View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 90
05-16-2010, 03:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by picardalpha2clearance View Post
I agree that more information is better than less, The facts presented by all strongly support my case. I will agree at bare minimum that the information due to poor launch communication may need to be followed up with the community. The information as it currently stands decisively supports my conclusion. I will further say that their is missing information, and that is in what offer or by what means will the MU uniforms be available again?

It is my opinion that Cryptic realized they had made a mistake offering the MU uniforms with the CO LTS based off of the STO forums prelaunch initial advertisement offer that received Very Strong NEGATIVE Feed back, Then Cryptic Changed the offer before it went live to appease the STO forum people, by removing the exclusivity from the advertisement, and then felt they could not make everyone happy, so then they answered everyone in vague manner, so that the STO people were happy with the Non Exclusivity change, and soft/ vague enough that the CO people would not burst into flames with anger. To further appease the CO people came out and said we do not know when the uniforms will be available again.
Vague in this matter would be creating a loophole for non exclusivity, and not coming out and saying in bold letters we changed the exclusivity status prior to launch, they silently just removed it from the offer. Thus taking the exclusivity out of the final purchaser agreement/ advertisement, slipping it in under the noses of those who purchased the CO LTS . Doing so in this manner kept everyone calm.

I have drawn this conclusion based on the facts I have investigated and submitted to evidence for all to see.
This opinion summarizes all the known facts and tell the story of what they mean in context to this offer.
It is well stated, and well founded, yes. A valid interpretation of the clues, despite the lack of an actual concrete statement. Lets call it a "circumstantially supported theory." I have a different interpretation, based on the same exact evidence, but including the lack of concrete evidence: That while brought into question and reviewed, the matter remains unsettled, not decided. That removing a phrase does not only indicate the opposing idea is now true, and that the final decision simply was never met. I feel both interpretations are valid - that the policy was reversed, and that the policy underwent review (and all wording was altered to reflect the policy was in question).

Show me the decision itself, and I'll concede. The only decision so far in all this has, obviously, been to change the wording of the offer, repeatedly, and to state that the future status is unknown.

Sounds to me like backpedaling and spin, but not policy.


Now, please take note, while I have my hopes on how this will turn out, I am continually debunking any decisive community statements specifically to call out the need for a decisive team statement. I want to know what they decided, in their words, on this forum. Not omission of a word, not "tbd" and not confusing things with new words. Back and white, simple statement defining the policy once and for all, and extending it to all "exclusive" rewards (to settle other debates).

Lets face it, the Schroeder's Cat experiment ultimately always ends with a dead cat if the box is never opened. The cause of death becomes the difference, assuming a limited supply of food is in the box. While a strange analogy, I think they expected the matter to be put to rest the same way - the matter would die down if they never reveal the result, eventually it would be a dead issue. Seems this time, they were wrong.