Well, one person took issue with what I said and one person found me insightful, of course you know where my response is headed
Mark, i apologize if my somewhat crude summaries of my impressions of some of the more badgering questions came off as unfair attribution. In part it was my intent to remain general and not name names so as not to create an ad hominem attack but still acknowledge the concern that some being referred to as hostile are so worked up about. Let me amend slightly and say that, without meaning to imply that anyone was actually trying to say those things, I had concern, and percieved that others had concern, that such implications were POSSIBLE, and that others before me perhaps felt a need to nip that in the bud only to have it implied they were hostile.
Hmmm, all too quickly I discover the dangers of talking directly to a percieved issue. Still, nuance or otherwise I should have realized I was somewhat strawmanning the other side, so for that I apologize. It was my intent to illustrate the source of concern rather than demonize.
Next, and this is another one where subtlety was lost on me in my original post. I in fact care very much about this thread. To go back to my references from earlier, I care in the same way I care about any thread in which the devs of warcraft might respond. Because Mr. Rouse, someone inside WotC, responded, I am very much interested in what he has to say. What he says gives me insight into what the future holds for a game I play. If, and I by no means imply that i do, I were to percieve an attempt to construe his words in a way that he is not ok with, I would also be unhappy because I would expect his most likely solution is to simply answer fewer questions and post less.
Thus, my statement later in my post are a question of values of the forum-goers. I ask of them "what do you value?", do you value the ability to collect a series of data, extrapolate it, and create a scenario which someone answering your questions might find unfavorable? Do you value finding contradictions, and do you find contradictions novel and unusual? Am I unfairly attributing to anyone by realizing that this whole thread revolves around a statement of intent by WotC which clearly is at odds with the reality of today? Weather the question pertains to the potential of the gametable, the necessity of DDi, or the amount of correlation between DDi and the D&D 4e ruleset, it's clear the original quote, taken as is without any heed to what the OP or any of the people in these 5 pages were asking, creates a contrast to what we understand to be the "mission statement" of 4e today. I have no interest in proving or disproving how accurate that quote fits into WotC's worldview. My charge then is not that I don't care, but that it shouldn't be pinned to WotC. my implication is not that the thread as a whole is irrelevant, but that the main contrast illustrated by the old quote lacks worth as a measure of the quality of WotC's overall work.
Mark, you absolutely pegged me for falling into the common forum post traps that I myself discourage, and for that I apologize. Hopefully my second post sheds a better light on me without diluting my original points.
