This is a joke, right?

[meganoth]

the usual rules of forums that do not approve of the revival of old discussions ?

I don't understand this, well, so what if the old topic has become relevant again and wanted to continue?

What's the problem with that? someone explain to me, i would be very grateful.

 

People can easily overlook that previous posts are from an old thread and try to reply to them even though the original posters don't even observe that thread anymore. That is simply wasted time (even more wasted than the usual wasted time in a forum )

 

Old posts might also have been based on different circumstances (especially in a forum on a game in development), people might even be tempted to point these out as errors. Again wasted time.

 

Old posts often have been read already. If you don't recognize this you are rereading old stuff. Wasted time.

 

Generally, it is a source of confusion if you don't see immediately that the posts are old. Depending on how you usually use a forum it might make no or a lot of difference.

[Roland]

No it isn't. I o̶b̶s̶e̶r̶v̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ make such interpretations all the time. Whenever someone criticises anything about the game, mods are all over that thread holding everything down as much as possible. It's annoying.

 

Fixed that for you. The only time I am all over a thread is to correct wrong guesses and speculations about dev motives behind changes. I never stop someone from giving their criticism that they don't like a feature or the removal of a feature. But when they start making wild accusations about why they believe those features were implemented or removed I make sure that people have my first-hand knowledge of what is going on behind the scenes as a counterpoint to the wild uninformed guesses. The only person that could possibly be annoying to is someone who has an agenda to turn the forums into a place where the devs are trashed all the time for imagined motives of wanting to cheat, spit on, and deceive their customers and they don't like someone with first-hand knowledge ruining their narrative.

 

I do offer my opinion on features such as food spoilage and learn by doing. But that is just another opinion to be read alongside the rest and in no way invalidates or suppresses the other opinions other than by how compelling it might be in the minds of the readers.

 

I would say just as you were quick to automatically conclude (wrongly) that I was making this person out to be an "idiot" instead of my actual suspicion that he was trying to dredge up an old argument, I suspect that you are probably wrong about those other cases that to you seem to see someone plainly making someone out to be an idiot. That interpretation is coming from you.

 

I'll say it plainly. The guy was not part of the original discussion. He would have had to go back pages and pages to find the six month old discussion which is now outdated by 3 updates now anyway and all to simply call out Oz on something he typed last year. I guess it resulted in Oz apologizing for his tone which is always a nice thing and sometimes time is necessary for pride/emotions to settle to the point where someone can apologize more easily.

 

How about you produce my posts where I'm making someone out to be an idiot from six + months ago and I'll easily apologize for giving that impression. You can even start a new thread called "I want an apology from Roland". I'm game.

[Lanadon Conners]

Roland "implied" in the Dev's Diary that if we carved our own wooden shoe and left it on the porch, we would receive free stuff!

Then Oz "implied" that if we painted it red, the shoe would do more damage!

Both Statements are 100% FALSE..

Distribution of inaccurate information!

I demand an Apology !!

 

 

(ok maybe my "shoe" looked more like a Japanese Sandal clog, and the red paint was blood from where I cut myself numerous times.. the only thing I found in it that morning was a woodpecker poking away at it and when I dropped it on my foot, I noticed no significant added damage from the night before)

[Roland]

Roland "implied" in the Dev's Diary that if we carved our own wooden shoe and left it on the porch, we would receive free stuff!

Then Oz "implied" that if we painted it red, the shoe would do more damage!

Both Statements are 100% FALSE..

Distribution of inaccurate information!

I demand an Apology !!

 

 

(ok maybe my "shoe" looked more like a Japanese Sandal clog, and the red paint was blood from where I cut myself numerous times.. the only thing I found in it that morning was a woodpecker poking away at it and when I dropped it on my foot, I noticed no significant added damage from the night before)

 

Too soon, man. Too soon.

[n2n1]

People can easily overlook that previous posts are from an old thread and try to reply to them even though the original posters don't even observe that thread anymore. That is simply wasted time (even more wasted than the usual wasted time in a forum )

 

Old posts might also have been based on different circumstances (especially in a forum on a game in development), people might even be tempted to point these out as errors. Again wasted time.

 

Old posts often have been read already. If you don't recognize this you are rereading old stuff. Wasted time.

 

Generally, it is a source of confusion if you don't see immediately that the posts are old. Depending on how you usually use a forum it might make no or a lot of difference.

Thank you!

But still, not all of this can be agreed. As always - all this is controversial

Usually, the discussion continues and it is just connected (but not continued) with the original topic.

[Morloc]

 

 

-Morloc

[BioFringe]

Thank you!

But still, not all of this can be agreed. As always - all this is controversial

Usually, the discussion continues and it is just connected (but not continued) with the original topic.

 

Not sure where controversial comes into play as it is clearly stated in the rules what is and isn't allowed, which we all agreed to follow when we signed up for permission to post on these boards. Someone might not agree with the rule but it's not controversial in any sense. The only controversy comes from those that want to see controversy. After all, beauty is in the eye of beholder.

[n2n1]

Not sure where controversial comes into play as it is clearly stated in the rules what is and isn't allowed, which we all agreed to follow when we signed up for permission to post on these boards. Someone might not agree with the rule but it's not controversial in any sense. The only controversy comes from those that want to see controversy. After all, beauty is in the eye of beholder.

Of course, rules are rules - no argument there. I ask about the expediency of this.

[Morloc]

 

 

-Morloc

[BioFringe]

It would have been better if it was a Beholder from D&D she was kissing.

[Morloc]

I did try for something like that :\

 

 

-Morloc

[BioFringe]

I did try for something like that :\

 

 

-Morloc

 

Well now you need to make a new meme...someone licking the Eye of the Beholder...sounds great!

[Roland]

Of course, rules are rules - no argument there. I ask about the expediency of this.

 

It is expedient. Responding to old threads that are based on outdated information is confusing and inaccurate. Even if some of the OP's opinion is still true there is enough that is no longer the case after 3 updates to warrant a new thread. Furthermore, the person who resurrected it wasn't even commenting on the OP. It was to +1 someone else's criticism of the tone of Oz's response six months after the conversation ended. There is literally no way to accidentally click on such a thread unless you are diving deep into past pages of threads to bring something up to try and what? Reignite the outrage? On whose behalf? the OP? He's been offline since last November. If he was going to gain any feeling of support and community outreach against Big Bad Oz it needed to be done at the time that it happened and not 6 months later.

 

The rule is in place for a good reason and that reason is to avoid confusion in a forum that stretches across many many versions of the game. Active threads about the game should be about the current version. This thread is about A17.0 experimental and there have been some changes in the intervening months. I see no reason to continue with it. There is a general A17 feedback thread if you want to vent about the general changes you either love or hate and if there are specific issues you want to discuss about 17.3 then start a new thread instead of finding one about the version 3 iterations past.