Am I in the f'ing twilight zone here??? Sorry but you just wasted a lot of time and for some reason felt pasting the definition to enemy was necessary as if the meaning was in question.. Unfortunately you're not alone in this misunderstanding. It's an oversight on Apple. The enemy is simply the opposition. It isn't assigned to one side. The Germans are not universally labeled as "the enemy". It's perspective, depending on what side you're playing. Anyone arguing otherwise is just testing my sanity.
This whole thing is crazy. Where do you draw the line? There are literally dozens of games and stupid apps where you attack and beat up political leaders. Just read the first section of the description for a game called Government Beatdown. https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/government-beatdown/id721880402?mt=8 I think Apple has always been way too strict and at the same extremely inconsistent for banning apps for one reason or another.
Actually if you put as much effort into reading the post as you did in to replying to it, you'd see that I specifically mention both factions in the game (to the best of my understanding of the game), Russian and German and relate the fact that both faction is referred to as "the enemy". So perspective has nothing whatsoever to do with it. If the developer wanted to avoid trouble and not get the undue publicity, they could just as easily have chosen the word you yourself use, "opposition", and there then would be no problem or rejection of the app. As for misunderstanding the word "enemy", that's the dictionary definition, ie the exact meaning of the word. There is no misunderstanding of the exact meaning of the word. Perhaps your sanity wouldn't be tested so much if you read the post more diligently. If you can't see the reasoning behind the rule, I'm not really going to explain it but if there were racially, nationally or individual slurring apps floating around out there, and you were in the target group, we'd be having a very different discussion and you would, perhaps, see the reasoning behind the rule itself.
I'd argue that this is an ethical ruling and not a moral one, which is why there is such a gray stance on this to begin with. Also, the idea that it is a "correct rule" is equally debatable as all debates in such arenas leave room for error given to scrutiny and context. There are no such things as a morally or ethically "correct" rules and any moral or ethical stance falls to pieces when given to context. To imply that any rule is correct in itself is a falascy. You're delving into the realms of debating absolute truths (moral, ethical, relative, etc, etc)... Which I don't think this is the place for such discussions... Reading the above and understanding the rule I honestly don't see the point to it when it is just substitution for the sake of substitution. If anything, it is a rule to deal with not having to deal with the issue through reassociation. I liken this to the current state of the grading system here in the States with the "F" being removed from the grading gradient, being replaced with the "E". Associatively, they mean exactly the same thing but the reasoning for removing the "F" was the mental association of it with "failure". The problem with this line of thinking is that now you are just associating the "E" with failure... Nothing has changed but the nomenclature, which raises the question: what is the point of the substitution if the outcome is merely a misdirect with the same intent? Likewise, perceptually what is the difference between calling the opposition the "enemy", Axis, Ally, or whatever, when associatively that is what the typical player will mentally leap to (and not in the offensive way in most cases, but merely what the designer intended contextually). To me it seems being PC for the sake of it. A game will not sway someone's political, moral or ethical stance toward some entity and associatively when playing these games most people will default to their own contextual basis, just as it will not dissuade ones views who goes in with such biases. The rule seems merely one to placate the issue and not have to deal with it on a contextual basis rather than some perceived protection of any groups sensitivities, which is understandable in the long run, but I honestly think it breaks the context in this instance. With as many games on the store with Nazi's, terrorist groups, etc, (e.g. Groups in existence today[....]) I don't see why those games are not equally then policed with such vigilance given this rules stance. Why is it acceptable to allow "Nazi" to be associated with enemies (there still is a Nazi Party in existence today) yet associatively (I am using that word a lot) one can't say that Germans were a part of that group (given context to the relation of the material in display for the games subject)? Devils advocate here, but does anyone not see the double standard? I believe that there is room for debate on this regardless of Apples policy, especially when it affects the art and contextual basis of a property. I understand that the ruling is not contextual and the rule is established so that Apple does not have to deal with such things on a case by case basis, and lastly to avoid offending any groups therein... But can we at least agree its a contentious rule and that there is room for debate?
There's always room for debate. As long as its reasonable debate. I'm not sure if some of the stuff that simply calls it a shit rule qualifies as debate though. And yeah, it is a contentious rule to certain perspectives. I've never stated it was right or wrong in this context and even asked that question in my original post due to the contextual nature of it. It might still get past the appeal process even. I don't think the publicity it has generated (which I'm pretty sure is part of the motive anyway) is relative to what is really a very simple fix ultimately. However none of that will change the fact that the rule does indeed exist and has a very valid reason for existing and that as a developer, they should have been aware of the rule and that they did in fact break the rule in its current form. I don't really know why that is not clear. It does clearly break the rule if one takes the literal dictionary meaning of the word into context and then accepts that Russians and Germans are nationalities/governments/individuals/etc as defined by the rule. Should the rule be changed? Well, the rule itself will evolve over time anyway but if some of the downright detestable stuff, which targets groupings of some form or another, that gets submitted was actually approved and released, we'd all be wondering why the rule isn't enforced better and be having a completely different debate. Beyond that, there's not really much more I can personally say on the subject.
Apple have emailed us saying they've reviewed it again and have approved it (without any changes from us) It'll be released around midnight!
You're quite long winded, eh? I stand by my post. You still don't understand. No rule was broken. Perspective has everything to do with it. I won't attempt to explain the simple logic. Apple correctly approved the contested submission, without change. Done.
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.
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.
