Hello Hunters. We have an important announcement from the Mod Team.

It’s known that this subreddit is frequently brigaded from users who intend to harass or troll members.
However, due to recent events, we want to provide clarification regarding what is allowed and what constitutes suspicion for bad faith conduct.
Our rules have not changed.

Encouraging or engaging in witch-hunting behaviour will not be tolerated.

Digging up post or comment history, be it private or visible, for the purpose of weaponising or publicly posting it in the comments underneath a user’s post, may be considered witch-hunting and is subject to violating Rules 1 and 5.

We understand that many of you are on edge. Every day, we do address a growing list of reports, review flagged content and users, and constantly receive notifications of inflammatory content*;* bans are routinely given to these individuals. We are working hard to keep this subreddit a place our users can continue to enjoy.

Let us continue to handle it and send Mod Mail.

For any concerns pertaining to brigading, ban evasion, double agendas, or general rule-breaking, please use Mod Mail to relay this information to us.
It is our responsibility to catch bad actors and make the necessary judgment in the moment.

Some of you may be aware that we already have auto-filters in place that guard against brigading activity. So, the vast majority of users are immediately dealt with and undergo review to ensure this sub will always remain a safe space for OG5 fans.

Call-outs that occur in the comments of the post for “suspected” users interfere with our process, can quickly spiral, and have a high risk of being misinterpreted and wrongly judged by taking it out of context.

Neutral Users or Users who have changed their stance

As many of you are aware, we don’t ban people simply by virtue of whether they have supported the boycott or the cancelled character in the past. A decent number of users here who previously contributed to specific subreddits, have since reconsidered their stance or expressed criticism by holding that community accountable. These individuals might have a neutral position, had a prior interest in the character or felt disappointed by Infold, and participate here while adhering to our guidelines. Lack of involvement or care in ongoing drama is also possible, as is posting once to other spaces and with little investment.

If they are here in good faith, follow our rules, don’t push an agenda, and want to post about OG5 in a positive manner, then prior comment or post activity is not always sufficient evidence for bad faith participation.
And if they have not engaged in agenda-pushing or the boycott for the 6th LI, or are being deceptive about neutrality, then past commentary shouldn’t be used against them. This includes any in specific subreddits from however many weeks or months ago.
If the content in question is also unrelated* *to previous mentions of the canceled character, the responses should focus on the substance of the post itself.

Once again, we understand the cause for concern, but the risk and when it can involve innocent posters is too high.
Please reach out to us, as we will swiftly handle and investigate any concern provided in Mod Mail and get back to you soon.

Thank you for understanding.

I’ve been wanting to make this post for some time, but a recent hospital trip caused an unexpected delay. I’m going to be providing some insight into businesses and what might internal risk management be here. People brigading this subreddit, I often see arguments and general misinformation that fail to account for businesses operating under strict guidelines.

During the course of my education, my previous field of psychology had overlap, as did leadership. The below will lean casually-worded as I’m keeping in mind this isn’t a paper pending review. I’m just informing where I can and sharing.
I don’t speak for Infold nor cover everything, but I can broadly analyse the situation.

I’ll touch on three subjects:

• Infold’s First Reassurance Letter into Cancellation
• Stakes and What “Extensive Internal” Means
• Why Another Statement is Unlikely

TL;DR at the bottom + FAQ !

Infold’s Reassurance, Then Valko’s Cancellation: The Differences

First, we need to examine why this matters. Many people reach for,
“But Infold said they’d keep him, then went back on his word. What’s stopping them this time from re-adding?”

A company that is anticipating release of a new character or content will tentatively monitor reception. In Valko’s case, with the trademark filed late and evidence of a rushed development process, most companies that hastily file or delay trademark may attempt to hide visible traces pre-release. This can build anticipation or hype, increase incentives to spend (as players caught off guard will not have had time to plan), and can be considered a bold or risky move.

When reception began to worsen about the release and criticism increased, the studio is faced with a decision. The cheap, simple move is to make a reassuring statement on social media. This is done in hopes to smooth doubt while indirectly addressing the outer question of,
“Why should I care about this character?”

The payoff has more gain, than there is loss. If a reassurance provided works, then negative feedback lowers as players opt to wait-and-see. Metrics can then outline the rest. This also provides a useful way to track sales; do the character-specific banner sales increase, highlighting the reassurance strategy as effective or successful?
Audit procedures occur here and before.

A cancellation following several days after indicates a worsening situation as it is highly unusual this late into development. A reassurance letter is an easy, strategic PR move. But I cannot stress enough that a cancellation announcement, rather than a delay or rework, is severely damaging. The question of,
“But they did it before” is irrelevant when considering these two statements are not the same in importance, and this influences a company’s decision moving forward.
This moves onto my next point.

Stakes and Internal Discussions

As stated, a reassurance letter is simple. I will use the term “low-stakes” to refer to this. It’s, again, standard. Companies face backlash all the time, especially game studios. It’s better to address the feedback once, then monitor and make the necessary adjustments if improvements don’t follow. By then, a company is in too deep:

-Contracts, voice acting, design, licensing, post-production, thousands upon thousands to millions of dollars in resources, a quarterly revenue to aim for so they come out positive, etc.

Unless the material is: inappropriate, unlawful, hateful/harmful, insensitive or disrespectful to certain groups, or other offending material.
Then cancellation is never the first or second move.
Companies will aim to salvage what they can, and when late in development pipelines. Proposing a delay can come with a compromise and sincere apology notice, and even then this is not decided casually. East Asian developers and executives take delays to a different degree; it is often very serious and avoided if possible.
Deadlines matter significantly and contribute to harsh workplace conditions.

We refer to cancellation as “high-stakes.” Once it occurs, undoing the damage is near-impossible. Internal discussions must take finance into account. When cancellation is on the table at all, this is a last resort that must be weighed through risk analysis and cost-as-sacrifice.

Everything that was worked on, is for nothing. Companies need to pay extra fees for ending contracts early. Any merch in development with third-party vendors must be paid for the work and early contract fee, as well. This involves lawyers and a series of phone calls and emails as the studio pulls everything related. They may still file or keep the trademark, as it falls under their IP anyway, but this is not any indicator the content will return. It protects from a rival competitor from taking the work that was still done, even if unused. (I saw some people mention the “2023”? But that is just Infold’s/PPG.)

Cancellation is not rushed. It is the nuclear option. It means that eating the incurred loss was more favourable than any other option there was.

Undoing this undermines the entire statement made, the compensation provided, the loss, and would require paying for the very same VAs and third-party companies they had just signed to step back from. It is always favourable to use language that can buy benefit of the doubt, should it be changed later. But cancellations need to lack ambiguity or else it causes confusion. It must be clear-worded.

The notion they might undo it because they’ve done it before, you are essentially comparing a social media post and analytic data, to a decision almost always irreversible in the face of other options that hits them hard financially. They’re not comparable, and it doesn’t indicate any higher probability or possibility of Infold folding again.

Why Another Statement is Unlikely

Short answer: PR. The classic lawyer-speak of,
“For the love of god, don’t say anything that’d incriminate you further.”

That’s it. Any company or developer wants to move on. You don’t fan the flames, you don’t restart the house fire, you don’t look at it. When a statement of that calibre is made, that is often it. By addressing it again just to say some reiterative version, this restarts it. To Infold, it’s clear that any statement that isn’t in opposition of the one they made, will receive backlash. Why would a company want to put themselves in that position again?

“We stand by our previous statement. We apologise.”

Only to receive a slew of outrage again because the players will stay angry, since nothing about the source of anger changed. It is smarter to not address or acknowledge it. Technically, they set one precedent where the backlash of Valko was enough for this decision. There is risk of setting another. They made the statement. It is not likely they will restate it. If they do, if ever, mark my words it will play out the same way: player uproar and reigniting the controversy.

-Misc. FAQ-

“Why OG5?”

Sylus and Caleb were in the beta. It is standard to release a small set of characters while monitoring playerbase and assessing where resources go if positive. But they were known by name and acknowledged by Infold CN before the game even released, and stated the banners were upcoming. This is normal. Their trademarks were filed months in advance, as well. Also normal and for a transparent pre-release.

“Will this happen to the other LIs?”

No. These are established characters people have spent excess money on. Gacha companies function to make money as part of their business model. It is out of the question for this to even slightly happen to another LI. The amount of resources, money spent, whales, banners, story content, integration, far eclipses a pre-release. It is not happening.

“What terms match this?”
Some include:

• Liquidated damages
• Enterprise Risk and Crisis Management
• Post-Mortem (Internal investigation)
• Product Lifecycle Management
• Churn metrics (Account closed voluntarily or involuntarily, or revenue loss in general)
• Retention metrics + Compensation

“Is this a bait-and-switch?”

No. Infold’s terms of service allow the company to change, delay, or cancel. A bait-and-switch requires a product received, and there is none in a cancellation. This wasn’t a case of being promised a wolf man, and getting leopard without notice on design or worse gameplay mechanics.

“But why no statement on the rumours?”

Infold doesn’t automatically know which rumours are circulating. This becomes a game of whack-a-mole that a company is better off not involving themselves in, unless the rumour is focused to one or two and easily addressed to avoid further reputational damage.
If Infold, now, claims “A, B, and C” were rumours. This risks indirectly calling out the players who felt slighted, and risks someone saying “They didn’t state D, E, and F were rumours! This must be true!”
And they cannot monitor each and every one in risk it gets accepted.

“The code is in the files?”

Normal. It takes a lengthy amount of time and effort to scrub. Programming is finicky; change or remove one thing, and it makes an unrelated function break. The game needs to go through QA, or quality testing, and this is a process as reports are circulated. These rollout over time with patch releases or bug fixes.

——————

TL;DR:

A reassurance letter doesn’t negate the cancellation statement. The former is lower-stakes than a more costly, almost irreversible high-stakes cancellation. Financial is always taken into consideration and it requires a lot to eat the costs involved. Especially when other options exist.
Re-stating a statement is unlikely, as it incurs another PR disaster risk and for word already given. Going back on a cancellation is also significantly harder and often times not worth it, due to re-initiating contracts cancelled early and the disruption in development pipelines.
Companies will typically reassure player/user doubt and monitor. It’s not as unusual as a cancellation which needs to be clear.

——————

Lastly,
I understand players are upset. To look forward to something, especially during a period where content is lacking and story isn’t updated as frequently, a cancellation is upsetting. But remember, being informed or having topics cleared up, doesn’t take away your right to be upset.
You can hold and have both. I sympathise to a degree. I was indifferent to Valko. But I can still nod and say, yes — it sucks that the company fumbled this badly. Had they treated content better for the existing LIs, the story, currency. This likely would’ve gone better.

*Everything here was manually typed. This is not an invitation to argue, as I wanted to provide understandable explanations for those interested. Might do small edits if needed, but I wanted to get this out there first. Questions and discussion are fine.
Thank you for reading!

Hello, all!
I’ve been battling NT2 for several years, tried many medications, and it’s been so, so soul-crushing.
Currently on Armodafinil, but it hasn’t been that helpful and we started the process for Xywav.

So I had my phone consult yesterday and because I accepted the 1-month voucher offer. But the pharmacist told me we could actually skip the voucher because she saw that insurance approved it that day, and that my copay is $0!
I’m still so shocked and in disbelief.

I’ve been extremely nervous ever since because I have Medicaid (SSI) and was anticipating a high copay. For weeks, I’ve been bracing myself for bad news. But now to have this opportunity, I ended up crying lol.
I just wanted to share some positivity and since friends (understandably) don’t fully see why this is a big deal. I also wish good luck to anyone in the process for approval or considering it!

Hey everyone, first stone (5mm-6mm). Found out after heading to the ER for hematuria w/ clots, vomiting, and the most agonising pain at flank. CT confirmed the stone and hydronephrosis (UPJ). Was then rushed for stent placement procedure.

It’s now been a week since I had the stent removed, and nothing’s happened yet. Surgical removal for the stone is unaffordable, so they’re hoping it passes. But the hydronephrosis pain was some of the worst pain I’ve ever experienced and I’m terrified of it happening again. :(

Can people tell me their experiences with passing the stone, post-stent removal? Like how long it took, anything done that helped, etc.? I think it would put my mind at ease, because I fear the ureter going back to how it was if it doesn’t pass soon. I don’t know what to expect. Thank you.