Quote: Originally Posted By steelerstime on 9/18/2009
I'm not spiteful. I've never given it much consideration about public going private. I've certainly never tried to prove it by generating data that serves my interests and sending to customer support.
My point was there would be a reaction. And you've proven it. Under your criteria you think Mantle should be able to go private. When I suggest NO world goes private-you don't like it. Just like those owners that would also want to go from public to private would also react the same way if they were not allowed to.
That is the point. And your reaction to NO public world going private proves it.
And the poorly thought out formula-taking an entire history is better than picking a small sample of seasons. Why 5 seasons. Why not 7 or 10 or 3?
How about this. Rank the worlds based on the most money spent on WIS products by the owners(through all WIS sim-from simbaseball to clutch racing dynasty and HBD). The most loyal worlds, in terms of supporting WIS, get to decide if they want to remain public or private. That is the one thing WIS (and FOX) understands-money. Shouldn't the most loyal customers not get the best product available?
If you really don't care one way or the other, then why do you keep posting as if you do?
Does it really surprise you that my current efforts started with my asking ADMIN to let my world go private? Just like, according to ADMIN in one of their responses to my curent ticket, hundreds of other public world owners have asked for their worlds. Wouldn't it be pretty dumb of me to propose a system that excluded my world from consideration?
Back on the topic . . . as far as I can tell, your only objection to what I proposed is that my world benefits from it. Duh. So do others.
What I haven't heard from you is a well thought out counter argument to the criteria that I proposed. All you countered with is to factor in all previous seasons in a world instead of the most recent five. Here's the problem with that: going with that might hurt some public worlds that were a complete mess in the early days, with extremely high turnover. I recall some were as high as 15-20 per season in the early days. By going with "x" number of recent seasons, you're giving worlds a chance to have stabilized. I picked five because it's a nice round number. I could have picked 4, 7, or 8.625 I suppose. I chose 5.
And on your last suggestion . . . this is HBD. Why should somebody who has 50 seasons of SLB and maybe 2 seasons of HBD have more say on an HBD issue than somebody who has 35 seasons of HBD. That just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Just as if I decided to sign up for a season of CRD and decided that I should start making the rules over there.