Did the WotC boards blow up...again?

[Tao]

Pirate,

I thought I had been clear in directing my statements, but I can see how I might have caused confusion. Thanks for stopping in to clarify. Moderating can be a thankless job, and I apologize for causing a ruckus. It was not my intention.

 

[Shemeska]

I'm not even going to bother responding to the professional snipe against the moderating staff of the WotC boards, except to say that it is completely uncalled for and untrue. No posts are deleted without reason or documentation.

FWIW, I would have assumed that he was talking about non-WizOs deleting and editing posts (like G0), which is a complaint that has shown up rather often. To your credit, I'm not aware of any problems with the job the actual WizOs have done in moderating posts to the best of their ability.

 

[Michael Morris]

First of all, considering that (to my recollection anyways) you've worked fairly closely with the WizO team in the past, I would have thought you'd have a bit more professional courtesy than that.

There will come a day when I finally just give up and stop typing anything on any board. I'm a programmer, not a diplomat. I would have used, as you put it, proper channels - indeed I tried for several days. When it became apparent that such channels have been cut off I posted what I have posted out of frustration. I am certain the ones responsible for the problems and the changes will never see those comments - they have a tendency to keep themselves well hidden and cloistered from the responsibility and consequences of their actions.

And as to the scolding of about professional courtesy, at least I show the courtesy of not concealing who I am as you do. For good or ill I will take up responsibility for what I say, no matter how poorly thought out.

I have said what I wish in this matter and have nothing further to add but this - the next person that confuses me with Russ is getting whacked with a clue mallet +5.

 

[Nifft]

To feel envy is human, to savour schadenfreude is devilish. -Schopenhauer

I saw what you had before the edit; it's my pleasure to have taught you a useful word.

Sure. But human nature is human nature. People respond better to not being yelled at and called a moron. Which seems to be what Tao is really saying.

Thing is, MM called cust-serv morons, not IT ... and he only did that after saying he had been cust-serv. If a guy's not allowed to self-deprecate, what the heck is he allowed to deprecate?

Pirate,

I thought I had been clear in directing my statements, but I can see how I might have caused confusion. Thanks for stopping in to clarify.

I'm pretty sure nobody here is all that confused. (Now you have seen what "moderator voice" looks like, and thus how we all knew MM was just speaking for himself.)

- - -

Gah, the WotC forums are still not responding.

MM, what do you think of us having a CharOpt forum over here?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Xyxox]

One last post, them I am done (I am a glutton for punishment)...

In the case of the message boards, which do not generate any revenue, they can't evaluate their worth in that manner. The only objective way they could evaluate it is how many people love it (pssh... not likely, but indirectly measurable by the site traffic), or how many people get upset when it is not available.

A large portion of my program was cut because no one that mattered saw any value in it. It didn't make any money, and customer goodwill isn't really visible on a spreadsheet.

Yes, you can definitely vote with your wallet. However, that kind of complaint is only a "Yay" or "Nay" type of feedback, and largely it amounts to "do you want this product and products like it?" It doesn't give you any real influence in changing a product you like or the specific direction of those changes. If you want to have direct input in a specific direction of a product, well-reasoned complaining is your best recourse.

It's not my job to tell WotC why I stopped buying their products. It's their job to figure out how to get me to start buying their products again.

 

[Tao]

There will come a day when I finally just give up and stop typing anything on any board. I'm a programmer, not a diplomat. I would have used, as you put it, proper channels - indeed I tried for several days. When it became apparent that such channels have been cut off I posted what I have posted out of frustration. I am certain the ones responsible for the problems and the changes will never see those comments - they have a tendency to keep themselves well hidden and cloistered from the responsibility and consequences of their actions.

And as to the scolding of about professional courtesy, at least I show the courtesy of not concealing who I am as you do. For good or ill I will take up responsibility for what I say, no matter how poorly thought out.

FWIW, I am exactly as my name here would indicate: WizO Tao. My actual name is Matthew Lee Myers, and I was originally hired by the former head of the admin WizO team (-Ras, aka Hydragon) to help launch Knowledge Arcana magazine and to redesign parts of the front end of the boards and the moderation interface. Unfortunately, Gleemax came down and crushed those hopes and dreams, but since then I've been working as a regular WizO on the boards (though I am the last WizO standing that is still bearing the Admin WizO title, so I kind of hang onto it as a mark of pride).

That's the full history of my involvement with Wizards of the Coast. I'm just a peon. Like I said, this is hardly the conspiracy that people are making it out to be. I was just surprised that you would be so publicly dismissive of former coworkers, especially since, from what I recall, Hydragon tended to speak highly of you when I would complain about the boards when I was first hired to work with them a few years back.

I saw what you had before the edit; it's my pleasure to have taught you a useful word.

Wasn't questioning the meaning. Simply questioning whether your application of the word was appropriate considering the revelation of a fairly obvious pot-kettle situation.

Thing is, MM called cust-serv morons, not IT ... and he only did that after saying he had been cust-serv. If a guy's not allowed to self-deprecate, what the heck is he allowed to deprecate?

As a member of the cust-serve department, I would figure it obvious why I took offense to that statement. Especially when I trekked over here to try to post to keep people updated as best I could. Not that its even my job to. Not that anyone at WotC even wants me to. Just because I thought people might care.

I'm pretty sure nobody here is all that confused. (Now you have seen what "moderator voice" looks like, and thus how we all knew MM was just speaking for himself.)

Well, several people seemed to think I was addressing Morrus, rather than Micheal Morris... I apologized if I had been unclear in my references, and for the confusion that it might have caused.

Wow, I can't even apologize to your satisfaction.

 

[Delta]

FWIW, I am exactly as my name here would indicate: WizO Tao.

Now, why would you think that indicates anything to those of us who have never visited WOTC forums?

If I'm not mistaken, I think you'll find it customary here at ENWorld for WOTC employees to put their name and position in their signature line. I really don't want to be snide, but ENWorld really isn't some adjunct site for Wizards.com. If I had to tip my hat towards someone looking a bit amateurish in this thread, it wouldn't be Morris -- I hope that's constructive criticism.

 

[The Highway Man]

It sucks that I am getting all the rage otherwise intended for the company I happen to collect a paycheck from, but I suppose that's a professional hazard.

That's not a "hazard". That's your choice.

I'm tired of WotC employees always claiming "hey, I'm the little guy who just happens to work for the crap corporation." Professional integrity, now that's another term that could deserve some more focus, wouldn't you think?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's not my job to tell WotC why I stopped buying their products. It's their job to figure out how to get me to start buying their products again.

But why not make their job easier if this also means you get what you want?

 

[Terramotus]

You're well within your rights to disagree. However, as someone who is currently working for the company in question and who desperately wants the situation to be resolved, I am simply stating the obvious: Rational, well stated, and impartial complaints have more weight in the evaluation of a problem than impassioned but obviously biased complaints.

While it is true that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, and it is true that any person or group of people are happier about receiving criticism when it is delivered in a more palatable way, thought processes like this are likely part of the problem.

A company that wants to stay competitive, and to be truly responsive to its customers needs BETTER listen to the people that are impassioned - because they're probably the people that care. Before long, if a company ignores too many of those impassioned critiques, it finds itself out of touch with what its customers want. Without trying to put words into his mouth, I would suspect that that Michael Morris cares because of his prior involvement.

As an individual, I'm free to ignore criticisms of myself that I don't like. Corporations should willingly forfeit that right if they want to have a good product. In fact, rather than be upset at passionate criticism, they should be thrilled. Wow, here's someone who cares enough about my product to get worked up about it! Rather than get sore (or in internet parlance, butthurt) about this criticism, the correct response should be to formulate solutions that satisfy this passionate customer and turn him into a passionate evangelist.

If you are, in fact, correct that impassioned criticisms are treated with less weight in the WotC web development team, then that tells me that either the company has fostered a dangerous atmosphere of arrogance among their employees on the customer service end, or that the decision-making individual with regard to web development has neither the proper skillset to recognize valid criticism nor a sufficient understanding of the nature of customer service. If this information isn't being at least filtered back to him or her, then the customer service end of things is broken.

Either way, this should be a cause for concern, and on the agenda for reforms - not simply the way things are and we have to deal with it.