boingboing at March 17th, 2014 02:33 — #1
phoenixk at March 17th, 2014 03:32 — #2
jeanbaptiste at March 17th, 2014 03:38 — #3
jons at March 17th, 2014 04:26 — #4
I'll just leave this here
boundegar at March 17th, 2014 06:00 — #7
So, they're going to make something delightful, and not monetize it, and then pull the plug because it's not making money?
malcopticon at March 17th, 2014 06:01 — #8
Come on, there is NO WAY that this is true. If she had really "asked [her] lead Game programmer what he could crit," he wouldn't have blathered on about chat window notifications; he would have given some painfully nerdy answer about d20 rolls, primary statistics, derived statistics, skills, perks, experience levels, the attributes of the opponent, the difference between additive and multiplicative damage, and who knows what else! This is the kind of thing written to sound plausible, but which comes apart once you look closer.
peregrinus_bis at March 17th, 2014 06:07 — #9
jardine at March 17th, 2014 08:12 — #11
It took me way too long to parse that "crit" was short for criticize and not critical hit. Maybe it's a British thing.
euansmith at March 17th, 2014 08:49 — #12
I work for an organisation where "Fumble" is the norm and our employers are going for a TPK. Its like LARPing T1-4: Temple of Redundant Evil.
euansmith at March 17th, 2014 08:54 — #13
jeff_fisher at March 17th, 2014 10:05 — #15
May they can't comm cause all th abbrevs?
mostlydifferent at March 17th, 2014 10:59 — #16
Communications trouble with a 15 person team? What happened to the conference room?
bistroqs at March 17th, 2014 11:23 — #17
Would the mod who (apparently) keeps deleting my replies, please explain the issue?
samsam at March 17th, 2014 11:37 — #18
Do you work in software development? I do, with an eight person team, and if we had to all trudge over to the conference room every time we wanted to discuss something, we'd never get anything done. And that's not even including the three round-trip airline tickets from Europe we'd have to buy each time.
doctorow at March 17th, 2014 12:03 — #19
I don't know why this needs to be explained, but since it apparently does, here goes:
This was a review.
No money or other consideration changed hands for it.
It was not solicited by Stewart Butterfield or anyone associated with any business he has any involvement with, or any business, period.
Neither Stewart Butterfield, nor Tiny Speck, nor anyone else in the entire world except Alice and me had anything to do with posting this.
It is not an infomercial.
The fact that it is a positive review reflects the fact that it is a good product that Alice enjoyed. I'm delighted that she wrote it up for us, because she didn't get paid for it, or receive any other consideration for it. I asked her to write this up for us because I had observed her using Slack and enjoying it.
Neither she, nor us, deserve any shit for posting positive reviews of good things that explain why, in detail, they are good.
You are acting like a collossal asshole by making accusations of fraud, corruption and bad faith without a single, solitary shred of evidence.
Cut it the fuck out.
Is that clear?
Honestly, I can't believe that "Calling people liars without a shred of evidence is a dick move" requires explanation, but apparently it does.
[Context; Several of Bistroq's messages have been deleted. These messages opined that this was "sponsored content" and "an infomercial" and "an unapologetic infomercial" (which is apparently worse than "an infomercial"), etc.]
beschizza at March 17th, 2014 12:07 — #20
Whenever an editor or contributor posts about anything they like which has a price tag, it is always, to someone, evidence of corrupt advertising.
This person invariably phrases their belief in a certain embittered, sneering, adolescent way that has nothing to do with the post and everything to do with their own fuming resentments. "When did you stop telling people when posts were ads?", for example. "Why don't you disclose your sponsors?" "I guess someone's off to Bali on a junket."
Today, @Bistroqs, you were that person.
beschizza at March 17th, 2014 12:09 — #21
Now we'll be accused of suspicious defensiveness.
doctorow at March 17th, 2014 12:11 — #22
I think the phrase you're looking for us "unapologetic defensiveness." Which is worse than defensiveness.
bistroqs at March 17th, 2014 12:13 — #23
So why not just reply and say that? Why delete posts with no notice?
Fair enough, it's not a paid advertorial. Clearly, I wasn't alone in that analysis. The poster who provided a link to that Colbert Report clip was suggesting exactly the same thing.
I wasn't calling anyone a liar. The overwhelming glow of the article is saccharine, and does have a feel of marketing material. To me. Not being an asshole, not trolling. That is my honest opinion.
It's your show, you can obviously run it as you like. IMHO, invisibly deleting posts is a fairly draconian, and confusing way to run this place.
doctorow at March 17th, 2014 12:16 — #24
Once again, I am amazed that "Calling people frauds without evidence is a jerky thing to do" needs explanation.
Apparently, for two people, it does.
Consider this an explanation, then.
As between "being draconian by not explaining why you deleted the obviously jerky, accustatory remark" and "being jerky by making unsubstantiated, jerky, accusatory remarks," I prefer the former.
next page →