What do I want? An apology.

[Mr. Wilson]

I don't expect them to apologize, nor do I think they should. I'm just not interested in what they're selling me. I suppose that could change, but I believe it unlikely to occur for a variety of reasons.

 

[Aaron L]

Telling people to control their emotions and not get upset over something has about as much effect as carefully explaining to the weather why it shouldn't rain today.

 

[Vigilance]

Telling people to control their emotions and not get upset over something has about as much effect as carefully explaining to the weather why it shouldn't rain today.

Actually, people control their feelings all the time. It's part of being an adult.

And when people overreact, it's ok to point that out.

Being upset is perfectly fine... in each of the cases I mentioned (Avengers being cancelled, Captain America being killed and Polyhedron being cancelled), I was upset and I think that's natural.

But I didn't go on message boards demanding apologies from the companies involved, because they'd never promised me the magazines in question would be around forever.

When you enter into a magazine subscription, just like when you start watching a new TV show, part of the implied contract is "we might stop making this".

 

[Truth Seeker]

Then it would have been better...if someone there, did it. Broke the news out, like in January of this year. With a solid banter, on why things are changing, just enough details, without cracking the NDA wall.

If the year of the decision on doing the deed, was in the process already. A lot of other people were not told. (But I know the explanation for that too).

Tack.
Respect.
And a certain responsibility to your buying base.

Could have shown in the other proposed 'fictional news', but instead, we get this...'yeah we knew', 'yeah, we were not surprised', 'yeah...that is the decision And that is that.' "Yeah, we expected the knee breaking responses.'

Just how much insults to our intelligence can bare this 'weight'?

And...to the fact that staff was upset...is nothing compared to the community, Borrowing from Heroes of last Monday.

"That represents just .07%'

And no, I do not see an apology forthcoming either.

With reading the interview its pretty clear that wizards will not apologize. They not only expected the backlash, but they didn't care. They have known for over a year the decision here and had nothing to offer when it came out. The interview also acknowledges that a year after deciding, their staff are still upset about it. As upset as the community apparently.

 

[The_Gneech]

Yeah I got that, I didn't get the "excising Batman from current and future publications" analogy, since Dragon and Dungeon are still published until spetember (?) and then the content and possible the brands is moved over to the DI.

"Dragon/Dungeon moved to DI" emphatically =/= "Dragon/Dungeon" -- that's a major part of the point.

In any case, the analogy was simply to explain why someone might want an apology, regardless of whether or not they're ever likely to get one.

-The Gneech

 

[kirinke]

Does it really matter? I mean, you can get fan based stuff that's just as good or better than the Dungeon/Dragon magazine. Besides, last time I read a D&D magazine was um.... years and years ago, when I was just knee high to a barn swallow. Yee up.

 

[Ourph]

I guess now that you've defined apology, you'll have to define regret too--as it seems this quote expresses regret (and therefore your definition of an apology) to me.

I didn't define apology, the Merriam-Webster dictionary did. I was just quoting.

Even if that statement does express regret (debatable) it's not addressing the issue of customers being disappointed, so I don't see how it applies to what I've been saying.

 

[Vigilance]

I didn't define apology, the Merriam-Webster dictionary did. I was just quoting.

Even if that statement does express regret (debatable) it's not addressing the issue of customers being disappointed, so I don't see how it applies to what I've been saying.

It doesn't.

Because no one owes you an apology.

Again, show me where you were promised the magazines would be around forever... or even just till the end of your subscription.

You weren't.

A subscription is a conditional arrangement.

Just like when I subscribed to the Avengers, and 6 months into my year's subscription the team was dismantled and book cancelled. Marvel gave me the option of a refund or a subscription to "The New Avengers", which was NOTHING like the actual Avengers.

What they didn't offer me, was an apology.

 

[Ourph]

Because no one owes you an apology.

I never said they did.

Again, show me where you were promised the magazines would be around forever... or even just till the end of your subscription.

You weren't.

A subscription is a conditional arrangement.

Look back over my comments in this thread and you'll see that I've never supported any of the positions you're railing against. Quote someone else if you want to re-argue the same old thing for the 100th time.

 

[Enforcer]

Well the frequent and sporadic sounding updates that have been promised/threatened negate a numbering system (gee was that in article 3206a or 3213b?) and the quick search (assuming search is fixed) will then bring up every article with "cavalier" in it, and no way of knowing which one is accurate. Further in conversation it will be truly impossible to reference the article as most of us don't carry around pocket internet devices to google at the drop of a hat... although the sensible ones do.

All in all however this issue seems a minor annoyance and not on par with the disturbing stuff that has come up.

The articles WotC already has for D&D are pretty darn easy to find (for me, anyways). Why should we expect that will cease to be the case?