Support our Sponsors:

Go Back   Touch Arcade > Games and Apps > General Game Discussion and Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 03-14-2014, 01:53 PM
ScotDamn ScotDamn is offline
Senior Member
iPad mini 2, iOS 7.x
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pinellas, FL
Posts: 1,484
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip73 View Post
Theres a difference between "long winded" and putting effort into being detailed and clear in a response.
As you're a fan of knee jerk rude reactions, I won't waste my time explaining that one to ya.

I also explained that the rule has legitimate reason behind it and said it might pass the appeal process in this case. And it has.
If you actually put the effort in to reading the "long winded" posts rather than knee jerk reacting, you might see that also but as you seem to be a fan of your own point only, I won't bother explaining that either.

I'm in no way surprised that it was rejected in first approval and in no way surprised that it passed on appeal. The process is really very simple and merely requires a small bit of communication with the Apple approval team.
What I am disappointed at is that they felt the need for a forum thread and a couple of placed articles which only served the purpose of generating pre release PR and that people blindly fell for it and started ranting against the rule itself.

Anybody who knows anything about the approval process would have known an appeal would have served its purpose.
Anybody who knows anything about PR and marketing can see this for exactly what it was.
And anybody who sees some of the stuff that tries to get through can see that this rule has a legitimate purpose.

Try looking at something beyond you're own perspective and you might find it less "long winded" and it might test you're sanity less. I'd imagine that's a wasted point though looking at your tone and rhetoric anyway.
Just because I refuse to address every sentence in your post doesn't mean I neglected to read your entire post. I'm not trying to upset you.

I noticed you'd rather talk around your point instead of understanding the simple mistake that was made. I own every HC game, including the latest East Front. So not only am I using simple logic and comprehension, I'm also speaking from experience.

I never said the rule shouldn't exist, I've only said it doesn't apply here. No side is permanently labeled enemy, only the opponent. This dynamic currently exist in hundreds of other games. The opponent is also the enemy. I don't know how else to say it.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-14-2014, 04:31 PM
Gov Gov is offline
Banned
iPhone 5s, iOS 7.x
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 2,264
Default

Take COD as example, they removed the 'NAZI' from their zombie mode in later titles just to be safe.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-14-2014, 06:50 PM
Bool Zero Bool Zero is offline
Senior Member
iPad (3rd Gen), iOS 5.x
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,859
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rip73 View Post
Theres a difference between "long winded" and putting effort into being detailed and clear in a response.
As you're a fan of knee jerk rude reactions, I won't waste my time explaining that one to ya.

I also explained that the rule has legitimate reason behind it and said it might pass the appeal process in this case. And it has.
If you actually put the effort in to reading the "long winded" posts rather than knee jerk reacting, you might see that also but as you seem to be a fan of your own point only, I won't bother explaining that either.

I'm in no way surprised that it was rejected in first approval and in no way surprised that it passed on appeal. The process is really very simple and merely requires a small bit of communication with the Apple approval team.
What I am disappointed at is that they felt the need for a forum thread and a couple of placed articles which only served the purpose of generating pre release PR and that people blindly fell for it and started ranting against the rule itself.

Anybody who knows anything about the approval process would have known an appeal would have served its purpose.
Anybody who knows anything about PR and marketing can see this for exactly what it was.
And anybody who sees some of the stuff that tries to get through can see that this rule has a legitimate purpose.

Try looking at something beyond you're own perspective and you might find it less "long winded" and it might test you're sanity less. I'd imagine that's a wasted point though looking at your tone and rhetoric anyway.
I'm not trying to get in the middle of your argument, I just wanted to address one part of what you stated...


I'd disagree with your disappointment of their (Hunted Cow's) methods of handling this, only because without them making some noise about this that attention would not have been brought to this. While I'm sure they have garnered some PR from this, I don't for one second believe they approached this issue with the intent to milk it for publicity. Many developers have expressed issues with Apples guidelines; the problem is that most just bend over and accept the terms without contest even when they shouldn't. This is not the first time a developer has come into conflict with this ruling and I am sure that contextually the rule was just as questionable in many other cases. The rule (much like many others) fall under a very slippery slope of one in order to dissuade prejudice, it can inadvertently paint one into a corner where any labeling could be considered offensive. With as many military themed, tactical, strategy and so on apps that draw from real world events and history, it poses a problem. Bringing attention to that problem could eventually lead to Apple addressing and perhaps rewording or further elaborating on this particular rule so that it is not as contentious in the future. I for one, don't see how that is a bad thing.


Apple is fully prepared for that type of attention; lets not assume for one second that some how they (Apple) are left out in the cold, put in a poor light or left slighted because of such publicity. This is the nature of business after all, and just another day for Apple, no dust on their shoulders. It's hard enough for devs to stay within the borders of Apples very narrow, often conflicting and convoluted guidelines of app rules, requirements, guidelines and protocols. Hopefully this gets someone at Apple to look at the guidelines document once more.


The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that... If anything, more developers need to step up and ask for Apple to revise, clarify and unmuddy their obfuscate rules...


Btw, no bad feelings here, FYI. I've found your responses to be proper debate, and I am always up for a levelheaded, respectable debate! Thanks!

Last edited by Bool Zero; 03-14-2014 at 06:55 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-14-2014, 09:44 PM
Rip73 Rip73 is offline
Senior Member
iPad (4th Gen), iOS 6.x
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bool Zero View Post
I'm not trying to get in the middle of your argument, I just wanted to address one part of what you stated...


I'd disagree with your disappointment of their (Hunted Cow's) methods of handling this, only because without them making some noise about this that attention would not have been brought to this. While I'm sure they have garnered some PR from this, I don't for one second believe they approached this issue with the intent to milk it for publicity. Many developers have expressed issues with Apples guidelines; the problem is that most just bend over and accept the terms without contest even when they shouldn't. This is not the first time a developer has come into conflict with this ruling and I am sure that contextually the rule was just as questionable in many other cases. The rule (much like many others) fall under a very slippery slope of one in order to dissuade prejudice, it can inadvertently paint one into a corner where any labeling could be considered offensive. With as many military themed, tactical, strategy and so on apps that draw from real world events and history, it poses a problem. Bringing attention to that problem could eventually lead to Apple addressing and perhaps rewording or further elaborating on this particular rule so that it is not as contentious in the future. I for one, don't see how that is a bad thing.


Apple is fully prepared for that type of attention; lets not assume for one second that some how they (Apple) are left out in the cold, put in a poor light or left slighted because of such publicity. This is the nature of business after all, and just another day for Apple, no dust on their shoulders. It's hard enough for devs to stay within the borders of Apples very narrow, often conflicting and convoluted guidelines of app rules, requirements, guidelines and protocols. Hopefully this gets someone at Apple to look at the guidelines document once more.


The squeaky wheel gets the oil and all that... If anything, more developers need to step up and ask for Apple to revise, clarify and unmuddy their obfuscate rules...


Btw, no bad feelings here, FYI. I've found your responses to be proper debate, and I am always up for a levelheaded, respectable debate! Thanks!
I fully appreciate you're thought through replies that I find myself in no other position other than to have respect for and funnily enough agree with in certain areas.
And the thing is, we all have different perspectives.
Yours I understand and respect because you were/are respectful so yours I will take on board and consider in future scenarios.
Others, well, let's be honest, I won't.
So thanks.

And of course, there is no bad feelings (in ref to your last paragraph), of course not. Differing opinions ultimately offer balance and balance is important whatever way you look at it and you've made interesting points.

Edit. I have to make one final point that I just noticed. Someone is always looking at the guidelines. They do evolve. They are not necessarily written in stone.
They will sometimes seem harsh, unfair and whatever but ultimately they are there for moral and ethical reasons.
Nobody wants anybody upset by an app that makes them feel disenfranchised or whatever, but its tough to judge.
Somebody is upset by something/everything. Nobody is trying or can get it spot on right all the time, they are just trying to be as close as possible.
So, devs get a bit of leeway, let's try and show Apple this same thing in a scenario that is far from black and white.

Edit 2. Just in reference to the squeaky wheel part. The squeaky wheel and all that works sometimes but there is an appeal process in this case. And even beyond that another appeal process.
And they were always going to pass the appeals process with no publicity because the context (context, not perspective) would have been taken in to account.
So there are many means and ways to overcome small issues. Such as this one. Easier ways. I see you're point but in no way consider that the publicity had any affect in the final decision.

Last edited by Rip73; 03-15-2014 at 08:24 AM.. Reason: Stupid auto correct
Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Copyright 2012, TouchArcade.com, LLC.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2008 - 2011, TouchArcade.com. Privacy Policy / DMCA Copyright Agent