Following what I can only describe as an orchestrated campaign by the racing site on which this site was based against my stable the decision has been made to permanently remove all content from this site that may assist newer players and encourage them to build a stable on that racing site. The only content that will remain are a new section that will possibly debunk a few bits and pieces over time, a few examples of the extremely poor customer service they habitually employ, an old catalog of mistakes and errors (previously removed), a catalog of the major errors caused during the spectacularly unsuccessful implementation of Merry-go-round Racing and to show this stable has, despite assertions by the site, often shown positive inputs in attempts to improve the site a seven-day rotation schedule for races which was publicly put forward and I believe would have better catered for players being able to race their horses.
For those that were denied the opportunity to see the final straw that broke this particular camel's back the site not only commissioned and published an article which directly named my stable, accusing it of negativity, but also removed my response (repeated below) from both the owners and Q&A forums, thus denying my stable any right to reply.
Well, as I appear to have been singled out via Holmang in his 'negativity' article commissioned by yourselves in the latest newsletter I thought I might as well respond....
Yes it is perfectly true to say I currently have a number of negative thoughts about aspects of the game, as do many other players. I am and always will be a vocal person and I have every right to voice my concerns in the same manner as every other player. At least I care enough about the game to put across my point of view, unlike a number of people on here who remain strangely silent unless an aspect of the game will have a direct detrimental impact on their stable or finances.
Unlike some on here I will voice my opinion even if what I say may not always be in the best interest of my stable but imo is in the best interest of the game.
A high percentage of negativity is directly caused by incredibly poor customer services, a fact RC obviously don't wish to acknowledge but it has to be said. Aspects of the game that do not appear to be working corretly I will lobby for change, that is not negativity but constructive criticism. It is all too often turned into negativity by the way in which such concerns are reacted to by those that staff the site. Avoidance of the actual question in answers does not promote positivity, neither does the ignoring of threads both in this forum and the Race Programming forum which sadly happens all too often. I'm afraid an attitude of ignorance will very often evoke an emotive response, especially in the more honest and upstanding members of society.
Worse still, on occasions MS post statements that are factually incorrect. Sure, vets know better and can just ignore those statements but I prefer to think of the potential impact such statements may have on newer players and as a response will pull MS up on them. I'm not the only player that doesn't just adopt the attitude that 'although I know it's incorrect I'll leave those that might not to eventually find out themselves as I couldn't care less about them' - I do care, misinformation should not be given out to anyone on this site.
So, call me out for negativity as much as you want I will always stand up for what is right for other players and what I feel imo is good for the game. Perhaps a few on here, either playing or running the site, should take a look at themselves instead of pointing fingers at other players as there are a number that cannot say the same.
Finally whilst I was obviously singled out I would like to point out this response is in no way a return attack on Holmang Horses but a rebuttal in part of perceived negativity from my stable.
Chyp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response to a rather snide posting
Below is the snide post from Mr. Edward Bell in response to Eddie from On The Bridle:
Thank-you for your feedback here, On The Bridle, which I see as constructive, if not entirely positive, but everyone is entitled to their opinion. I suspect you are trying to create a storm in a teacup by rehashing a tired issue that has already been addressed quite succinctly. I notice you have twisted my words slightly, but I am confident that objective people will read between the lines and recognise the truth where they see it.
I believe HH included a smiley face in his post- clearly the question and answer were both tongue in cheek, but if the cap fits, and anyone was offended- then they should wear it. I am returning my energies to the races- and those that run them.
Edward ~ Member Support
And my post in response was as below:
Please note the somewhat strange tone of the above response to Eddie by Mr. Bell has led me to retract my previously stated withdrawal from these forums.
First the plus - good to see in writing that everyone is entitled to their opinion, a shame it was denied to me by the pulling of my response to an article published by RC which accused me of negativity. Thankfully I have learnt to retain copies on my website for reference.
Knowing Eddie as well as I do I think the dismissive comment of yours about him “trying to create a storm in a teacup by rehashing a tired issue that has already been addressed quite succinctly” does itself need addressing. Fact - HH placed a post on the forum designed to belittle Eddie and his stable, in other words an attack on a fellow player. Something quite clearly in contravention of forum rules. Fact - Eddie provided a response to that which I believe was pulled by yourselves from the forums very quickly, even though that response was far less offensive than the original offender. Eddie was in fact handed a week suspension from the forums for supposedly repeatedly singling out a fellow member, a ban he duly served. Fact - only after conversations with yourselves did Eddie finally get an acknowledgement that the original HH thread should have been pulled, something I believe has now retrospectively been done. Whether HH ever served a suspension for his offence is not known to me but I would suspect not as I believe he was put forward as a flag-bearer by RC for how people should behave on the forums. So I suppose you are quite correct to state it was dealt with ‘quite succinctly’, so succinctly in fact that the completely unfair manner with which that matter was attended may well have escaped the notice of many players.
I note Eddie is accused of ‘twisting your words’, no comment from me on that you’ll be pleased to note. That is something that only those who have followed the series of events can possibly comment on.
I do fully agree that “objective people will read between the lines and recognise the truth where they see it”. I’d imagine plenty already have.
Now to set a few records straight….
I guess some on here will think that my annoyance at this site which caused me to announce my departure from these forums was directed at HH. I can assure if that were the case I would have had no problem fighting my corner against a fellow player. Do I think he should have refused to respond to that part of the question? Indeed I do, I think any player with any decency would have seen how such a comment could possibly incite an unnecessary situation which may cause unrest on the forums. Further, those publishing such a comment via a newsletter should have had the wherewithal to realise such a comment, with or without a smiley, might not be in the best interest of promoting positivity.
The lack of such insight combined with the speedy pulling of my response from the forums indicated to me that far from the stated intention of wanting a positive community, certain factions within those that run the site actually had a desire for the exact opposite. An intention that has not surfaced for the first time for that matter, indeed it has been stated to me in the past by Mr. Bell that he would rather a certain reviewer covered a particular series of articles for the following reason: “I think his writing style could scare up some controversy where it is needed”. That doesn’t quite dovetail with the objective of having as harmonious and positive a community as possible in my view.
Finally, the parting comment. Perhaps Mr. Bell could explain his exact meaning in “I am returning my energies to the races - and those that run in them”? Some might read that as dismissive of Eddie and his stable although surely coming from a member of staff that cannot have been the intention. As someone who has a friendly interest in how Eddie’s stable is performing I can confirm that Eddie does indeed partake in races on the site at his own pace and level. I’m sure the comment was probably penned with little thought as to being possibly misconstrued and am confident with Mr. Bell’s vast array of communicating skills at his disposal he will quickly be able to dispel any adverse thoughts to that comment any players may have.
So there we are, those are my honest opinions and now that I’m back I will once more voice my opinions as and when I see fit as I always have in the past, even if simply pointing out sub-standard Customer Service, as others do as well, is seen by those that run the site as negativity.
Chyp
More silliness, this time via personal email
I always read your posts with such anticipation as your views are usually thoughtful and incisive, and I am always pleased when I read how much you appreciate the latest developments on the site.
Notwithstanding the recent fuss you caused after HH’s comments, which was a tongue in cheek invitation for you to select another trainers, your recent ongoing negativity just seems to confirm that there may have been some truth behind HH’s jest. I’m not offended by the roundabout way you seem to go about referencing me in your posts but I would certainly like to resolve any issues you have with me, the site or Holmang directly. Then we can move on to a more constructive point in the game.
Ironically, I don’t think this backlash would have been onsidered had Holmang suggested another trainer, or even if you suggested Holmang. It just seem a pity that an innocent comment seems to have caused such needless dissention- yet it just seems to reinforce that Holmang was always right.
For the record, I really like your quote, The HP function as it is now is exactly how it should be and always should have been.
I have forwarded it to our marketing team to be included in our future marketing material.
While I’m at it, how about we complete an interview for the upcoming Track tabloid about how trainers can maximize the use of their HP feature, including some tips on comprehensive training etc. I recall you always had a comprehensive training history for your horses. Finally, maybe share your opinions on the validity of trainer selected preferences vs. innate ability. If you could write 500 words, or more, I’ll include it in the October Track tabloid. And if you have pictures- we’ll love to use them as readers generally like to see who they are reading about.
Regards
Edward
Communications
A strange way for a member of staff to conduct themself, once again slyly accusing me of negativity sandwiched between attempts to ingratiate himself and signing off with an audacious request for me to expend both time and energy in producing something to make his job even less taxing than it must be in the first place. I have privately replied to inform that I find his behaviour unbefitting a member of staff and to make it clear I will not tolerate his snide remarks and inferences and will continue to respond in kind should he persist. Needless to say I also declined to contribute by means of an article.