Posted by MikeT23 on 12/11/2017 2:06:00 PM (view original):
As I said, I think it's a general lack of understanding of HBD. Which is concerning.

Or it's a stubborn unwillingness to do the simplest of requests. Which might be worse.

I'd understand if both users didn't agree. Hell, if they want to make us jump thru hoops, with commish, departing/incoming owners all responding to the same ticket, so be it. That's fine. But this "we still prefer the data be correct and credits be distributed appropriately" as the reason is nonsense.

+1

We've seen a lot of respected veteran owners leave the game recently and strong worlds benefit from what Mike is advocating in these posts.

It's a shame CS doesn't fully grasp this.

I submitted a ticket to add my vote to the This Is Bad Business side.

Don't expect a reply or a change. Figured the least I could do on my way out is try to keep the game alive in other ways.

If it's so important to maintain the integrity of user data, does that mean no more mergers?

No, they're working on one now.

And if the integrity of data is so important, why allow transfers at all? So an owner who is absent is not entitled to his record or credits, but an owner who consents to giving up his credits and record isn't allowed to do so? What's the difference in an active owner taking on a bad record in either of those situations? He still has someone else's record on his profile, and is clearly okay with it if he gives that approval. The logic is just so flawed.

Laziness.

But, sermonauthor, this is something they did. And it was really stupid.

Either they have now reversed this again or we just lucked out on who was handling tickets, but a world I'm in just had an active owner replaced at his request. Now we just need the absentee owner replaced in that world and we'll be all set...