For reference, the other admin users on the wiki are CB employees (Palanka and Interruptor) and Yasbir (aka one of the original playtesters and creator of the first wiki). The current wiki was created and is maintained by me under contract to CB. When it comes to experience and designer intent, the experience in the case of PsychoticStorm and myself is from discussions with Interruptor about rules and design philosophies and having helped work on rules across several books. Coherency as a separate rule, for example, is partly from my suggestions when HSN3 was being worked on, as was the Trigger Area concept for Mines in N3. So yes, we do usually have a better idea of designer intent than anyone outside CB, as a result of experience working with the creators. As far as the main topic goes, I've not being weighing in because it's pointless until CB clarify things further.
Or, perhaps, the PIP/gotcha players are just following the advice from Matthew when dealing with PBI/take back players, and sharing their views in other channels of communication...
As long as your not preaching to the choir in an echo chamber because nothing is going to come of that but disappointment. Also labelling us "take back players"
Which is standard operating proceedure and totally understandable. Nice to have you straight out point out wollf BS though. Thanks mate
So...what PMs to CB.....well guess we'll have to start doing the same. I am curious why no open discussion though. I certainly hope you arent saying a bunch of misdirection and misrepresentation with no one to call it.
I think there is enouph friction as it is without adding additional conspirator accusations. How about forum users wait for official clarification?
Hes claimed youve said things in this thread you havemt a number of times. Nothing worth stresing about
It wpuld be good to know what people are trying to communicate to CB. Openness and precision is important here. If people are getting across false ideas of what intent actually means its easy to see CB operating under misconseptions. You yourself admitted storm that you werent aware of what we meant when we said intent before barakiels video, if you can be involved in the discussion and still not be aware of what is meant by intent then its easy for that not to be gotten across to CB.
What a very concerning thing to say... I don't much care for name dropping or insinuating you are more important because you might have someone's ear. I do admit I also don't understand why so much venom is here but I am starting to think this is more political then about concern with rules issues... that is a shame.
If I understood it correctly. Neither CB nor I are responsible for what people do in their private life and outside the forum and we do not have any power and should not have any power to make them be "transparent" in what they are doing, a persons private life is that, private, if someone contacts CB privately for whatever reason, I am not aware of it and I should not be aware of it, private communication is that private. If I did not understood it correctly, I am sorry.
Our position is not, and has never been, "take backs." At the LVO I made a cautious move while an enemy had initial LoF to me because I didn't check (it was only revealed due to knocking another enemy unconscious during the last order). I didn't take it back.
You can think and do whatever you’d like and feel is correct. And my reasons for not wishing to discuss things with you and fellow PBIers are mine, shared where, when, and how I choose.
Concerning how, exactly? Stating that I’m sharing my thoughts and views where, when, and how I feel is appropriate? I will continue to do so in the ways that seem me best, as you are free to do yourself.
And your reason for referring to those arguing against you as "take back" players when it's been emphatic that that's not how it goes...? The whole thing comes off like you're arguing in bad faith.
I’ve no fear on my views, but rather consider them, correctly, to be mine. I do and will continue to share them in the ways I find best. If that’s inconvenient for you, or you wish to take it a certain way, that’s your lookout, and no concern of mine.
Well, considering how someone who doesn’t share your views on what you believe the rules to permit can easily interpret it as “take backs”, it’s an apt description, just as your persistence in framing those who don’t share your view as “gotcha” could be seen (provided your view is shared) as an apt description. Would that not be, by your own framing, bad faith?
I honestly just dont get why you dont want to even express them, youve got a place to do it where storm is ensuring there are no repercussions and yet you just want to tell us we are all wrong but not explain how or why you believe that we are doing things wrong, or what you feel to be the right way to do them. Seriously, I dont get it mao
