User talk:Drmikey

Dear Dr Mike,

These are my comments to you about your post on the talk page on Anarchy Online. I have since removed your comments for the reason that I give in part 6 of my response (as you will see it was actually based on your own words). I am writing you this because you clearly missed the point of my posts there. Your post is the parts in the carrots and then my reply to that part. I do not wish you to take offense at this or any of my actions on Wikipedia, if you wish to reply to any thing, or vent your anger; I welcome your input on either part of my personal page here.

1) <You cannot just print something from third parties without any evidence for it,> -Where did I say I was going to print something from third parties? This one really confuses me because I don't even know what you could have mistaken for saying I was going to do that.

2) <you are slurring the game masters at Funcom.> -Could you please explain to me where I slurred the GMs (which by the way if you read the article, you would see are not Game Masters, but Genetic Manipulators)? All I did was stated a FACT that there is growing concern among some of the players that they are (as you put it) 'abusing' their power.

3) <In my opinion they have done a great job when I play the game.> -Since a lot of what you are saying to me is that my opinion is not a fair thing to even discuss, what relevance does your positive opinion have in the same discussion?

4) <Screenshots can also be edited very easily with Photoshop and thus are not good pieces of evidence and you really should know that.> -I guess you missed the way that I was suggesting the idea of a screen shot as a dumb idea and in light of that your comment is not relevant.

5) <The question of GMs 'abusing' power isn't very relevant, they are Funcom employees and not volunteers, they thus can take ANY action that is necessary in game, if player do not like this then they can appeal against a decision.> -I actually question this part because of 2 reasons. The first is that it doesn't matter if they are Funcom employees or not. I would argue that in fact it is more important that they behave in a professional manner since this IS their job and not something that they do for fun, so they should be following their own End User License Agreement which very clearly tells you that harassment of any kind is strictly prohibited by anyone and should be called to the attention of an official as soon as possible to rectify the situation. This brings me to the second problem with your idea, that is that very often from 6 pm to 2 am EST, there is only 1 (or rarely 2) GMs on the game (since this is midnight to 8 am where the company headquarters are and therefore is the 'night shift'), so guess who answers your complaint of harassment by the GM? This would not be a problem if you were able to talk to another one at a different time, but that is not allowed and in a few cases where someone has tried to do this, the GM in question got word of it and that player still has a banned account.

6) < I find the tone of the part of the wiki, very unappealing and would like it to be edited out please/ please note this from wiki guidelines : Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.> -Where was I making a personal view on the talk page? I was having what seems to be a civil conversation with another editor who was (I'll admit fairly) questioning my added content. Your comments on the other hand contain quite a bit of personal views (see #3 and the first part of this section for examples) and as per your own feelings, I shall be removing them from this talk page.

I think you need to go back and read what you wrote and not be so confrontational about it and defensive. Most of your above points are not based on FACT as was evidenced by you not being able to produce hard evidence, citations or anything which could have corroborated your 'story'. By going back and reading what you wrote you'll be able to answer all the above points alone, and will not require further discussion on the matter as it is now resolved and that was my intention. drmike 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)