4e Red Dragon S*@s On 4e Criticisms


4th Edition

251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I agree. Can anything be done as a community of posters without more moderation? I don't think having more moderation is a good thing.

What's the down side? Unless you have nefarious intent then moderation is nothing to worry about.

Or leave it as is where a small number of posters have the option to target a larger group and ruin their fun.

It would be nice if people could live and let live. Sadly not everyone can.

Sovereign Court

Well one big downside is that the people who do the moderation here (josh frost and the post monster general) have other jobs. Any time they spend moderating they aren't off getting pathfinder society adventures written or programming in combined shipping options for subscriptions.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Horus wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I agree. Can anything be done as a community of posters without more moderation? I don't think having more moderation is a good thing.

What's the down side? Unless you have nefarious intent then moderation is nothing to worry about.

Or leave it as is where a small number of posters have the option to target a larger group and ruin their fun.

It would be nice if people could live and let live. Sadly not everyone can.

However, moderation relies on the moderator to draw the line for themselves what is worthy of suppression, suspension, or banning. It might just make things worse if posters from one group (or all groups) feel that their "side" is being unfairly targeted by the moderators judgment.

Dark Archive

Well all im going to say is it seems a lot of people seem to be as bad as each other. Reading a lot of these posts reminds me of the story of a pot calling a kettle something.

Scarab Sages

Zynete wrote:
Horus wrote:
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
I agree. Can anything be done as a community of posters without more moderation? I don't think having more moderation is a good thing.

What's the down side? Unless you have nefarious intent then moderation is nothing to worry about.

Or leave it as is where a small number of posters have the option to target a larger group and ruin their fun.

It would be nice if people could live and let live. Sadly not everyone can.

However, moderation relies on the moderator to draw the line for themselves what is worthy of suppression, suspension, or banning. It might just make things worse if posters from one group (or all groups) feel that their "side" is being unfairly targeted by the moderators judgment.

You have a fair point but whats the alternative?

The current situation only favours that wonderful minority I speak off.


Horus wrote:


He's not just voicing his opinion he is foisting it on others. How many times do we need to know he loathes WOTC and thinks 4E is a MMORPG designed with special needs kids in mind? Once? Twice? Ninety nine times?

Guess what we get it.

Also it might surprise you apparently but most if not all modern companies recognise that bullying is not limited to children. As to why I choose to make a particular issue of it in this thread it is because unlike Pax and his ilk I have no wish to derail other more worthwhile threads on any section of this board. Why do I make such an issue of it today because this ridiculous anti-4e crusade has already driven off one board member and I'll be damned if it will any others.

My personal hope is that someone at Paizo locks this damned thread and stands up and puts a stop to the crap coming from all sides.

He's not foisting his opinion off on anybody. This is not a captive audience. Take a look at the title of the thread. I'm guessing you had an idea what he was going to say before you even chose to read and, as you put it, derail it.

Sovereign Court

Horus wrote:


You have a fair point but whats the alternative?

The current situation only favours that wonderful minority I speak off.

Maybe an ignore function? Basically the only thing we can do right now is community censure (smurfing).

Scarab Sages

Bill Dunn wrote:
Horus wrote:


He's not just voicing his opinion he is foisting it on others. How many times do we need to know he loathes WOTC and thinks 4E is a MMORPG designed with special needs kids in mind? Once? Twice? Ninety nine times?

Guess what we get it.

Also it might surprise you apparently but most if not all modern companies recognise that bullying is not limited to children. As to why I choose to make a particular issue of it in this thread it is because unlike Pax and his ilk I have no wish to derail other more worthwhile threads on any section of this board. Why do I make such an issue of it today because this ridiculous anti-4e crusade has already driven off one board member and I'll be damned if it will any others.

My personal hope is that someone at Paizo locks this damned thread and stands up and puts a stop to the crap coming from all sides.

He's not foisting his opinion off on anybody. This is not a captive audience. Take a look at the title of the thread. I'm guessing you had an idea what he was going to say before you even chose to read and, as you put it, derail it.

Derail what? Another purely subjective rant? A thinly veiled piece of propaganda and opinion labeled as fact? The Gospel according to Pax Veritas?

And lets not exaggerate this particular thread was happily careening toward the cliff edge before I arrived. And if I was drawn here by the title then well done Pax, you accomplished your goal.

The only goal of this thread and it's title was to incite yet another battle in the edition flame wars, across any other number of boards I've seen the Red Dragon cartoon discussed civilly by both sides with out an introductory diatribe.

And my reason for posting here was not to derail an already shot up thread but to rather limit my own personal outrage over Bugleyman's forced exile and the continued harassment of 4E fans on a board set aside to discuss that edition to a thread already wasting board space. I suppose I could follow the 4E detractors example and post numerous and repetitive threads pushing off all other conversations. Forgive me but I think not.

Scarab Sages

Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
Horus wrote:


You have a fair point but whats the alternative?

The current situation only favours that wonderful minority I speak off.

Maybe an ignore function? Basically the only thing we can do right now is community censure (smurfing).

An ignore button would be a fair solution, given the small number you need to ignore.

Edit: That is a strangely appropriate Smurf picture, almost too appropriate 8-)

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Horus wrote:

You have a fair point but whats the alternative?

The current situation only favours that wonderful minority I speak off.

I have no alternative to give other than we all hold hands and sing. However my voice is annoying and would likely bring nothing but pain to those around me.

I feel that the current situation doesn't favor that minority. I'm not sure why it would. I believe the current situation favors the majority if they were to unite to ignore the negative effects that the minority try to bring up.

Scarab Sages

Zynete wrote:
I'm not sure why it would. I believe the current situation favors the majority if they were to unite to ignore the negative effects that the minority try to bring up.

The irony is your spot on. I think it's a landslide effect, most set out to ignore the baiting but when one responds another follows and so on.

Only 100% commitment would really have the desired effect.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Horus wrote:
And my reason for posting here was not to derail an already shot up thread but to rather limit my own personal outrage over Bugleyman's forced exile and the continued harassment of 4E fans on a board set aside to discuss that edition to a thread already wasting board space.

While I'm saddened by Bugleyman's leaving, I don't think calling it a forced exile is completely appropriate. I feel the same way about calling Razz's leaving a forced exile. The situation's were very different, but they both decided to leave based on the mood of the forum and the actions of Paizo employees. I feel that that both were self-imposed exiles, that for their own separate reasons, decided not to remain here anymore.

I do hope Bugleyman comes back and that the tenor of the forums becomes calmer, but I don't think that Bugleyman was forced to leave.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Horus wrote:
Zynete wrote:
I'm not sure why it would. I believe the current situation favors the majority if they were to unite to ignore the negative effects that the minority try to bring up.

The irony is your spot on. I think it's a landslide effect, most set out to ignore the baiting but when one responds another follows and so on.

Only 100% commitment would really have the desired effect.

So we shall give 100% plus 1d100% commitment to this effort!


Horus wrote:


Derail what? Another purely subjective rant? A thinly veiled piece of propaganda and opinion labeled as fact? The Gospel according to Pax Veritas?

And lets not exaggerate this particular thread was happily careening toward the cliff edge before I arrived. And if I was drawn here by the title then well done Pax, you accomplished your goal.

The only goal of this thread and it's title was to incite yet another battle in the edition flame wars, across any other number of boards I've seen the Red Dragon cartoon discussed civilly by both sides with out an introductory diatribe.

And my reason for posting here was not to derail an already shot up thread but to rather limit my own personal outrage over Bugleyman's forced exile and the continued harassment of 4E fans on a board set aside to discuss that edition to a thread already wasting board space. I suppose I could follow the 4E detractors example and post numerous and repetitive threads pushing off all other conversations. Forgive me but I think not.

From where I sit, it looks like there isn't a whole lot of numerous and repetitive threads pushing off all other conversations, these days. And I think most people around here would agree with that assessment.

And as far as starting off a discussion, I've seen far worse diatribes than the one that started off this particular thread. It certainly could have, and did for a while, spark an interesting discussion. Admittedly, a fair amount of derailing happened when Bugleyman and Fake Healer decided to continue a flame war that appeared to have started somewhere else.

As far as Bugleyman leaving, he exiled himself. Nobody did that to him. And, overall, I have fairly limited tolerance for board-departing drama posts.

Scarab Sages

Zynete wrote:
Horus wrote:
Zynete wrote:
I'm not sure why it would. I believe the current situation favors the majority if they were to unite to ignore the negative effects that the minority try to bring up.

The irony is your spot on. I think it's a landslide effect, most set out to ignore the baiting but when one responds another follows and so on.

Only 100% commitment would really have the desired effect.

So we shall give 100% plus 1d100% commitment to this effort!

I'm down with this plan.


Darn I thought I poodled this thread.

runs to the corner to deposit his own thoughts in a particularly doggy way


Dread Lord Poodle wrote:
runs to the corner to deposit his own thoughts in a particularly doggy way

Hey! Get you own corner! jezz what can a decent poodle do for some privacy...

*continues Poodling the thread the way only poodles can*

The Exchange

Bill Dunn wrote:
Horus wrote:


What other choice has he? Roll over whilst Pax kicks him in the nuts? Sprays more personal opinion around like £1000 cologne?

Oh right he could ignore him (would be nice if that was a function on this board), but how do you ignore someone waging such a determined campaign? Hmm I wonder, do I go around fingers in ears la la la?

Apparently its ok to retread this crap continuously but not answer back, Ah.

Wish I'd known that earler today.

What other choice has he? To be part of the solution not part of the problem. He could have ignored the slight and directly addressed the main point of Pax's post.

How do you ignore someone waging such a determined campaign? Easily. You skip on to read the next post.

Or you stand up and call his bullshit for what it is.

If everyone told Pax to zip it then he would.

I know I suck at ignoring trolls. Oh, well.


crosswiredmind wrote:

Or you stand up and call his b#*~%#!% for what it is.

If everyone told Pax to zip it then he would.

I know I suck at ignoring trolls. Oh, well.

Except when you do that you get attacked by others with comments like, "Yeah that really helped" and such.

Sovereign Court

Trolls are stupid and they suck. I would like to reiterate what others have said, that while it is difficult, we should try no to sink to their level when responding, but make sure that what we say will not provoke them into saying more stupidity. It is a fine (and often invisible) line, but until we as a community can manage it, meta-discussions about discussions and games and blah blah blah will go on and on and .....

The Exchange

Mr. Slaad wrote:
Trolls are stupid and they suck. I would like to reiterate what others have said, that while it is difficult, we should try no to sink to their level when responding, but make sure that what we say will not provoke them into saying more stupidity. It is a fine (and often invisible) line, but until we as a community can manage it, meta-discussions about discussions and games and blah blah blah will go on and on and .....

The trouble is the internet paradox:

don't feed the trolls

silence=agreement

Those two can combine to make trolls think that their rants are acceptable.


hey ah CWM when did ya change your avatar?


crosswiredmind wrote:


The trouble is the internet paradox:

don't feed the trolls

silence=agreement

Those two can combine to make trolls think that their rants are acceptable.

Silence does not equal agreement. Silence could mean you haven't even gotten to the thread yet, so that assumption really doesn't hold.


Why is a person a troll only when his opinion doesn't agree with yours?


Pax Veritas wrote:

Yes, as best I can tell, that type of all-caps customer feedback does get disregarded and lumped as troll stuff. Now, with a calmer mind, it strikes me that if the wotc messageboards are censored as strongly as some say, then its no wonder that good points get lost when dismissed regularly as trollbait. I find there to be a parallel in some 4e players insomuchas they tend to plug their ears a lot too. (Hence, I mistakenly thought shouting would help. I apologize for the all caps shouting, a byproduct of my frustration with wotc.) The potty humor red dragon skit does shift my opinion of wotc's non-receptiveness, from "ivory tower" to "fortified, insular, sound-proof ivory tower."

As for the pooping red dragon - yes, undeniably wotc were intentional with that messaging, inflaming further the already negative feelings on the part of former consumers. Why?, I cannot tell, other than to say, "its not for the old guys, just for the new ones." If so, that part still fails to make sense to me.

Now that is much better, less strident, and adds to the discussion, and uses the terms "As best as I can tell" "It strikes me" "I find"

And the magic word: Apology.

This is a good post, which shows your opinion, and gets your point accross. Pax Veritas. More Pax. Same Veritas.

Well done. I am not being sarcastic. Really, well done.


Now lets all discuss the cartoon. Fresh start?

Scarab Sages

Taliesin Hoyle wrote:
Now lets all discuss the cartoon. Fresh start?

I don't see why grown adults can't discuss the cartoon rationally, however I would suggest starting a new thread with a less inflammatory title, and perhaps a short direction to get the conversation going constructively.

Later days


Pax Veritas wrote:

Yes, as best I can tell, that type of all-caps customer feedback does get disregarded and lumped as troll stuff. Now, with a calmer mind, it strikes me that if the wotc messageboards are censored as strongly as some say, then its no wonder that good points get lost when dismissed regularly as trollbait. I find there to be a parallel in some 4e players insomuchas they tend to plug their ears a lot too. (Hence, I mistakenly thought shouting would help. I apologize for the all caps shouting, a byproduct of my frustration with wotc.) The potty humor red dragon skit does shift my opinion of wotc's non-receptiveness, from "ivory tower" to "fortified, insular, sound-proof ivory tower."

As for the pooping red dragon - yes, undeniably wotc were intentional with that messaging, inflaming further the already negative feelings on the part of former consumers. Why?, I cannot tell, other than to say, "its not for the old guys, just for the new ones." If so, that part still fails to make sense to me.

Hoo, I feel like someone who's just ambled into a room to find a big pile of beaten up looking guys rolling about wrestling on a muddy floor, punching and kicking each other for all they're worth.

Heh, sensible thing would be to turn around and leave, but what the hell.

In answer to your very valid question Pax; 'what was the intention or thinking behind running the cartoon?', I suspect (benefit of the doubt) they probably primarily thought it was funny. But as to how they thought this in any way was a good idea ... that's tougher. They must have known it wouldn't go down well, and just thought 'ah anyone who moans is just a troll so screw 'em'. Which just goes to show their lack of judgement and feel for their customer base (or potential customer base) if you ask me.

In other words they just don't realise or accept that a significant number of (former?) WotC customers feel hard-done-by by the company at the moment, and a cartoon basically saying 'we $*$* on your opinions troll' to that group ain't exactly gonna be luring them back into the fold. Regardless of if the same cartoon has a somewhat less clear jab at 4venger fanatics too.

Well, it's not like they've produced anything I want to buy in recent months anyway, so it's going to be easy to vote with my wallet on this one and just steer clear of a company that has such patently bad judgement and apparently so little respect for it's own customers.


You know, Pax was offering an apology (of sorts). While some may have found it lacking, that doesn't really justify ridiculing him or attacking him.

He deserves credit here -- he tried to lower the level of hostility without insulting anyone.

Can everyone here say that?


crosswiredmind wrote:
ding ding ding ding ding - we have a winner! Today's prize is a troll shaped leisure suit for that troll on the go that can't be nice even when he is trying to be.
Tatterdemalion wrote:
Yep -- that helps :/
Horus wrote:
What, like the post he's responding to? Try aiming your crosshairs a few posts higher..

I already said Pax's post was inappropriate. Now I'm saying CWM's is inappropriate.

Are you suggesting otherwise? Did CWM's post improve or further damage the level of discourse here?

Scarab Sages

Tatterdemalion wrote:

You know, Pax was offering an apology (of sorts). While some may have found it lacking, that doesn't really justify ridiculing him or attacking him.

He deserves credit here -- he tried to lower the level of hostility without insulting anyone.

Can everyone here say that?

Agreed!

It's the intent, not the content that matters. It's past time for us all (especially myself) to let this matter drop.

For my own part I apologise to Pax as he has received the brunt of my anger in this thread, more due to timing than any particularly overt actions on his part.

I would like him to rein back the rhetoric a bit (or totally) in some threads and perhaps tone down the titles a little but I've come to agree that given its topic this is the forum for discusing the cartoon and theres nothing wrong in that.

Lets all try to be a little less reactionary, both OP's and respondents.


Rockheimr wrote:


Hoo, I feel like someone who's just ambled into a room to find a big pile of beaten up looking guys rolling about wrestling on a muddy floor, punching and kicking each other for all they're worth.

Heh, sensible thing would be to turn around and leave, but what the hell.

Perhaps, but I also think we look like we're getting up off the floor, dusting ourselves off, and on the verge of sharing a pitcher of beer.

Rockheimr wrote:

In answer to your very valid question Pax; 'what was the intention or thinking behind running the cartoon?', I suspect (benefit of the doubt) they probably primarily thought it was funny. But as to how they thought this in any way was a good idea ... that's tougher. They must have known it wouldn't go down well, and just thought 'ah anyone who moans is just a troll so screw 'em'. Which just goes to show their lack of judgement and feel for their customer base (or potential customer base) if you ask me.

In other words they just don't realise or accept that a significant number of (former?) WotC customers feel hard-done-by by the company at the moment, and a cartoon basically saying 'we $*$* on your opinions troll' to that group ain't exactly gonna be luring them back into the fold. Regardless of if the same cartoon has a somewhat less clear jab at 4venger fanatics too.

Well, it's not like they've produced anything I want to buy in recent months anyway, so it's going to be easy to vote with my wallet on this one and just steer clear of a company that has such patently bad judgement and apparently so little respect for it's own customers.

I suspect they though it was amusing too. And either they're misreading the customers who feel hard-done-by and think "Oh, this will make them laugh and lighten up," or they have finally dismissed them as lost customers. Based on Scott Rouse's comments on the ENworld boards, where he says responses are up in reaction to the cartoon (more positive but with some negative) and thus "mission accomplished," I suspect the latter.

Personally, I find this element of the company's PR to be unfortunate. Some people's reactions to 4e may be overblown, some may troll about it, but I see no real value in kicking them, even in jest.


crosswiredmind wrote:
Those two can combine to make trolls think that their rants are acceptable.

Does throwing gas on the fire ever work?

Trolling is an attempt to provoke an emotional response. If you give them that response, they get what they want -- and have every reason to continue.

Every hostile, angry response contributes to the problem. Every hostile response makes us trolls ourselves. At that point, what are we objecting to -- trolling?!?


Bill Dunn wrote:
Perhaps, but I also think we look like we're getting up off the floor, dusting ourselves off, and on the verge of sharing a pitcher of beer.

I'll buy! :)

Bill Dunn wrote:
Personally, I find this element of the company's PR to be unfortunate. Some people's reactions to 4e may be overblown, some may troll about it, but I see no real value in kicking them, even in jest.

Unfortunate is a good word. This was open public derision of some of their customers -- that's immature, a little stupid, and unprofessional.

At the same time, how can we be on our 6th page of posts about it? We shouldn't get so worked up about their stupidity. IMO.


crosswiredmind wrote:

The trouble is the internet paradox:

don't feed the trolls

silence=agreement

Ah...Now heres the problem.

If a troll goes on a rant, does silence = agreement?
I really dont think it does.
I think silence = being ignored.

And when did you change your avatar CWM? You have a new face and its messing me up. :)

The Exchange

Bill Dunn wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


The trouble is the internet paradox:

don't feed the trolls

silence=agreement

Those two can combine to make trolls think that their rants are acceptable.

Silence does not equal agreement. Silence could mean you haven't even gotten to the thread yet, so that assumption really doesn't hold.

It's fine for you to say that but on the interwebz silence is often taken as agreement.

The Exchange

Jason Grubiak wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:

The trouble is the internet paradox:

don't feed the trolls

silence=agreement

Ah...Now heres the problem.

If a troll goes on a rant, does silence = agreement?
I really dont think it does.
I think silence = being ignored.

And when did you change your avatar CWM? You have a new face and its messing me up. :)

If a troll goes on a rant and the thread dies it is a clear case of ignoring the troll. If the thread continues the troll often assumes that those on his "side" agree with him.

Oh, the new avatar is a result of Cfool's quip about my attack dog status. I kinda like it.

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:

You know, Pax was offering an apology (of sorts). While some may have found it lacking, that doesn't really justify ridiculing him or attacking him.

He deserves credit here -- he tried to lower the level of hostility without insulting anyone.

Can everyone here say that?

So if you stick a knife in me, apologize and pull it half way out then everything is okay?

The Exchange

Tatterdemalion wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:
ding ding ding ding ding - we have a winner! Today's prize is a troll shaped leisure suit for that troll on the go that can't be nice even when he is trying to be.
Tatterdemalion wrote:
Yep -- that helps :/
Horus wrote:
What, like the post he's responding to? Try aiming your crosshairs a few posts higher..

I already said Pax's post was inappropriate. Now I'm saying CWM's is inappropriate.

Are you suggesting otherwise? Did CWM's post improve or further damage the level of discourse here?

Of course my response was inappropriate. I am sick of the crap that Pax flings about without challenge. I got pissed posted with maximum snark and let him have it.

Did it help? Maybe - we seem to be talking about the real problem finally.


crosswiredmind wrote:


Silence does not equal agreement. Silence could mean you haven't even gotten to the thread yet, so that assumption really doesn't hold.

It's fine for you to say that but on the interwebz silence is often taken as agreement.

So you care more that the peanut gallery on the internet might think you agree with a troll than that they think you're an argumentative hot-head? An internet observer can't tell what posts you're actually reading, but we sure can tell what posts you respond to and how you respond.

The Exchange

Bill Dunn wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


Silence does not equal agreement. Silence could mean you haven't even gotten to the thread yet, so that assumption really doesn't hold.

It's fine for you to say that but on the interwebz silence is often taken as agreement.

So you care more that the peanut gallery on the internet might think you agree with a troll than that they think you're an argumentative hot-head? An internet observer can't tell what posts you're actually reading, but we sure can tell what posts you respond to and how you respond.

I am not talking about the folks that read - I am talking about the troll. The troll thinks that people agree with him and approve of his behavior because no one other than those with whom he disagrees are telling him to knock it off.


crosswiredmind wrote:


I am not talking about the folks that read - I am talking about the troll. The troll thinks that people agree with him and approve of his behavior because no one other than those with whom he disagrees are telling him to knock it off.

Meanwhile, you're giving the troll exactly what he wants... a fight, proof that he got a rise out of someone, attention.

Scarab Sages

Ya know... It might really improve things if people would stop labeling other people trolls, cease casting aspersions on character, and were a little more friendly in attitude all around. I personally don't think anyone is attempting to troll this thread. It was started in good faith based on high emotions, emotions that the OP has already said probably weren't productive. Apologies have been made. They should be accepted. And the name calling should stop.

The Exchange

Bill Dunn wrote:
crosswiredmind wrote:


I am not talking about the folks that read - I am talking about the troll. The troll thinks that people agree with him and approve of his behavior because no one other than those with whom he disagrees are telling him to knock it off.
Meanwhile, you're giving the troll exactly what he wants... a fight, proof that he got a rise out of someone, attention.

Yep. Like I said - I suck at ignoring trolls. Until this board gets an ignore feature or becomes a moderated board I am going to slip from time to time.

Oh, well.

Sovereign Court

Rockheimr wrote:
...a company that has such patently bad judgement and apparently so little respect for it's own customers.

Yes. Perhaps at core, that's at the heart of it.

Now, I'd like to buy some virtual beer for everyone.

*throws barkeep a coinpurse*

I feel we've made some progress.

Looking back, I see some have shown me how easily customer views can get lumped as trollbait (the very mistake I've suggested wotc has made). Even in my all-caps message, my intention wasn't to inflame or troll. These are views, valid feelings, and therein are a few really valid questions.

Some have answered my questions... such as, perhaps wotc thought the cartoon was just funny but lacked good judgment and it demonstrates some disrespect. And really, that's a fair thing to say given the content of the cartoon.

We've also seen that "fear of trolls" provokes some interesting behaviors. Some plugged their ears, some couldn't handle the conflict of debate and tried to make nice, some took a side and debated, and still others thought that anger against anger would help, but it didn't.

Looking back, I note that if every thread were filled with this much vitriol, our PAIZO community messageboards wouldn't be a fun place to hang out. I don't believe I've persuaded anyone that supporting 4e involves a question of integrity, kind of like the Brady Bunch episode when the family eventually said 'no' to doing that soap commercial, because they didn't believe in the integrity of the soap. I guess I fear that a company who can mistreat the traditions of our game, or disparage its customers, doesn't deserve patronage, because that's like a green light to behave that way again in the future, even if the products they make possess some likeable points.

The name of this thread was an attempt to call it like I saw it - and ask if any kind of (formerly) loyal customer deserved that, even if their feedback tends to be typed in all caps.

At the same time, I don't think anyone was really persuaded by players of 4e who primarily attacked my comments as trollish instead of acknowledging that there exists a level of bad judgment or disrespect over at wotc.

Even, as we share this virtual beer, I believe this topic found its way into the right forum, and I believe we have the right to ask these questions here, since they are reflections of the company now creating "official" 4e marketing content. Thank you to those who recognized that this is a valid topic! In the end, that was mostly everyone on all sides the polyhedral fence.

For anyone just joining in... is the perception of anti-4e feedback immediately accepted as trollish? Isn't wotc feeding the idea that the 4e community should dismiss negative views or criticisms about 4e? Is that company encouraging (allegedly in a humorous way) people to just "shit" on opposing views like the red dragon did to the troll?

Or does that company have a opportunity, even a duty, to show more respect to (former) customers?

The Exchange

Pax,

Some of us do not see the level of corporate malfeasance that you see. To me the cartoon was funny - it poked fun at all "sides" of this mess. That does not bother me. Most of the "issues" you see with WotC simply do not bother me at all.

What bothers me is that you express your opinion as fact and have thrown down the gauntlet on more than one occasion in a manner that looks more like a crusade than a discussion.

If you sincerely want to talk about this mess then talk about it - don't yell at people because they do not share your emotional angst over the actions of a company whose game they choose to play.

For example - you are now calling PFRPG the one true 4e. If you want to talk about how WotC is behaving perhaps setting the flame thrower down might help.


Bill Dunn wrote:


I suspect they though it was amusing too. And either they're misreading the customers who feel hard-done-by and think "Oh, this will make them laugh and lighten up," or they have finally dismissed them as lost customers. Based on Scott Rouse's comments on the ENworld boards, where he says responses are up in reaction to the cartoon (more positive but with some negative) and thus "mission accomplished,"...

Hey, Bill - I'd really like to see this. I did a search but didn't find anything. Any chance you would be kind enough to post a link? Please?

Scarab Sages

PurinaDragonChow wrote:
Hey, Bill - I'd really like to see this. I did a search but didn't find anything. Any chance you would be kind enough to post a link? Please?

I'm not Bill, but here's the link.


PurinaDragonChow wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:


I suspect they though it was amusing too. And either they're misreading the customers who feel hard-done-by and think "Oh, this will make them laugh and lighten up," or they have finally dismissed them as lost customers. Based on Scott Rouse's comments on the ENworld boards, where he says responses are up in reaction to the cartoon (more positive but with some negative) and thus "mission accomplished,"...
Hey, Bill - I'd really like to see this. I did a search but didn't find anything. Any chance you would be kind enough to post a link? Please?

No problem.

Specific post

Thread

EDIT: Ninjaed again...

Scarab Sages

I do find it interesting the differences in opinions regarding the cartoon from one board to another.

251 to 300 of 355 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4e Red Dragon S*@s On 4e Criticisms All Messageboards