#43 - March 26, 2009, 1:17 a.m.
Q u o t e:
YOU SIT ON A THRONE OF LIES GC!!!!
If the THRONE OF LIES has a cup-holder, I'm good.
Q u o t e:
GC gave the second reason when I think the first one applies far more in the above case. My posting "good discussion, keep it going" takes all of a few seconds per thread; it might take 5 minutes a day to do several dozen of those posts. If you reserved such posts for good discussions over, say, 10 pages, the second reason would be a non-issue. I'm pretty sure that's what the OP meant.
I disagree. Aside from the distraction risk, then any thread that does not have the "seal of approval" or whatever legitimately feels like their issues have not been read. That then leads to me just blueing every single post, which leads to players then saying my response was too short. You see a lot of "We poured our hearts out and THAT'S ALL WE GOT?"
I would respond to every discussion if I could. Alas, time does not stand still.
Q u o t e:
Also, if it takes too long to add a reply like that to long threads, how in the world does one read each thread in the first place? It would seem like reading would take *much* longer than responding, if the response is simplistic enough. If GC meant that he'd spend too much time writing in-depth responses each day, that makes great sense to me--I know how long it can take to craft a well-thought-out post.
Reading takes far, far less time. I have to be very careful with what I write. If I make a technical error, then players worry that I'm a bumbling idiot breaking their game. If I accidentally insult someone, they get outraged. I have to keep track of what we have announced or not. I have to keep track of what changes you have seen vs. what changes we have made. My quotes get spread across the Interwebs, often without the quote I was responding to. Typing doesn't take very long. Crafting the perfect message takes forever.
Incidentally, responses to threads like this one take no time at all and don't really steal time from serious discussions. If they brighten up such a serious and negative place a little bit, that's not a bad thing.
Q u o t e:
Do you have any idea what a blue post really does to a good thread? It completely destroys it most of the time. If the players ae in a long thread, with real conversation going, and not the useless "/signed", "/agree", "bump because i have nothing to say" or what not, then that's whats needed. Blue posts are not a great thing for a good thread, they tend to cause them to get trolled, or people come in to ask stupid questions completely off topic. Let the thread go, it will be read, may even have the post limit extended.
It’s true. It also spawns a lot of “GC said this in another thread so I am going to start a new thread with his quote.” Seen a lot of those lately.
Q u o t e:
List of GC Rogue posts this month:
The best answer I have for the “GC doesn’t pay enough attention to us” posts now is (thanks to one clever player)
MARCIA MARCIA MARCIA
I'm sorry to be so flippant about it, but I'm not sure what else to do. I have seriously considered keeping a calendar on my desk and marking down how many responses I have made per spec per day. But then I realize that players will still tally PvE vs. PvP or the length or amount of info in a response or will accuse me of wasting their allotment of posts on the wrong post, and so on. It just devolves into a silly game and not one I am interested in playing.
EDIT: Because I fail Brady Bunch.
