Its getting ugly in Empire Avenue
Mission cheating and complaining: this is where I see the most inconsideration – on both sides.
I have accepted many Mission Avenue Missions and I have launched at least ten – so I know full well that those complaining and/or calling out those who take the reward without doing the required action are “seeing” that they are cheated. Having launched a number of Missions that were probably impossible to not be able to fulfill (i.e. a Facebook like/share – and I even explain where the buttons are on the blog/site), and still been robbed of the reward by people who probably had no intention of doing even the simplest of actions, I know it happens. I am with you also, in knowing that many people run wild through the Missions – with no intention to even attempt to follow through with what’s asked.
Where I cry foul, I see no one else acknowledging, and wonder about this: What about the most inconsiderate of Mission-Issuers? I provided examples of Missions that I particularly hate to see – in Mission: Irrational (Empire Avenue Mistakes to Avoid)
Lately, I find more and more of the type of Mission that expects you to “copy and paste” or otherwise open new tabs, browsers… test links, and so on – before clicking the Mission link (and thus, taking the reward). My stance?
Gamification is what Mission Issuers need to consider
Reduce the steps (and time) you are asking for and reward in accordance of the “stupid human trick” you are asking us to perform.
Be reasonable with what you request. Here are my thoughts on fairness, by network:
Twitter: If you want the Twitter retweet copy and pasted, rather than clicked though, at least offer a larger reward – as a consideration for the extra trouble you are asking us to do for you.
Facebook: You know what happens if we give several people ten likes in one day? Facebook puts us in jail. So don’t ask for twenty likes. Ask for a “bomb,” and take what you get. Better yet, ask for the answer to one to three questions, likes on the questions, or something logical and truly interactive such as this.
Klout: If you are asking for +K in Klout, begin by understanding that we each have 10/day; don’t ask us for three +K for a 1,000e reward. We give +K to many people, and to remember if and when we gave it to you for your precious RedBull topic is as unreasonable as asking us to go to Klout on your behalf, just to test to see if we can give you +K for RedBull. Suggest we give you for RedBull, and suggest that if we cannot, we give you for two other topics (again, suggestions are wise).
Weird Networks: Its nearly every day that they find their way into Missions. Some send us to odd sites for voting, nominating, and otherwise helping you buy your way into what’s meant to be earned: before you issue those Missions, log out of the site you intend to send us to and then test the Mission link. Is it going to open? Will it send us to a landing page – that either requires us to sign in with Instagram or that is all in Dutch? Well, if you launched it and send us to something we cannot read or cannot find the way to vote in, you deserve to be “cheated.”
My writing prompt for this was a Mission entitled “So EAv is morally bankrupt?”
The issuer of this Mission continued, “I’ve run hundreds of missions over the past few days. I’ve given away MILLIONS of eaves. “Pretend” money that it has taken me months to build up. To those of you who were honest and did the missions, thank you! However, the VAST majority of the people who took my money did not do the mission. We’re talking 20 or 30 thieves for each honest player. I’ve lost at least 450,000e to these spineless, gutless, cheating players. This is pathetic. Those of you who stole my money should be ashamed of yourselves.” I didn’t accept this Mission (I didn’t take the reward, in other words), but did give it a “like” and the following comment:
Oh, the horror! Those evil, abominable Empire Avenue Mission “cheaters!”
But what about the Mission issuers who send us on “wild goose chases,” or put us on things where we only learn – once we’re in – how long it will take to do what they ask?! I think it goes both ways.Without mentioning names, my current pet-peave is the type of mission where the issuer thinks its fair to ask you to test something (i.e. KLOUT) to see IF you “qualify” to take the Mission. Hey, look, my stance is this: I’ll read the Mission description. If I am willing to do it, based on the information you provided, I’ll accept. But to “test” a link to see if I have given you Klout for one specific topic in the last seven days? It is not right to ask. Fair would be to do – as some are doing – to ask that we give you +K in your selected topic if we can, but if not, other topic(s) (you might even suggest a couple that matter most to you).