Help
Regional FlagZarhym Twitter (Show MVP Posts)Source
avatar
Tularian
Target Source
#1 - 2012/04/17 09:53:00 PM
So Zarhym said on Twitter last night that he is very close to the people in charge of beta invites and they are in fact going by subscription time and annual pass sign-up date. He called the fact that thousands of people with accounts as late as 2010-11 and late AP sign-ups are in, while thousands of people with accounts since 2005-06 and Day 1 AP sign-ups are not, "cirumstantial evidence." First of all, I'm not sure that Zarhym actually knows what the term circumstantial evidence means. From the way he was using it, I think he thought it meant "weak evidence," unaware that circumstantial evidence from which only one reasonable inference can be drawn is just as strong as direct evidence, especially when there are thousands of pieces of that evidence. For example, most crimes in America are convicted without any direct evidence. The circumstantial vs. direct evidence distinction is something largely created by Law & Order and other television dramas.

Why do people like Zarhym continue committing to this lie about beta access order. Why not just tell the truth? I have been thinking about it for weeks and still have not been able to come up with a logical reason for them to lie about this when they could have easily just given no reason at all and said it's random. It probably would have been the smarter business move too. I really don't know what they were thinking. Not a smart move for customer relations, hopefully the tanking subscriptions the last couple of weeks will teach them a lesson. EA is currently learning the hard way, looks like it's Activision's turn.

avatar
Community Manager
Target Source
#50 - 2012/04/17 11:04:00 PM
04/17/2012 02:53 PMPosted by Tularian
Why do people like Zarhym continue committing to this lie about beta access order. Why not just tell the truth?

We've stated in the past there are several ways by which candidates are invited to test Mists of Pandaria beta. All we've said with regard to Annual Pass holders is that they'll be invited before people who submitted through our opt-in process, and that they'll be invited in order of Annual Pass purchase date and total cumulative play time on the account.

So here are a few things I didn't feel like typing on Twitter to one person all but accusing us of a conspiracy:

    1) You don't have access to enough information to determine with certainty the way in which each and every person flagged for beta access was invited.

    2) Even if you were able to prove that one Annual Pass holder was invited a) in an Annual Pass invite wave, and b) before someone who purchased their Annual Pass earlier, has more cumulative play time on their account, and was also invited in an Annual Pass wave, that still doesn't prove there's a systemic flaw in the way in which all accounts are being flagged.

    3) We're aware that the terminology we used when initially announcing the Annual Pass feature was misleading. We've already stated we regret the way that went down. That said, we had no reason to falsely claim we'd be distributing invites in a way we had no intention of actually following. There's just no good reason to lie about that and hope people wouldn't catch on.