The issue is that a lot of rules questions relate to combinations of rules that had not been considered. Every time a new book comes out, there are combinations that open new cans of worms.
The rules development teams are working on other things, all on different schedules. When a big FAQ issue comes up, they need to first find the time away from other projects to powwow and argue, and then figure out how to word things to close the rules loopholes that we've found.
It takes time, and we find things at a faster rate than they can fix them.
A possible solution would be to do an "interim fix" answered by developers in the thread the question was presented in, something like "this is not an official ruling, but my understanding of the intent of the rules is that they work together like this (insert basic mechanical analysis here), we've added this question tot he stack and will get back to you with a more official ruling as soon as possible."
An unofficial ruling would be nice if for no other reason than to minimize page after page of arguing.
|
The issue is that a lot of rules questions relate to combinations of rules that had not been considered. Every time a new book comes out, there are combinations that open new cans of worms.
The rules development teams are working on other things, all on different schedules. When a big FAQ issue comes up, they need to first find the time away from other projects to powwow and argue, and then figure out how to word things to close the rules loopholes that we've found.
It takes time, and we find things at a faster rate than they can fix them.
A possible solution would be to do an "interim fix" answered by developers in the thread the question was presented in, something like "this is not an official ruling, but my understanding of the intent of the rules is that they work together like this (insert basic mechanical analysis here), we've added this question tot he stack and will get back to you with a more official ruling as soon as possible."
An unofficial ruling would be nice if for no other reason than to minimize page after page of arguing.
They actually had the FAQ's every week and it was great but now all we get are FAQ's that really could wait.
|
You have to remember that not every question isn't going to have the same need of getting FAQ'ed as others. I'd certainly imagine that Paizo doesn't want the FAQ page rewriting rulebooks (the realm for errata) or step on GM's toes when it comes to the more "obvious not right but wish so hard it worked another way so I ask" questions. One look at the 600ish page double column D&D 3.5 document is scary enough.
If your looking for something more solid to bring to a table, might I suggest shooting an email to Skip Williams over at Ask the Kobold from Kobold Quarterly.
he's quite friendly, extremely knowledgeable and will certainly help you out. After all, if you can't get an answer from Paizo, surely The Sage's word would be good enough for most any group.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have to remember that not every question isn't going to have the same need of getting FAQ'ed as others. I'd certainly imagine that Paizo doesn't want the FAQ page rewriting rulebooks (the realm for errata) or step on GM's toes when it comes to the more "obvious not right but wish so hard it worked another way so I ask" questions. One look at the 600ish page double column D&D 3.5 document is scary enough.
If your looking for something more solid to bring to a table, might I suggest shooting an email to Skip Williams over at Ask the Kobold from Kobold Quarterly.
he's quite friendly, extremely knowledgeable and will certainly help you out. After all, if you can't get an answer from Paizo, surely The Sage's word would be good enough for most any group.
Fear of stepping on DM's toes should never even be considered when it comes to how a rule is clarified. When I buy Pathfinder I expect to get a rules accurate game. DM's can still run their games like they want but the game still has default rules that should be followed. If certain rules begin to screw up the game then I expect them to be fixed, not shoved under the carpet because that one rule can begin to break others if it's touched.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing to remember is, not every one agrees on which questions are important and which questions aren't. :)
That doesn't mean that no questions are important.
I feel it would behoove Paizo to have a more regular column to answer FAQ, much like Sage Advice in the olden days.If a whole community is in an uproar about something, methinks that it is important to them, even if the developers/designers feel it to be trivial.
Is the whole community in uproar about the FAQs? It seems to me it is a fairly small (yet very vocal) minority of the total number of PF players.
YMMV.
*sigh*
So what is the exact right percentage of the PF playing demographic that needs to be concerned about it before it is worthy of being remarked upon?The majority of PF players don't visit the boards, and even most that do aren't particularly active.
You seem to be making this argument now that "well, since we can never really know how many people care, we should assume very few do" which I think is fallacious logic and deleterious to the community as a whole.
Well then I'll make my own observation. There are dozens of questions in the rules forums that have never seen any sort of resolution. Multiple opinions are presented, no one can agree, everyone agrees there should be a FAQ, FAQ button is hammered. No dev response.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Meatrace, I never meant to imply that the FAQ is unnecessary. I was primarily addressing shallowsoul's original request--that "very important questions" be answered before "FAQs that could...be answered later."
Well, yeah, obviously they should. But which questions are which? How do you determine that? I hope you'll forgive me if I don't take "how many people are arguing about it on the internet" to be a reliable indicator of a rule's importance :)
I'd also like to see a regular FAQ column, and I'm sure it'll happen someday. Right now probably isn't a good time, what with GenCon coming up and the product schedule being what it is.
|
The argument that does seem to be put forward any time that the issue of FAQs comes up is that ‘there are all these people clamouring for FAQs, Paizo needs to devote more resources to it’, when the reality might be that ‘I and some other people I see posting are clamouring for more FAQs’.
If that is the case, I don’t really see how it’s any less valid than an argument I might put forward of ‘I and all the people I play with don’t see any need for Paizo to divert resources away from new products and towards FAQs’.
But I’m not arrogant enough to assume that what I want from the game and from Paizo is what the majority of other players want. If it was true that a majority (or perhaps even large minority) of players* wanted more resources allocated to the FAQs, then I think it would benefit the community as a whole and be a smart move for Paizo to do so.
I have no idea if that is the case (and in my perhaps limited experience it is not), hence asking the question.
Paizo, in general, appear to be fairly good at judging the moods, wants and needs of their customers. It would surprise me if them not getting to FAQs fast / frequently enough to satisfy some (a few? A lot?) people is a case of them burying their heads in the sand in regards to the issue. I would think it more likely that, using all the data they have to hand, they have judged for themselves how serious the community ‘as a whole’ deems the problem and reacted in what they think is an appropriate manner. Doesn’t mean they’re right, and more people telling them that they’ve got it wrong may well cause them to change their approach.
I don’t think the same people saying it more loudly is going to help much though ... and I don’t think championing questions like ‘pounce while mounted’ as ‘very important’ helps that much either. I have no doubt that it must come up in games somewhere, but I’ve never seen it.
*(Obviously it’s hard to assess what the ‘majority’ of players want. I think it would be reasonable to restrict it to players who frequent the messageboards. It seems to me that people who strongly feel that more clarification is needed on the rules would be proactive enough to seek out the right place to ask their questions, and therefore be strongly represented on the messageboards).
You know a simple listing of the questions some place (say the blog) with a "we are busy now, but these have caught our interest and will be gotten to" would be nice.
Or for a really brave solution we could actually have an FAQ court! Rules Lawyers on both sides get to argue the case in front of SCOP (the supreme court of Paizo) and then we get a decision from the SCOP as the official verdict until such a time as the developers overrule them with a constitutional amendment (aka publish something that covers it or actually comes in and says, "Nah we are doing it this way").
This would have the added benefit of doing all the rules tracking for the developers.
Or we could simply vote -- voting is good too.
My one bone to pick is lack of communication form Paizo Develpoerswhen the whole "flurry of blows" thing hit the Forums they said they would respond I haven't heard anything at all?
It would just be nice to have an update every now and then just saying "hey we are working on it expect a response by date xxx"
just my 2 cents besides that I love the Paizo staff and this company and will continue to buy their products.
a weekly faq was very nice, in fact it was one of the only reasons I checked out the Blog.
Paizo has long had a policy of silence on rules questions. They feel largely that they shouldn't step on DMs toes who want to rule one way or another. They sort of spin it as allowing DMs to be flexible. I understand this stance from them, they can both save time and money by being neutral in many rules disputes, but his frustrates a lot of us who want a clean, complete product. I like tight rules, both as DM and as a player.
I think that we all want a company that is more responsive to players' concerns, and I think taking the stance of "well we don't really know HOW many players want X, Y, or Z, thus we shall ignore it" is immensely cynical. Even for me!
There are rules questions that don't have a genuine answer. I think the vast majority of those rules deserve to have answers, irrespective of how many people are clamoring for those answers. That's the entirety of my position.
|
|
Well then I'll make my own observation. There are dozens of questions in the rules forums that have never seen any sort of resolution. Multiple opinions are presented, no one can agree, everyone agrees there should be a FAQ, FAQ button is hammered. No dev response.
I would like to see some more feedback from Paizo on FAQs – some timeline, or indication of how they intend to handle FAQs. The ‘FAQ’ button seemed like a good idea, but I think it leads to frustrations when you can see that ’38 other people’ have already hit the button and the question appears to have been ignored, or at least not directly addressed.
But really, ’38 other people’ (or even 138 other people) is a small fraction of the Pathfinder players on the forums and a drop in the ocean when it comes to all Pathfinder players. I wonder how many of the people who push the FAQ button really, really NEED to know the answer? (I’ve pushed the FAQ button on a couple of things here and there because I notice a question that I’m curious to know what the official answer on will be ... not because I really NEED to know the answer, or because its something that has ever come up in a game I’ve been in).
How many of these FAQ’d issues are causing people’s games to come to grinding halts? How many of these unanswered questions are causing people to turn away from the game or stop buying products? How many of them are ‘very important’ to a majority (or even a lot) of players, rather than just the person who asked the question and a couple of dozen people who like to argue on the internet?
We know that Paizo is tight on people-type resources, and they’ve told us that it doesn’t necessarily make sense for them to put on more people in various situations ... so if it is a choice for them to satisfy 38 people who’ve asked a question (and end a forum argument*), or work to get out a product that they can sell to thousands of people, which does it make more sense for them to do?
*(Assuming that answering the FAQ will stop the arguments on an issue. Hint: It won’t).
You know a simple listing of the questions some place (say the blog) with a "we are busy now, but these have caught our interest and will be gotten to" would be nice.
Or for a really brave solution we could actually have an FAQ court! Rules Lawyers on both sides get to argue the case in front of SCOP (the supreme court of Paizo) and then we get a decision from the SCOP as the official verdict until such a time as the developers overrule them with a constitutional amendment (aka publish something that covers it or actually comes in and says, "Nah we are doing it this way").
This would have the added benefit of doing all the rules tracking for the developers.
Or we could simply vote -- voting is good too.
I actually rather like this idea.
The devs pick a noted forum rules-junkie to represent both sides and have X amount of words/page space to make their case. Players read them, a poll is taken, and all of this information is taken into account for a final adjudication. The votes would be non-binding, I don't want the actual designers to think they're beholden to the whims of the unwashed masses or anything ;P|
|
Paizo has long had a policy of silence on rules questions. They feel largely that they shouldn't step on DMs toes who want to rule one way or another. They sort of spin it as allowing DMs to be flexible. I understand this stance from them, they can both save time and money by being neutral in many rules disputes, but his frustrates a lot of us who want a clean, complete product. I like tight rules, both as DM and as a player.
I think that we all want a company that is more responsive to players' concerns, and I think taking the stance of "well we don't really know HOW many players want X, Y, or Z, thus we shall ignore it" is immensely cynical. Even for me!
There are rules questions that don't have a genuine answer. I think the vast majority of those rules deserve to have answers, irrespective of how many people are clamoring for those answers. That's the entirety of my position.
That's fair enough.
In my experience what I have is a clean, complete product with tight rules, but I understand that my experience is not everyones.
Yeah I don't mean to say that the 'court' would actually be official -- more of "a hey, just so we can stop arguments and get on to new topics these guys are giving 'legitimate' answers, until we decide otherwise".
That way when 'topic (x)' comes up for the fifteenth time we can go, "look the court has heard this one and here's the verdict, next topic."
The FAQ questions they decide aren't super important can be left with the verdict and the ones they feel are actually of huge importance can still be handled by them.
@Mothman: again, I don't think the direness or popularity of a rules conundrum necessarily makes it a better candidate to be officially answered. It's a game, it has rules and they have to be internally consistent and functional. If something is pointed out as being nonfunctional, even if it's one guy pointing it out, it should be addressed.
It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed.
|
|
You know a simple listing of the questions some place (say the blog) with a "we are busy now, but these have caught our interest and will be gotten to" would be nice.
While this issue obviously isn't an important one to me, I think this, at the least, would be a good idea.
There is little more frustrating as a customer / consumer than feeling that your concerns aren't being addressed ... only thing is probably when you have been told they will be and then nothing happens.
|
|
@Mothman: again, I don't think the direness or popularity of a rules conundrum necessarily makes it a better candidate to be officially answered. It's a game, it has rules and they have to be internally consistent and functional. If something is pointed out as being nonfunctional, even if it's one guy pointing it out, it should be addressed.
It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed.
Ha! I don't know how horrible an analogy it is (my knowledge of cars is probably similar to yours), but I get you.
I don't agree, but I get you.
It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed.
The thing is, if your whole game grinds to a halt like that, I'd say that's a group dynamic problem, not a rules problem.
I guess my point is, the OP mention "very" important rules questions. So who gets to decide the very/not-even-slightly important cutoff? By the time you've figured out an answer to that question, we're in SCoP territory.
Edit: ZOMG, I was ninja'd by Gorbacz, like, hours ago.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
You know a simple listing of the questions some place (say the blog) with a "we are busy now, but these have caught our interest and will be gotten to" would be nice.
Or for a really brave solution we could actually have an FAQ court! Rules Lawyers on both sides get to argue the case in front of SCOP (the supreme court of Paizo) and then we get a decision from the SCOP as the official verdict until such a time as the developers overrule them with a constitutional amendment (aka publish something that covers it or actually comes in and says, "Nah we are doing it this way").
This would have the added benefit of doing all the rules tracking for the developers.
Or we could simply vote -- voting is good too.
I actually rather like this idea.
The devs pick a noted forum rules-junkie to represent both sides and have X amount of words/page space to make their case. Players read them, a poll is taken, and all of this information is taken into account for a final adjudication. The votes would be non-binding, I don't want the actual designers to think they're beholden to the whims of the unwashed masses or anything ;P
Rules discussion threads already get extremely heated--I can't imagine adding actual stakes to them would result in anything but an absolute s@+*storm. :)
Rules discussion threads already get extremely heated--I can't imagine adding actual stakes to them would result in anything but an absolute s#%~storm. :)
That's quite different from what the suggestion was though. It wouldn't be an all-out fracas but rather a one on one two person legitimate debate. No peanut gallery, locked thread with a poll on the top.
It's like if you own a car. Prepare yourself for a horrible car analogy because I know two things about cars: jack and squat. But if you're driving in your car and you notice that whenever you change the radio station while putting it into neutral the whole car shuts down...well that's a problem. It would be remarkably cynical for the car manufacturer to just say "well how many people would do that? I MEAN REALLY!" It's a design flaw, a potential problem, a chink in the armor, and should be addressed.The thing is, if your whole game grinds to a halt like that, I'd say that's a group dynamic problem, not a rules problem.
I guess my point is, the OP mention "very" important rules questions. So who gets to decide the very/not-even-slightly important cutoff? By the time you've figured out an answer to that question, we're in SCoPa territory.
Something is important based on how many other rules or game dynamics it explicitly affects, not popularity. Seems fair, no?
My game rarely grinds to a halt for anything, I'll have you know, but that doesn't mean rules questions don't come up. I make it pretty clear that my rulings are a temporary band-aid to keep the game moving smoothly and that I'll look it up later. If there's nothing to look up, if it's a genuine rules conundrum that has never seen official response? Well I guess in that scenario I'd rather Paizo be the bad guy than me :P
I've seen meatraces avatar all over the place for several years on him and other, just now noticing it is a demi lich and not a yeti
I've seen meatraces avatar all over the place for several years on him and other, just now noticing it is a demi lich and not a yeti
Whaaaat?! *harumph*
I've seen meatraces avatar all over the place for several years on him and other, just now noticing it is a demi lich and not a yeti
Is a yeti demi-lich out of the question?
Meat, here's how I think of it: at your table, when you're running a game, your rulings aren't band-aids, they're house rules. (I suppose this is why control freaks make perfect DMs, right?)
Hell, I dunno; I'm not saying there shouldn't be FAQs out there, but I can't see Paizo putting more time into FAQ staffing than product development, you know?
The amount of time it takes to sit down with people as well versed in the rules as Jason the Man-Bull and hammer out 5 or 6 genuinely aggravating rules questions should be negligible compared to the effort and resources needed to write that new book. I think they could manage both.
The way I do it is as I described, and if there is no ruling (or if the ruling is just crap) then I'll enact a house rule with much ado so everyone knows that ZOMG THE RULES ARE CHANGING TECTONIC SHIFT!
|
|
When my players and I sit down for a Pathfinder game we expect to play "by the rules as much as the rules will allow". If I am looking to run something specific then I will change what needs to be changed and that is mainly just flavor aspects. I want the game to be as complete as possible because that is one thing that can keep a group of people together and keep everyone from arguing. Rules are supposed to be a foundation that everyone can agree on. I'm not saying that "every single thing" is going to be fixed but you can actually look at most bizarre rulings and tell if they need to be addressed right away or not.
The game needs to be looked at by itself, not what Joe the DM might do with his game or what Bob might do with his. There is supposed to be a default set of rules that the default players are supposed to follow.
Now if I can't get rules questions answered by the people who make the game then it makes me actually take a step back from the game and rethink where I am going to send my money next.
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…
Ah yes. The old "I paid money so I deserve to have the developers and designers at my beck and call. "
Flagged to move to Paizo Publishing forum.
The amount of time it takes to sit down with people as well versed in the rules as Jason the Man-Bull and hammer out 5 or 6 genuinely aggravating rules questions should be negligible compared to the effort and resources needed to write that new book. I think they could manage both.
The way I do it is as I described, and if there is no ruling (or if the ruling is just crap) then I'll enact a house rule with much ado so everyone knows that ZOMG THE RULES ARE CHANGING TECTONIC SHIFT!
No pressure, but you're talking as someone who DMs most of the time, right? If so, you might try forcing your players to run a one night adventure every fourth play session or so. They get to make their own house rules, and thus do most of the FAQs become irrelevant.
|
|
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…
I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
That's quite different from what the suggestion was though. It wouldn't be an all-out fracas but rather a one on one two person legitimate debate. No peanut gallery, locked thread with a poll on the top.
Rules discussion threads already get extremely heated--I can't imagine adding actual stakes to them would result in anything but an absolute s#%~storm. :)
...and a second (and third, and fourth) thread where everybody discusses the debate, advocates for votes in one direction or another, and complains about not being picked as the designated 'rules-lawyer' for their side?
Or are you arguing we should shut down all other discussions about [Issue X] once X is placed before the court? Seems like a lot of unnecessary work for the web-team, locking every thread and deleting every post about X. Plus, I imagine it would be frustrating for new fans to find out that their opinion on X can't or won't be heard because [User Y] didn't make a very compelling case in the SCoP hearing two months back.
How would the court affect PFS? If a ruling is considered defacto legit until countered, you're basically forcing Mark and Mike to deal with each court issue on your schedule, rather than theirs'.
It's a fun sounding idea, but I just don't think it's that viable.
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
I think the whole thing could have been handled with more civility, is all I'm saying. Also, most Paizo customers, myself included, are ecstatic with the product they put out, even if we also shake our heads at the occasional inexplicable rules glitch.
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
No insult, you're describing a customer, not an employer. You don't pay these people's salaries, you just buy books from them.
|
|
I just want "official" rulings from the "official" crowd at Paizo. The words of Tom, Dick and Harry from the internet don't mean beans unless it comes from an "official" source and that is what I want.
There is no harm in running a thread that collects FAQ's from people every week and have them answered as soon as possible. I'm sure some are dumb but there are others that are legit questions that float in limbo never to be answered. I don't want to have to houserule, I want to houserule when I want to not because I have to.
|
|
No insult, you're describing a customer, not an employer. You don't pay these people's salaries, you just buy books from them.After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
Please god don't make me give an economics lesson.
|
|
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
You're funny.
|
|
You're funny.After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…I'm sorry but if your boss gets on your case do you have the option to ignore him? I don't think so. We are the people that pay those salaries so if money wants to be given then some customer service would be appreciated. Seriously, that's just a part of the job, if you are a plumber and you can't stand the smell of crap then get out of the plumbing business. If there are people giving you trouble then you deal with them, you don't go and hide. Good customer service should be a right and not a privilege. I'm not being ugly here but I do think it's ridiculous for some people to run and hide just because the natives on the internet become restless. Either deal with them or get someone on here who can.
I'm glad the truth amuses you.
After the way people pounced on Sean during the monk flurry of blows thing, I think he's decided he doesn't want to issue any more faqs for us ingrates in the near future. We looked the gift horse in the mouth unfortunately…
If that is the case that's a rather petty and immature response.