answer to TB rotations is not answer to the question that was asked

Replies

  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around
    Next player post: Monday has passed.
    Next Kyno post: He didn't specify which Monday, and there are Mondays in the future. Obviously he meant one of them.
  • Kyno
    32087 posts Moderator
    DRD1812 wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around
    Next player post: Monday has passed.
    Next Kyno post: He didn't specify which Monday, and there are Mondays in the future. Obviously he meant one of them.

    Did he say he would have an answer on monday?
  • CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

    Their desks now:
    dgb32gjjcqr0.png
  • @Kyno Can you please touch base with Crumb to make sure this question is readdressed on the scheduled 1/10 Q&A session? I can promise a LOT of people will be very upset if it isn't properly addressed by CG either during that session or in this thread.

    To those not following the dev updates, here's the Q&A announcement: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/222244/developer-q-a-01-10-2020
  • @Kyno Can you please touch base with Crumb to make sure this question is readdressed on the scheduled 1/10 Q&A session? I can promise a LOT of people will be very upset if it isn't properly addressed by CG either during that session or in this thread.

    To those not following the dev updates, here's the Q&A announcement: https://forums.galaxy-of-heroes.starwars.ea.com/discussion/222244/developer-q-a-01-10-2020

    lmao you still think this is actually going to get an answer?
  • Can't believe how desperately hard some people defend this nonsense. Haven't ever been a part of a community with so much disfunction at the top.
  • Sigh.....this is almost comical at this point. Generally, honesty is the best policy. I'm 99% sure this is exactly what happened.

    The monday they were supposed to give us the answer, I believe the hyperdrive bundle came out. Right around that time, there was also Hux and his his gear problems (as well as synergy), Sith Trooper, and Journey Guide. On top of that, LS Geo completely crashed and they essentially needed to restart it. All of this a couple of weeks before the Holidays. So, given that this is a lower priority item (and it is), they just didnt have time to discuss it /think about it and they kicked this can down the road. Lets be honest, I'm sure most of you hold "real jobs", and this is essentially the first week back. Now, staring another Q&A in the face, I'm guessing the possibility of us getting an answer before then is slim/none but the possibility of getting an answer in the Q&A is pretty good

    Kyno, you yourself said that Crumb asked a follow up question and you missed it (no biggie, appreciate your efforts). But there is obviously more to this, and insinuating that this topic is closed to the everyone's satisfaction and the Dev's answered the questions is silly.

    Simple solution, just say that we will get an answer during the Q&A (and it should be answered based on both Kyno's and Crumbs previous responses) and all of this back and forth can stop.
  • Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

    Okay so he said Monday. what Monday was that? Monday like 6 weeks ago...
    Answer yes

    The timetable you claim is arbitrary and set by the community was actually set by crumb (Monday). That was over a month ago.

    I know you need to stick up for them but asking for a community manager to be responsible for updating the community and not leave an issue hanging with no response for over a month after an update saying this afternoon then monday then a month and still no response is complete within reason.
  • TVF
    36594 posts Member
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

    Okay so he said Monday. what Monday was that? Monday like 6 weeks ago...
    Answer yes

    The timetable you claim is arbitrary and set by the community was actually set by crumb (Monday). That was over a month ago.

    I know you need to stick up for them but asking for a community manager to be responsible for updating the community and not leave an issue hanging with no response for over a month after an update saying this afternoon then monday then a month and still no response is complete within reason.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Kyno wrote: »
    Col_Janson wrote: »
    Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.

    The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.

    I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...

    Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.

    No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.

    Who should be accountable for what?
    Crumb should be accountable for his word.

    Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon

    6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.

    I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?

    And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

    Okay so he said Monday. what Monday was that? Monday like 6 weeks ago...
    Answer yes

    The timetable you claim is arbitrary and set by the community was actually set by crumb (Monday). That was over a month ago.

    I know you need to stick up for them but asking for a community manager to be responsible for updating the community and not leave an issue hanging with no response for over a month after an update saying this afternoon then monday then a month and still no response is complete within reason.
    CG_SBCrumb wrote: »
    Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around

    Pointless re quoting now? Not even your 1 word? Must be a busy day for u.

    My point was crumb said he will remind them monday. Monday came and went then week 1 week 2 week 3 a month week 5 week 6 still no update....

    Then kyno posting about there never was a timeline given and insinuating that the community is being unreasonable for wanting an answer in an arbitrary time frame.

    Number 1 there was a timeline given, the community didnt set an arbitrary date crumb himself said he will remind them monday.

    People are asking for accountability for the community manager because it has been 6 weeks since he said he will remind them monday and we haven't got an update since. we dont even know if he reminded them or maybe he totally dropped the ball and forgot to remind them on monday because he was preoccupied xmas shopping. Who knows were all in the dark.

    Blaming the community for creating arbitrary deadlines when the community manager ghosts out on us after giving us a date when we can expect progress is disingenuous, maybe the community wouldn't be so toxic if we got updates like "were looking into this" or something really simple to tell players it's being handled... absolutely 0 communication for over a month is not managing a community it simply just ignoring the community.
  • Looooki
    1045 posts Member
    Sooo... No comments from devs?
  • Looooki wrote: »
    Sooo... No comments from devs?

    lol i think we all know the community manager doesn't manage the community
  • TVF
    36594 posts Member
    edited January 2020
    @BobcatSkywalker in the post I quoted he stated he would *remind * them Monday. He promised nothing else.
    I need a new message here. https://discord.gg/AmStGTH
  • TVF wrote: »
    @BobcatSkywalker in the post I quoted he stated he would *remind * them Monday. He promised nothing else.

    Yes, kind of like when yours wife tells you to go pick up a steak for dinner, and you tell her you will go to the store. So you go to the store and come home without a steak.....but hey, you went to the store.

    Why is anyone defending this???? Look, at the end of the year, this issue fell through the cracks. Heck, Kyno admitted he let it fall through the cracks. ITS NO BIG DEAL!!!!!. It happens. All anyone is asking for is the followup which was implied, hinted at, assumed....whatever from a month ago.

    And here, its simple.......I'll give everyone a cut/paste answer.

    "This fell through the cracks but we will have an answer by the Q&A on Friday"

  • TVF wrote: »
    @BobcatSkywalker in the post I quoted he stated he would *remind * them Monday. He promised nothing else.

    This is true. But if he were to be doing his job properly, he would follow up with them on Monday, and then follow up with the community. Since his job entails community management, one would assume he would actually, idk manage things?
  • Ravens1113 wrote: »
    TVF wrote: »
    @BobcatSkywalker in the post I quoted he stated he would *remind * them Monday. He promised nothing else.

    This is true. But if he were to be doing his job properly, he would follow up with them on Monday, and then follow up with the community. Since his job entails community management, one would assume he would actually, idk manage things?

    Ya but man, who wants to be forced into doing their job....? Especially with these fantastic holiday breaks you get.
  • lets just see if they answer the question in tomorrows Q&A
  • Nadebotfm wrote: »
    lets just see if they answer the question in tomorrows Q&A

    I'm hopeful for this but very skeptical about it happening.
  • Nadebotfm wrote: »
    lets just see if they answer the question in tomorrows Q&A

    I'm hopeful for this but very skeptical about it happening.

    I predict it will not be answered in Fridays Q&A...

    then kyno will tell us the reason was because the Q&A didnt occur on a Monday. The dev message (related through kyno) is that all crumb promised was to remind the team on some unnamed Monday sometime in the future, it was not to actually update the community of what the team said in response... what's the point then if devs intend to just relay messages amongst themselves and never update the community why even tell us anything?

    Truth is reminding the team likely hasnt happened (I see no proof it occured) yet but dont worry because theres more mondays in the future so technically crumb still can do what he said and we are all lunatics expecting something totally unreasonable like a community manager saying "were looking into it" and actually giving the community he manages an update. As Greta Thunberg says, "How dare you!"

    If someone despises the community so much that they cant be bothered to give an update for 2 months what's the point of having a community manager? Is it PR only? There is no real community manager and that's a bigger issue than what tb to select for anyone who's even looking at this big picture.

    Actions speak louder than words and it's very clear the community means very little to CG.
  • Holding out hope
  • Did this just get completely ignored in the Q&A or did I miss their response?

    To recap, They answered a question that wasn't asked in the last Q&A but once the question was reiterated and they understood the question they first choose ignore the players for 7 weeks then not cover it in the Q&A? Really? Did that really just happen?

    Maybe the game isnt dying but the efforts to interact with players sure is. I really dont understand CG's idea of community management but maybe theres something wrong with me personally like I'm unreasonable for expecting communication or something.
  • It appears it was ignored in the Q&A. So, do we take turns pinging CG everyday until we hear something now?

    Squeaky wheel gets the grease... eventually.
  • Nadebotfm wrote: »
    lets just see if they answer the question in tomorrows Q&A

    Nope
  • lmao this is great
  • Typical
This discussion has been closed.