I disagree with you on most counts.
The point of this thread is:
1.4.5.1 is a beta.
Now is the time to ensure what DSI claims to work, works.
—
Any issues that have not been stated as resolved will not be resolved.
I am focusing on:
Issues that have been communicated as resolved, but are not resolved. I want to foster a postive environment to ensure those will be resolved.
I do not believe deprecating measures will persuade DSI. I believe excessive deprecating measures are a downer, and push away folks who could otherwise be an asset to this surprisingly tiny community. I am communicating my voice in a longshot attempt to foster a positive attitude that can contribtue to a more welcoming forum. And from there, have a better working relationship between the forum and DSI.
—
Some folks are operating on their interpretation that 1.4.5.1 is absolutely final. If no one is able to successfully communicate to DSI that something they recently claimed is working, is not working, …. … Or relay that a new issue has arisen from the 1.4.5.1 beta, and it’s something DSI wants, is willing, and can address, …. Then, yes, 1.4.5.1, as-is, will be the final OS. Also, there is the chance that all that DSI claims to work works, and no new issues that DSI deem as necessary-fixes arise. And in that case, then yes, 1.4.5.1 will turn out to be final.
But, we have a chance right now to respectfully communicate new broken issues with 1.4.5.1 in an attempt to ensure that this beta is what DSI intends it to be.
I believe deprecating measures are not helpful for this goal. I see them as detrimental to this goal. I am passionate about making sure that 1.4.5.1 is what DSI wants it to be. I want to support a process and environment that I believe will bring this about.
—
I do not believe my previous post is ignorant, nor misguided. I am not trying to undermine a process, but push towards a similar objective, in a different way. And, for those that feel it is over, then there’s nothing I can be undermining.
It's no surprise to me that you disagree really. In many ways, that's my point. Here you are, again, telling me of all people that you intend to "foster a positive environment" and how that's going to "ensure" that these issues get resolved, and further accusing longstanding members of this community of taking "deprecating measures"... When in reality, you have no idea who you're accusing, what you're accusing them of, or how any of this actually came to be.
I realize that Stoss may have rained on your parade uninvited, but it was
you who accused
him of posting "stupid threads asking to be paid to be part of a beta and making snide comments...". But see, if you were at all in-the-know, you'd have gotten the joke (and it
was funny) and demonstrated a little modesty. Instead, you chose to look down your nose, oblivious to the dynamics of this community, and refer to anyone with a bone to pick as "the same few people" and how you "see them as detrimental to this goal".
And
that, my friend, is where I feel compelled to say something. You see, this "goal" that you've so arrogantly claimed as your own, it was our goal first. Those "same few people" that you've otherwise deemed a "detriment" to
your goal, are in fact the only reason why you have so few complaints about your Tempest today. You are simply not in a position to defame or judge any of us for our contempt, and should be nothing but thankful for our protest and pointed remarks.
You're free, of course, to pursue this matter however it so suits you - and good luck to you, really - but you might garner more support if you were to, at very least, show some deserved respect to those who paved the road you're breezing down now.
Cheers!
61 Replies
25900 Views