Medieval Gold Edition Patch Released

[caravel]

Unfortunately I can't read his words that way. The first post about the petitions and all could be tolerated but after the intervention of the ORG admin, guaranteeing the authenticity of the e-identities of ORGAHs, repeating the same accusation with no smoothened wording is unacceptable.

The ORG staff have all the authority to relocate the thread if deemed necessary.
.

The way I saw it also.

I wonder what "email verified" means in this context. I do need to provide an email account to log in to .org. Isn't that a verification?
Besides, in times of spam and throwaway email accounts how can an email verify anything?
The only real verification is the moderators and admins word and the post count of posters. Both have been provided and yet.....

But let's not take an individuals post too seriously, after all his account could have been hacked.

I've no clear idea what is meant by "email verified" but I can guess. I would say it refers to each petition 'signing' originating from a separate email address: check. Also it would help if each of those 'signatures' originated from a unique IP address: check. So in fact as far as the email verification goes the org had more than fulfilled that requirement.

I would possibly have been a little less blunt when communicating with the people who pay my salary, but perhaps the same question had been asked ad nausem. Anyway, the issue was addressed and there are bigger things to worry about in the world. Like why you can't build mobile siege towers in MTW to scale the defences - wouldn't that be cool?

"A little less blunt" is right. The issue over petitions has been raised time and time again over at .com. They don't allow them there. That's their prerogative of course. They don't allow petitions for one simple reason: They're afraid of the results. Petitions, depending on what they're related to, either reflect the views of the forums userbase or are a total sham based on hyperbole and a forced opinion put across by a small pressure group, and can lead to unrest among the patrons.

An example of a bad petition would be: "[something] Total War is rubbish! Sign now!"

[lines of signatures from members]

A good petition would be: "Please sign the petition to fix the bug in [something] Total War!.

[lines of signatures from members]

First looking at the bad petition. If we were to say of this "it is a possibility that the same person(s) are voting repeatedly. It is a valid suspicion, we could then check the IP addresses. The forum software would ensure that unique email addresses are used for registration of user accounts, so we don't need to worry about that. Of course it's possible that someone registered multiple accounts using their multiple email addresses, but this throws the validity of the whole "email validation" thing into dispute anyway. That sort of thing usually gets spotted sooner or later by the mods/admins when they check the poster IPs. But anyway even if we prove the signatures are legitimate it's still a bad petition based on an opinion, and a desire to force and spread that opinion.

The second one is a request for some sort of support, not an opinion as above. We could look into the same possibilities as above, though there is no motive for the cheats. This is not a "this game is crap" petition, or a "boycott this" petition, so the signatories would have no motive for cheating, this wouldn't be a pressure group trying to "feed their inner troll" by attacking the games developers, but the admins are in the position to check anyway by looking at the posting IP's of the members involved, as before.