zammm;18236199 wrote:
It's the internet guys, despite what you may have heard, it's not serious business. (Unless you're running a commercial website for your company, then it is serious business. But on free message boards it's not.)
-The My Little Pony gag did not make surfing and participating on the forums inherently difficult, as the green/black/yellow color scheme did. That is the difference between that gag, and this gag. That gag had "no victims"- using the term in the loosest possible sense of the word. That is, nothing changed except for avatars, which are optional to begin with.
-Ultimatley, if the color scheme did not make things hard to navigate and read, there'd be no problem. That's what made it annoying for me, personally (and I am sure, many others as well).
I think the biggest problem with pranks is pulling off something that's believable enough that people take it seriously. The forum change wasn't really believable...IMO...but since people got so upset about it, I love the idea.
Now...what would've been an AWESOME idea, would've been a notification to ALL members that something had gone terribly wrong with the forums...and then WIPE...IT...ALL... Not literally, of course. Take it all and put it somewhere safe...and then make a horribly malfunctioning, completely blank message board in its place. Convince everyone that every forum, thread, and post is completely gone forever. Then bring it all back the next day.
Personally...I'd actually really delete them all forever. Because I like watching forum rats squirm...but then, I like to punish the stupid.
Yeah...I gotta say, the more people complain about the prank, the funnier I find it.
I have to agree.
I saw a lot of talk while the Gleemax takeover was going on about how horrible a prank it was because it wasn't "funny", or it was "disruptive", or it was " annoying". Plenty of times I saw people say that we shouldn't have done it, that we went too far, that we should have done something less disruptive instead. The question I have for those who say such things is this: "Well, what did you expect us to do?"
The problem with the prank was, more or less, that it was lame.
No one is going to believe Gleemax is taking over, for one thing. Now, some say "Well, that's not important to a good April Fool's Day prank", but I disagree. If you aren't fooling anyone, what's the point? Just saying "Ha, we can mess around with your display settings?" I think we knew that already.
Now this isn't to say silliness is a bad thing; the Swiss, for instance, put up an advertisement focusing on the mountain cleaners of Switzerland on their tourism website. Hopefully no one is that stupid, especially given some of the implements they were using (a giant sheet of cloth, at one point, to buff it) but it was at least mildly amusing. Google's pranks are the same way. But Google doesn't disrupt their site's traffic with their pranks. Your "new class", as well as adventure, fell into this theme; no one took them seriously, and it was fine and non-disruptive.
If you do something like change your website's layout or similar, you need to have a "real" reason for it which can mess with people. Got bought, was eating up too much bandwidth, ect. If people aren't suckered, at least a few, then what's the fun?
Maybe I'm just evil.
Take the legendary My Little Pony gag, for example. There's nothing inherently all that funny about having a bunch of avatars change to My Little Pony images. If that had been the extent of what happened that year, people would have been decrying it as lame, and nobody would have even remembered it by now. But having a bunch of people take it so seriously that they get upset enough about it to actually quit the forums? Now that's comedy gold. And they couldn't possibly have known that that would have happened in advance. All you can do is cause as much disruption as possible over as trivial a matter as possible, and hope the rest works out on its own.
Oh, there's a lot inherently funny in that, really. Especially on a gaming forum. But if you come up with some sort of dumb but semiplausibile explanation for it (you're renting out your avatars as advertising space, Hasbro was purchased by Mattel and shutting down WotC in three months and this is your protest, someone hacked the server, someone won a contest and got to change them all for a month (complete with a fake thread posted to the boards, or an article posted to the website, and a contest for the NEXT month's avatar assortment - see how many people write in for that, and you could even potentially set up the prank weeks in advance with the contest, and obvious favoritism (or not obvious favoritism) of the MLP entry), ect.). Just causing disruption isn't really the spirit of April Fool's Day, it has to be disruption which makes people feel foolish.
Making your own website more difficult to use isn't particularly interesting. Yes, it can be annoying, but really, what are you saying there? "Ha, ha, we messed up our website?" Really? That's funny? Not really. Is it even funny to you? I doubt it. You're just trolling, fundamentally, but you're not even creatively trolling. Its the equivalent of going "4th edition sucks and here's my list why" in general discussion - it will work every time, but it doesn't show any cleverness on your part.
I have to disagree about yesterday not being funny. The prank itself may not have been the funniest thing ever, bu the fallout was hilarious.
I agree, the prank itself was lame, but the over-reaction many people had to it was Comedy Gold. I hope WotC does something even more disruptive next year.
The problem with the prank was, more or less, that it was lame.
No one is going to believe Gleemax is taking over, for one thing.
Methinks you still miss the point of the prank. The prank was not designed to make people think Gleemax had been resurrected. It was to watch people overreact to a one-day change in the skin and language filters.
If you aren't fooling anyone, what's the point?
The point is not to fool people, but to watch people react like fools.
I think the way it works is at follows:
If you're annoyed, then you think it's lame.
If you're more bemused by other people's annoyance, then you think it worked.
I think it worked.
Methinks you still miss the point of the prank. The prank was not designed to make people think Gleemax had been resurrected. It was to watch people overreact to a one-day change in the skin and language filters.
The point is not to fool people, but to watch people react like fools.
Well... yes and no. The point of April Fools Day is to fool the gullible, and watch people act foolish. Not really just to irritate people generally. The more people that are fooled, the better the joke. ;)
-Wiki
Provoking people into an e-rage over a one-day skin change and a minor, temporary adjustment to the language filters and edit button qualifies. And since I was greatly bemused by the reaction, I found it to be a resounding success.
Much better than last year's non-prank.
Disclaimer: I had nothing to do with the planning or implementation of the prank. I was just as surprised as everybody else when I came to the forums on April 1.
And I disagree that the aim is to fool as many people as possible. I think the aim is to entertain as many people as possible -- and if you can do that by provoking a small group of people to provide amusement to the rest of us, so much the better.
Methinks you still miss the point of the prank. The
I think the way it works is at follows:
If you're annoyed, then you think it's lame.
If you're more bemused by other people's annoyance, then you think it worked.
I think it worked.
That's not exactly correct. I wasn't annoyed by at all, but I did think it was a lame joke. What I did find annoying was all the people complaining about how horrible it was. Now, in retrospect, I find their annoyance funny.
Now, in retrospect, I find their annoyance funny.
See? That's the joke.
Watching all the e-rage and "OMG MY EYES IS BURNING" cracked me up.
See? That's the joke.
I think it's funny that you guys think it was funny. ;)
No offense, but it was really lame... and a lot of people congratulating themselves over something so lame... that's funny. ;)
Watching all the e-rage and "OMG MY EYES IS BURNING" cracked me up.
Heh, I chuckled there too, but it seemed like most people who did that, or did similar "I CAN HAS GREEN NAO?" sorts of posts were "in" on the fact that it was April Fools Day. They didn't seem all that irritated or locked in an e-rage.
The best April Fools Day joke I remember was when Taco Bell "bought" the Liberty Bell in order to reduce government debt and told people they were going to rename it the Taco Liberty Bell. People were actually fooled by that, believe it or not, and even the White House played into it by "confirming" that the Lincoln memorial had been similarly purchased by Lincoln-Mercury. Watching the reactions of people who were gullible enough to be fooled by that... definitely comedy gold.
2) When people voice a legitimate gripe about the settings actually bothering their eyes and the heads of the community basically tell them to f-off, it's not funny. That's just being an *******. And, the way it was done, was actually what our lovely CoC considers Baiting. Nice example. And that leads me to:
3) Some of us that appeared to be so full of rage actually were playing our own little prank right back. I know I was. And there's a PM to an FL to prove it. ;) We actually had great fun playing off of each other. I took my actual annoyance and ramped it up to full blown rage - for kicks. I'm 100% positive I wasn't the only one. So the punk-ers were getting punked right back. Which means, I guess, that the stupid joke worked - at least a little. ;)
I think it's funny that you guys think it was funny. ;)
No offense, but it was really lame... and a lot of people congratulating themselves over something so lame... that's funny. ;)
See? It works on multiple levels!
The best April Fools Day joke I remember was when Taco Bell "bought" the Liberty Bell in order to reduce government debt and told people they were going to rename it the Taco Liberty Bell. People were actually fooled by that, believe it or not, and even the White House played into it by "confirming" that the Lincoln memorial had been similarly purchased by Lincoln-Mercury. Watching the reactions of people who were gullible enough to be fooled by that... definitely comedy gold.
Sure, but did the people who were fooled think it was a good joke, or lame? I think they thought it was lame. But you weren't fooled, so you thought it was the best April Fools joke you can remember.
When I was in college, I was editor of the humor magazine. We pulled a prank every year. One year we convinced the freshmen that they had to take a physical education test. We had everyone show up at the athletic fields at 5 am, which just happened to coincide with the try-outs for the track team. Hilarious. Unless you were one of the freshmen who dragged themselves out of bed at 5 am, or one of the cross-country coaches who briefly thought they had just been blessed with a freshmen class enthusiastic about cross-country running.
One year we sent notices to the student body, just before exams, about the High Pochondria virus. The symptoms were pretty much any symptoms one might have before final exams... nervousness, loss of appetite, sleeplessness, etc. We created a special voicemail where people could call in to find out the nearest treatment center. (The voicemail explained they had just been pranked.) Hilarious, unless you got the flier and thought your bout with hypochondria was going to keep you from final exams. To those folks, this was just annoying and "lame". (In the 80's, when I went to college, it was called "bogus".) But it was in fact hilarious. (As an aside -- based on the records of our voice mail box, over 55% of the student body called in. I suspect not all of them were fooled by the flier, but just wanted to know what was on the voice mail.)
:lightbulb
Who bought him a thesaurus?
I think that it was a fine prank...especially based on the reaction to it.
I despise the Gleemax forum skin -- and I completely agree with Aluman. It was a perfectly fine prank, because of the vitriol it generates.
Maybe the first years not really funny, but five years from now, when the same people are explodiong over the same 1 day laughably minor (the Gleemax colors may be ugly, but it's highly readable) change, it become priceless. Why? Because in the words of Matt Groening regarding Homer; people love to watch people not learn a valuable life lesson.
I didn't think the skin change and filter was particularly funny, but I got a MASSIVE kick out of the reaction. Well done, WoTC, prank well done.
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhttttt.
What really bugged me was the accompanying broken edit post feature and the regular board crashing. Or was that supposed to be part of the joke too?
On the news here in Australia was a report about how someone had their car wrapped in plastic. If we might compare, the Gleemax thing was more like "Ha ha! I smashed your mirror!" :P
On the news here in Australia was a report about how someone had their car wrapped in plastic. If we might compare, the Gleemax thing was more like "Ha ha! I smashed your mirror!" :P
Actually it's more like "You know my mirror that you like to use? I replaced it with a funhouse mirror, but it will be back to normal tomorrow. If you don't like it, here's a microphone and an audience of people to scream at."
I also like how the very next comic after the "Witchalok" series is some guy talking about inserting his genitals into a George Foreman grill. Kind of an assinine and juvenile website to say the least. Is that the kind of garbage WOTC wants to associate their products with? And who exactly is monitoring this website from the Hasbro side? Anybody?
i didn't get to see the color scheme but it sounds pretty weak.
If you would like to see it, go to the bottom left of any forum and in the dropdown box select Gleemax. That was the color scheme used.
Well... yes and no. The point of April Fools Day is to fool the gullible, and watch people act foolish. Not really just to irritate people generally. The more people that are fooled, the better the joke. ;)
Agreed. I know WotC probably isn't capable of making a prank people both notice and believe in, but it's still annoying. But what I find almost as annoying, is that I've never complained about any previous joke, and that I just wrote that I didn't like this one, and then logged off for the rest of the day, and yet a bunch of holier-than-thou jerks are trying to make me out to be some hysterical victim of nerd-rage.
Seriously, very few people overreacted. Most seemed to be playing along ("Gah! My eyes!"), and the rest just expressed a mild annoyance that the board was harder to read, because that's actually an issue for some people. I've seen a lot of posters express more annoyance at smaller things without getting met with "
OMGOMGOMG! Nerd-rage! I can't believe you guys are seriously complaining about this, OMGOMG!!!! This is the best April Fool's ever, look how people are overreacting! It's so funny, you're so stupid for making such a big deal out of it, it's so incredible that people care about this blahblahblah "Seriously, people overreacting at the thought of people overreacting. I guess people will soon start overreacting about the people overreacting about the people overreacting about the people overreacting...... what about just accepting that some people didn't like having to look at the ugly colour if they wanted to read the boards?
It seems to me that too many people, on the boards here, have their panties in a twist.
Sounds sexy.
Sounds sexy.
Methinks you still miss the point of the prank. The prank was not designed to make people think Gleemax had been resurrected. It was to watch people overreact to a one-day change in the skin and language filters.
No, I understand the point. I think you missed my point:
It was a really bad prank which showed neither creativity nor originality, nor did it make any sort of attempt to be humorous, highlight human behavior, or trick people. People couldn't not "fall for it", because there was nothing to fall for.
It was, in short, similar to hacking a site in order to mess it up, make it less usable, and watch the userbase complain. It was a form of trolling, more or less, and not a sophisticated one at that.
I'm amused by certain forms of trolling, but just messing around with your site design isn't interesting. All you're doing is making it more difficult to use your page.
To put it more simply, your prank was:
Ha ha, users complained about a poor user interface
Oh man, isn't that HILARIOUS. Man, who'd have thought that people would be annoyed by a poor user interface? There's never been one of those before!
That's the problem. Your prank had no justification behind it, no originality, and it didn't show us anything. It didn't invoke gullibility. All it was was trolling. And trolling, alone, is lame. The interface change was mildly annoying, but the real sad part is that you somehow think that it was a prank or something interesting.
Also, people complaining about a bad user interface, above all else, is actually a legitimate complaint. So in short, what you're laughing at is your customers not liking the service you're providing because you changed it to make an intentionally poorer interface. In other words, you're mocking your customers complaining because you're making your product worse.
So ultimately, the fool is you, for thinking this was actually a good prank in the first place. You've exposed that you lack a sophisticated sense of humor, and resemble more closely the people who troll all the time on these forums to elicit reactions in a very unoriginal way.
A good April Fool's Day prank messes with people in a more sophisticated way. You're the equivalent of the high school "prank" of smashing windows or setting off stink bombs; sure you'll annoy the school, but its nowhere near as funny as getting three pigs, writing 1, 2, and 4 on their sides, and releasing them into the school. While the disruption the pigs cause is funny, what's funnier is the fact that they'll quickly catch the three pigs and realize they're missing a number, and then end up spending all day searching for what they're missing. So while the disruption you caused is fun, its a catalyst for them causing more disruption themselves in dealing with the prank than you caused in the first place.
"Ha ha our user interface sucks" isn't a joke or a prank, its just bad business.
"The day is marked by the commission of hoaxes and other practical jokes of varying sophistication on friends, family members, enemies, and neighbors, or sending them on a fool's errand, the aim of which is to embarrass the gullible."
Except it didn't embarass the gullible. There was no "gullibility" involved. People were complaining because you changed the user interface, making it less user friendly and considerably uglier, for no reason.
That's not gullibility, that's reality - people don't like bad user interfaces.
So, "ha ha look at those people, they have legitimate concerns which actually matter a great deal to business".
Yeah...
Isn't that funny?
Unless the prank was "Ha, you guys thought we were here to keep away the trolls, but actually ARE trolls ourselves and think such behavior is amusing". In which case, I guess I fell for it; I'd thought you guys would actually do what you're supposed to do.
(*was said facetiously, being as you expressed my own opinion, more or less, in a manner that I myself was not able to express so eloquently.)
Then... bleuh, Gleemax!
The joke is set up with an entirely logical basis, something that could feasibly happen on any day of the year, even April 1st. Especially given the usual state of the forums. It lures the victim in, fools them with a false sense of hope, then surprises. "April Fools!" Then everybody laughs. Then, the option to change it back and get on with our lives.
(I informed my 3.5 edition, classic FR gaming community we were updating to 4th edition, post-Spellplague, and outlined the changes, and had people ready to quit in disgust before I'd finished. Then they thought it was hilarious. :D Then I got fooled by Wookieepedia.
)
I guess I fell for it
What's with the past tense?
As for those who seem to find the complaints from the people who were in a similar situation to myself amusing, I simply hope that if they are ever unfortunate enough to find themselves suffering similarly, that they find themselves treated with the respect they would expect for themselves if they were in actual pain.
I'll say again, as I said in one of the other threads, that when a 'joke' requires painkillers as a result, it isn't funny. I'm one of the unfortunates who reached the point where the Gleemax style was genuinely painful.
As for those who seem to find the complaints from the people who were in a similar situation to myself amusing, I simply hope that if they are ever unfortunate enough to find themselves suffering similarly, that they find themselves treated with the respect they would expect for themselves if they were in actual pain.
Or you know rather expressing myself to the unwashed masses of the internet, I will just not visit the site, as I am a free willed individual who is by no means, required to show up on a site...
It was an April's fools joke, not a bullet to the head.
Or, better yet, realize that a green screen for a day is trivial. Try living in a war zone for a year or see what it's like to sleep on the streets... you know, stuff that REALLY sucks and has an adverse effect on peoples' lives.
It was an April's fools joke, not a bullet to the head.
Bingo.
I understand the annoyance with the colors, but... it was a good chance to go a little crazy and actually be a part of the joke rather than the butt of the joke. That's how I see it, at least.
Anyway, my last post of the day was a declaration that Gleemax would never take me alive. I then tapped twenty mountains and mana burned myself to death. Fun times.
Just imagine never getting to leave that "warzone". Think about those people, who will never know peace or tranquility ever again. Guess the whole messed up forums thing isn't such a big deal, i have gained perspective. Thanks guys, for grounding me in reality.
Or, better yet, realize that a green screen for a day is trivial. Try living in a war zone for a year or see what it's like to sleep on the streets... you know, stuff that REALLY sucks and has an adverse effect on peoples' lives.
It was an April's fools joke, not a bullet to the head.
Ah yes. "Its okay, I only punched you in the arm. If I had shot you in the head, it'd be a whole different story."
Just because its better to get a headache from looking at a nasty green-on-black background than it is to be punched in the face doesn't mean a green on black background is okay.
Yeah, it sucks to be out on the streets. But anyone who uses "It could be worse" as an excuse for bad things happening is the same sort of logic the person who beats their child uses to justify their actions; its better than throwing them out on the street. Sure, but you know what'd be better? Not being abused at all AND not being on the streets.
Just imagine never getting to leave that "warzone". Think about those people, who will never know peace or tranquility ever again. Guess the whole messed up forums thing isn't such a big deal, i have gained perspective. Thanks guys, for grounding me in reality.
You've lost it, I'm afraid, not gained it.
People who claim "It could be worse" are people who actually lack the proper perspective.
Its better to be poked in the eye than shot in the face, but its better not to be hurt at all.
Now THAT'S perspective.
Ah yes. "Its okay, I only punched you in the arm. If I had shot you in the head, it'd be a whole different story."
Just because its better to get a headache from looking at a nasty green-on-black background than it is to be punched in the face doesn't mean a green on black background is okay.
Yeah, it sucks to be out on the streets. But anyone who uses "It could be worse" as an excuse for bad things happening is the same sort of logic the person who beats their child uses to justify their actions; its better than throwing them out on the street. Sure, but you know what'd be better? Not being abused at all AND not being on the streets.
You've lost it, I'm afraid, not gained it.
People who claim "It could be worse" are people who actually lack the proper perspective.
Its better to be poked in the eye than shot in the face, but its better not to be hurt at all.
Now THAT'S perspective.
That's perspective? Not particularly. A world without harm is completely out of balance, and unsustainable. If you want to eat, you have to kill...or at minimum, rearrange a pre-existing mass of appropriate composition into a structure that can be properly processed by the body. Since we don't have replicators, death it is. Either other things die, or we do. Honestly makes little difference either way, to me anyway. People aren't particularly special or unique compared to other forms of life, as far as I'm concerned. That said, it's always preferrable to avoid harm and all worthwhile lifeforms do DESIRE to avoid harm to themselves (its why pain and fear exist, to warn ourselves...and anger and violence, to warn others). That's just simple self-preservation, with none of that morality or altruism nonsense involved at all. But it's not reasonable at all to EXPECT anything like consistent success in such endeavors.
It IS better to be punched in the arm than shot in the head. Does that make getting punched in the arm good or acceptable? No. Is it worth getting upset over? Also no. It's a punch to the arm, so what? Unless some serious medical abnormality causes you to suffer horribly as a result, either vengefully slug the other person in the arm, or just roll your eyes and walk away. If they make it a habit, find a more...permanent...solution.
Even so, it's never the sort of thing worth getting upset over...never. People are no more special than birds, or fish, or bugs, or bacteria. And life in general, is no more special than the rocks it resides upon.
I had genuinely hoped this thread might be more in line with coming up with genuinely good pranks. Instead, it started out as a complaint thread, and stayed that way. What a waste.
They pulled a prank you didn't enjoy. We've noticed. Some agree with you, some don't. I don't think it could've been a lot better, but it didn't bother me at all. Perhaps those who disliked it will be lucky and they'll pull a prank that you can all enjoy and the rest of us can dislike. Maybe we'll take turns each year. At this point, I say we lock this thread and get on with our lives...unless everyone would prefer to continue crying over spilt milk? Or perhaps, was everyone expecting an apology or something?
A world without harm is completely out of balance, and unsustainable. If you want to eat, you have to kill...or at minimum, rearrange a pre-existing mass of appropriate composition into a structure that can be properly processed by the body. Since we don't have replicators, death it is.
I'm sorry, you just basically said "Uranium is radioactive" in response to the question "What temperature is it outside today?"
This has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my argument. I'd call it a strawman, but its like a strawman being built in a field in China. Its so far away from my point it is difficult to even see how you could reasonably expect anyone to mistake your strawman for my arguement.
Where in my post did I argue that we should stop eating meat? Nowhere. Nor did I even imply it.
Now, I understand you really wanted to use what your professor told you in class today, but seriously, this isn't the place, nor the time, and it has no relevance to the topic at hand. None.
Maybe you should try again.
People aren't particularly special or unique compared to other forms of life, as far as I'm concerned.
Oh, people are indeed quite special compared to other forms of life, objectively, in the sense of "special" meaning "unique" or "different". People are far, far more adept at altering the environment on a grand scale, and are capable of actually enhancing themselves exponentially faster. We change the world in very profound ways, and can intentionally change environments considerably. People are the creatures most adept at adapting the environment to suit them, and even travel forth intentionally through inhosibitable environments in order to explore the universe. They're also understand themselves far better than any other lifeform does.
You may or may not find that to be particularly valuable, but it is certainly different.
That said, it's always preferrable to avoid harm and all worthwhile lifeforms do DESIRE to avoid harm to themselves (its why pain and fear exist, to warn ourselves...and anger and violence, to warn others).
Worthwhile? Objectively speaking, there is no such thing as "worth". All there is is that which exists, and that which doesn't exist. But desiring some amount of self-harm isn't even necessarily disadvantageous; a bit of masochism allows creatures to bear conditions they might not bear otherwise, or might avoid, thus preventing them from claiming the region.
Is it worth getting upset over? Also no. It's a punch to the arm, so what?
And this is where you fail, utterly. Is it worth getting upset over?
There is no answer to this question because worth is an entirely arbitrary value.
You could claim "its not worth getting angry over". Or you could say "Its worth getting angry over, I dislike harm to myself, and as this person refuses to respect my right to self-determination." Or I could say "Its right to get upset, I can sue him, put him in jail, and get his house's value in settlement money."
Moreover, they're actually presenting a punch in the arm as a viable product. We're going to eschew a product which causes us unwanted harm. Ergo, your claim that that "Oh, its not worth getting upset over" is -wrong-, because where they were previously providing us with a service, they're now punching us. Are we going to like that? No, of course not, and in fact it is ENTIRELY reasonable to expect a creature, accustomed to kind treatment, to bite you when you hit it.
If they make it a habit, find a more...permanent...solution.
I'm moderately certain that encouraging people to kill other people is a violation of the CoC.
Even so, it's never the sort of thing worth getting upset over...never. People are no more special than birds, or fish, or bugs, or bacteria. And life in general, is no more special than the rocks it resides upon.
Of course, by your even stating this, this is clearly not something you believe, because otherwise it wouldn't be worth saying this. All such statements carry such inherent hypocrisy.
I had genuinely hoped this thread might be more in line with coming up with genuinely good pranks. Instead, it started out as a complaint thread, and stayed that way. What a waste.
Not really. Complaints are a valuable form of feedback. Saying "Your product sucks" is just as valuable, perhaps even more so, than "This product is awesome", as you know not to present the sucky product again.
They pulled a prank you didn't enjoy.
Thing is, April Fool's Day isn't about trolling, its about fooling people and playing on gullibility. This failed to do so, and ergo was a violation of the spirit of the holiday.
Moreover, its only even a prank in the weakest of senses - pranks involve tricking people, but there wasn't any trickery involved in this. That's what's being complained about; it was annoying, it was a violation of April Fool's Day, it was lame, and it wasn't even a "real" prank, as no trickery was involved. It was just trolling.
People would be much less annoyed if it had had an element of trickery. But it didn't.
Being upset when someone tricks you on April Fool's Day is, usually, unwarranted. But being annoyed when a product you normally use doesn't work properly for a day, for no reason other than to troll people, that IS legitimate.
But being annoyed when a product you normally use doesn't work properly for a day, for no reason other than to troll people, that IS legitimate.
I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this statement. The forums didn't fail to work properly, they failed to have an appearance you approved of. There's a big difference there. If they'd removed the "Reply" button or such, then the product would be failing to work properly.
If they'd removed the "Reply" button or such, then the product would be failing to work properly.
-Now, that would have been a somewhat funny gag, though it might have led to ever worse problems than this one.
I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this statement. The forums didn't fail to work properly, they failed to have an appearance you approved of. There's a big difference there. If they'd removed the "Reply" button or such, then the product would be failing to work properly.
There is a little button you can use to change the color scheme to suit your needs. It was deactivated so you could not change the color scheme. Therefore, the product did not work properly. The color scheme that everyone was stuck wit had the problem of irritating the vision of many. I don't mean: 'This is ugly, I don't like it.' I mean: 'This actually causes pain in my eyes to look at'. The list of values selector which would normally give many options allows people to not only choose something they find more pleasing (or less offensive) it allows people to make choices that do not cause pain by looking at it. Personally, I suffered a major corneal abrasion several years ago (about 6 years) but still have trouble when faced with glare. Glare like that which reflected off the mostly black screen I was looking at.
But, to repeat, the 'product' did not work correctly because a function was disabled. That disabling caused people to face an uncomfortable/unfriendly situation when trying to use the boards.
I'm going to have to call shenanigans on this statement. The forums didn't fail to work properly, they failed to have an appearance you approved of. There's a big difference there. If they'd removed the "Reply" button or such, then the product would be failing to work properly.
A bad user interface constitutes "not working properly" in my book, as its not working as well as it could be (with a decent or good one).
Also, as Rumplestix points out, you couldn't alter the UI.
IT stayed in edit mode after you hit the save button.
Also a few people where fooled. One complained that the forums had turned into the World of Warcraft forums and a few complained about the return of GLEEMAX.
Yeah. And sorry zammm/Webster, but having a thread about how people should have gotten the joke (or relax more?) is a bit lame. It didn't work for some people--just let it go. If you need to explain a joke, it probably wasn't that good to begin with.
The point of my post was not to explain the joke. The point was to address the comments I had been seeing saying that it was "too disruptive".
A better implementation would have been to redirect a user's first visit to the forums on the day to a serious-looking page announcing a forum redesign for improved functionality and D&D Insider integration, a note about users should really enjoy it, then possibly with a button to choose between the new forums and the old (to cut down on traffic).
Then... bleuh, Gleemax!
Unfortunately, we do not have the resources available to be able to do something like that. The tech team has their own things to do that take priority over the whims of the VCLs and CM, so anything that would have required more than a few minutes' work from the tech team had about a 0% chance of actually getting implemented at all, much less on time. And anything that requires significant hacking of the system runs the risk of destabilizing the forums, which are already shaky.
I think it might have been ok if posters only had to deal with the ugly stuff while logged in. Then you could have people logging in and out trying to figure out what was going on. (Would that casue server problems?) Then, you (in the general sense) could actually have read the posts without hurting your eyes but would need to put up with it to post. Or possibly, have it possible to change the skin using the controller.
Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure neither of these are possible--at least not without extensive effort and/or at least some hacking of the boards code.
I don't have a professor...for one...and never have. I sometimes regret that to a certain extent, but then I peruse the forums, and realize I'm probably better off for it. I obtain books, I correspond with those in various fields, I learn, but I'm not an expert, nor do I try to be. You can take from that whatever you want, but it's not as if you'll assume anything other than what I expect you to. You haven't so far.
I didn't misrespond to your comments, I provided examples of the concept I was referring to. I could've worded them much better, but I'm quite sure it wouldn't have mattered to you in the least how I'd responded. Incidentally, the response I'd intended in the context of, "What temperature is it outside today?", should've turned out closer to, "Hotter than uranium." But, I already admitted I was off the mark, and realized that it wouldn't have mattered.
We're all hypocrites to varying degrees at various times though, aren't we? I do what I can to avoid it but sometimes it just doesn't work out that way, and I admit the fact. Oh well. However, I was not a hypocrite in my previous post. Is it worth getting upset about getting punched in the arm once? No. But you got punched in the arm once, and yet you keep going on about it. You're the one worth stopping now, and that's why I said what I said.
Frankly, while it's simply reasonable that they should do their best to keep the forums in shape...you're not paying for them, so they're not obligated to please you. They're not even obligated to HAVE the forums. They're a courtesy, not a product. Just like there are no rights...only priviledges.
Since you used "fail" in a manner I personally find related more to forum lingo than its more mundane use, in the future I'll be ignoring you entirely, and I don't think I'll be missing anything. You have contributed though. I'll be adding "strawman" to my list of buzzwords that indicate someone not worth the effort.
Feel free to respond as much as you like. This will be my last post in this thread. I'm sure everyone's tired not only of me, but of you also, judging form the majority of the posts, but I know I can't speak for them. But again, do feel free to respond, I'm sure everyone will be delighted to see you reply pointlessly to an individual not even posting in the thread anymore. Then again, if you don't, I understand completely. It's because I'm not worth it...right? No worries then.
Since you used "fail" in a manner I personally find related more to forum lingo than its more mundane use, in the future I'll be ignoring you entirely, and I don't think I'll be missing anything.
Fail is the present text of the verb. First definition of fail in the dictionary:
to fall short of success or achievement in something expected, attempted, desired, or approved: The experiment failed because of poor planning.
I'm working on an experiment right now and fail to perform a step. It is at this point at which I fail.
This is not only correct usage of the verb "fail", but it is the PRIMARY usage of the word. It isn't "forum lingo", it is the English language.
You claim I'm going on about being punched in the arm, but this argument fails for two reasons:
Firstly, I'm trying to prevent myself from being punched in the arm again.
Secondly, you assume that being punched in the arm at all is fine, but you never actually give any reason why it would be so, thus meaning your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy; you assumed your position was correct and then proceeded to use that as your evidence for why your position was correct.
Ergo, your argument fails in both ways; you proceeded from an invalid premise and you didn't even understand my argument in the first place, and therefore erected a strawman argument.
However, I still have deep resentment toward the prank that was sprung on me in April of 2005. I was deep in the composition of a major creative post, and having it come out in "Mr. T" speak really curdled my cheese. People who use humor to keep others from taking themselves too seriously need to keep in mind that sometimes they take themselves seriously for good reason. April Fools' Day is a nationally-sanctioned opportunity to be a massive dick to people for no other reason than because YOU find it funny, and people are within their rights to be seriously ****** and to demand retribution for having been pranked against their will.
Ethically speaking, it is only acceptible to prank someone who you know is open to that sort of thing, which barring the occasional masochist means they should actually be another prankster. For two people to "get" each other at every opportunity, as part of their relationship, that's cool, but when an innocent bystander is the target of such a prank, the difference becomes akin to that between a fencing match and the stabbing of a random person on the street. I will never condone or forgive prankery that does not take place with the implicit or explicit consent of those who are affected, up to the extent of the harm that may be caused. (And yes, f***ing up someone's post on a free message board counts as causing harm. Even if the effect reverses itself, you've still interfered with their ability to read their own post and make sure it turned out right; they invest their effort in creative activities with the expectation that they won't be randomly screwed over by someone with a juvenile sense of humor.)
In other words, thinking other people need to lighten up isn't an excuse to poke holes in them. Please always ask yourselves whether the tomfoolery you plan to engage in could go horribly wrong if the target takes it the wrong way, and be sure you are confident they won't.
The thing is, however, that a prank actually needs to be a prank. It needs to involve trickery and expose people's flaws.
Something like making everyone post like Mr. T, or changing the forum to an incredibly unattractive and annoying user interface, aren't pranks. There is no trickery involved, you aren't exploiting people's flaws, there's nothing to "fall for". You simply are being disruptive in a manner which is unavoidable save by them simply not using your product or service. There's nothing clever about it, nor does it expose flaws, trick people, ect. All it does is get a rise out of some people, and that's not what April Fool's Day is about.
April Fool's Day is about gullibility. The point of April Fool's Day is to see how well people can distinguish fact from fiction, how good they are at seeing through deception, and how willing they are to accept what they see at face value. Indeed, this is half the fun of releasing real news or products on April Fool's Day, to see whether they're capable of actually distinguishing between what is real or not real, or whether they simply accept everything or reject everything (because it is April Fool's Day). People believed Gmail was a joke at first for this very reason, and I'm sure Google thought it was absolutely hilarious - I did. It also adds to the anarchy of the holiday, as real things occur and you have to figure out whether you're being pranked or whether it actually happened. Its fun for everyone.
Now, some people simply engage in being silly on April Fool's Day - stuff like the Swiss mountain cleaners aren't going to trick many people. But they're still okay, because the purpose there is to be a joke in the first place; you could release that on any day and be funny, so while it isn't really in the spirit of April Fool's Day, its nothing which is unacceptable under ordinary circumstances.
However, if I was to just randomly change the colors of the forum on any other day of the year in order to generate controversy and people complaining about the change, I'd be trolling. Its the same on April Fool's Day. Its just that some people believe that trolling is okay on April Fool's Day, but nothing about April Fool's Day excuses trolling for the sake of trolling.
Some may argue that pranks are a means of getting a rise out of people, and its true, but a prank is also supposed to be a lesson in humility. Trolling via disruption or picking on people do not constitute pranks, they constitute abusive behavior.
If I were to write up a fake news story on April Fool's Day, that, say, one of Obama's conditions for auto bailout money was ceasing to fund NASCAR events, I may be causing people anger and disruption, and I may enjoy the response. But the thing is, I'm also teaching them the lesson not to believe everything they read.
There's no lesson to be learned from simply screwing up the formatting of your forums, nor is there one to be learned from randomly substituting words for other words. You may get a response out of people, but you aren't doing anything valuable, nor clever, nor are you tricking them - you're just annoying them in the same way as poking someone does.
I actually rather enjoyed this year's "prank"; the green skin was rather attractive, and if it weren't so deleterious in its effects on colored text and smileys, I would suggest retaining it as an optional skin thereafter. (I kind of wish I'd grabbed a screenshot while it was up, but I don't know if I even got home that day so maybe there was no choice. Fortunately it wasn't that important to me.)
However, I still have deep resentment toward the prank that was sprung on me in April of 2005. I was deep in the composition of a major creative post, and having it come out in "Mr. T" speak really curdled my cheese. People who use humor to keep others from taking themselves too seriously need to keep in mind that sometimes they take themselves seriously for good reason. April Fools' Day is a nationally-sanctioned opportunity to be a massive dick to people for no other reason than because YOU find it funny, and people are within their rights to be seriously ****** and to demand retribution for having been pranked against their will.
Ethically speaking, it is only acceptible to prank someone who you know is open to that sort of thing, which barring the occasional masochist means they should actually be another prankster. For two people to "get" each other at every opportunity, as part of their relationship, that's cool, but when an innocent bystander is the target of such a prank, the difference becomes akin to that between a fencing match and the stabbing of a random person on the street. I will never condone or forgive prankery that does not take place with the implicit or explicit consent of those who are affected, up to the extent of the harm that may be caused. (And yes, f***ing up someone's post on a free message board counts as causing harm. Even if the effect reverses itself, you've still interfered with their ability to read their own post and make sure it turned out right; they invest their effort in creative activities with the expectation that they won't be randomly screwed over by someone with a juvenile sense of humor.)
In other words, thinking other people need to lighten up isn't an excuse to poke holes in them. Please always ask yourselves whether the tomfoolery you plan to engage in could go horribly wrong if the target takes it the wrong way, and be sure you are confident they won't.
Just curious... are you an only child?
See? It works on multiple levels!
Heh, that made me giggle. Okay, you get a big hug. ;)
The prank on the freshmen for PE tests... awesome.
The High Pochondria virus... pretty funny too. ;)
Don't get me wrong about the gleemax prank this year... it was okay, but didn't have the feel of an April Fools joke. I guess I was just hoping for a little more "punch" so to speak. When people can do it, I actually like getting punked. Usually. ;)
Ah yes. "Its okay, I only punched you in the arm. If I had shot you in the head, it'd be a whole different story."
That wasn't the most apt analogy. But, seeing as you failed to get the gist of it, I'll show you one that is more fitting.
First, I hope you understand that this self-inflated sense of entitlement is ridiculous. You aren't paying them for a service. This is a free product for your use and not subject to pleasing you and anyone, for that matter.
Whining about your eyes hurting because you stared at the sun is stupid, pointless and a waste of time and effort.
The same is true for whining about looking at a UI that you don't like... No one is forcing you to look at it. You aren't paying for it. There is no point or reason for whining (aside from self-pity and/or unjustified entitlement issues).
If I saw someone looking into the sun and screaming that it hurt their eyes, do you know what I'd say?
"Well stop looking at the ****ing sun, stupid!"
Do I feel sorry for them? Do I feel they are justified in complaining about their own stupidity? Hell no.
Just because its better to get a headache from looking at a nasty green-on-black background than it is to be punched in the face doesn't mean a green on black background is okay.
And just because you can look at the sun, doesn't mean you should. Common sense, yes? Then why, if you choose to do something to yourself that is painful, would you waste time trying to get people to feel sorry for you?
If WotC twisted your arm and forced you to get a headache by looking at their UI, then yes, I could see a reason to ***** about it. But you subjected yourself to it and it isn't a product you're entitled to or paying for.
Yeah, it sucks to be out on the streets. But anyone who uses "It could be worse" as an excuse for bad things happening is the same sort of logic the person who beats their child uses to justify their actions; its better than throwing them out on the street. Sure, but you know what'd be better? Not being abused at all AND not being on the streets.
Saying 'it could be worse' is an attempt to show you how pointless it is to whine about something like this. It serves no other purpose then to placate someones stupidity for hurting themselves (in this instance).
You've lost it, I'm afraid, not gained it.
People who claim "It could be worse" are people who actually lack the proper perspective.
Heh, I highly doubt you understand how to look past your ego. When I tell my kids that crying about not getting dessert after eating dinner is a wasted effort, they don't understand either.
It could be worse, they could live somewhere where they eat in a day what they would normally have in one meal.
Or, when they want juice or soda, it could be worse, like having to drink muddy water just so they don't die of thirst.
I also explain that it isn't healthy to eat junk food all the time, or to drink soda when it's hot outside and they're playing hard.
But, if they start to whine about their perceived entitlements, then yes, I tell them it could be worse.
That is the realistic prospective that I want them to have, not some over-egotistical, pompous inflated sense of entitlement that won't do them any good.
Its better to be poked in the eye than shot in the face, but its better not to be hurt at all.
Now THAT'S perspective.
It's also better to not stare at the sun, as opposed to doing so and whining about it.
Heh, I highly doubt you understand how to look past your ego. When I tell my kids that crying about not getting dessert after eating dinner is a wasted effort, they don't understand either.
It could be worse, they could live somewhere where they eat in a day what they would normally have in one meal.
Or, when they want juice or soda, it could be worse, like having to drink muddy water just so they don't die of thirst.
I also explain that it isn't healthy to eat junk food all the time, or to drink soda when it's hot outside and they're playing hard.
But, if they start to whine about their perceived entitlements, then yes, I tell them it could be worse.
That is the realistic prospective that I want them to have, not some over-egotistical, pompous inflated sense of entitlement that won't do them any good.
Proof that being preachy and righteous will make your kids love you. And brussel sprouts. ;)
This thread is entertaining!
And how.
First, I hope you understand that this self-inflated sense of entitlement is ridiculous. You aren't paying them for a service. This is a free product for your use and not subject to pleasing you and anyone, for that matter.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It is not a "self-inflated sense of entitlement". You do not understand the purpose of the forums.
We are indeed paying them for this service, albiet indirectly. This forum is funded via the money we spend on books and other products from Wizards of the Coast, Inc. The reason this forum exists is a fewfold:
1) To provide a service to their customers, to allow them to discuss their products as well as have other customers answer questions, as opposed to having customer service answer questions.
2) To act as a means of generating revenue, both via goodwill from the public as well as via word-of-mouth advertisement on the forums.
3) To get a measure of community response to announcements and novel products, as well as get some feedback. This is not a scientific poll or anything, but they can at least see some things.
They do not provide these forums out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather as a part of their business. If these forums didn't make them money, they wouldn't exist. They believe they are beneficial to their business.
In addition, the very idea that we aren't paying them for it means they can provide a low-quality service is, in fact, wrong, because any product you produce, free or not, is likely to reflect on your company's quality and image.
So basically, your entire line of thinking is erroneous. You don't understand what these forums actually are, nor why they exist. It is entirely legitimate to complain about them.
Whining about your eyes hurting because you stared at the sun is stupid, pointless and a waste of time and effort.
I'm not, you've got me confused with other people. Its annoying, but I'm not that sensitive. However, its not "staring at the sun", either; that's a really, really stupid analogy. Its like you replaced a normally fine website with the sun, which is a very different thing. Its the difference between looking up at the sun, and looking across the street (like you normally do) and have some guy out there with a big mirror reflecting the sun into your eyes.
The same is true for whining about looking at a UI that you don't like... No one is forcing you to look at it. You aren't paying for it. There is no point or reason for whining (aside from self-pity and/or unjustified entitlement issues).
As the premise of this argument is fundamentally false, your conclusion is false.
Saying 'it could be worse' is an attempt to show you how pointless it is to whine about something like this. It serves no other purpose then to placate someones stupidity for hurting themselves (in this instance).
No, what it is is a submissive mentality propagated by people who are too weak to improve their lot in life. Saying "it could be worse" is a defensive mechanism put in place to avoid really dealing with an issue.
Heh, I highly doubt you understand how to look past your ego. When I tell my kids that crying about not getting dessert after eating dinner is a wasted effort, they don't understand either.
Given you prefaced it with "heh", its clear you're projecting.
I have an ego, but a lot of people mistake honesty for ego, because they just aren't used to people being frank and telling them "No, you're not a special snowflake." I'm not being egotistical when I tell someone that dealing an infinite amount of damage with a single attack is broken, and that if they disagree with me, they're wrong; I'm telling them how things are.
It could be worse, they could live somewhere where they eat in a day what they would normally have in one meal.
Of course it could be worse, but that's not really relevant. Things can always be worse. They can also always be better.
You use "it could be worse" as an excuse, but it isn't one. Why aren't things better? "It could be worse" isn't an explanation for that, its a deflection, an unwillingness to answer the question.
Why don't you get dessert after eating dinner? Because by artificially increasing the scarcity of dessert, when you do get dessert, it makes it seem more special and valuable to you.
Interestingly this can actually lead to eating disorders later in life. When you make them increase the value of such things in their mind artifically, you make them think they're good to have as much as possible. So they end up overeating when they realize they can have dessert all the time, eat lots of junk food, and end up fat slobs. I always had access to candy as a child, and it lost a lot of its specialness; now I enjoy candy, but if I have a jar of licorice in my kitchen, I won't eat it all for weeks. I know some people can't keep their hands out of it for minutes, and the least healthy eaters I know had parents who were health food freaks.
Of course, the actual explanation (dessert is bad for you if you have too much of it) is fine.
But that's rather off-topic. Point is, just because things could be worse doesn't mean things couldn't be better.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It is not a "self-inflated sense of entitlement". You do not understand the purpose of the forums.
We are indeed paying them for this service, albiet indirectly. This forum is funded via the money we spend on books and other products from Wizards of the Coast, Inc. The reason this forum exists is a fewfold:
1) To provide a service to their customers, to allow them to discuss their products as well as have other customers answer questions, as opposed to having customer service answer questions.
2) To act as a means of generating revenue, both via goodwill from the public as well as via word-of-mouth advertisement on the forums.
3) To get a measure of community response to announcements and novel products, as well as get some feedback. This is not a scientific poll or anything, but they can at least see some things.
They do not provide these forums out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather as a part of their business. If these forums didn't make them money, they wouldn't exist. They believe they are beneficial to their business.
In addition, the very idea that we aren't paying them for it means they can provide a low-quality service is, in fact, wrong, because any product you produce, free or not, is likely to reflect on your company's quality and image.
So basically, your entire line of thinking is erroneous. You don't understand what these forums actually are, nor why they exist. It is entirely legitimate to complain about them.
Yes it is, in fact an overinflated sense of entitlement. You're right in that they are providing this service in hopes of enticing us t spend more money on their actual products. They are utilizing a negligibly miniscule fraction of their resources to provide this particular service, as well. That certainly makes it foolish for them to provide less quality of service, but it does not make it inherently wrong. They're still choosing freely to provide this service, and they can choose not to do so whenever they see fit and for whatever reason. They are still not at all obligated to you or the rest of us in the least with regard to these forums.
I'm not, you've got me confused with other people. Its annoying, but I'm not that sensitive. However, its not "staring at the sun", either; that's a really, really stupid analogy. Its like you replaced a normally fine website with the sun, which is a very different thing. Its the difference between looking up at the sun, and looking across the street (like you normally do) and have some guy out there with a big mirror reflecting the sun into your eyes.
This is techincally correct. The analogy was poor and it is more like having someone shine the sun in one's eyes from a mirror across the street. Except for one problem...in such a scenario one would have no idea if it's a person, or a coincidental event or events that caused the problem. One would be blinded and unable to determine what had caused the reflective surface to blind oneself so. In this instance, we know exactly who's responsible. That's largely irrelevant in both cases, as we have only so many options...look in another direction, shade our eyes (by whatever means, including sunglasses), or close our eyes, and that's really about it. We can't move the mirror, we can't move the sun, and we can't stop the person or event causing the mirror to angle in the offending manner. So, after that, we're on our own, and I do wish everyone luck there.
As the premise of this argument is fundamentally false, your conclusion is false.
The portion regarding your mistakenly percieved ocular condition does not make his comment false. He is, however, still correct in that we're not in any way required to interact with the problem at the time, but rather that we CHOSE to do so anyway (since it is just a message board and it won't kill us or even remotely harm us to go a day without it), and also in the fact that WotC freely CHOOSES to provide the service and is therefore under no obligation to us of any sort. Like I said, that doesn't make it a good idea for them to mess with things as they did, but it is their message board, not ours. They felt like providing us with these boards (for their own reasons, but it's still their decision), and if they feel like taking it away then no, as a matter of fact we DON'T have the "right" to complain. It's their sandbox, and they can tell us to get out whenever they feel like it. As I said before, it might be foolish, but that's entirely up to them, not us.
No, what it is is a submissive mentality propagated by people who are too weak to improve their lot in life. Saying "it could be worse" is a defensive mechanism put in place to avoid really dealing with an issue.
You're right about it being a defense mechanism, but only in those who use it as their primary excuse for ALL problems. This one problem, which occurs only once a year and is never exactly repeated, is not worth the amount of time and energy to complain about that you have already invested. The person who DID have physiological issues with the change has commented more rationally and less frequently than you have, and he has far more and better reason than you ever will for being unhappy with the change. He said his piece, and he moved on. I'll be optimistic and hope you can learn from him. Not every single problem is worth the time and effort to resolve. Some go away, some are irrelevant, and some are simply too grand to engage. The rest, we work on as needed. In the instance of this problem, it is NOT needed. April 1st has come and gone, and the symptom no longer exists. If WotC has learned anything and internally resolved the underlying problem, you'll just have to deal with waiting another 360 days to find out. I'm sure the rest of us have more important things to do with our time.
Given you prefaced it with "heh", its clear you're projecting.
I have an ego, but a lot of people mistake honesty for ego, because they just aren't used to people being frank and telling them "No, you're not a special snowflake." I'm not being egotistical when I tell someone that dealing an infinite amount of damage with a single attack is broken, and that if they disagree with me, they're wrong; I'm telling them how things are.
It's clear he's projecting? I do sometimes wonder, are you the next Da Vinci? You seem to have this expert knowledge and infallible perception that I find truly amazing. Frankly, I believe he used "heh" because he found your unabashed and unwarranted ego to be highly amusing, in which case I'd join him in that. But who knows, I could be wrong...I'm not you, after all. You are correct though, people do mistake honesty for ego, often. Fortunately, your continued futile posts are excellent proof that this is not the case in regard to you. You even posted a response to a poster who specifcally stated they wouldn't participate anymore to avoid bothering the other posters and further disrupting the thread. And he struck me as a real jerk too. Yet here you are, continuing, instead of letting something utterly unimportant go and moving on.
Of course it could be worse, but that's not really relevant. Things can always be worse. They can also always be better.
You use "it could be worse" as an excuse, but it isn't one. Why aren't things better? "It could be worse" isn't an explanation for that, its a deflection, an unwillingness to answer the question.
Point is, just because things could be worse doesn't mean things couldn't be better.
Actually, there is a point where things cannot get better or worse, being dead. If you're religious, it could go either way. If you're not, well then it's pretty much just the ultimate bad. As for the idea that things could always be better. Not so much. Things getting worse takes no more than simply doing nothing. Making things better takes effort, and there is a limit to the effort that can ever be put forth. So, we pick and choose which kinds of betterment are worth the trouble. Why aren't things better? Because certain things don't matter and aren't worth the effort required to better them, and because there are too many people who are simply incapable of being in any way helpful in most regards. There're the answers to your question. Glad I could help.
Now, please...just let the gleemax thing go already. We're ALL tired of it now. I didn't like the "prank" and hope it'll be better next year, but this is just too much nonsense over absolutely nothing. This topic has become trivial and meaningless in the extreme. I sure hope all of you find something more constructive to discuss regarding the topic, or just move on to new topics.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It is not a "self-inflated sense of entitlement". You do not understand the purpose of the forums.
Yes, I don't know, thank you for not using your ego and reading my mind to tell me what is obvious.
Honestly, you come off as completely full of yourself in your posts. I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, but it (along with your ability to not refute points made) makes you seem like a child with a chip on your shoulder.
The forums are here at WotC's discretion. We do not pay for it's use. They could close it down tomorrow or make it look puke green for everyone all the time, if they so choose.
This doesn't mean that they should, however. You fail to realize that you are allowed to be here at their discretion.
We are indeed paying them for this service, albiet indirectly. This forum is funded via the money we spend on books and other products from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
Wrong. We give them money for books, minis, DDI, etc... what they use that money for is at their own discretion. The fact that they use some of it for the forums just confirms my first statement. We are privileged to use the boards here. We are not entitled to it.
The reason this forum exists is a fewfold:
1) To provide a service to their customers, to allow them to discuss their products as well as have other customers answer questions, as opposed to having customer service answer questions.
2) To act as a means of generating revenue, both via goodwill from the public as well as via word-of-mouth advertisement on the forums.
3) To get a measure of community response to announcements and novel products, as well as get some feedback. This is not a scientific poll or anything, but they can at least see some things.
lol, you're bringing up points that have nothing to do with what I said.
They do not provide these forums out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather as a part of their business. If these forums didn't make them money, they wouldn't exist. They believe they are beneficial to their business.
Again, this has nothing to do with what I said... nice attempt at deflection, though.
In addition, the very idea that we aren't paying them for it means they can provide a low-quality service is, in fact, wrong, because any product you produce, free or not, is likely to reflect on your company's quality and image.
Again, you deflect and avoid countering my point. Furthermore, you are refuting something that I never said. Heh, hard to argue against what I said?
So basically, your entire line of thinking is erroneous. You don't understand what these forums actually are, nor why they exist. It is entirely legitimate to complain about them.
Maybe you should read what I posted, you are refuting things that weren't brought up.
I'm not, you've got me confused with other people. Its annoying, but I'm not that sensitive.
It was meant as a general you, I should have said as much.
However, its not "staring at the sun", either; that's a really, really stupid analogy. Its like you replaced a normally fine website with the sun, which is a very different thing. Its the difference between looking up at the sun, and looking across the street (like you normally do) and have some guy out there with a big mirror reflecting the sun into your eyes.
The effect is the same; doing something that causes yourself unnecessary discomfort, and/or pain, is stupid.
As the premise of this argument is fundamentally false, your conclusion is false.
As you're unable to understand what it is I'm trying to say, you can't make a claim that what I said is false. The fact that you seemingly deflect and avoid my points leads me to think you have no answer, but are too egotistical to admit someone else makes sense.
No, what it is is a submissive mentality propagated by people who are too weak to improve their lot in life. Saying "it could be worse" is a defensive mechanism put in place to avoid really dealing with an issue.
lol, for you and in your opinion, maybe.
Given you prefaced it with "heh", its clear you're projecting.
No, I thought it was funny.
I have an ego, but a lot of people mistake honesty for ego, because they just aren't used to people being frank and telling them "No, you're not a special snowflake." I'm not being egotistical when I tell someone that dealing an infinite amount of damage with a single attack is broken, and that if they disagree with me, they're wrong; I'm telling them how things are.
And this, yet again, shows that you are deflecting and can't bring yourself to except you are wrong. No one, including myself, mentioned any of the things you just described.
Of course it could be worse, but that's not really relevant. Things can always be worse. They can also always be better.
Yes...
You use "it could be worse" as an excuse, but it isn't one. Why aren't things better? "It could be worse" isn't an explanation for that, its a deflection, an unwillingness to answer the question.
Wrong. I say 'it could be worse' to put things in perspective. When there is a situation where someone is whining about a perceived affront that is clearly petty, I try to explain that to them.
Why don't you get dessert after eating dinner? Because by artificially increasing the scarcity of dessert, when you do get dessert, it makes it seem more special and valuable to you.
...What?...
Interestingly this can actually lead to eating disorders later in life. When you make them increase the value of such things in their mind artifically, you make them think they're good to have as much as possible. So they end up overeating when they realize they can have dessert all the time, eat lots of junk food, and end up fat slobs. I always had access to candy as a child, and it lost a lot of its specialness; now I enjoy candy, but if I have a jar of licorice in my kitchen, I won't eat it all for weeks. I know some people can't keep their hands out of it for minutes, and the least healthy eaters I know had parents who were health food freaks.
*Has nothing to do with what I just said.*
Of course, the actual explanation (dessert is bad for you if you have too much of it) is fine.
Which is what I said.
But that's rather off-topic. Point is, just because things could be worse doesn't mean things couldn't be better.
True, and just because something that is allowed to someone isn't what they expected, doesn't mean they should whine about it.
Methinks you still miss the point of the prank. The prank was not designed to make people think Gleemax had been resurrected. It was to watch people overreact to a one-day change in the skin and language filters.
The point is not to fool people, but to watch people react like fools.
I think the way it works is at follows:
If you're annoyed, then you think it's lame.
If you're more bemused by other people's annoyance, then you think it worked.
I think it worked.
So...
I can start posting racial slurs just to get people annoyed? Just so that I could watch their, from my perspective, "humorous overreaction?" :P I mean really, doing something to intentionally get people annoyed and watch their responses is the definition of trolling.
So...
I can start posting racial slurs just to get people annoyed? Just so that I could watch their, from my perspective, "humorous overreaction?" :P I mean really, doing something to intentionally get people annoyed and watch their responses is the definition of trolling.
Yes but there is a difference from racial slurs, to what is really at worst a day you can't use the forums. A day Well Known for pranks by WotC. A day in which Drizzt became the best Magic Card Ever, allowing him to rule two universes.
This thread is entertaining!
**sits down next to Zherog, offers to trade some jujubees for some popcorn**
**sits down next to Zherog, offers to trade some jujubees for some popcorn**
*Sits next to Therise passing some raisinets down to her and Zherog along with drinks* :D
Just curious... are you an only child?
Yes, actually, a fact for which I am immensely grateful. I have seen a little and heard a lot of the fact that siblings, most especially brothers, routinely assault and torture each other, and grow up to be damaged, sadistic brutes as a result. Far preferable to be raised in isolation with only dreams for company.
Then again, I don't spend as much time on these boards as other people do, so maybe I'm not as attached to that aspect of the internet psyche.
That's probably it. I'm actually trying to get into a couple of roleplaying games on this forum, and between the crashes and the April Fools' pranks, I'm distinctly doubtful that this is the place for it.
**sits down next to Zherog, offers to trade some jujubees for some popcorn**
*Sits next to Therise passing some raisinets down to her and Zherog along with drinks* :D
Yes, actually, a fact for which I am immensely grateful. I have seen a little and heard a lot of the fact that siblings, most especially brothers, routinely assault and torture each other, and grow up to be damaged, sadistic brutes as a result. Far preferable to be raised in isolation with only dreams for company.
Oh, alrighty then. I was just curious.
*Sits next to Therise passing some raisinets down to her and Zherog along with drinks* :D
Woohoo! *snuggles into her seat*
That certainly makes it foolish for them to provide less quality of service, but it does not make it inherently wrong. They're still choosing freely to provide this service, and they can choose not to do so whenever they see fit and for whatever reason. They are still not at all obligated to you or the rest of us in the least with regard to these forums.
Two things:
Firstly, they are, in fact, obligated to some degree by the expectations of the consumer regarding the role of a company in facilitating the discussion of their product. In layman's terms, its actually an expectation by many if not most people these days that a company will provide some sort of medium for their customers to communicate with one another in an environment specifically devoted to discussion of aforementioned products in conjunction with the company.
Secondly, the first sentence I quoted is, in fact, a statement that I'm correct. You simply didn't recognize it as such.
Fundamentally, no, they are not obligated to provide us with this service. However, we expect them to do so, and if you provide a bad service or a nonexistant one, you will increase customer dissatisfaction.
The portion regarding your mistakenly percieved ocular condition does not make his comment false.
That wasn't what I was referring to. Rather, I was referring to the fact that it is indeed entirely reasonable for us to complain about the state of the official forums of Wizards of the Coast, incorporated.
You're right about it being a defense mechanism, but only in those who use it as their primary excuse for ALL problems. This one problem, which occurs only once a year and is never exactly repeated, is not worth the amount of time and energy to complain about that you have already invested.
Of course, by that logic, it wouldn't be reasonable for you to reply to it either. Which obviously means that our primary motivation in this is greater than what meets the eye.
The reason I'm annoyed by this isn't the specific action, but rather the attitude behind it which the action is a manifestation of. Fundamentally, the moderators are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. One of the biggest roles a moderator has is to deal with trolling. Its by far the worst part of it, but it is a major part of it.
However, the moderators who performed this prank were, in fact, trolling.
Fundamentally, can we really expect people who act in this manner to regulate other people who act in this manner? I would tend to say no, and it is not unreasonable to look at the rampant trolling on these forums and come to the same conclusion. Moreover, it raises the onimous specter of whether the moderators are not merely incompetant, but are rather indulgant - they don't care about the trolling, and don't want to stop it, because it amuses them.
So basically, the reason behind my participation in this thread was to say that I found their behavior to be trollish in nature. The fact that they confirmed this simply is a greater indication to me that they are incapable of doing what they're supposed to be doing, and should be replaced. Fundamentally, I wanted to call them on their ill behavior, and see whether they'd realize what they did.
This doesn't mean that they should, however. You fail to realize that you are allowed to be here at their discretion.
And you fail to realize that these forums are allowed to be here at our discretion.
You see, it is we who make these forums what they are. Without us, the forums are a waste of their money.
Honestly, you come off as completely full of yourself in your posts. I'm not sure if it is intentional or not, but it (along with your ability to not refute points made) makes you seem like a child with a chip on your shoulder.
The forums are here at WotC's discretion. We do not pay for it's use. They could close it down tomorrow or make it look puke green for everyone all the time, if they so choose.
You claim I haven't refuted your point. Then you quote, explicitly, where I refute your point, and claim I'm deflecting it or avoiding it.
I was refuting your point.
Your claims are:
1) The forums are here at WotC's discretion.
True, but misleading. See:
They do not provide these forums out of the goodness of their hearts, but rather as a part of their business. If these forums didn't make them money, they wouldn't exist. They believe they are beneficial to their business.
This refutes your point. Your claim is without meaning. Coca-cola produces their product to make money. They do not HAVE to produce soft drinks. However, they do so to make money. If they were to produce some foul substance and insert it into their cans in the place of Coke, they could face criminal prosecution for it, even if they gave out those cans for free to homeless people.
Now obviously this isn't anywhere so serious as to invoke a threat of criminal prosecution. But the reality is that they are in fact producing a product in order to make money. It is perfectly legitimate to complain about products, even free ones, because their purpose is to generate revenue for the company.
If you do not believe that it is okay to complain about companies producing faulty products, then you are not only in the minority, but you're teaching your children to fail.
2) We do not pay for it's use.
False. See:
We are indeed paying them for this service, albiet indirectly. This forum is funded via the money we spend on books and other products from Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
You claim:
Wrong. We give them money for books, minis, DDI, etc... what they use that money for is at their own discretion. The fact that they use some of it for the forums just confirms my first statement. We are privileged to use the boards here. We are not entitled to it.
This is wrong, and anyone who understands business will tell you why. The costs of advertisement, promotion, product research, and upkeep costs are passed onto the consumer.
In other words, any expense the company incurs will be passed onto its customers. Ergo, we are indeed paying for these forums, albiet indirectly.
I explained this:
The reason this forum exists is a fewfold:
1) To provide a service to their customers, to allow them to discuss their products as well as have other customers answer questions, as opposed to having customer service answer questions.
2) To act as a means of generating revenue, both via goodwill from the public as well as via word-of-mouth advertisement on the forums.
3) To get a measure of community response to announcements and novel products, as well as get some feedback. This is not a scientific poll or anything, but they can at least see some things.
You claimed this had "Nothing to do with what [you] said", but in fact, it has everything to do with what you said, thereby confirming that you did not understand my post.
3) They could close it down tomorrow or make it look puke green for everyone all the time, if they so choose.
True, but again misleading. They COULD do that. And the whole user base COULD leave, thus costing WotC a lot of money, especially as a lot of us would feel that WotC was actively being malicious towards us, and therefore not supporting their malicious behavior via simply not purchasing their products. Angering your customers simply to amuse yourself is a good way to lose them.
So fundamentally, its not I who is not refuting your points, but you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. Indeed, you were incapable of following my refutation of your points.
Basically, its irrelevant that they are not required by law to provide the forums, because they're not providing them out of the goodness of their hearts but rather to make money. Likewise, your point about them being able to make them worse is irrelevant, because it would, again, hurt their ability to generate revenue.
Your middle point, that we do not pay for its use, is outright wrong.
So your claim that we do not have the right to complain about it is, therefore, wrong, because it is based on a false premise, and uses arguments which do not actually support the conclusion.
tl; dr summary
We have every right to complain about a faulty product, and the point isn't even that the product was faulty in this manner, but that the moderators of the forum have demonstrated that they're in fact engaging in the same sort of behavior they are meant to prevent, and the reason that we've got such a troll problem is that the moderators are either unable to distinguish between trolling and acceptable behavior or simply are too amused by the trolling and flamebaiting to actually do their job of moderating the forums.
Yes, actually, a fact for which I am immensely grateful. I have seen a little and heard a lot of the fact that siblings, most especially brothers, routinely assault and torture each other, and grow up to be damaged, sadistic brutes as a result. Far preferable to be raised in isolation with only dreams for company.
What? You can't possibly be serious. Damaged, sadistic brutes, huh? Wow. And here I thought 4-1 was over. Good one, man. ;)
But, alas, this thread demonstrates that the web is not conducive to April Fools jokes.
The Internet -> Serious Business.
I thought it was funny.
But, alas, this thread demonstrates that the web is not conducive to April Fools jokes.
The Internet -> Serious Business.
April Fool's Day is about pranks, but this wasn't one. It was trolling; their admitted reason was to annoy people and see how they'd respond. They weren't trying to trick us, there was no trickery involved. They really changed the website layout, and it really sucked, and people really complained, which is exactly what they always do when you put up an annoying and poor layout.
I don't mind April Fool's Day stuff; indeed, I enjoy it, and enjoy looking through the news to find fake stuff. I don't enjoy when idiots think egging houses constitutes a prank, because it doesn't.
April Fool's Day is about pranks, but this wasn't one. It was trolling; their admitted reason was to annoy people and see how they'd respond. They weren't trying to trick us, there was no trickery involved. They really changed the website layout, and it really sucked, and people really complained, which is exactly what they always do when you put up an annoying and poor layout.
I don't mind April Fool's Day stuff; indeed, I enjoy it, and enjoy looking through the news to find fake stuff. I don't enjoy when idiots think egging houses constitutes a prank, because it doesn't.
As reluctant as I am to do this, I agree with TD. As one of the people who had a genuine problem looking at the colour, and mostly avoided the boards while it happened, I find it annoying. Not the end of the world (which no one has seriously said), just annoying. And I don't see what's funny about annoying people. I was house-sitting at that time, so I didn't have a lot to do, and having one of my favourite boards essentially closed (no way I'd be able to stand looking at it for long) definitely didn't brighten my day.
It's like wanting pizza, and then finding out your favourite pizza place has put pineapple on all their pizzas as an April Fool's joke. It's not the end of the world, and it's not like eating a pizza with pineapple on it will kill you, but most people with taste will prefer something else, and many will avoid getting a pizza from that restaurant. I wasn't fooled by the April Fool's 'prank' or whatever it was supposed to be, I was just annoyed, in the same way I'd have been annoyed if the board had been down for maintenance the whole day.
And if pulling April Fools pranks is an art, please hone your craft a bit before your next attempt. Perhaps find the Prank Guru and study under him for awhile...
As reluctant as I am to do this, I agree with TD. As one of the people who had a genuine problem looking at the colour, and mostly avoided the boards while it happened, I find it annoying. Not the end of the world (which no one has seriously said), just annoying. And I don't see what's funny about annoying people. I was house-sitting at that time, so I didn't have a lot to do, and having one of my favourite boards essentially closed (no way I'd be able to stand looking at it for long) definitely didn't brighten my day.
You must admit though, that your problem with the layout is a relatively rare case. So, for you, you have a genuine complaint. But for people who don't have a problem with glare were just inconvenienced (by having to look at a terrible design).
I had trouble trying to log on when I first came to the board, as I couldn't get the login to accept my user name. I had to do a work around so that I could respond to threads.
Sure, I was annoyed, but in the grand scheme of things, this was a 1 day event and an effort to engage with the forum members. I just don't see making a big fuss out of it.
Oh well, maybe next year they'll just tamper with the word filter to make coherent posts impossible to write.
Two things:
Firstly, they are, in fact, obligated to some degree by the expectations of the consumer regarding the role of a company in facilitating the discussion of their product. In layman's terms, its actually an expectation by many if not most people these days that a company will provide some sort of medium for their customers to communicate with one another in an environment specifically devoted to discussion of aforementioned products in conjunction with the company.
Secondly, the first sentence I quoted is, in fact, a statement that I'm correct. You simply didn't recognize it as such.
Fundamentally, no, they are not obligated to provide us with this service. However, we expect them to do so, and if you provide a bad service or a nonexistant one, you will increase customer dissatisfaction.
That wasn't what I was referring to. Rather, I was referring to the fact that it is indeed entirely reasonable for us to complain about the state of the official forums of Wizards of the Coast, incorporated.
Of course, by that logic, it wouldn't be reasonable for you to reply to it either. Which obviously means that our primary motivation in this is greater than what meets the eye.
The reason I'm annoyed by this isn't the specific action, but rather the attitude behind it which the action is a manifestation of. Fundamentally, the moderators are not doing what they're supposed to be doing. One of the biggest roles a moderator has is to deal with trolling. Its by far the worst part of it, but it is a major part of it.
However, the moderators who performed this prank were, in fact, trolling.
Fundamentally, can we really expect people who act in this manner to regulate other people who act in this manner? I would tend to say no, and it is not unreasonable to look at the rampant trolling on these forums and come to the same conclusion. Moreover, it raises the onimous specter of whether the moderators are not merely incompetant, but are rather indulgant - they don't care about the trolling, and don't want to stop it, because it amuses them.
So basically, the reason behind my participation in this thread was to say that I found their behavior to be trollish in nature. The fact that they confirmed this simply is a greater indication to me that they are incapable of doing what they're supposed to be doing, and should be replaced. Fundamentally, I wanted to call them on their ill behavior, and see whether they'd realize what they did.
And you fail to realize that these forums are allowed to be here at our discretion.
You see, it is we who make these forums what they are. Without us, the forums are a waste of their money.
You claim I haven't refuted your point. Then you quote, explicitly, where I refute your point, and claim I'm deflecting it or avoiding it.
I was refuting your point.
Your claims are:
1) The forums are here at WotC's discretion.
True, but misleading. See:
This refutes your point. Your claim is without meaning. Coca-cola produces their product to make money. They do not HAVE to produce soft drinks. However, they do so to make money. If they were to produce some foul substance and insert it into their cans in the place of Coke, they could face criminal prosecution for it, even if they gave out those cans for free to homeless people.
Now obviously this isn't anywhere so serious as to invoke a threat of criminal prosecution. But the reality is that they are in fact producing a product in order to make money. It is perfectly legitimate to complain about products, even free ones, because their purpose is to generate revenue for the company.
If you do not believe that it is okay to complain about companies producing faulty products, then you are not only in the minority, but you're teaching your children to fail.
2) We do not pay for it's use.
False. See:
You claim:
This is wrong, and anyone who understands business will tell you why. The costs of advertisement, promotion, product research, and upkeep costs are passed onto the consumer.
In other words, any expense the company incurs will be passed onto its customers. Ergo, we are indeed paying for these forums, albiet indirectly.
I explained this:
You claimed this had "Nothing to do with what [you] said", but in fact, it has everything to do with what you said, thereby confirming that you did not understand my post.
3) They could close it down tomorrow or make it look puke green for everyone all the time, if they so choose.
True, but again misleading. They COULD do that. And the whole user base COULD leave, thus costing WotC a lot of money, especially as a lot of us would feel that WotC was actively being malicious towards us, and therefore not supporting their malicious behavior via simply not purchasing their products. Angering your customers simply to amuse yourself is a good way to lose them.
So fundamentally, its not I who is not refuting your points, but you who doesn't understand what I'm saying. Indeed, you were incapable of following my refutation of your points.
Basically, its irrelevant that they are not required by law to provide the forums, because they're not providing them out of the goodness of their hearts but rather to make money. Likewise, your point about them being able to make them worse is irrelevant, because it would, again, hurt their ability to generate revenue.
Your middle point, that we do not pay for its use, is outright wrong.
So your claim that we do not have the right to complain about it is, therefore, wrong, because it is based on a false premise, and uses arguments which do not actually support the conclusion.
tl; dr summary
We have every right to complain about a faulty product, and the point isn't even that the product was faulty in this manner, but that the moderators of the forum have demonstrated that they're in fact engaging in the same sort of behavior they are meant to prevent, and the reason that we've got such a troll problem is that the moderators are either unable to distinguish between trolling and acceptable behavior or simply are too amused by the trolling and flamebaiting to actually do their job of moderating the forums.
I'm not going to waste my time splitting your post and arguing each tiny point, it's just not relevant enough.
But, there are a few things.
First, there are no business experts...most especially NOT those who have aquired degrees for it. They have merely been instructed in how to outrageously exploit a deeply flawed system. A lot like powergamers, now that I think of it. They have no concept at all of the greater consequences of their activities i.e. those much more important events OUTSIDE the financial model that occur as a result of their ineptitude and greed within the financial model. So don't quote "business sense" to me, ever, because there is no such thing. The resources of this world are a closed circuit, and no system developed through the premise of growth and profit can ever be sustained within that circuit, period. If we leave the planet, we'll get a little extra breathing room, but that's not a good thing either. I'm sure we can all recall, after all, what infamous person shouted about people needing breathing room.
To use your business model though, there are a nearly endless variety of ways to fund message boards such as these. As a matter of fact, many message boards are funded through a variety of NPO means. Donations, volunteers, etc. I'm sure that's not the case here, but you keep bringing up how WE'RE paying for it by buying their books, so I think it's time you start putting down some records about their financial activities since you seem to, yet again, have such intimate and expert knowledge of how they spend their capital and on what. Honestly, how is it you haven't united the world under your flawless capabilities yet? It's such a terrible loss on our part.
Regardless, no one has said even once that it would be a good or successful idea for them to do things we dislike with the boards. What we've all said is that we aren't justified by some pretentious notion of entitlement to complain about every little thing they do with THEIR boards. As pointed out before, they are not ours. Once we've said our piece, that's the end of it. They can either listen or not, and either way you will NOT know for a whole year. Yet, you continue anyway. This leads us to believe you simply like to show off, because we're not arguing the prank anymore, we're just arguing with you and wasting EVERYONE'S time by doing so.
I'm going to keep posting on this thread, when I see someone with a relevant and NEW perspective to contribute, instead of their same tired old nonsense meant for nothing more than to puff themselves up. Hopefully, we can find a new and worthwhile direction for this topic.
I'm sure we can all recall, after all, what infamous person shouted about people needing breathing room.
I fail to see how Trevor Tuminski is relevant to this conversation. ;)
To comment briefly on the issue of funding, my view is that we purchase WotC's products using our money in a 1-for-1 exchange; we are not engaging in some contract wherein WotC is obligated to provide other services in addition to that product in future. Once WotC has the money we have given them, they may do whatever they wish with it, just as we are free to do whatever we like with the product they have given us.
WotC may not really like the uses their product is put to by the man who buys their books solely for use as toilet paper, but it's not their place to tell him what he can and cannot do with the books he purchased fair and square. Similarly, we may not really approve of WotC, say, donating money to pro-choice/pro-life (choose one) advocacy groups, but it's their money and they can do what they want with it.
That being said, WotC chooses to use their money to provide services that in turn make their products more valuable to us, which in turn makes us more likely to purchase additional product from them in future. Doing so will likely increase their profits in the long term, so it's a good idea for them, but they are in no way obligated to do so, and we have no business telling them what they can and cannot do with their money.
If we do not like what they do with their money, we can refuse to purchase additional products, just as WotC could refuse to sell more books to the man who buys them for toilet paper. But that's not the same thing as WotC being obligated to spend their money in a certain way, just as the man is not obligated to not use the books as toilet paper.
Can we complain if WotC does something we don't like? Certainly we can. But we should not feel that we are entitled to anything, nor that WotC is obligated to accede to our desires.
You must admit though, that your problem with the layout is a relatively rare case. So, for you, you have a genuine complaint. But for people who don't have a problem with glare were just inconvenienced (by having to look at a terrible design).
I don't have a problem with glare either, you must have me confused with someone else. I have Asperger's syndrome and as a result, my senses are a bit off, and I'm more sensitive to certain kinds of sensory stimulation. For instance, I seldom leave home without earplugs in my bag, and I sleep under a 'blanket' (in lack of better English word) filled with something resembling table tennis balls and weighing around 15 pounds. It's not that I can't go without these things, but I use them because certain sensory impressions (and a change in environment) can be stressing and overwhelming. The visual part isn't the worst, but combined with me being synaesthetic (like a lot of people with Asperger's syndrome), it's simply too uncomfortable to look at something like the Gleemax colours to be worth it.
But that's not the point. A lot of people might not have 'genuine' complaints, but the fact of the matter is that people are differently affected by things such as colours. Even among 'normal' people, some are more sensitive than others, and I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one who could technically see what's on the boards, but chose to avoid it. And if someone wants to make their forums so uncomfortable to look at that some people are bothered by it, that's their prerogative. But when they have the resources to give people a choice of colours, and choose to disable that, even for a day, it comes across as, well, trying to intentionally alienate those people.
But as I've already said before, what bothered me the most, is that you can't even express your opinion (this is annoying, and not actually funny), without other posters (and even staff members) triumphantly declaring that exposing your irrational nerd-rage (which 'this is annoying'
apparently constitutes as), or whatever they were trying to explain, actually is the joke, and that it's wildly succesful.Woohoo! *snuggles into her seat*
*Sits in the seat next to Therise and whispers* So what happened while I was gone?
First, there are no business experts...most especially NOT those who have aquired degrees for it. They have merely been instructed in how to outrageously exploit a deeply flawed system.
Woohoo! I have a kindred soul!
Once WotC has the money we have given them, they may do whatever they wish with it, just as we are free to do whatever we like with the product they have given us.
Technically your point is correct, but I still object to it, for reasons that I am unable to articulate particularly intelligently. It's admittedly difficult to define "right" or "wrong", but saying that people who engage in trade have no ability to ensure that the goods they trade in are not used "rightly" just rubs me the wrong way. It's like, if I'm considering selling a long-favorite book of mine so I can raise some cash, whether I go through with the sale would certainly be influenced by knowledge of what the other guy intends to do with the book. If he's just going to defile it, then I'll decide I don't need the cash that badly. So we do have some right, I think, to say what happens to our money after we give it away, although I can see where defining exactly how much that right is proves difficult.
*Sits in the seat next to Therise and whispers* So what happened while I was gone?
*whispers to Phoenixmaster* Want to get out of my lap, man? I mean I barely know ya. :P (I was in one seat next to her, and Zherog was in the other, lol.)
Technically your point is correct, but I still object to it, for reasons that I am unable to articulate particularly intelligently. It's admittedly difficult to define "right" or "wrong", but saying that people who engage in trade have no ability to ensure that the goods they trade in are not used "rightly" just rubs me the wrong way. It's like, if I'm considering selling a long-favorite book of mine so I can raise some cash, whether I go through with the sale would certainly be influenced by knowledge of what the other guy intends to do with the book. If he's just going to defile it, then I'll decide I don't need the cash that badly. So we do have some right, I think, to say what happens to our money after we give it away, although I can see where defining exactly how much that right is proves difficult.
To actually make a somewhat meaningful contribution to the thread once again, instead of just spamming it a bit...
I would have to agree that it sucks that we have no real right to say what the company does with the money we give them, at least not directly. We can always decide that if we don't like how they're spending it then we just don't give them any more, however. Overall I try and avoid mixing debate over ethics with discussion of business, these days the two are almost incompatible.
*Goes back to sitting next to Therise and eating his raisinets and drinkin a Pepsi*
It's like wanting pizza, and then finding out your favourite pizza place has put pineapple on all their pizzas as an April Fool's joke. It's not the end of the world, and it's not like eating a pizza with pineapple on it will kill you, but most people with taste will prefer something else, and many will avoid getting a pizza from that restaurant.
But I like pineapple pizza... :DI wasn't fooled by the April Fool's 'prank' or whatever it was supposed to be, I was just annoyed, in the same way I'd have been annoyed if the board had been down for maintenance the whole day.
This joke would admittedly have been much funnier if the forums being down for entire days wasn't a routine occurrence....
Overall I try and avoid mixing debate over ethics with discussion of business, these days the two are almost incompatible.
'Tis the tragic truth, aye verily.... To be very slightly on-topic, far too few of our beloved corporate masters qualify for an alignment not shared by blue dragons....
Me too. Pineapple is awesome on pizza.
It's like, if I'm considering selling a long-favorite book of mine so I can raise some cash, whether I go through with the sale would certainly be influenced by knowledge of what the other guy intends to do with the book. If he's just going to defile it, then I'll decide I don't need the cash that badly. So we do have some right, I think, to say what happens to our money after we give it away, although I can see where defining exactly how much that right is proves difficult.
No, you don't. In order to have such a right, you would have to arrange to have it as part of the transaction. If WotC listened to those terms and then agreed to that exchange with those terms, they would then be bound by the agreement. But of course, WotC does not sell their products with those kinds of amendments.
WotC has set the terms for the transaction (books/cards for money, no strings attached) and you must either take it or leave it. If you say "Okay, I will buy your book, but only as long as you don't do {this}", WotC will simply not sell you the book. By purchasing WotC's product on their terms, you are inherently agreeing to that arrangement. No strings attached.
By claiming that you have some right to forbid WotC from taking certain actions, you're trying to change the terms of the agreement after it has already gone through. But you have no power, legal, moral, physical, or otherwise, to do so.
*Sits in the seat next to Therise and whispers* So what happened while I was gone?
*whispers* This part's a little slow... they've drifted into a tangent about money, and then someone mentioned pineapple pizza.
**breaks open a box of Milk Duds and passes it around to everyone**
No, you don't. In order to have such a right, you would have to arrange to have it as part of the transaction. If WotC listened to those terms and then agreed to that exchange with those terms, they would then be bound by the agreement. But of course, WotC does not sell their products with those kinds of amendments.
WotC has set the terms for the transaction (books/cards for money, no strings attached) and you must either take it or leave it. If you say "Okay, I will buy your book, but only as long as you don't do {this}", WotC will simply not sell you the book. By purchasing WotC's product on their terms, you are inherently agreeing to that arrangement. No strings attached.
By claiming that you have some right to forbid WotC from taking certain actions, you're trying to change the terms of the agreement after it has already gone through. But you have no power, legal, moral, physical, or otherwise, to do so.
Zammm is completely correct.
I think one of the places the disconnect is occuring is on the definition of rights. At this point, I choose to quote someone I consider to be more intelligent than most of us on the boards...the late George Carlin. "Rights aren't rights if someone can take 'em away. They're priveledges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a Bill of Temporary Priveledges." We can complain til the end of time, we can even stop purchasing their products, but in the end, we have not one iota of direct control over the circumstances. We barely have influence.
It IS foolish to alienate one's customer base, but if that's the case, one moves on to another provider. If you sit around and complain about a situation you have no power to change, you're just whining. One can either accept the circumstances and adapt or move on, or one can attempt to change the circumstances if they have the means. We do NOT have the means as individuals. As a group, absolutely, but we're not a cohesive group, we're just a bunch of individuals with too much of a lack of common purpose to mount such change.
Frankly, in this case that's just fine with me since the symptom has come and gone, won't happen again for another year, and may or may not even be a problem next time. In the end, the potential benefit of success in changing this exremely trivial circumstance does NOT at all justify the cost of time and effort required to incite its alteration from our level.
*whispers* This part's a little slow... they've drifted into a tangent about money, and then someone mentioned pineapple pizza.
**breaks open a box of Milk Duds and passes it around to everyone**
No offense to you and the others, Therise, but...
This is what the thread has degenerated to...a stage show where reasonable people watch fools argue about trivial things, and the single most significant contributor to that fact is you, TD. Myself, Krownhunter, and Lucifernietzsche obviously did so also, but I find it worth noting in that case that all three of us were arguing against your points.
Lucifernietzsche may have bowed out a couple of pages ago, but it's almost a foregone conclusion that he still reads the thread, considering there are those who are camping out on the thread JUST to see what you'll spout next. So, I'll appeal to Krownhunter and others that we just forget about it and all find our own way to develop the thread's topic appropriately.
In which case, my apologies to those enjoying the show, but do feel free to get back into the conversation. In truth, I'm really amazed the thread hasn't been locked yet, Zammm.
In truth, I'm really amazed the thread hasn't been locked yet, Zammm.
This is Webster's turf, not mine.
However, it's generally not a good idea to lock threads where people are criticizing you if you can avoid it.
If people want to whine and cry about things like a child that doesn't get his/her way... well, I don't see the reason for talking to walls.
No offense to you and the others, Therise, but...
This is what the thread has degenerated to...a stage show where reasonable people watch fools argue about trivial things, and the single most significant contributor to that fact is you, TD. Myself, Krownhunter, and Lucifernietzsche obviously did so also, but I find it worth noting in that case that all three of us were arguing against your points.
Wait... when was this? Which points? All three of you?
Lucifernietzsche may have bowed out a couple of pages ago, but it's almost a foregone conclusion that he still reads the thread, considering there are those who are camping out on the thread JUST to see what you'll spout next. So, I'll appeal to Krownhunter and others that we just forget about it and all find our own way to develop the thread's topic appropriately.
Wait, whoa... People are camping out just to see what I'll 'spout' next?
AWESOME! I have fans!
Must... not... disappoint... let's see, how about one of these:
In which case, my apologies to those enjoying the show, but do feel free to get back into the conversation. In truth, I'm really amazed the thread hasn't been locked yet, Zammm.
No offense, Brian, but this thread is hilarious!
Wait... when was this? Which points? All three of you?
Wait, whoa... People are camping out just to see what I'll 'spout' next?
AWESOME! I have fans!
Must... not... disappoint... let's see, how about one of these:
No offense, Brian, but this thread is hilarious!
Sorry, didn't mean you at all in all of that. I meant TD.
When referring to you I was implying that I meant no offense about the fact that you and others were sitting around watching the show. lol Sorry about the miscommunication.
Anyway, like I've said before, moving along now...
Sorry, didn't mean you at all in all of that. I meant TD.
When referring to you I was implying that I meant no offense about the fact that you and others were sitting around watching the show. lol Sorry about the miscommunication.
Anyway, like I've said before, moving along now...
Oh, alrighty! Carry on!
Oh, alrighty! Carry on!
No worries, you still have fans!
No worries, you still have fans!
Don't you mean groupies?
LOL at Jabba-cat. Also, I move that the popcorn and pizza smileys be added to the forum code.
This...most definitely. I wholeheartedly second this motion.
Suppose MS introduced a setting in Windows that disabled all teh dsiabled-people friendly options in Windows on April 1st? Woudl the disabled communityfind that funny? Because by imposibng that skin on us, that is exactly what wizbro did.
I'm not angry, so much as dissapointed by the obvious stupidity of it all.