Failure Analysis

There have been a variety of negative opinions expressed concerning the conduct of the City of Heroes staff during this period. The opinions expressed below are comprised from conversations and observations made for the most part from within the game because as noted above, most threads or posts which expressed them were purged for violating at least one forum rule. Also, in some cases independent verification will not be provided by me, as many such conversations were conducted in confidence, but in that event an item will only be listed if it was revealed to me by at least two independent parties. It should bear notice that some of the possible punitive actions taken against any player who has contributed to my body of work could range from a simple 72-hour ban to complete forfeiture of future playing privledges in perpetum, even if they have paid to play in advance.

1. No notice was given by the staff of City of Heroes that they were engaged in taking action against those players they judged to be in violation of the City of Heroes Terms of Service, such as account banning or the deletion of characters related to a particular account. To the best of my knowledge, there were no instances where a player suffered only one of the mentioned punishments, but due to the nature of the event, I am unable to verify this.

2. The only in-game warning or discussion of misuse (as deemed by the City of Heroes staff) was the in-game MOTD provided when the game was launched. Players who do not frequent the official forum could thus honestly have missed all further discussion made regarding what would potentially be considered an exploit by the City of Heroes staff.

3. Certain players have alleged that the original Positron post made in his "Abusing Mission Architect" were later altered without notification to that effect (known as a "stealth edit") to make the language used appear to be more polished. While this author cannot disprove that such an action took place, he has been unable to find any evidence presented by forum readers that this occurred and in fact, his memory is such that the original post remains as it originally existed. This includes the commonly cited complaint that Positron originally referred to "retroactive" in terms of punishment (he does use this word in his FOLLOW UP: Abusing Mission Architect thread) and that he said that such potential punishment would be done on a "case-by-case" basis.

4. There was no notification that was given when the punishments were being carried out, such as by a concurrent notice to that effect on the official forum or via a MOTD for those who were or would be playing the game.

5. The explanation given for why a behavior that was so wide-spread as the "Meow farm" not being corrected for a least a week ("publishing blackout") is seen as an excuse for the City of Heroes staff to arbitrarily punish players or it demonstrates an amazing lack of flexibility in internal rules and policies.

6. Positron says that "a majority of players" have spoken (negatively in regards to MA "farming") in reference to his interaction with players during the 5th Anniversary event. A very logical question to ask if he was being literal (spoke with upwards of 70,000 persons in one day) or simply used the majority of a small data sample set (the few hundred players at most who could interact with him) to determine policy.

7. A lack of clarity regarding exactly what criteria was used to punish players. Positron said that doing so could potentially "set up a situation where our definition of abuse is abused." Thus, a firm definition of "egregious abuse" is also undefined. As noted, based on informed speculation, it appears that the criteria for "egregious abuse" as defined by the City of Heroes staff is a character that had trained to the maximum level of 50 in fewer than 10 hours. However, it must again be stressed that such criteria is based solely on observation of those players who admitted they were affected and should not constitute a definitive mark. Also, even if that was true in this case, the City of Heroes staff could freely institute a differing mark in the future.

As a result, players are to be guided solely by the ambiguous criteria given previously, "If your personal moral compass flip flops or even wavers a little while doing something in the game that is obvious to you is not intended behavior"

8. There exists certain player-organizations that are sanctioned by the City of Heroes staff (known as "Event Committees"). In addition to the normal warnings given to players posting on the forum during the two days that constituted the majority of the forum outcry, both organizations were additionally warned that they faced further sanctions, such as the removal of certain perks made available to them by virtue of membership in such an organization. In at least one case, one player lost such perk without warning while another member altered their posts, presumably in response to such a warning.

9. The enactment (and existence) of certain forum policies were used to stifle either genuine curiosity about an unannounced activity or later, outrage at the methods used to enact such activity. It is speculated that the reason for a policy as Rule 4 (detailed above) is to stave off protests of a particular punishment or warning handed out, yet in execution it often served as a mechanism to prevent a genuine information exchange.

10. Another criticism is the fact that there was no immediate acknowledgement that such an action as the punishments being handed out ever occurring. As it stands currently, according to the City of Heroes staff, it never happened.

11. Many players have felt a lack of communication from the City of Heroes staff, often cited is the apparent dismissal of feedback regarding (at the time projected) changes to the Player vs. Player (PvP) system and this current situation is seen as a continuance of that lack of two-way communication.

12. A general disconnect wherein such an action was taken and yet presumably simple bugs that were fixed but have returned (chat bugs in particular) and not been fixed makes players question the City of Heroes staff's judgement.

13. The apparent lack of consideration for characters who were level-pacted. Also, it has been demonstrated to me that a character can be brought to level 50 in fewer than 10 hours without the use of MA, thus making such emphasis on MA abuse specious. Also related is the apparent unevenness of the punishment. There were characters who were brought to level 50 in less than the apparent mark of 10 hours (some in as few as four) who suffered no repercussion and some who took longer than 10 hours who did. Also, some persons who leveled to level 49 in under 10 hours and stopped were likewise unaffected.

14. Perhaps the most damaging criticism is that by their words and deeds, the City of Heroes staff has served to help divide the player community into various factions. Examples would include Pvpers vs. Non-PvPers, "farmers" vs. non-"farmers", and those who accept the City of Heroes staff actions and those who disagree with them - indeed, even those who believe such actions occurred and those who do not.