Now Is This A Promise?

[The Little Raven]

I would recommend you do the same.

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'll pass. I prefer to hold everyone to the same standard, instead of making exceptions based on company size or my relationship to said company.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Thanks for the recommendation, but I'll pass. I prefer to hold everyone to the same standard, instead of making exceptions based on company size or my relationship to said company.

As you like it, but personally I think your position is inevitably hypocritical.

Without some relationship to a company, you have no means to hold them to any standard, let alone the same standard. Far be it from me to point out that things like, say, environmental standards have a whole heck of a lot to do with our relationship to the companies we regulate.

Nor are you likely to care how good my upcoming free all-or-nearly-all OGC game is if you have no intention of playing it. Nor should a free game be held to the production standard of a game that you pay $120 a pop for.

Beyond which, if you expect, say, the same level of production from a Mom & Pop outfit as from a megafactory, you're bound to be disappointed. Likewise, if you expect that megafactory to produce the same level of quality as a superior craftsman who produces only custom items, you'll be in for a disappointment -- especially if you expect the superior craftsman to charge the same as the megafactory!

Of course, all of this assumes that, with the rest of us mortals, you're somewhat less than omniscent, and somewhat less than perfectly balanced in your approach to all things.

Or, as the man said:

All things are relative.
All relatives are things.
My relatives took all my things.


RC

 

[Yanomahir]

They're best when prepared on a cartop hibachi. To continue the reference.

If you're looking for satisfaction, chicken fingers just won't do it. You need to try some pepperoni.

As to the issues with WotC and DDI, I understand all the frustration. Seems to me that they've made more than one mistake in this venture, but in my mind, there's been steady improvement. (probably because they're going to ask for money soon, maybe due to increasing efficiency) Either way, I'm going to follow the 48 hour model; I imagine all the info I need will appear here within 2 days of release.

 

[The Little Raven]

As you like it, but personally I think your position is inevitably hypocritical.

And here you lost any chance of having a reasonable discussion with me on this topic by suggesting that I do not believe what I am saying, which is rude and insulting.

As the man said:

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

 

[Simon Atavax]

Dude, its a company selling a product. Quit acting like its your good-fer-nuthin' husband makin' up stories about when he's gonna to get home from the pub.

Cadfan, you almost made me spray a mouthful of Harvest Crunch cereal all over my keyboard. Well said!

 

[Umbran]

I think you are getting a little more hot under the collar than you should be from my posts.

I think that you are not viewing your posts in the context of collective nonsense that goes on around here - you are contributing to an overall ill-will, and I'm calling you on your little part of it.

"Corporate evil" and "consumer rights avenger" are your words, not mine.

The word "if" was also mine, was it not? Apply it. If you X, then Y. If you do not X, then Y does not logically apply, and you are on your own recognizance. I am even being reasonable enough to allow you to judge whether it applies for yourself.

Of course, if you are not that interested in the consumer's rights, one might wonder why the point was raised. Folks may muse on that as they will...

I merely pointed out the movie trailer as an obvious example of where advertising takes place before there is a product to sell.

You merely insinuated that the largest company in our hobby was engaged in willfully telling us falsehoods in an attempt to get us to buy their products.

If "false advertising" means something to you, then so should "defamation", at least as far as either applies in this non-court. You should expect that sometimes, people are going to get fed up with the amount of ill-considered, marginally justified bad-mouthing that goes on. If you engage in it, you should expect the fallout to land on you occasionally.

Negligence isn't co-equal to evil, you know.

Legalistic logic does not equate to reasonabilty, or ethics, you know.

 

[Fifth Element]

You should expect that sometimes, people are going to get fed up with the amount of ill-considered, marginally justified bad-mouthing that goes on. If you engage in it, you should expect the fallout to land on you occasionally.

Indeed. Well said.

Now let's get some Zesty Mordant and some Dressed All Over chips, and call it a day.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And here you lost any chance of having a reasonable discussion with me on this topic by suggesting that I do not believe what I am saying, which is rude and insulting.

I believe that you believe what you are saying; I just don't believe that you've thought it through. But, perhaps, you really are more omniscient and objective than the rest of us.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

You merely insinuated that the largest company in our hobby was engaged in willfully telling us falsehoods in an attempt to get us to buy their products.

Oh, no. I assume that it is negligence.

And, perhaps, you might consider that constantly denying that such negligence is ongoing (lots of stuff re: 4e launch has been ill-considered, and even WotC seems to now think so, judging by their new take on GSL [still in the box, I note], and Gleemax), you yourself are contributing to an overall ill-will.

Whether you think it fair or not, it is a hell of a lot harder to let go of ill-will when you are told that the things you are upset about, in effect, "aren't real" than when they are acknowledged. People also get fed up with the amount of ill-considered, marginally justified blinders-wearing that goes on.

If you really want the ill-will to die down, the best response is acknowledgement, followed either by discussion as to how the problems can/should be addressed, or acknowledgement, followed by the acknowledgement that, even though those problems may exist, they don't particularly bother you.

IMHO and IME, of course.

Yelling "There's a pink elephant in the room!' when there is not is no more inciting, or nonsensical, than yelling "No there isn't!" when there is. Having seen all sorts of posts defending whatever WotC does, whenever it does it, it seems reasonable (to me) to ask, as the OP does, just when, exactly, is it okay to say "enough is enough"? When do we stop saying "Well, they didn't promise X, so it doesn't matter that they did not-X" and voice legitimate concerns over getting not-X instead of X.

That's a fair question. In my book at least. Perhaps not in yours.

Finally, while I certainly agree that "legalistic logic does not equate to reasonabilty, or ethics", that statement doesn't really have anything to do with negligence not being co-equal to evil (which actually is a statement to do with ethics, if not with reasonability).


RC

 

[Cadfan]

Dude, you were throwing around terms like "false advertising" and "bait and switch."