With the wave of unsuspensions based on “incorrect data” it seems your explanation here is totally wrong.
4 Likes
With the insistence that suspensions are not even slightly automated it seems strange that humans were tricked by a computer bug.
For the record, my explanation was me sharing what the SFAs had been telling us for nearly a year now - not something I coined up. And while several threads have been locked up where I had said it (as I’ve said many times), Blizzard isn’t perfect. I don’t think they are, they admit that they’re not. If they were perfect and unquestionable, the appeals process wouldn’t be necessary. That there is an avenue to appeal is proof enough of that. I’ve also explained in other threads that we do see people win their appeals. Often times they’ll come back here and let us know how it turns out.
Now, to answer your thread you started and deleted - no. There is no way that every single person who was sanctioned in that wave were all due to renew their subs right before the wave went out. It would have been bad luck that it happened that way for you. What I can offer though, is that if your sanction is overturned? Once that is established, you absolutely can ask for them to credit your account for the days lost. I’ve yet to hear someone be denied that in the case of someone being sanctioned by mistake.
3 Likes
Is derailing a topic to make your own point about a now-deleted thread typically considered good forum etiquette?
Say what now? You replied to me, I suppose to get that sick dig in, remember?
But I said locked threads, not deleted. If you’re so bored while you wait for your appeal to be heard, feel free to case through my posting history. I’ve got nothing to hide.
It was not wrong. It was what the staff here have been posting for nearly a year now. That post above with all the Blue quotes and links? That wasn’t my thoughts and words, that was our SFA’s. It’s still essentially what the Dev posted that I’m assuming you saw, unless you’re just posting in multiple threads because they admitted there was an error and some people were unjustly sanctioned.
Let’s break this down for clarity from the Dev post.
Okay, so data was collected. There was bug in the data.
The data is then looked over by their analysts. People. Still no automation here. HOWEVER, the data provided to the analysts was flawed. They made their judgments based on flawed data. Human error. Again, no automation.
All the reporting in the world, still wouldn’t be enough on it’s own to trigger a suspension. Still, no automation.
This part here? The only automation. And it’s a debuff. Either you start participating or you’re AFK’d out of the BG. Not a suspension.
And they repeat it again to drive it home. Still, no automation when it comes to the suspension.
9 Likes
I don’t think you understand what data analytics is.
While a computer may collect data, what data to collect and how that data is interpreted and the actual interpretation, is done by people.
There was no computer bug, there was a people bug and people discovered the error and people are correcting it.
8 Likes
This is not what the blue posts say. They don’t say “we had an issue with the interpretation of collected analytical data,” they say there was a bug in their analytics data. This is collected by a machine. Surely, humans professionally trained in reviewing data would notice an obvious error with the data. And yet they didn’t, and many bans went out that should not have.
You explanation is also totally different than the person above you, who has interpreted the same information in another favorable way.
I understand Blizzard says there is no automation in this process. I’m simply saying it’s interesting that the humans Blizzard says they are paying to review this data (and not administer bot-driven bans) did not notice this before banning a very large number of players erroneously.
1 Like
You have once again made a number of assumptions about me that are incorrect and are interpreting Blue posts incorrectly.
My reply to you was simply to let others know that despite what was written here, your explanation was incorrect.
1 Like
In what way, then? It’s not interpretation, it’s what they said. So how is it wrong, exactly?
2 Likes
I have explained this on the post I wrote above the reply to you.
I am truly not interested in arguing on the forum and will be ending our interaction here.
Yes, that is what they said. What should be understood though is we generally do not provide details on what may have happened. Referring to it as a bug is the easiest way to convey their meaning without otherwise confusing the issue.
I think that would be best for this thread overall.
19 Likes