Now Is This A Promise?

[Raven Crowking]

So how does your example of movie trailers inform the present discussion about false advertising and corporate "promises?"

It is a direct response to the statement, made upthread, that something isn't advertising if the product is not ready to sell. That is clearly untrue. Hence, "I merely pointed out the movie trailer as an obvious example of where advertising takes place before there is a product to sell. Trying to push that analogy any further is...well, pushing it." Especially as movie trailers don't usually explicitly state that X or Y will be part of the movie. You would have to argue an inferred statement, and you probably wouldn't get very far.

But you quoted that part, so I'm not sure what you didn't understand.

RC

 

[Fifth Element]

So how does your example of movie trailers inform the present discussion about false advertising and corporate "promises?"

RC is dealing in hypotheticals, as he stated above. Such as, "If this had anything to do with the topic in question, it would be an insightful comment."

 

[Raven Crowking]

RC is dealing in hypotheticals, as he stated above. Such as, "If this had anything to do with the topic in question, it would be an insightful comment."

Even I find that funny, 5th!

 

[Brown Jenkin]

You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

You catch the most with blood.

And you'll catch even more with a dead horse. But flies and forum threads are different things.

 

[Rechan]

And you'll catch even more with a dead horse. But flies and forum threads are different things.

I wanted to keep with the liquid theme.

 

[Scribble]

And it is equally true that even if you link to the WotC statements, you can't get certain people to agree that they said what is in those statements. I get it. I've been there. I've got the tee-shirt. Heck, I've been there on both sides of the equation.

Or that you can't get people to agree with what you're reading into said statements. That's a good t-shirt to have too... If you like collecting t-shirts with really weird stuff on them.

But, however you want to look at it, WotC seems to have decided that there was a problem with the GSL.

Yes, I'm guessing the problem was that people didn't to sign it, and their reasons for not wanting to sign it (justified or not) was causing a publicity problem.

In my opinion it paints a positive light on WoTC, as depite whether the concerns about the document are valid or not, WoTC is willing to rethink it in order to please their fanbase.

I could be wrong, sure, but I have no reason to believe otherwise.

And WotC decided it couldn't deliver on Gleemax. So, if you don't trust me, trust WotC.

Not sure who I'm trusting about what or why. Sucks that gleemax didn't pan out. Well, not really because I don't really use social networking boards anyway.

Either way, though, "You're wrong! You're wrong! You're wrong! Shut up!" incites nonsense every much as "I'm right! I'm right! I'm right! Listen to me!" does, regardless of who is right or who is wrong. And sitting from a holier-than-thou position, claiming that others are engaged in "ill-considered, marginally justified bad-mouthing", while doing your part to keep the argument going, is hypocritical at the very best.

I'm not going to get in the middle of whatever issue you have with whomever you're having it with.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yes, I'm guessing the problem was that people didn't to sign it, and their reasons for not wanting to sign it (justified or not) was causing a publicity problem.

In my opinion it paints a positive light on WoTC, as depite whether the concerns about the document are valid or not, WoTC is willing to rethink it in order to please their fanbase.

Me too.

But I am well aware that, if there were no publicity problems, we probably wouldn't be seeing a revised GSL.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

But I am well aware that, if there were no publicity problems, we probably wouldn't be seeing a revised GSL.

We have way of knowing that. It's possible that the lack of 3pp publishers signing on would have been enough to make them look at a revision. We just don't know, regardless of what you might feel you are aware of.

 

[Raven Crowking]

We have way of knowing that. It's possible that the lack of 3pp publishers signing on would have been enough to make them look at a revision. We just don't know, regardless of what you might feel you are aware of.

Please look at what you quoted. You might notice that there is a qualifier in there.


RC

 

[The Little Raven]

Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't there a complaint on EN World not so long ago about a character folio, or character sheets, which contained only about 2/3rd the page count advertised?

That is correct, and that is an item it was relevant for the customer to complain about, because the advertising when it was released was false. The fact that the customer was denied a refund was bogus, and that policy should be changed.

However, that has nothing to do with a product that hasn't been released yet. Let's wait until release before making accusations, okay?