SE Rep - can you share with us the criteria for selection of Alpha testers

[Exn]

Wow, they really went as far as deleting the thread abbout people with inactive accounts getting into the alpha.

That's quite bad form....

Yeah I noticed that quick ninja edit too LOL. I thought the thread of despair 'thread' was worse, meh. Ah well.

[Abriael]

was that in the start date thread?? They really deleted those posts??

Nah it was a rather large thread on its own.

When you do something a tad shajy in its PR foundations (IE: Stating very clearly that only "active" accounts are eligible and then letting in people with lapsed account over paying customers), it's best to explain the reasoning behind it (or own up to the mistake if it's just a mistake or a system problem), instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.

Dealing with dissatisfied customers 101; Not to say that people have a right to be dissatisfied about it (they kinda do, but my opinion here is as good as yours), but many obviously are, and deleting their complaints isn't the right way to deal with them.

[Recycler]

You are referring to the 40+ pages thread by Dragonheart?

[Gokulo]

I'll repost because I think it was lost with the other topic. As someone else explained it before: Anyone that bought XIV and played it even for a second has an active account. Unless they specifically went and deleted it from their S-E Acc page, they only had inactive characters, which means they did meet the first requirement of alpha. The bad choice of words is making the whole thing messy, though.

Also, I think that other topic might have been deleted for some other reasons, rather than just complaints

[fmonkey13]

How does anybody know people with inactive accounts got in? Plus it is alpha testing so more people would be left out than let in. Can not understand all the whining......

[Abriael]

You are referring to the 40+ pages thread by Dragonheart?

Yep, that would be the one. Took me about 10 minutes to compose a balanced reply in it, only to be met by a "invalid thread" warning when I pressed post. My poor time...

[Exn]

Nah it was a rather large thread on its own.

When you do something a tad shajy in its PR foundations (IE: Stating very clearly that only "active" accounts are eligible and then letting in people with lapsed account over paying customers), it's best to explain the reasoning behind it (or own up to the mistake if it's just a mistake or a system problem), instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.

Dealing with dissatisfied customers 101; Not to say that people have a right to be dissatisfied about it (they kinda do, but my opinion here is as good as yours), but many obviously are, and deleting their complaints isn't the right way to deal with them.

I was thinking maybe someone posted something that was against NDA, but I dunno. Even then you'd think they just delete the post, and not the entire thread. I'm not sure they did it to hide people's 'complaints' but I did think it's kinda wierd that it was completly just deleted, and apparently not just moved or closed (unless I'm missing it somewhere?), especially when there's a few other smaller threads with the same tone and topic.

[Abriael]

I'll repost because I think it was lost with the other topic. As someone else explained it before: Anyone that bought XIV and played it even for a second has an active account.

Nope. Sorry. That's a bit shaky a defense.

In no indutry that involves recurring fees and and in particular in no subscription game of this industry a lapsed account is referred to as "active". It's a very precise term not subject to interpretation.

An "active" account on pay 2 play games is an account where billing is still active and is still enabled to play. Lapsed accounts do not fit in that definition.

If SE really meant that (and I doubt it), then their wording was simply very much inappropriate, and criticism to it is very much warranted.

I was thinking maybe someone posted something that was against NDA, but I dunno. Even then you'd think they just delete the post, and not the entire thread. I'm not sure they did it to hide people's 'complaints' but I did think it's kinda wierd that it was completly just deleted, and apparently not just moved or closed (unless I'm missing it somewhere?), especially when there's a few other smaller threads with the same tone and topic.

Exactly. It's basic moderation 101 to delete only offending posts in a thread, not the whole thread. Even in case the thread was considered inappropriate (and I saw no reasons why it would be), outright deletion should be considered an extreme measure only to be used in extreme cases, that's why mods have the lock button.

Anyone that ever moderated a forum in his life would consider that kind of action not really Kosher, as its's seen as a bad form of disprespect of all the people that took their time to post in that thread in a constructive and balanced manner, and there were many.

[nokinator]

Nah it was a rather large thread on its own.

When you do something a tad shajy in its PR foundations (IE: Stating very clearly that only "active" accounts are eligible and then letting in people with lapsed account over paying customers), it's best to explain the reasoning behind it (or own up to the mistake if it's just a mistake or a system problem), instead of trying to sweep it under the rug.

Dealing with dissatisfied customers 101; Not to say that people have a right to be dissatisfied about it (they kinda do, but my opinion here is as good as yours), but many obviously are, and deleting their complaints isn't the right way to deal with them.

Yeah...

I see a lot of people disappointed today lots of anger, a lot of us are on all the time when not in RL activities but SE does not have to accompany us as much as people who dropped it early so i can see why those people got hits. thats not to say we dont care about testing its just the way it is atm.

[lolodin]

i smell shame .. they must know they were wromg if they deleted that thread .