I gave them his "I can't continue at this point.  Please replace me" post in the world chat).    In this case, I got the "B" team who wanted me to contact the owner who asked to be replaced, have him contact support and explain why he was leaving.   That's just stupid.   As I said, they have his info.  More info than I have.   CS can send emails and sitemails to said owner if they have more questions.    They chose not to do that and closed the ticket because I said "Don't bother to respond".  

At some point, common sense has to take over.   The team is abandoned and worlds suffer when abandoned teams are allowed to trudge their way to the finish.  With a closed ticket, the issue is dead to WifS.   So, with 50+ games left, this team will be without an owner for more than half a season.   Who does that benefit?

Posted by tecwrg on 11/19/2015 7:34:00 AM (view original):

Posted by alogman1 on 11/19/2015 6:29:00 AM (view original):
I'm not being confrontational.  I'm telling you that based on my vast experience with replacing owners, the request for further corroboration is consistent with how they've handled replacements in the past.  If you and your cronies don't want to believe me, feel free to go on thinking you were greatly wronged by CS and that they suck.  It makes no difference to me.  

I've replaced dozens of owners over the years as well.  A ticket with a reference to trade chats, world chats, or sitemails from both (a) the owner being replaced, and (b) the new owner coming in, is sufficient around 98% of the time.  The other 2% where it's not sufficient is likely because the "B" team from support is on the case and don't know what they're doing.

I disagree that this is a case where the "B" team from support didn't know what they were doing.  In general, they don't want to replace owners unless they are absolutely sure the team is abandoned.  In this case they were not 100% sure it was abandoned.  It's their prerogative to seek additional confirmation.   The 14 days is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule.   The 14 days isn't even in the TOS.  If they want additional confirmation so that they are sure they are not breaching the contract entered into when the owner purchased the team, I don't see a problem with that, or find it unreasonable.  If you or others do, that's certainly your/their prerogative as well.  

I can guarantee you, if tzentmeyer sees this thread, the replacement will be done immediately.   IMMEDIATELY.

Because, here's the thing, if they replace dwoolery and he says "Hey, I went to check my team and it was gone", they can reverse it immediately.    There is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to not do the exchange 17 days after abandonment especially with a request to be replaced.   Because, after all, they can give him the team back if he wants it.