Jump to content

GeorgePatton

Alpha Tester
  • Content Сount

    102
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Battles

    1580
  • Clan

    [DR34D]

Community Reputation

96 Good

3 Followers

About GeorgePatton

  • Rank
    Chief Petty Officer
  • Birthday 07/09/1992
  • Insignia

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

WG

  • Position
    ---

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    So that’s if the parents want to buy the lootboxes directly. If they just get the kid doubloons, they don’t know how the kid is going to spend them and if the kid doesn’t explain the process the parents will never know there’s a gambling mechanic. FTR I think parents should play the games they’re letting their kids play before letting them play it, but governments are OK letting the ratings agencies do that for the parents and many parents do trust the agencies for ‘good’ information. Cheers! Glenn
  2. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Go read post #1946. It’s not necessarily about can a kid get their hands on a credit/prepaid/gift card. Parents rely on the ratings organizations to determine whether or not a game is acceptable for their kids. Parents don’t necessarily know what they’re enabling if their kid asks for doubloons to get something ‘cool’ in a game. They may not realize that their child is being groomed towards addiction by a company with shady and predatory business practices. Cheers! Glenn
  3. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    So something that I find a lot of lootcrate proponents/apathetic individuals to be missing about the whole debate is how you can get the lootboxes and also the psychological effect that opening them can have on young and vulnerable minds. You don’t pay out-right for a lootbox. You buy doubloons that you then use to buy the lootboxes. Those who try to push everything under the rug with the ‘parent is responsible’ argument are missing a big aspect of this. It’s not necessarily a question of whether or not a kid has access to a credit card. Imagine a busy parent who wants to give their kid something that they enjoy. They know the basic premise of WoWS - shooting at other ships. They’ve seen the game and maybe even played a match or two. They see the rating (ESRB T and PEGI 7) and they think ‘oh, good! my kid found a game they can play that doesn’t (mostly) feature sexualized characters and gratuitous violence!’ Their kid asks if they can have some doubloons to get a cool ship that they like. The unsuspecting parent buys the kid 12000 doubloons thinking the kid is going to get a ship to play with his or her friends. The parent has no idea that this ship the kid wanted is hidden behind lootboxes and that their child’s desire for instant gratification is being manipulated with a lottery mechanic. As the kid opens more and more lootboxes and isn’t getting what they wanted, their young mind is being trained to hope that the next box will have what they want, or the next one! They’re being taught to keep putting out in the hope of cashing in. The parents have no idea this is happening in a game rated ESRB T or PEGI 7. The parents - who otherwise are involved in their child’s life as much as scheduling allows - trust the rating agencies to accurately inform them whether or not the content is suitable for a child at each developmental stage. If you look around at other game ratings, you’ll see notes for gratuitous violence, gore, sexual content, smoking/alcohol use, and even gambling. Why shouldn’t a gambling mechanic that’s part of the monetization of a game not be called out in the rating and why should that not affect the game’s age rating? Those who would argue that it’s not their responsibility to raise other people’s children are legally correct, but not calling out a company for predatory monetization of a game aimed at young players are making a morally reprehensible argument. Cheers! Glenn
  4. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    You do realize that those of us from the WoWP end have been trying to draw attention to the way WG operates since, oh, about 2013? Y'all over here thought you would never see the treatment we've seen... Cheers! Glenn
  5. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    They changed the way she makes credits. From what I'm understanding, they messed up the base credit making potential and gave her a 'mission' that grants 20% credit buff - that doesn't stack the same way with flags, etc so you won't make nearly the credits you used to even with the original Might Mo., Cheers! Glenn
  6. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    I love Alpha Gaming's information on streaming! Cheers! Glenn
  7. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Hey @LittleWhiteMouse - I'm obviously not a CC over here on Warships, but I am a 'Community Ace' (WoWP equivalent) and I've done some streaming/recording stuff. If you'd like, send me a PM and I'll help you get everything set up! It's a lot easier if somebody can show you how to do it all! (I've got a lot of resources for free stuff to help with streaming, too!) I can help you set things up either for only streaming your screen/computer audio, or I can help with voice/video, too. Cheers! Glenn
  8. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Well - looks like WG is winning here. Activity on this thread is basically dead since yesterday and nothing at WG has changed. Since we don’t have access to WG financials, we’ll never know if this situation had any kind of effect on the company. Cheers! Glenn
  9. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Honest reporting would have covered that Jingles left in solidarity with LWM and others who were mistreated by WG instead of treating the situation like it was his idea to walk out. Dont get me wrong - I have a lot of respect for Jingles for walking with the rest, but the media needs to properly support LWM as well. Cheers! Glenn
  10. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    So here’s the deal with minors and loot boxes… Yes, it is traditionally a parent’s role to protect their children and teach them to be responsible. We are well beyond that in 2021 with responsibility being passed off to public education, daycares, extracurricular organizations, etc. The role of government is to protect the citizens which is why governments should (and some have) banned these predatory business practices. Not all governments have banned these business practices, but they should. Do those in favor of loot boxes in a PEGI 7 game support the idea of children being allowed to stray into a casino (or even worse, their parents sponsor a trip to the casino)? Aren’t we all glad the government limits who can go to a casino? That they limit who can buy alcohol/tobacco products? That they limit who can purchase firearms (we are NOT going to discuss gun control - I’m just making a list of things that are controlled by governments for the protection of citizens.) Just because I don’t personally have a gambling problem or other addiction doesn’t mean I don’t think the government should fail to protect the vulnerable. Cheers! Glenn
  11. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Yep - I’ve got that one, too. Edit: I never did get my alpha flag, btw. Support doesn’t care. What else is new… Cheers! Glenn
  12. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    To add a bit to this - it’s a tricky dance having ‘volunteer’ testers when you also have a paid QA department. Under US labor laws (specifically in California where WGNA used to be based) they were not allowed to give any compensation that had a monetary value. That’s why the testers were not given ‘regular’ premium aircraft. (We got Me.210 which carried the promise/stipulation that it would never be available outside of those who participated in specific testing routines.) When I spoke with Priolia about external testing compensation for my testers, she told me that the company could not legally offer any compensation to the testers that would be considered an ‘expense’ for the company. Nothing could be written off, so gold/regula premiums were out of the question. When they officially shuttered the WoWP external test they created the I-21 specifically for the testing coordinators, which is how I have the only example in the NA region. No monetary value, no laws broken. Now should it ever go on sale in any way shape or form, they’ve got a problem they’ll need to sort in regards to having me working full-time as a volunteer. (I was a stupid teenager that thought their promises of trying to turn it into a real job were legitimate…) So - that’s also a little bit of background into why I’m weighing in on how they’ve been treating CCs. I worked for Wargaming for 3 years, full time as a volunteer. All my time outside of school was spent recruiting testers, managing testers, developing testing routines, compiling and submitting tester feedback, passing messages between WGNA and WGRU (their work hours didn’t allow them to communicate effectively), writing white papers for the head of QA because I ‘had really good perspectives and a lot of insight on historical air combat’, designing community events with the WGNA community team before that was shuttered, developing the Community Ave (CC) program, assisting moderation teams, putting out community newsletters, writing guides, writing big reports, designing aircraft paint schemes, and doing anything else the people actually being paid by WG wanted me to do for free. All that to say - WG takes advantage of their ‘volunteers’. I haven’t made much noise about it in the past because what is one guy going to do? All the other games seemed to be running ok-ish and nobody was going to listen to me. Now that we have this out in the open, I want to make sure people know this isn’t a limited instance. This is a systemic issue with WG’s company culture and if something drastic isn’t done, it will continue to be Wargaming’s MO as they continue to chase out the wallets they drained in favor of the new fat wallets they see on the horizon. Cheers! Glenn
  13. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    Yes, always list sources. Mostly what I’m concerned about is the tendency in the digital age to copy/paste something that gets lost in the archives of a random click-bait-y website that’ll come up again in a few years with nothing real to back it up. I studied journalism in school and the way most ‘journalists’ write now they don’t follow the core principles of good research and logical demonstration of the points being made. Just look at the copy/paste articles that have been coming out - they didn’t even realize that Jingles wasn’t the ‘leader’ of the walkout. They just saw a YouTuber and ran with him. Yes, he plays a big role as he walked with over 600,000 viewers on his channel, but the story was inaccurate. Cheers! Glenn
  14. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    To everyone reading this thread who is upset with Wargaming, I share your anger and frustration with Wargaming. I’ve been dealing with the absolutely ridiculous ways they, as a company, have handled their business for many years. That being said, the community’s collective outrage needs to be tempered with the realization that expressing outrage through ‘letting all the media know’ about various allegations, etc without important research is detrimental to accomplishing anything meaningful and lasting. While the investigations into Wargaming’s business practices are known, ‘making sure the press knows’ as some have posted about could have a lot of blowback if it’s not done properly. There are many laws and regulations in place regarding defamation and libel and it’s extremely important to ensure that due diligence is done before releasing anything to the press. You don’t want to bear any responsibility for things being printed/published. It is also important that the media outrage against Wargaming is not published as a piece-meal managerie of discontent voices directing the narrative towards a ‘revolution’ or ‘riot’ in the forums. The narrative needs to focus on Wargaming’s current predatory business practices (which are already being contemplated by legislators, although not necessarily directed directly towards Wargaming), their legally dubious practices (demonstrated through WoT legal action) towards volunteer testers, and their involvement in the GlobalMoney laundering investigation. Putting out information as we come across it in an angry state does not positively contribute to facilitating transparency and positive change in our communities and we need to ensure that a solid, documented, well-researched presentation is made to media outlets. Those who have not been personally involved with Wargaming should refrain from sharing hearsay with the media - while I understand that many of you are well-intentioned, you are speaking with no authority and as we’ve seen with many of the articles coming out - the focus is shifting from Wargaming’s mistakes to the response of the players. In our current cultural environment, people are more likely to click on an article about a forum explosion in a video game than they are to read an article about the shady and predator Ian practices of a multi-national game developer and we don’t want to take the focus off of the cause of the issues we’re facing now - Wargaming.net. Cheers! Glenn
  15. GeorgePatton

    On the CCTP&Missouri

    You’re generally right here - kids don’t have their own credit cards. The important piece you’re leaving out, however, is the psychological preying on young people who enjoy playing a video game and the effect that lootboxes have on the development of vulnerable people. You’re most likely an adult and hopefully responsible with your finances. I’m not a psychologist, but the issues being presented are enough for legal teams which I’m sure have consulted childhood/early childhood psychologists are pushing for the ESRB and PEGI to change the game’s rating. That doesn’t happen if there isn’t a cause for concern. You’ve also completely ignored the rest of my post, which I find interesting. Cheers! Glenn
×