Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased.
BAM?
Seriously anyone who had a BAM moment should never be left alone with sharp objects or make financial descisions or invest in a game still in development.
LOL, you are too funny...
The BAM refers to Chris Roberts suddenly changing his stance on things. I guess we should not let him make financial decisions or invest in a game being developed, O.o
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
I wonder how ling before the extended alpha release that at some point gets renamed as the final release met by a wall of denial as this is what we promised.....money????? what money...........rabble rabble
On the upside, he did get the cash shop module and the marketing department working better than any other game....ok, maybe not WoW....but a solid second.
I will get to that point, but really look at Ben's reaction's in this video
This is a 63 minute long video. If you want to point out "Ben's reaction" you should give time stamps and say what YOU see so WE can take a look and compare it with what WE see.
If you want us to compare it with videos from years ago you should link those videos (and again give time stamps) so we can DO the very thing you ask us to do.
I think you folks are arguing over the wrong points. The real issue is with Chris and how during the first two years he never gave any indication of the increased time needed to make the game. We are told during the kickstarter that he would make the base game that everyone could play and then add modules over time. We were told in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay the release. Even in late 2013 Chris was still promoting the 2014 launch of a playable game.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
Exactly what you said, people aren't able to handle realities of software, so developers should shut their mouths.
This isn't a problem that is exclusive to CIG, either, Frontiers promised an offline mode with ED and that didn't happen. So then there was a big uproar when that game was launched. It happens countless times. The biggest difference is 1) people are hyper-focused on SC right now and make everything bigger than it actually is and; 2) Chris hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut. Honestly, it's like watching a child sometimes. Maybe that's the mandate of the project, though, I don't know. What I can say is that it's not uncommon for features to be cut.
Honestly, I find it mildly funny how people bitch and whine about development efforts which are more transparent than most, but also bitch and whine when they get stone-walled by AAA Publishers. The biggest mistake that Indie developers are making is over-estimating the maturity of the community at large. Honestly, you must be a VERY upstanding person. I really wish I was one of your kids because then there would never be a broken promise, disappointment, or outright lie. I know my kids would LOVE that. You must have life by the balls to never disappoint anyone. Congrats.
By the way, if you'd like me to start compiling a list of broken promises to shove in your face, I've already got a list of 10 just off the top of my head. So just continue to hyper-analyze and I'll just continue to show you how this isn't THAT uncommon.
There are VALID concerns with Chris, but missing deadlines is hardly one I'd be most concerned with. The biggest has been dealt with, I believe, so it really just boils down to seeing if it'll all implode or if something will actually get pushed out.
On the upside, he did get the cash shop module and the marketing department working better than any other game....ok, maybe not WoW....but a solid second.
I have to admit, it was funny to me that CIG's first implemented idea of "persistence" is an in-game shop wherein you can spend all the UEC you buy/melt. I mean, you know, there's other stuff to game economy and character development that don't have to do with how you can spend your RL cash for in-game gold. I'm not pushing that, though, because, well, something in is something in, right?
The BAM refers to Chris Roberts suddenly changing his stance on things.
You really just laid out one of the biggest issues with crowdfunding video-games, especially when it comes to the difference between a pitch and what will be the reality of it.
When you pledge to a kickstarter you're pledging to an outline, it's a proposal, it's not the actual product. Everything they're selling you is a goal, it's what they're trying to achieve. Not what they have achieved. In game development a feature can go from an intended goal to the trash bin in the blink of an eye. SO sudden changes in direction shouldn't really come as a surprise.
TBH..Typically it doesn't, because in most cases the consumer has no idea it even happened. AS we don't even usually hear about a game until it's much farther along in it's development. We certainly aren't getting final feature lists laid out to us at this stage. Say what you will about CR, lofty promises etc... None of that explains away this is par for the course as far as the trade goes (changes, features being dropped, etc..).
I can say this without attaching it to SC, as it applies to all, not just this project.
This is the major problem with most "evidence" constantly laid out about SC, too much of it can be applied to the entire industry. There's plenty to question about what's going on, there's plenty to question about CR's past as well. Yet the points being most discussed always borderline on the petty or anecdotal. To the layman some of this stuff can look quite sinister, yet when you consider the line of work, as I said it's normal. (changes in direction, cutting/adding features.)
Take Star Marine as an example. I'm no expert on the topic, as I really don't know what STar Marine was even supposed to be. Although I assume, much like the rest of the "modules" out there at present it was the testbed for the FPS mechanics? Is that assumption wrong? IF so my bad.
Now regardless of what it was "supposed" to be. What is the endgame there? FPS mechanics in the overall product? Planets, boarding, stations, etc.. on foot exploration, as well as out of ship combat?
IF SC launches with these things.. Does it make a difference at all in the end whether they missed the "star marine" goal? I really don't think it does.
I can understand concerns over the funds being dried up, I can understand concerns about fraud, etc.. But product changes, or scope changes? Not so much.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Wow, way to take a point to the furthest reaches of space. I love it when you take Chris getting my money by telling me the game would be delivered in 2014 and then telling me again in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay that release and then acting like he never said it or it was my fault for making him deal with "artificial deadlines" and comparing it to me never saying anything that could be seen as a lie to my child. Bravo!
While we seem to agree that Chris has continued to say one thing and then act surprised when people expect that one thing to happen, it is the acceptance of this standard that amazes me. You seem to point out that many other game companies do this and you are correct, they do. That does not make it right.
Now I will go off on a crazy comparison just like you do. Many people lie in the real world, so it is ok. Many people murder and kill others so it is ok. See what I did there? I took a fact like "Chris Roberts saying one thing and then acting surprised when we expect that thing to happen" and I beat the urine out of it to make it fit into some stupid comparison, just like you did when you compared a game company lying to get more sales to a father never saying anything that could be seen as untrue to his child.
Now tell me oh wise one, why should game companies be allowed to list features to gain sales and then stop taking refunds when their features can not make it into the product? Why are people who were shown videos of star marine not allowed refunds after Chris showed them video after video in 2015 of gameplay? I understand features can change but when they do, isnt it fair to also allow refunds?
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Take Star Marine as an example. I'm no expert on the topic, as I really don't know what STar Marine was even supposed to be. Although I assume, much like the rest of the "modules" out there at present it was the testbed for the FPS mechanics? Is that assumption wrong? IF so my bad.
Now regardless of what it was "supposed" to be. What is the endgame there? FPS mechanics in the overall product? Planets, boarding, stations, etc.. on foot exploration, as well as out of ship combat?
I think you folks are arguing over the wrong points. The real issue is with Chris and how during the first two years he never gave any indication of the increased time needed to make the game. We are told during the kickstarter that he would make the base game that everyone could play and then add modules over time. We were told in 2013 that stretch goals would not delay the release. Even in late 2013 Chris was still promoting the 2014 launch of a playable game.
Then BAM!!! Suddenly in 2015 we are told he wont be held to "artificial timelines" and the vision of the game has increased. If there was any indication in the first two years the game would take longer I have not been able to find it and it gives justification to the early adopters to be a bit angry at Chris for going back on the things he has said.
This is just one example, Star Marine is another. Chris spent most of 2015 promoting it and showing demo after demo and then in 2016 BAM! We have it in 2.0? Not even close. Take a look at the Star Marine videos Chris used to promote the game in 2015 and then tell me we have that in 2.0?
Chris is his own worst enemy. He says thing-A and then a year later acts like everyone else is wrong for expecting that thing-A to happen.
Think about what you're saying here, really.
Have you ever followed a major AAA game in development? Are you aware how common delays are?
It's the NORM - not the exception.
Whenever a project lead is called before the suits - he's doing his best to estimate a release date based on CURRENT information. That's essentially all he can do.
Isn't it odd how delays are the norm - ESPECIALLY for the best games out there - if it's about being your own worst enemy?
I mean are THAT many top developers really complete idiots?
Based on the ORIGINAL plan WAY before the funding exploded - Chris Roberts estimated a release date, and he had absolutely no way of knowing just how big the budget would become. The original stretch goals were much less ambitious and there was no reason to state they would delay the release date.
The NEW stretch goals added AFTER funding exploded changed things - and that's why the scope of the game grew so much.
When you're dedicated to making the best game possible - using ALL of your budget - it's not a trivial matter to come up with precise release dates, because it's a constantly changing environment.
If the game had started out with a 150 million dollar budget and a team already assembled, then maybe you'd have a point here. But that's not what happened.
Also, people acting like Star Marine was this huge deal is silly. It was always going to be a test-bed for FPS mechanics and nothing more. SC 2.0 came online sooner than expected and as such, the development focus is on that - because it's vital to the game as a whole.
Only a fool would want CIG to focus resources on a separate module using only FPS mechanics now, because it would mean delaying progress for the "real" game. Star Marine will come out at some point - when they have people free to handle that part of the game. The original plan was changed for a good reason.
That said, yes, Chris Roberts is particularly bad at estimating release dates - I'll grant you that. I was also annoyed about that for a while, until I realised and accepted that was just part of his enthusiasm. He's pushing limits and he's trying to motivate his team. Is that wise? I don't know - maybe it's not.
As for the 2.4 patch - if you paid close attention to the words used and the context, it was pretty obvious it wasn't all going to be there. Also, it wouldn't fit what they've been saying for months about progress, either.
Therein lies the problem. People shouldn't have to pay such close attention, this is a repeated thing for CIG and if they're constantly making similar mistakes they should steps to ensure they don't happen in the first place. Perhaps they need to divert a bit of funding away from marketing and into PR
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
A couple of mistakes is fine, one can pass them off as irrelevant but this isn't just a couple of mistakes. What they reveal are a pattern of poorly thought out decisions and if that is occuring with simple things then what might be occuring with more complex things?
This isn't jumping on something to make a huge deal out of it, this is just seeing stuff from a more critical perspective. You don't see PR, I see a lot of PR but it's done in a very chummy, boy's locker room sort of way, for some people that's endearing, for others it's unprofessional. Pick your poison and all that.
The point is - if you repeatedly have to explain your decisions then you need to look at your delivery, the onus is on the company to be clear about what they're offering (to avoid allegations of misdirection, bait and switch etc), it shouldn't be on the customer to read between the lines.
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
A couple of mistakes is fine, one can pass them off as irrelevant but this isn't just a couple of mistakes. What they reveal are a pattern of poorly thought out decisions and if that is occuring with simple things then what might be occuring with more complex things?
This isn't jumping on something to make a huge deal out of it, this is just seeing stuff from a more critical perspective. You don't see PR, I see a lot of PR but it's done in a very chummy, boy's locker room sort of way, for some people that's endearing, for others it's unprofessional. Pick your poison and all that.
The point is - if you repeatedly have to explain your decisions then you need to look at your delivery, the onus is on the company to be clear about what they're offering (to avoid allegations of misdirection, bait and switch etc), it shouldn't be on the customer to read between the lines.
If you really think it's such a big deal and worth fretting so much about - then by all means, continue to do so.
I think it's utterly trivial and I think it's extremely plain to see that they're simply not PR people promoting a product for monetary reasons.
They're human beings dedicated to the game instead of the "image" and sometimes they get too excited and forget to think how a few detractors will be jumping on their every mistake. Well, or maybe they don't really care - because they know how much support they have from reasonable people.
Maybe they understand that only the end result really matters - and delays tend to be forgotten the second a game is released. Especially if it's a great game.
If you really think it's such a big deal and worth fretting so much about - then by all means, continue to do so.
I think it's utterly trivial and I think it's extremely plain to see that they're simply not PR people promoting a product for monetary reasons.
They're human beings dedicated to the game instead of the "image" and sometimes they get too excited and forget to think how a few detractors will be jumping on their every mistake. Well, or maybe they don't really care - because they know how much support they have from reasonable people.
Maybe they understand that only the end result really matters - and delays tend to be forgotten the second a game is released. Especially if it's a great game.
No-one's fretting buddy, I already stated it wasn't a big deal - this is just being observational.
The fact that you try to demean other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant tells me that I am wasting my time conversing with you any further. Having a different perspective on some things hardly means I'm sitting here wringing my hands over it.
Seeing a recurring mistake is not detracting, it's pointing out the bloody obvious. If you choose to apologise for CIG, giving them a pass for all and sundry under the guise of "they're only human" then that's entirely up to you - but it doesn't mean you're right by any stretch of the imagination. If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
If you really think it's such a big deal and worth fretting so much about - then by all means, continue to do so.
I think it's utterly trivial and I think it's extremely plain to see that they're simply not PR people promoting a product for monetary reasons.
They're human beings dedicated to the game instead of the "image" and sometimes they get too excited and forget to think how a few detractors will be jumping on their every mistake. Well, or maybe they don't really care - because they know how much support they have from reasonable people.
Maybe they understand that only the end result really matters - and delays tend to be forgotten the second a game is released. Especially if it's a great game.
No-one's fretting buddy, I already stated it wasn't a big deal - this is just being observational.
The fact that you try to demean other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant tells me that I am wasting my time conversing with you any further. Having a different perspective on some things hardly means I'm sitting here wringing my hands over it.
Seeing a recurring mistake is not detracting, it's pointing out the bloody obvious. If you choose to apologise for CIG, giving them a pass for all and sundry under the guise of "they're only human" then that's entirely up to you - but it doesn't mean you're right by any stretch of the imagination. If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
You said a couple of mistakes is "fine" but that this isn't fine. Sounds like a big deal to me.
Maybe I don't understand just how much of a deal it is - but you're certainly here trying to argue against the game constantly.
As for "demeaning" you - I don't follow. I don't agree with you at all, and I'm stating my reasons why. I think you're being unreasonable.
Is that demeaning? So be it, but it wasn't my intention. I don't confuse people with their opinions.
I don't think I'm apologizing for CIG, I'm simply saying why I don't think it's much to fret about. I'm also explaining how being human means you make mistakes.
Why are you creating a fantasy strawman about not giving others a "free pass"? How would you know anything about that?
I happen to appreciate it a lot when people spend their time creating something I enjoy.
So, whenever I see people doing their best and coming up with something great - I'll give them a pass for delays and the occasional miscommunication every day of the week and twice on sunday. Let's just say I care much, much, MUCH more about the end result than I care about a polished image presented by PR professionals.
I'm not really big on playing the blame game or acting in a counterproductive way that's also against my very own interests.
I leave that to the strange fans of space games trying to fight Star Citizen.
You said a couple of mistakes is "fine" but that this isn't fine. Sounds like a big deal to me.
Maybe I don't understand just how much of a deal it is - but you're certainly here trying to argue against the game constantly.
As for "demeaning" you - I don't follow. I don't agree with you at all, and I'm stating my reasons why. I think you're being unreasonable.
Is that demeaning? So be it, but it wasn't my intention. I don't confuse people with their opinions.
I don't think I'm apologizing for CIG, I'm simply saying why I don't think it's much to fret about. I'm also explaining how being human means you make mistakes.
Why are you creating a fantasy strawman about not giving others a "free pass"? How would you know anything about that?
I happen to appreciate it a lot when people spend their time creating something I enjoy.
So, whenever I see people doing their best and coming up with something great - I'll give them a pass for delays and the occasional miscommunication every day of the week and twice on sunday. Let's just say I care much, much, MUCH more about the end result than I care about a polished image presented by PR professionals.
I'm not really big on playing the blame game or acting in a counterproductive way that's also against my very own interests.
I leave that to the strange fans of space games trying to fight Star Citizen.
I don't argue against the game continuously, that's ludicrous. I typically make far less than half a dozen posts about Star Citizen in a week, that's a long, long way from continuous...
I said 'demeaning other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant', I didn't say you were demeaning me, why would I care about your opinion of me?
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed. For example, you say a fantasy strawman but how is it a fantasy strawman? Drawing a parallel between the behaviour we typically expect from business but not applying that to CIG is not creating a strawman - it's an example of duplicity.
Personally I care about the whole process, how the company governs and presents itself is important because it shows they're paying attention, that they're trying to ensure the correct information is given to their backers, that they're trying to reduce the likelihood of misinforming people. It shows that the company is acting responsibly - which is all the more important when they have been given $111 million upfront.
But then, I'm not emotionally attached to this game, I'll leave that to the stalwarts who spend inordinate amounts of time apologising and defending CIG from any and all critiques.
You said a couple of mistakes is "fine" but that this isn't fine. Sounds like a big deal to me.
Maybe I don't understand just how much of a deal it is - but you're certainly here trying to argue against the game constantly.
As for "demeaning" you - I don't follow. I don't agree with you at all, and I'm stating my reasons why. I think you're being unreasonable.
Is that demeaning? So be it, but it wasn't my intention. I don't confuse people with their opinions.
I don't think I'm apologizing for CIG, I'm simply saying why I don't think it's much to fret about. I'm also explaining how being human means you make mistakes.
Why are you creating a fantasy strawman about not giving others a "free pass"? How would you know anything about that?
I happen to appreciate it a lot when people spend their time creating something I enjoy.
So, whenever I see people doing their best and coming up with something great - I'll give them a pass for delays and the occasional miscommunication every day of the week and twice on sunday. Let's just say I care much, much, MUCH more about the end result than I care about a polished image presented by PR professionals.
I'm not really big on playing the blame game or acting in a counterproductive way that's also against my very own interests.
I leave that to the strange fans of space games trying to fight Star Citizen.
I don't argue against the game continuously, that's ludicrous. I typically make far less than half a dozen posts about Star Citizen in a week, that's a long, long way from continuous...
I said 'demeaning other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant', I didn't say you were demeaning me, why would I care about your opinion of me?
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed. For example, you say a fantasy strawman but how is it a fantasy strawman? Drawing a parallel between the behaviour we typically expect from business but not applying that to CIG is not creating a strawman - it's an example of duplicity.
Personally I care about the whole process, how the company governs and presents itself is important because it shows they're paying attention, that they're trying to ensure the correct information is given to their backers, that they're trying to reduce the likelihood of misinforming people. It shows that the company is acting responsibly - which is all the more important when they have been given $111 million upfront.
But then, I'm not emotionally attached to this game, I'll leave that to the stalwarts who spend inordinate amounts of time apologising and defending CIG from any and all critiques.
Have fun
I'm afraid I still don't follow.
The concept of demeaning relates to people - not to opinions. As in, if your opinions are being "demeaned" - then YOU are being demeaned.
Again, so be it - but it's still not my intention. If you have no interest in exchanging with me because you're worried about having your opinions "demeaned" - then why are you still exchanging?
Since you're still here, I assume you don't really mean what you say and you actually DO want to exchange.
The fantasy strawman was this:
If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
You're apparently assuming that I would not give others a pass.
I DO give "every business" a pass if they work on something great and their flaws are as insignificant as those I see in CIG when it comes to miscommunication and delays.
I'm a reasonable person and I understand how these things happen. So I give people a pass if the end result is great.
--- It's clear that you don't follow or else we would have moved on long ago.
The concept of demeaning relates to people - not to opinions. As in, if your opinions are being "demeaned" - then YOU are being demeaned.
--- An argument can be demeaned without affecting the person, there's no reason the two have to be connected, it's only down to the person whether they choose take it personally, ergo ego. That shouldn't be a difficult concept.
Again, so be it - but it's still not my intention. If you have no interest in exchanging with me because you're worried about having your opinions "demeaned" - then why are you still exchanging?
Since you're still here, I assume you don't really mean what you say and you actually DO want to exchange.
--- I'm here because I'm refuting your points and adding my own, how else does debate happen? It would be rather silly (and worrying) if you were having this discussion with yourself now, wouldn't it?!
The fantasy strawman was this:
If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
You're apparently assuming that I would not give others a pass.
I DO give "every business" a pass if they work on something great and their flaws are as insignificant as those I see in CIG when it comes to miscommunication and delays.
I'm a reasonable person and I understand how these things happen. So I give people a pass if the end result is great.
You said a couple of mistakes is "fine" but that this isn't fine. Sounds like a big deal to me.
Maybe I don't understand just how much of a deal it is - but you're certainly here trying to argue against the game constantly.
As for "demeaning" you - I don't follow. I don't agree with you at all, and I'm stating my reasons why. I think you're being unreasonable.
Is that demeaning? So be it, but it wasn't my intention. I don't confuse people with their opinions.
I don't think I'm apologizing for CIG, I'm simply saying why I don't think it's much to fret about. I'm also explaining how being human means you make mistakes.
Why are you creating a fantasy strawman about not giving others a "free pass"? How would you know anything about that?
I happen to appreciate it a lot when people spend their time creating something I enjoy.
So, whenever I see people doing their best and coming up with something great - I'll give them a pass for delays and the occasional miscommunication every day of the week and twice on sunday. Let's just say I care much, much, MUCH more about the end result than I care about a polished image presented by PR professionals.
I'm not really big on playing the blame game or acting in a counterproductive way that's also against my very own interests.
I leave that to the strange fans of space games trying to fight Star Citizen.
I don't argue against the game continuously, that's ludicrous. I typically make far less than half a dozen posts about Star Citizen in a week, that's a long, long way from continuous...
I said 'demeaning other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant', I didn't say you were demeaning me, why would I care about your opinion of me?
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed. For example, you say a fantasy strawman but how is it a fantasy strawman? Drawing a parallel between the behaviour we typically expect from business but not applying that to CIG is not creating a strawman - it's an example of duplicity.
Personally I care about the whole process, how the company governs and presents itself is important because it shows they're paying attention, that they're trying to ensure the correct information is given to their backers, that they're trying to reduce the likelihood of misinforming people. It shows that the company is acting responsibly - which is all the more important when they have been given $111 million upfront.
But then, I'm not emotionally attached to this game, I'll leave that to the stalwarts who spend inordinate amounts of time apologising and defending CIG from any and all critiques.
Have fun
I'm afraid I still don't follow.
--- It's clear that you don't follow or else we would have moved on long ago.
The concept of demeaning relates to people - not to opinions. As in, if your opinions are being "demeaned" - then YOU are being demeaned.
--- An argument can be demeaned without affecting the person, there's no reason the two have to be connected, it's only down to the person whether they choose take it personally, ergo ego. That shouldn't be a difficult concept.
Again, so be it - but it's still not my intention. If you have no interest in exchanging with me because you're worried about having your opinions "demeaned" - then why are you still exchanging?
Since you're still here, I assume you don't really mean what you say and you actually DO want to exchange.
--- I'm here because I'm refuting your points and adding my own, how else does debate happen? It would be rather silly (and worrying) if you were having this discussion with yourself now, wouldn't it?!
The fantasy strawman was this:
If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
You're apparently assuming that I would not give others a pass.
I DO give "every business" a pass if they work on something great and their flaws are as insignificant as those I see in CIG when it comes to miscommunication and delays.
I'm a reasonable person and I understand how these things happen. So I give people a pass if the end result is great.
That's MY standard.
--- And I call bullshit on all of that.
You seem confused.
Let me remind you with a quote from you:
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed.
So, what is this debate that's supposed to happen between us?
I'm apparently demeaning "your opinions" - and as such, there's no discussion possible.
Could you please make up your mind if an exchange is possible - as it would make it seem like less of a waste to go on.
As for you final statement, I guess that's what being "open minded" is all about, right?
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
I think this is what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about by demeaning other peoples opinions as overblown and irrelevant. This isn't an attack against you so don't take it as such but here is why it comes across as demeaning.
He brings up the point of its been more then a few mistakes and you immediately begin to dismiss his observations as irrelevant by saying its not unusual to make mistakes, hence the whitewashing. A few mistakes is not unusual, if they say "sorry we need to push back star marine a few weeks to get things right" then that's a minor mistake in planning(shit happens) and they admitted to it.
The multiple mistakes comes from telling people over and over again that its only a few weeks away, its coming soon, just a little longer and then Chris telling backers he gets annoyed when he gets asked when is star marine coming?
People aren't jumping on a mistake to make it a huge deal but rather Chris is making it a huge deal by saying things that A) he either knows aren't possible, in which case he's intentionally misleading people or he doesn't know what's going on within his own company
Of course I could be completely wrong about what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
I think this is what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about by demeaning other peoples opinions as overblown and irrelevant. This isn't an attack against you so don't take it as such but here is why it comes across as demeaning.
He brings up the point of its been more then a few mistakes and you immediately begin to dismiss his observations as irrelevant by saying its not unusual to make mistakes, hence the whitewashing. A few mistakes is not unusual, if they say "sorry we need to push back star marine a few weeks to get things right" then that's a minor mistake in planning(shit happens) and they admitted to it.
The multiple mistakes comes from telling people over and over again that its only a few weeks away, its coming soon, just a little longer and then Chris telling backers he gets annoyed when he gets asked when is star marine coming?
People aren't jumping on a mistake to make it a huge deal but rather Chris is making it a huge deal by saying things that A) he either knows aren't possible, in which case he's intentionally misleading people or he doesn't know what's going on within his own company
Of course I could be completely wrong about what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about
I'm afraid I can't agree that I've been dismissing his opinion as irrelevant.
I simply don't agree it's a big problem - and I've stated why.
Could you tell me, exactly, what's demeaning about that? Instead of just quoting a bunch of text - then could you be precise in terms of what words are "demeaning opinions"?
I'm genuinely curious.
As for it being a "huge" deal - mcmurphy has plainly stated that he doesn't think it's a huge deal - so that's on you.
I can only repeat that I still don't think so - and for the same reasons as I've already stated.
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
I think this is what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about by demeaning other peoples opinions as overblown and irrelevant. This isn't an attack against you so don't take it as such but here is why it comes across as demeaning.
He brings up the point of its been more then a few mistakes and you immediately begin to dismiss his observations as irrelevant by saying its not unusual to make mistakes, hence the whitewashing. A few mistakes is not unusual, if they say "sorry we need to push back star marine a few weeks to get things right" then that's a minor mistake in planning(shit happens) and they admitted to it.
The multiple mistakes comes from telling people over and over again that its only a few weeks away, its coming soon, just a little longer and then Chris telling backers he gets annoyed when he gets asked when is star marine coming?
People aren't jumping on a mistake to make it a huge deal but rather Chris is making it a huge deal by saying things that A) he either knows aren't possible, in which case he's intentionally misleading people or he doesn't know what's going on within his own company
Of course I could be completely wrong about what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about
I'm afraid I can't agree that I've been dismissing his opinion as irrelevant.
I simply don't agree it's a big problem - and I've stated why.
Could you tell me, exactly, what's demeaning about that? Instead of just quoting a bunch of text - then could you be precise in terms of what words are "demeaning opinions"?
I'm genuinely curious.
As for it being a "huge" deal - mcmurphy has plainly stated that he doesn't think it's a huge deal - so that's on you.
I can only repeat that I still don't think so - and for the same reasons as I've already stated.
I already explained why it's considered demeaning. Also you were the one to say people want to jump on this mistake as a huge deal. I wasn't referencing the one I gave as an example but no its not on me.
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
I think this is what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about by demeaning other peoples opinions as overblown and irrelevant. This isn't an attack against you so don't take it as such but here is why it comes across as demeaning.
He brings up the point of its been more then a few mistakes and you immediately begin to dismiss his observations as irrelevant by saying its not unusual to make mistakes, hence the whitewashing. A few mistakes is not unusual, if they say "sorry we need to push back star marine a few weeks to get things right" then that's a minor mistake in planning(shit happens) and they admitted to it.
The multiple mistakes comes from telling people over and over again that its only a few weeks away, its coming soon, just a little longer and then Chris telling backers he gets annoyed when he gets asked when is star marine coming?
People aren't jumping on a mistake to make it a huge deal but rather Chris is making it a huge deal by saying things that A) he either knows aren't possible, in which case he's intentionally misleading people or he doesn't know what's going on within his own company
Of course I could be completely wrong about what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about
I'm afraid I can't agree that I've been dismissing his opinion as irrelevant.
I simply don't agree it's a big problem - and I've stated why.
Could you tell me, exactly, what's demeaning about that? Instead of just quoting a bunch of text - then could you be precise in terms of what words are "demeaning opinions"?
I'm genuinely curious.
As for it being a "huge" deal - mcmurphy has plainly stated that he doesn't think it's a huge deal - so that's on you.
I can only repeat that I still don't think so - and for the same reasons as I've already stated.
I already explained why it's considered demeaning. Also you were the one to say people want to jump on this mistake as a huge deal. I wasn't referencing the one I gave as an example but no its not on me.
I guess you didn't explain it in a way that I can understand, but that's ok.
You seem confused. Let me remind you with a quote from you:
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed.
So, what is this debate that's supposed to happen between us? I'm apparently demeaning "your opinions" - and as such, there's no discussion possible. Could you please make up your mind if an exchange is possible - as it would make it seem like less of a waste to go on. As for you final statement, I guess that's what being "open minded" is all about, right? Such a profound argument.
Okay, do you not see that the discussion stopped being about the things CIG do and how it became about you and me. That's where the debate went out of the window. Am I speaking in bloody Gaelic here?
Your and my discussion is over, you want the freedom to be able to demean other people's comments, you want to be able act passive aggressively but as soon as someone responds in kind you also want to be able to get on your high horse and act as though you would never do such a thing. You can't have it both ways.
You seem confused. Let me remind you with a quote from you:
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed.
So, what is this debate that's supposed to happen between us? I'm apparently demeaning "your opinions" - and as such, there's no discussion possible. Could you please make up your mind if an exchange is possible - as it would make it seem like less of a waste to go on. As for you final statement, I guess that's what being "open minded" is all about, right? Such a profound argument.
Okay, do you not see that the discussion stopped being about the things CIG do and how it became about you and me. That's where the debate went out of the window. Am I speaking in bloody Gaelic here?
Your and my discussion is over, you want the freedom to be able to demean other people's comments, you want to be able act passive aggressively but as soon as someone responds in kind you also want to be able to get on your high horse and act as though you would never do such a thing. You can't have it both ways.
Gaelic? Not sure. It's certainly not making any sense to me. It sounds like you've run out of arguments and you're playing some kind of victim card instead of merely acknowledging that you can't handle an opposing opinion without conjuring up ulterior motives.
Gaelic? Not sure. It's certainly not making any sense to me. It sounds like you've run out of arguments and you're playing some kind of victim card instead of merely acknowledging that you can't handle an opposing opinion without conjuring up ulterior motives.
But that's fair enough.
:-)
--> @rpmcmurphy ; >>>>Am I speaking in bloody Gaelic here?>>>>
--> @DKLond "Gaelic? Níl mé cinnte. Tá sé cinnte nach bhfuil a dhéanamh ar aon chiall a dom. Fuaimeanna sé cosúil tá tú ag rith amach as argóintí agus tú ag imirt ar roinnt de chárta íospartaigh chineál ionad ach admháil nach féidir leat a láimhseáil tuairim gcoinne gan draíodóireachta suas motives ulterior.
Comments
The BAM refers to Chris Roberts suddenly changing his stance on things. I guess we should not let him make financial decisions or invest in a game being developed, O.o
On the upside, he did get the cash shop module and the marketing department working better than any other game....ok, maybe not WoW....but a solid second.
If you want us to compare it with videos from years ago you should link those videos (and again give time stamps) so we can DO the very thing you ask us to do.
Have fun
Exactly what you said, people aren't able to handle realities of software, so developers should shut their mouths.
This isn't a problem that is exclusive to CIG, either, Frontiers promised an offline mode with ED and that didn't happen. So then there was a big uproar when that game was launched. It happens countless times. The biggest difference is 1) people are hyper-focused on SC right now and make everything bigger than it actually is and; 2) Chris hasn't learned to keep his mouth shut. Honestly, it's like watching a child sometimes. Maybe that's the mandate of the project, though, I don't know. What I can say is that it's not uncommon for features to be cut.
Honestly, I find it mildly funny how people bitch and whine about development efforts which are more transparent than most, but also bitch and whine when they get stone-walled by AAA Publishers. The biggest mistake that Indie developers are making is over-estimating the maturity of the community at large. Honestly, you must be a VERY upstanding person. I really wish I was one of your kids because then there would never be a broken promise, disappointment, or outright lie. I know my kids would LOVE that. You must have life by the balls to never disappoint anyone. Congrats.
By the way, if you'd like me to start compiling a list of broken promises to shove in your face, I've already got a list of 10 just off the top of my head. So just continue to hyper-analyze and I'll just continue to show you how this isn't THAT uncommon.
There are VALID concerns with Chris, but missing deadlines is hardly one I'd be most concerned with. The biggest has been dealt with, I believe, so it really just boils down to seeing if it'll all implode or if something will actually get pushed out.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
When you pledge to a kickstarter you're pledging to an outline, it's a proposal, it's not the actual product. Everything they're selling you is a goal, it's what they're trying to achieve. Not what they have achieved. In game development a feature can go from an intended goal to the trash bin in the blink of an eye. SO sudden changes in direction shouldn't really come as a surprise.
TBH..Typically it doesn't, because in most cases the consumer has no idea it even happened. AS we don't even usually hear about a game until it's much farther along in it's development. We certainly aren't getting final feature lists laid out to us at this stage. Say what you will about CR, lofty promises etc... None of that explains away this is par for the course as far as the trade goes (changes, features being dropped, etc..).
I can say this without attaching it to SC, as it applies to all, not just this project.
This is the major problem with most "evidence" constantly laid out about SC, too much of it can be applied to the entire industry. There's plenty to question about what's going on, there's plenty to question about CR's past as well. Yet the points being most discussed always borderline on the petty or anecdotal. To the layman some of this stuff can look quite sinister, yet when you consider the line of work, as I said it's normal. (changes in direction, cutting/adding features.)
Take Star Marine as an example. I'm no expert on the topic, as I really don't know what STar Marine was even supposed to be. Although I assume, much like the rest of the "modules" out there at present it was the testbed for the FPS mechanics? Is that assumption wrong? IF so my bad.
Now regardless of what it was "supposed" to be. What is the endgame there? FPS mechanics in the overall product? Planets, boarding, stations, etc.. on foot exploration, as well as out of ship combat?
IF SC launches with these things.. Does it make a difference at all in the end whether they missed the "star marine" goal? I really don't think it does.
I can understand concerns over the funds being dried up, I can understand concerns about fraud, etc.. But product changes, or scope changes? Not so much.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
While we seem to agree that Chris has continued to say one thing and then act surprised when people expect that one thing to happen, it is the acceptance of this standard that amazes me. You seem to point out that many other game companies do this and you are correct, they do. That does not make it right.
Now I will go off on a crazy comparison just like you do. Many people lie in the real world, so it is ok. Many people murder and kill others so it is ok. See what I did there? I took a fact like "Chris Roberts saying one thing and then acting surprised when we expect that thing to happen" and I beat the urine out of it to make it fit into some stupid comparison, just like you did when you compared a game company lying to get more sales to a father never saying anything that could be seen as untrue to his child.
Now tell me oh wise one, why should game companies be allowed to list features to gain sales and then stop taking refunds when their features can not make it into the product? Why are people who were shown videos of star marine not allowed refunds after Chris showed them video after video in 2015 of gameplay? I understand features can change but when they do, isnt it fair to also allow refunds?
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/445227/a-history-of-star-marine-the-fps-shooter-component-of-star-citizens/p1
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/445044/star-marine-delivered/p1
Have you ever followed a major AAA game in development? Are you aware how common delays are?
It's the NORM - not the exception.
Whenever a project lead is called before the suits - he's doing his best to estimate a release date based on CURRENT information. That's essentially all he can do.
Isn't it odd how delays are the norm - ESPECIALLY for the best games out there - if it's about being your own worst enemy?
I mean are THAT many top developers really complete idiots?
Based on the ORIGINAL plan WAY before the funding exploded - Chris Roberts estimated a release date, and he had absolutely no way of knowing just how big the budget would become. The original stretch goals were much less ambitious and there was no reason to state they would delay the release date.
The NEW stretch goals added AFTER funding exploded changed things - and that's why the scope of the game grew so much.
When you're dedicated to making the best game possible - using ALL of your budget - it's not a trivial matter to come up with precise release dates, because it's a constantly changing environment.
If the game had started out with a 150 million dollar budget and a team already assembled, then maybe you'd have a point here. But that's not what happened.
Also, people acting like Star Marine was this huge deal is silly. It was always going to be a test-bed for FPS mechanics and nothing more. SC 2.0 came online sooner than expected and as such, the development focus is on that - because it's vital to the game as a whole.
Only a fool would want CIG to focus resources on a separate module using only FPS mechanics now, because it would mean delaying progress for the "real" game. Star Marine will come out at some point - when they have people free to handle that part of the game. The original plan was changed for a good reason.
That said, yes, Chris Roberts is particularly bad at estimating release dates - I'll grant you that. I was also annoyed about that for a while, until I realised and accepted that was just part of his enthusiasm. He's pushing limits and he's trying to motivate his team. Is that wise? I don't know - maybe it's not.
But it's hardly the end of the world, is it.
Yes, they make mistakes. I don't know if you think that's so unusual.
It's a game being built before our eyes - and we're seeing much, much earlier development than usual.
It's during this time that things are especially subject to change - and there's no "PR" as such, just a bunch of community people doing their best.
It's not a smooth-talking and well-oiled machine ready to manipulate the audience with nothing but safe statements.
Is that a big problem? I wouldn't have thought so, but I guess a lot of people want to jump on this kind of mistake as a huge deal.
I can't agree.
A couple of mistakes is fine, one can pass them off as irrelevant but this isn't just a couple of mistakes.
What they reveal are a pattern of poorly thought out decisions and if that is occuring with simple things then what might be occuring with more complex things?
This isn't jumping on something to make a huge deal out of it, this is just seeing stuff from a more critical perspective. You don't see PR, I see a lot of PR but it's done in a very chummy, boy's locker room sort of way, for some people that's endearing, for others it's unprofessional. Pick your poison and all that.
The point is - if you repeatedly have to explain your decisions then you need to look at your delivery, the onus is on the company to be clear about what they're offering (to avoid allegations of misdirection, bait and switch etc), it shouldn't be on the customer to read between the lines.
I think it's utterly trivial and I think it's extremely plain to see that they're simply not PR people promoting a product for monetary reasons.
They're human beings dedicated to the game instead of the "image" and sometimes they get too excited and forget to think how a few detractors will be jumping on their every mistake. Well, or maybe they don't really care - because they know how much support they have from reasonable people.
Maybe they understand that only the end result really matters - and delays tend to be forgotten the second a game is released. Especially if it's a great game.
No-one's fretting buddy, I already stated it wasn't a big deal - this is just being observational.
The fact that you try to demean other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant tells me that I am wasting my time conversing with you any further. Having a different perspective on some things hardly means I'm sitting here wringing my hands over it.
Seeing a recurring mistake is not detracting, it's pointing out the bloody obvious. If you choose to apologise for CIG, giving them a pass for all and sundry under the guise of "they're only human" then that's entirely up to you - but it doesn't mean you're right by any stretch of the imagination.
If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
Maybe I don't understand just how much of a deal it is - but you're certainly here trying to argue against the game constantly.
As for "demeaning" you - I don't follow. I don't agree with you at all, and I'm stating my reasons why. I think you're being unreasonable.
Is that demeaning? So be it, but it wasn't my intention. I don't confuse people with their opinions.
I don't think I'm apologizing for CIG, I'm simply saying why I don't think it's much to fret about. I'm also explaining how being human means you make mistakes.
Why are you creating a fantasy strawman about not giving others a "free pass"? How would you know anything about that?
I happen to appreciate it a lot when people spend their time creating something I enjoy.
So, whenever I see people doing their best and coming up with something great - I'll give them a pass for delays and the occasional miscommunication every day of the week and twice on sunday. Let's just say I care much, much, MUCH more about the end result than I care about a polished image presented by PR professionals.
I'm not really big on playing the blame game or acting in a counterproductive way that's also against my very own interests.
I leave that to the strange fans of space games trying to fight Star Citizen.
I don't argue against the game continuously, that's ludicrous. I typically make far less than half a dozen posts about Star Citizen in a week, that's a long, long way from continuous...
I said 'demeaning other people's opinions as overblown and irrelevant', I didn't say you were demeaning me, why would I care about your opinion of me?
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed.
For example, you say a fantasy strawman but how is it a fantasy strawman? Drawing a parallel between the behaviour we typically expect from business but not applying that to CIG is not creating a strawman - it's an example of duplicity.
Personally I care about the whole process, how the company governs and presents itself is important because it shows they're paying attention, that they're trying to ensure the correct information is given to their backers, that they're trying to reduce the likelihood of misinforming people. It shows that the company is acting responsibly - which is all the more important when they have been given $111 million upfront.
But then, I'm not emotionally attached to this game, I'll leave that to the stalwarts who spend inordinate amounts of time apologising and defending CIG from any and all critiques.
Have fun
The concept of demeaning relates to people - not to opinions. As in, if your opinions are being "demeaned" - then YOU are being demeaned.
Again, so be it - but it's still not my intention. If you have no interest in exchanging with me because you're worried about having your opinions "demeaned" - then why are you still exchanging?
Since you're still here, I assume you don't really mean what you say and you actually DO want to exchange.
The fantasy strawman was this:
If we applied that line of thinking to every business we would be in a right fraking mess, so why should little old CIG get a pass and others not? This is called having standards...
You're apparently assuming that I would not give others a pass.
I DO give "every business" a pass if they work on something great and their flaws are as insignificant as those I see in CIG when it comes to miscommunication and delays.
I'm a reasonable person and I understand how these things happen. So I give people a pass if the end result is great.
That's MY standard.
Let me remind you with a quote from you:
See this is where all possibility of discussion goes out the window. It's without a doubt that you are firmly in the apologist camp, you're not open to debate, any viewpoint that doesn't confirm with your own is whitewashed.
So, what is this debate that's supposed to happen between us?
I'm apparently demeaning "your opinions" - and as such, there's no discussion possible.
Could you please make up your mind if an exchange is possible - as it would make it seem like less of a waste to go on.
As for you final statement, I guess that's what being "open minded" is all about, right?
Such a profound argument.
He brings up the point of its been more then a few mistakes and you immediately begin to dismiss his observations as irrelevant by saying its not unusual to make mistakes, hence the whitewashing. A few mistakes is not unusual, if they say "sorry we need to push back star marine a few weeks to get things right" then that's a minor mistake in planning(shit happens) and they admitted to it.
The multiple mistakes comes from telling people over and over again that its only a few weeks away, its coming soon, just a little longer and then Chris telling backers he gets annoyed when he gets asked when is star marine coming?
People aren't jumping on a mistake to make it a huge deal but rather Chris is making it a huge deal by saying things that
A) he either knows aren't possible, in which case he's intentionally misleading people or
Of course I could be completely wrong about what @rpmcmurphy ;is talking about
I simply don't agree it's a big problem - and I've stated why.
Could you tell me, exactly, what's demeaning about that? Instead of just quoting a bunch of text - then could you be precise in terms of what words are "demeaning opinions"?
I'm genuinely curious.
As for it being a "huge" deal - mcmurphy has plainly stated that he doesn't think it's a huge deal - so that's on you.
I can only repeat that I still don't think so - and for the same reasons as I've already stated.
I already explained why it's considered demeaning. Also you were the one to say people want to jump on this mistake as a huge deal. I wasn't referencing the one I gave as an example but no its not on me.
Thanks for your input
Okay, do you not see that the discussion stopped being about the things CIG do and how it became about you and me. That's where the debate went out of the window. Am I speaking in bloody Gaelic here?
Your and my discussion is over, you want the freedom to be able to demean other people's comments, you want to be able act passive aggressively but as soon as someone responds in kind you also want to be able to get on your high horse and act as though you would never do such a thing. You can't have it both ways.
---
@Kefo Thank you for explaining.
But that's fair enough.
Thanks for the exchange
--> @rpmcmurphy ; >>>>Am I speaking in bloody Gaelic here?>>>>
--> @DKLond
"Gaelic? Níl mé cinnte. Tá sé cinnte nach bhfuil a dhéanamh ar aon chiall a dom.
Fuaimeanna sé cosúil tá tú ag rith amach as argóintí agus tú ag imirt ar roinnt de chárta íospartaigh chineál ionad ach admháil nach féidir leat a láimhseáil tuairim gcoinne gan draíodóireachta suas motives ulterior.
Ach go cóir go leor."
http://imtranslator.net/translation/english/to-irish/translation/
Have fun