Vortex Alpha Release

[Darklocq]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

[Ethreon]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

[Darklocq]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

[Tannin42]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736, #58979631 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Darklocq wrote: Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

Where is it written that a candid statement is "unprofessional"? Who defines that?
Dark0ne writes articles in a tone that the majority of the community seems to appreciate, as the responses you got indicate.
"You need PR personnel to be professional" sounds like something a PR person would say to justify their job, I would argue that "professional" means "acting appropriately for your position" and in a customer-facing position like this, the customer-base should be the judge of what they feel appropriate.

Besides, re
> without referring to user feature requests as rude demands

Dark0ne did no such thing. He said (rephrased) "us not acting on rude demands doesn't mean we don't listen to feedback". He did not at all equate user requests in general to rude demands.
And if you think we don't get some objectively rude demands I can just reply with a tired "ha"...

[Darklocq]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736, #58979631, #58987141 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Darklocq wrote: Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

Tannin42 wrote: Where is it written that a candid statement is "unprofessional"? Who defines that?
Dark0ne writes articles in a tone that the majority of the community seems to appreciate, as the responses you got indicate.
"You need PR personnel to be professional" sounds like something a PR person would say to justify their job, I would argue that "professional" means "acting appropriately for your position" and in a customer-facing position like this, the customer-base should be the judge of what they feel appropriate.

Besides, re
> without referring to user feature requests as rude demands

Dark0ne did no such thing. He said (rephrased) "us not acting on rude demands doesn't mean we don't listen to feedback". He did not at all equate user requests in general to rude demands.
And if you think we don't get some objectively rude demands I can just reply with a tired "ha"...

Every public-facing project in the world is subject to demands from the public that come across as rude. A handful of defenders of their buddy are not the majority of the user community (hundreds of thousands? millions?); don't presume to speak for everyone. Speaking of assumptions, I'm a systems and network admin, not a PR person. I'm not sure why you and a few other people here refuse to accept the difference between writing with clarity and calm versus writing in actual PR style, which is smarmy and manipulative. The former is more effective in this kind of context than emotive disgruntlement, in business and technical communication, especially when it's public-facing material. I agree with you that actual PR-speak would be worse that either. Finally, of course I know that EVERY SINGLE user request is not being equated to a rude demand; I never suggested such a thing. The problem with the messaging is it sends a signal that any particular request may be taken as yet another a rude demand, by someone stressed out enough that they don't keep their irritation at this jerk or that one out of their more formal writing. If you're still not understanding this, I really don't know what to tell you. It's weird as hell to me that half a dozen people are losing their s**t over nothing more than a suggestion to use a more businesslike tone in announcements, a suggestion that's free to be ignored.

[Thandal]

Ahhh... I see the problem. Darklocq thinks of the Nexus as a "business", and therefore the members should be treated as "customers".

 

Many (most? the vast majority?) of us think it is a community of like-minded fans of computer games and mods who come over to Dark0ne's place to hang out with friends, share our toys, (and stories) and generally have a good time. :smile:

[Dark0ne]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736, #58979631, #58987141, #58996341 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Darklocq wrote: Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

Tannin42 wrote: Where is it written that a candid statement is "unprofessional"? Who defines that?
Dark0ne writes articles in a tone that the majority of the community seems to appreciate, as the responses you got indicate.
"You need PR personnel to be professional" sounds like something a PR person would say to justify their job, I would argue that "professional" means "acting appropriately for your position" and in a customer-facing position like this, the customer-base should be the judge of what they feel appropriate.

Besides, re
> without referring to user feature requests as rude demands

Dark0ne did no such thing. He said (rephrased) "us not acting on rude demands doesn't mean we don't listen to feedback". He did not at all equate user requests in general to rude demands.
And if you think we don't get some objectively rude demands I can just reply with a tired "ha"...

Darklocq wrote: Every public-facing project in the world is subject to demands from the public that come across as rude. A handful of defenders of their buddy are not the majority of the user community (hundreds of thousands? millions?); don't presume to speak for everyone. Speaking of assumptions, I'm a systems and network admin, not a PR person. I'm not sure why you and a few other people here refuse to accept the difference between writing with clarity and calm versus writing in actual PR style, which is smarmy and manipulative. The former is more effective in this kind of context than emotive disgruntlement, in business and technical communication, especially when it's public-facing material. I agree with you that actual PR-speak would be worse that either. Finally, of course I know that EVERY SINGLE user request is not being equated to a rude demand; I never suggested such a thing. The problem with the messaging is it sends a signal that any particular request may be taken as yet another a rude demand, by someone stressed out enough that they don't keep their irritation at this jerk or that one out of their more formal writing. If you're still not understanding this, I really don't know what to tell you. It's weird as hell to me that half a dozen people are losing their s**t over nothing more than a suggestion to use a more businesslike tone in announcements, a suggestion that's free to be ignored.

Yes, I've already said I disagree with your opinion and will be "ignoring" the suggestion. I really don't see why there's a need to continue this.

[Deleted3884402User]

........... Edited April 7, 2018 by Guest

[calscks]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736, #58979631, #58987141, #58996341, #58997811 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Darklocq wrote: Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

Tannin42 wrote: Where is it written that a candid statement is "unprofessional"? Who defines that?
Dark0ne writes articles in a tone that the majority of the community seems to appreciate, as the responses you got indicate.
"You need PR personnel to be professional" sounds like something a PR person would say to justify their job, I would argue that "professional" means "acting appropriately for your position" and in a customer-facing position like this, the customer-base should be the judge of what they feel appropriate.

Besides, re
> without referring to user feature requests as rude demands

Dark0ne did no such thing. He said (rephrased) "us not acting on rude demands doesn't mean we don't listen to feedback". He did not at all equate user requests in general to rude demands.
And if you think we don't get some objectively rude demands I can just reply with a tired "ha"...

Darklocq wrote: Every public-facing project in the world is subject to demands from the public that come across as rude. A handful of defenders of their buddy are not the majority of the user community (hundreds of thousands? millions?); don't presume to speak for everyone. Speaking of assumptions, I'm a systems and network admin, not a PR person. I'm not sure why you and a few other people here refuse to accept the difference between writing with clarity and calm versus writing in actual PR style, which is smarmy and manipulative. The former is more effective in this kind of context than emotive disgruntlement, in business and technical communication, especially when it's public-facing material. I agree with you that actual PR-speak would be worse that either. Finally, of course I know that EVERY SINGLE user request is not being equated to a rude demand; I never suggested such a thing. The problem with the messaging is it sends a signal that any particular request may be taken as yet another a rude demand, by someone stressed out enough that they don't keep their irritation at this jerk or that one out of their more formal writing. If you're still not understanding this, I really don't know what to tell you. It's weird as hell to me that half a dozen people are losing their s**t over nothing more than a suggestion to use a more businesslike tone in announcements, a suggestion that's free to be ignored.

Dark0ne wrote: Yes, I've already said I disagree with your opinion and will be "ignoring" the suggestion. I really don't see why there's a need to continue this.

i'd rather have people in the company to directly respond to one matter in their own honesty instead of passing through a "PR" mask.

the way you've constructed your "arguments" is showing a rather condescending tone and behaving in a superior manner. your sentences are created in a way you indirectly telling people that your "science and economic analysis" are a one-step-ahead of this site owner's and developers' "religion and blind patriotism" then went like "oopsie! i have better things to do."

when ethereon mentioned about your "pushy" demeanour , you quickly shut that down, yet you then continued with that both Dark0ne and Tannin "refuse to accept or understand" your arguments and suggestions, when the owner has already discarded your opinion.

a man wearing a tuxedo sure looks professional, but can be a serial killer behind the scene. i would rather acknowledge the fact he's a serial killer than be obscured and deceived by his looks of professionalism. Edited April 7, 2018 by calscks

[VaporWatch]

In response to post #58857216. #58922306, #58926716, #58931711, #58954851, #58955056, #58956801, #58958426, #58958736, #58979631, #58987141, #58996341, #58997811, #59030141 are all replies on the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

Dark0ne wrote:

In response to post #58857216. #58922306 is also a reply to the same post.

Darklocq wrote: You need someone to do a public-relations review on this material before you publish it. Text like the following reads like it was written by a surly teenager, and is really off-putting (I say that as someone who's actually paid to Supporter level so far, by the way): "There is a big difference between not listening to what some of our users are saying and not acting on what some of our users are saying/asking for/outright rudely demanding. I guarantee you, we read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site, but not acting on that feedback does not mean we do not listen." It doesn't even send a clear message, and actually reinforces the "not listening" viewpoint!

What this should have said was something like "We read all the feedback we receive on Vortex and on the site. We are not able to act on or respond to every request or observation, but we do receive and consider it all. In prioritizing our work, we have to balance a number of factors including aggregate user preferences and demand level, clarity and validity of problem reports, issue severity and urgency, practicality of feature requests, and the project's actual goals."

I see similar messaging problems in other official posts here.

Vanguarde2017 wrote: It's because they are not professionals.

I hate corporate and PR speak. I much prefer being down to earth and myself rather than having to place what I write and say through the "PR bullshit machine". If that puts some people off then I'm OK with that.

Augusta Calidia wrote: @Dark0ne. Thank you for your always refreshing candor. I much prefer it to indigestible PR claptrap. Your candor has a clarity that's totally lacking in the muddy morass of PR Speak.

Darklocq wrote: Nothing in what I suggested as an alternative approach is "PR speak", its just not directly insulting to one's userbase.

Dark0ne wrote: I disagree that your version is any better. I understand that anyone can be insulted for any reason. I also understand that just because someone is offended, it doesn't mean they're right.

How I write and get my point across is unlikely to change.

Gigist wrote: Not trying to be a fanboy but I have to side strongly with Dark0ne here. Darklocq, your "should have said" example is just the kind of vague and hyper polite junk that like 95% of the people hate. Speaking like that reinforces the idea that nobody really gives a damn about what's asked or said. "We're considering everything and balancing things from every angle and aspect and have to weight clarity and validity and and blabbla" helpdesk/support autoresponses 101. Nobody believes stuff like that. It's just over the top politically correct.

I also don't get your hostility towards the original quote. To me it tells clearly the message and I really can't understand how it's insulting! It literally reads that they read feedback but not responding doesn't mean they don't listen to it. That's a very reasonable position.

Darklocq wrote: There's nothing "hyper-polite" about it, it's just matter-of-fact, without referring to user feature requests as rude demands, or acting all put-upon and stand-offish. I'm also not buying the "they're not professionals" bit. This site makes money (they have some of mine, after all and probably some of yours, and are doing well enough to survive the long tide of mod site deaths), so it's a business, which makes it professional. There's no reason the output of this business should read like it was written by temperamental kids even if many of the target audience are in that demographic. I'm just suggesting this software and online services business act like any other such business. Professional tone is something even serious free software projects adopt, so it has nothing to do with profitability anyway. I'm not going to go round and round with rest of you about this. I've expressed an opinion and given clear rationales for it, based on industry experience. You're all leaping to defend your buddy with "I like it" reasoning. So, whatever. It's starting to feel like arguing science versus religion, or economic analysis versus blind patriotism, and I have better things to do.

Ethreon wrote: You've already been given an answer that is more than enough for what you asked. Your continuous push of this corporate blabbery with no real value is weird.

Darklocq wrote: Not "pushing" anything. I've advanced no demand, nor suggested anything beyond my original suggestion, I'm simply responding to defensive handwaving with a clear rationale. Just because I don't agree with you or run away crying when you don't agree with me doesn't make me wrong or misbehaving.

Tannin42 wrote: Where is it written that a candid statement is "unprofessional"? Who defines that?
Dark0ne writes articles in a tone that the majority of the community seems to appreciate, as the responses you got indicate.
"You need PR personnel to be professional" sounds like something a PR person would say to justify their job, I would argue that "professional" means "acting appropriately for your position" and in a customer-facing position like this, the customer-base should be the judge of what they feel appropriate.

Besides, re
> without referring to user feature requests as rude demands

Dark0ne did no such thing. He said (rephrased) "us not acting on rude demands doesn't mean we don't listen to feedback". He did not at all equate user requests in general to rude demands.
And if you think we don't get some objectively rude demands I can just reply with a tired "ha"...

Darklocq wrote: Every public-facing project in the world is subject to demands from the public that come across as rude. A handful of defenders of their buddy are not the majority of the user community (hundreds of thousands? millions?); don't presume to speak for everyone. Speaking of assumptions, I'm a systems and network admin, not a PR person. I'm not sure why you and a few other people here refuse to accept the difference between writing with clarity and calm versus writing in actual PR style, which is smarmy and manipulative. The former is more effective in this kind of context than emotive disgruntlement, in business and technical communication, especially when it's public-facing material. I agree with you that actual PR-speak would be worse that either. Finally, of course I know that EVERY SINGLE user request is not being equated to a rude demand; I never suggested such a thing. The problem with the messaging is it sends a signal that any particular request may be taken as yet another a rude demand, by someone stressed out enough that they don't keep their irritation at this jerk or that one out of their more formal writing. If you're still not understanding this, I really don't know what to tell you. It's weird as hell to me that half a dozen people are losing their s**t over nothing more than a suggestion to use a more businesslike tone in announcements, a suggestion that's free to be ignored.

Dark0ne wrote: Yes, I've already said I disagree with your opinion and will be "ignoring" the suggestion. I really don't see why there's a need to continue this.

calscks wrote: i'd rather have people in the company to directly respond to one matter in their own honesty instead of passing through a "PR" mask.

the way you've constructed your "arguments" is showing a rather condescending tone and behaving in a superior manner. your sentences are created in a way you indirectly telling people that your "science and economic analysis" are a one-step-ahead of this site owner's and developers' "religion and blind patriotism" then went like "oopsie! i have better things to do."

when ethereon mentioned about your "pushy" demeanour , you quickly shut that down, yet you then continued with that both Dark0ne and Tannin "refuse to accept or understand" your arguments and suggestions, when the owner has already discarded your opinion.

a man wearing a tuxedo sure looks professional, but can be a serial killer behind the scene. i would rather acknowledge the fact he's a serial killer than be obscured and deceived by his looks of professionalism.

Ok, in the unlikely event my statement will make any difference, here goes.

@Darklocq, First things first, please understand this is not an attack. This is simply my opinion. I am not suggesting I speak for anyone else and certainly not for Dark0ne (who, as history has proven, is perfectly capable of fighting his own battles)
I have to say your approach to your "advice" has the distinct whiff of entitlement. You say you've "advanced no demand", yet your first sentence begins with "You need". Under the definition of "need", your statement was begun with a demand, then followed through with another demand when you unilaterally made the decision "What this should have said". For all your care in rewording a statement you have no stake in, you failed to follow the same formulae for your own statements. In the end, what you have said in your original post, regardless of the fact it was stated as fact, is your opinion and yours alone. It is also the epitome of the original topic regarding feedback. I'm not sure if you understand exactly how rudely your own statement could be interpreted by the recipients, but it is a perfect example of "what some of our users are outright rudely demanding". By initially demanding the owner of this site hire a person to do a public-relations review on material before release, then further demanding your statement is how it should have been, you essentially told Dark0ne the time and effort he put into writing his message was irrelevant (and believe me, as a business owner I know how much effort it takes and how statements like these are nitpicked and rewritten).

Now, in regards to the statement in question, while there are certainly thousands, if not millions, of ways to write it and get the point across without offending and alienating certain segments of the people who will read it, I can completely understand why a business owner might write it precisely how it was written. Once again pointing to my own experiences in owning and running a business, it is utterly absurd how often demands are made regarding how I run my business. There is a rather strange sentiment held by some that, due to their own investment in my business (ie, they buy my product) they now have the rights to demand I change some aspect of it. While I suspect Dark0ne fully appreciates each and every person who has paid to be a supporter of his business, I also suspect he is likely very tired of people making demands upon his business (especially considering the likelihood ad revenue is far more lucrative than paid supporters). Once again, this is my personal opinion on the matter, but I believe the way his statement is written is done so specifically to inform those people who irrationally make demands upon his business that HE is the owner of HIS business and HE will do what HE feels is best for HIS business. The fact he didn't actually spell it out in that manner is likely testament to his own careful consideration of what he was saying.

In the end, it is Dark0ne who has the most to lose in making a mistake. Every single decision I make regarding my business is a decision I make very carefully knowing whatever I say can (and likely will) impact my employees. While I don't know this for certain, I can be pretty confident in my statement that Dark0ne is no different in this regard. I feel it's probable he weighed the possibility of offending a certain segment of his customers against the possibility of getting some relief from the volume of people making demands on his business and found it to be an acceptable trade. I'm sure he feels the weight of his employee's (and his own) financial stability and makes his decisions accordingly.