What, you didn't see my adorable smiley?
Seriously though, you're attempting to undermine my point by saying that my complaining about the complainers is no different than them. That's not correct. They can hold whatever opinions they want; I'm simply saying that their sense of entitlement to have whatever upsets them changed is selfish and harmful.
So even if FFG wants to hear it what people have to say, and they want to tell FFG, they still shouldn't say it?!?
Again, people have no right to expect that something should be changed just to suit their personal tastes. I can't make it simpler than that.
Then you have no right to say how postings here should or should not be.
See above. Pointing out people's selfish conduct is not itself selfish conduct.
In the commercial world, those are not distinct. When people don't buy a product, it stops existing.
As I said before, this isn't about FFG's response. It's about the narcissists who think that something needs to be altered to suit them.
All anyone is doing is saying what they'd prefer.
No, they aren't. They're saying that things need to be changed because it offends them. That's saying that that which offends them needs to cease existing in its current form.
Expecting someone else to change something for you is normal in business. People go into fast food places all the time and ask for no tomato on their burger.
Those are completely different - in fast food, you have a set of options presented to you; it's part of the menu to have no tomato on your burger. This is more an instance of someone demanding that something
not be on the menu just because they don't care for it.
In cases like boardgames, the creative aspects and the cost saving of mass-production make that harder, but Deep Thought Games, who hand-assemble every game, provide plenty of options about how you can get your game delivered, and I'm sure there's a lot of other changes you could get on request, like maps printed on vinyl. I suspect you could get pretty much arbitrary changes done to a game for a not completely unreasonable price--except that I believe all their designers have day jobs, and thus may not be bound by market demands.
See above. This isn't about FFG's business policies, nor is it an exercise in market supply and demand. The problem is with the people who think that their tastes need to be catered to by excising that which they don't like.
That is how the market is receiving the proposal.
I'm talking about the senders.
Again, the irony is just thick in here.
Not so much, no. Allow me to further show you why there's no irony:
It is not reasonable to expect that if you do not like something, that it will be automatically changed. It is reasonable that if you do not like something, voicing your opinion gives people a chance to hear you, either in singular or in bulk, and consider your stance.
You missed the part in my last post where I said that discussion and debate are good. If you're trying to say that I'm trying to silence people, the same way others are trying to silence that which they don't like, then that pretty well shows the fundamental misunderstanding in your point.
People should talk about things and debate things. Opposition opinions should be aired and heard. You have the right to your
informed opinion, and part of being informed is knowing what other people think.
When your opinion is a demand for conformity, however, then you've crossed the line from a reasonable debate into making an ultimatum (if not an outright threat). That's not good for anybody.
No; that's but one fragment of the issue. Most likely I will be able to afford to buy Fortress America when it comes out. The question is, will I get to play it enough and will I enjoy it enough to make it worth my money? And if the theme detracts from my enjoyment, or if other people won't play with me because of the theme, then the game is less valuable to me and I'm less likely to buy it.
That's your purview. If the theme is part of what makes other people more likely to buy it and enjoy it more, however, then your demand that the theme be changed is an attack on what they like.
And heck, dumping everything else, free speech is a right. That someone should blow off steam by complaining about something that doesn't really affect him and that he can't really affect is generally fine. And (to beat a dead horse) complaining about people complaining fits right in this category.
Nobody is saying that people don't have the right to be jerks; I'm not advocating that these outragers be locked up. I'm just saying that what their doing is selfish and harmful to others. Likewise, I've already stated why complaining about them isn't the same - I'm not saying they can't exist, the way their saying that what they like musn't be allowed to exist.
