Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MrMyth" data-source="post: 5413034" data-attributes="member: 61155">Well, no.  It's really the absolute here that I'm in disagreement with. Either we can only have a calendar with absolute deadlines, or we can't have a calendar at all?  For me, having a calendar with the understanding that it isn't definite is far preferable to having no calendar at all. It provided a useful tool, as long as one didn't rely on it to be writ in stone. Having one or two articles a month shift places was less detrimental, for me, than having less advance warning about everything in the magazine as a whole.  I think the dates put on the calendar were expected days when the articles would be complete. If the article needed more work, for whatever reason, they chose to put the quality of the article over getting it out by that date. Now, perhaps they could have had better communication about those situations - either announcements when dates changes, explanations as to why, etc.  But those dates weren't deadlines in the absolute sense. They didn't set out to 'imply' any falsehood. Any implication people read into it was entirely their own failing, since the calendar came with an outright disclaimer explaining it wasn't set in stone.   Sure. We've got one at the top of the forum that explains you can't post a complete copy of an article from WotC's website. But if a user went ahead and did so anyway... well, I imagine the mods would delete the offending text, and give a warning, and a reminder to abide by that rule. For a first offense, I don't think anything worse would happen.  But what wouldn't happen, I suspect, is the community suddenly getting angry at the mods for their response. The user who didn't read the sticky remains at fault - not the people who run the site.  Now, hardly an identical situation, but my feelings are largely the same. The people who ignore what the WotC calendar said are the ones being unreasonable. WotC shouldn't be held accountable for not making the assumption that their clearly posted disclaimers would be ignored.   Again, I think it is the term 'deadline' that is a problem here. Yes, they probably had these as basic goals during the month, and put them on the calendar to give customers a sense of what content would be available when. Insisting that this is worthless unless they can commit to treating these as absolute deadlines... I just don't agree.  Now, due to how the subscription works, there are times when customers could face genuine difficulties due to an article shifting its time - if they subscribed assuming they would get an article on a specific date, and the article is moved back a week and their subscription runs out.  The one time I remember hearing concerns along those lines? WotC extended the subscriptions of everyone who complained about it as an issue. That seems a more than reasonable response to me.   Ocne more - I think its seriously uncool to accuse them of being disingenuous when they say up front that the dates aren't absolute! They aren't trying to imply or hint that stuff will be out on a specific date, and then using that to trick anyone. They are saying up front, "Hey, this is when we plan to have these articles out. The dates might change - stuff happens." No deception at all - as made clear by precisely 'what they wrote on the website'.   I'm not so sure about that. We've had shifts like this from the beginning - that's why the disclaimer is in there. Early on, we had a major article pushed back, like the Executioner - and that's when they offered the extra month for those who complained about it. Last month, we had the Executioner pushed back - and, this time, they gave refunds to those who complained about it.  Honestly, the issue with the Executioner was the lack of oversight in posting what was apparently an unfinished draft of the article, and the lack of communication between the magazine staff and the design team. Feel free to complain about the unprofessionalism of that debacle. But I still don't see any validity in complaints over minor adjustments made to the schedule itself.   Oh yeah, wouldn't be surprised there - I get the feeling everything DDI is understaffed. Not sure how much so it is for the magazines, but it is certainly true to that schedule readjustments (and some of the other issues they've had) don't bode well for what is going on behind the scenes.  I'd just... rather see concerns aimed at that directly, rather than the issue focusing on them breaking theoretical promises to their readers, when no such promises have ever been made. All that does is get them to abandon a useful tool for the rest of us, and certainly doesn't help address whatever underlying problems might actually be involved.  More than that, every time complaints are waged about something like this - where their behavior has been essentially in the right - it makes it easier and easier for them to dismiss concerns over areas where they are genuinely letting down their readership. And that, really, is the reason for this atrociously long response.</blockquote>

Verification