AW compensation shards

This content has been removed.

You really need to learn how to read before you respond. The following paragraph specifically talks about crystal shards, and how they haven't adequately dealt with that.

Further, they are the ones who stated clearly that after 11/15 they still owed compensation for alliance wars AND alliance war seasons. They have delivered the former, but not the latter.

Read, interpret, then respond.

Except they did. Yesterday they delivered compensation for alliance war season rewards AS WELL AS compensation for the wars, we got 2 sets of compensations yesterday.

I do read, interpret and respond, a lot of people in this thread seem to think compensation is only given for a loss, but your rewards are also compensation, because by definition those rewards are compensation for your work.

No no, you're being obtuse.

We received season war rewards, which everyone would have received regardless (give or take a tier) if there had never been a problem. That is NOT compensation. Trying to mischaracterize standard season rewards as a compensation is misleading and disingenuous.

This content has been removed.

This content has been removed.

No no, you're being obtuse.

We received season war rewards, which everyone would have received regardless (give or take a tier) if there had never been a problem. That is NOT compensation. Trying to mischaracterize standard season rewards as a compensation is misleading and erroneous.

How so? What is the definition of compensation?

the act or state of compensating, as by rewarding someone for service or by making up for someone's loss, damage, or injury by giving the injured party an appropriate benefit.

What you are doing is determining for kabam which of those 2 different definition they are using for them, despite what they did litterally fitting the definition, that would make the issue on you, for your logical leap, not on me.

Compensation does not just mean making up for a loss, you have a compensation package at work, every time you get paid you are getting compensated for that time, event though you likely did not suffer a loss.

They have told you what they gave yesterday was AW season reward compensation, you dont want to believe them so you rely on a cherry picked definition of compensation that fits what you want, how exactly does me following the definition make me obtuse, and you cherry picking not make you?

Dęłtå

This is quickly escalating the wrong way

This content has been removed.

Context matters. They decided on the definition they were using when they categorized the 11/15 rewards as "Maintenance Compensation," followed by "This does not include compensation for..."

Logically, the same definition for compensation would apply to both unless a modifier was added to specifically indicate it no longer applied in that context.

Again, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel arguing semantics to give them an out of their own statement.

Frankly you're floundering, and I'm embarrassed for you.

Jakearound

I’m generally cool with the compensation that was issued except for the fact that there was absolutely no gold whatsoever given in any of the compensation. I would of liked at least a fair amount of gold crystals.

Context matters. They decided on the definition they were using when they categorized the 11/15 rewards as "Maintenance Compensation," followed by "This does not include compensation for..."

Logically, the same definition for compensation would apply to both unless a modifier was added to specifically indicate it no longer applied in that context.

Again, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel arguing semantics to give them an out of their own statement.

Frankly you're floundering, and I'm embarrassed for you.

Context does matter, but you are making a logical leap here saying that they all have to be the same context, again you are trying to define it for them, where as I stated it was vague, and you are showing that it was indeed vague.

They have already illustrated that the alliance wars season compensation they were talking about came out yesterday, you are the one claiming it didnt, they said it did, so who should I believe, someone who read a vague message and claimed it was crystal clear, or the literal authority on that topic, who you say is wrong? Who is the correct one to ask about the meaning of a phrase, the person who gave it or someone who is trying to interpret it?

Mjolinar

Just stop responding to him. His goal is to derail. Ask your questions to the real mods and continue to bump it up if they don’t respond. That is the only way you will receive a real answer.

This content has been removed.

Again, you're asking useless questions and mischaracterizing their statements.

- They made a clear statement regarding their intended compensation plans, which didn't require any "logical leaps" to interpret. They defined their own language within that statement, creating expectations for the community.
- They didn't follow through with their statement, only partially delivering what was indicated.
- The mods here and their surrogates (again, you) have tried to backtrack on their official statement, which doesn't have the same gravitas as the official in-game mail, no matter how hard you try and point fingers.

It's all super clear, except for what exactly you get out of arguing the point? Your behavior here is very Trumpian, telling people to believe your convoluted explanations instead of what they can see clearly with their eyes. As someone who doesn't have a "Kabam" denotation in front of their name, I'm curious as to what your motivations are to spend so much time and energy spinning the narrative for them?

Mine is pretty simple. I don't like watching people who can string a few buzzwords together pretend that they are being 'logical' when they in fact their semantic hand-wringing is anything but. Being someone that actually studies logic and rhetoric, it's pretty painful to watch without interjecting a bit of truth.

Context matters. They decided on the definition they were using when they categorized the 11/15 rewards as "Maintenance Compensation," followed by "This does not include compensation for..."

Logically, the same definition for compensation would apply to both unless a modifier was added to specifically indicate it no longer applied in that context.

Again, you're twisting yourself into a pretzel arguing semantics to give them an out of their own statement.

Frankly you're floundering, and I'm embarrassed for you.
Context does matter, but you are making a logical leap here saying that they all have to be the same context, again you are trying to define it for them, where as I stated it was vague, and you are showing that it was indeed vague.

They have already illustrated that the alliance wars season compensation they were talking about came out yesterday, you are the one claiming it didnt, they said it did, so who should I believe, someone who read a vague message and claimed it was crystal clear, or the literal authority on that topic, who you say is wrong? Who is the correct one to ask about the meaning of a phrase, the person who gave it or someone who is trying to interpret it?
Oh would you look at that. An actual logical fallacy.

Not the first, just the most obvious.

*goes back into the shadows*

Just because I mention an authority does not mean it is an appeal to authority, if someone is the final authority on a topic, such as the author of a phrase is the final authority on that phrase, then it is not an appeal to authority. Now if I had sited seatin, that would be fallacious, but nice try.

This content has been removed.

Again, you're asking useless questions and mischaracterizing their statements.

- They made a clear statement regarding their intended compensation plans, which didn't require any "logical leaps" to interpret. They defined their own language within that statement, creating expectations for the community.
- They didn't follow through with their statement, only partially delivering what was indicated.
- The mods here and their surrogates (again, you) have tried to backtrack on their official statement, which doesn't have the same gravitas as the official in-game mail, no matter how hard you try and point fingers.

It's all super clear, except for what exactly you get out of arguing the point? Your behavior here is very Trumpian, telling people to believe your convoluted explanations instead of what they can see clearly with their eyes. As someone who doesn't have a "Kabam" denotation in front of their name, I'm curious as to what your motivations are to make spend so much time and energy spinning the narrative for them?

Mine is pretty simple. I don't like watching people who can string a few buzzwords together pretend that they are being 'logical' when they in fact their semantic hand-wringing is anything but. Being someone that actually studies logic and rhetoric, it's pretty painful to watch without interjecting a bit of truth.

mine is clear here as well, I dont like watching people claim something that is vague as clear to support their narrow definition of the way things work, it does not matter if it is kabam or anyone else. Also I am not just stringing together buzzwords, I am litterally giving reference, citations, and all you are doing is saying I am wrong because of a narrow define of a single source of correspondence, while ignoring all other sources, all other definitions. I dont care either way if they give out more rewards, but they did what they claimed they would do based on the definitions of the words, but that does not seem enough for you, they must fit your narrower definition.

I don't think the word "vague" means what you think it means.

There was nothing vague about their email. They stated the purpose of the current compensation, what it covered, and what it did not. They stated to expect further compensation to cover those excluded items in the future. That has been the only communication on that topic from the official in game mail. Following, they send out "Alliance Wars Compensation."

Let me clarify further.

Tier 1 communication (direct evidence) has been as follows:
Email 1, states they are including compensation for A, but not for B and C, which will follow later.
Email 2, sends out compensation for B, but fails to mention C.

Tier 2 communications (indirect evidence) has been as follows:
Mods shutting down threads and pointing inquires to the in game mail and forum banner
Surrogates attempting to contradict tier 1 communications with additional criteria, not included in the official email.

You and the mods, can try and move the goalposts all you want. Frankly your interpretation of the direct evidence doesn't matter, as it doesn't include the weight of direct communication from the company to the player base through in-game mail.

ipso facto, the official statement at this point stands in contradiction to their actions.

I don't think the word "vague" means what you think it means.

There was nothing vague about their email. They stated the purpose of the current compensation, what it covered, and what it did not. They stated to expect further compensation to cover those excluded items in the future. That has been the only communication on that topic from the official in game mail. Following, they send out "Alliance Wars Compensation."

Let me clarify further.

Tier 1 communication (direct evidence) has been as follows:
Email 1, states they are including compensation for A, but not for B and C, which will follow later.
Email 2, sends out compensation for B, but fails to mention C.

Tier 2 communications (indirect evidence) has been as follows:
Mods shutting down threads and pointing inquires to the in game mail and forum banner
Surrogates attempting to contradict tier 1 communications with additional criteria, not included in the official email.

You and the mods, can try and move the goalposts all you want. Frankly your interpretation of the direct evidence doesn't matter, as it doesn't include the weight of direct communication from the company to the player base through in-game mail.

ipso facto, the official statement at this point stands in contradiction to their actions.

It only stands to you because you have narrowly defined the scope of one word, despite all the clarifications to the contrary. The mods comments and clarifications are also direct communication from the company to the player base. You wanting to ignore their comments AND kabams past behavior because it does not fit your narrative of what they meant when they said something, despite it being their words and for them define is not logic. You accused me of being trumponian, but you are the one who is choosing to narrow the scope of what was meant based on an arbitrary set of criteria to fit your own wants and desires, where I am using a broader definition base on statements, and behaviors.

No no, again, you're being obtuse and blithely ignoring the context of the communication, while applying broader criteria to a statement that was intentionally narrow in its scope. You're filtering it through your own lens (or more likely through the lens of someone who has a financial stake defending the company).

Also you're assuming my 'wants and desires.' Frankly I don't care if they send more compensation because this game is a bottomless time suck either way, and 2000 shards here and there won't change that. However I acknowledge that they clearly stated they would send compensation, despite your protestations and attempted semantic olympics.

It's really quite amazing how you can twist logic to fit your narrative when you've clearly been proven wrong by multiple people.

This content has been removed.

PeacockJazz

Sorry in advance if this was discussed, I have a hard time reading back and forth debates on this forum sometimes.

I’ll start by saying that the compensation received was appreciated and handled well but everyone got all the compensation. What is being done for the teams (us included) the got un-enlisted from 3 wars and missed out on getting rewards for those wars?