I was still in the middle of writing a response when the thread was closed - please see below (and thank you for at least re-posting your excellent feedback here - even if I think it deserved to stand on its own).
Well written - this is exactly the kind of feedback that Funcom needs most - a player explaining in clear detail what they view the problem to be, and offering some attempts at constructive solutions, without unnecessary recriminations or insults. I know you don’t need my approval, but you most certainly have it.
This seems the logical path - though I suspect some of the issue may be a financial one (though I would hope they can afford enough staff to do better than months to manage a proper response - but I suppose it depends just what a ‘high volume’ of tickets actually is). To be honest, I’m not exactly sure what ‘zendesk’ is - it seems like maybe an external service that Funcom perhaps ‘rents’ from, rather than something directly monitored by Funcom themselves (though I could certainly be wrong about that), which might add to the complication of the situation. Though, again, if it’s taking months (and still not being resolved), that would suggest that Funcom also should be unhappy with the service being provided.
Landclaim bans - I’m not sure on this one - as you acknowledge, Funcom can’t identify one within a clan, so that does make the situation more difficult. I’m with you on the idea of remove the landclaim (especially if it’s not something obviously massive and unnecessary - you know the kind of stuff I mean) and give the clan a warning - that doesn’t sound unreasonable for a first offense (with then bans coming if the same clan does it again - there has to be a line somewhere). It might have to be the entire structure that goes, not just the land-claim - it all depends how the admin tools are set up, because it couldn’t be expected for admins to delete 1 block at a time, and the only other tool I know of would take out the whole building.
Obviously, warning for landclaim once, then bans for repeat offenses, still doesn’t really protect that level 15 newbie. So then there needs to be something that makes public information about what level of ‘offenses’ each clan on a server has committed. And I’m really not sure of good ways to do that without probably needing changes to terms of service, and maybe some privacy issues. So I can see it getting complicated.
The other problem, of course, is that it would require the rules to be re-written (again), it would need some sort of appeals process added to deal with the backlog of those already banned for land-claim. Plus it would inevitably spark a whole new outcry about the rules changing…
Just yes. That is absolutely something that should be done.
This last section was written before the original thread was closed - I still stand by it, even if I couldn’t post it where I felt it belonged. I suspect it’s now too late - I doubt they’re going to re-open another post today after closing it. But I wish they had.
@Melcom I’ve just seen your response while finishing this response, so I’m going to post it anyway, I hope you don’t mind.
With the greatest of respect, I disagree with your conclusion regarding this particular thread - I know you guys have had to be putting out fires on this one all day, and I’m sure you’ve had enough of it, but @Amerixe’s post is a thorough and well-reasoned analysis and I truly believe it is deserving of being allowed to stand in it’s own right, rather than disappearing into that main thread (which I think we all know is in danger of catching fire at any moment…). Is there any way you could leave this one open, perhaps linked back to that main thread, perhaps with direction for main commentary on the subject to go there, and allowing this thread to exist for reasoned debate on the specific aspects raised here (at least until that fails…)? I for one think that feedback of this quality deserves to be respected, whether or not I agree with every element.