View Single Post
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
Originally Posted by Jnoh
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). (I agree with underlined)

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. (I would say the back peddling, was their policy statement.)

Shush you! Rekhans response was long overdue.
Sometimes it takes a while to get things right. My response wasn't as timely as it could've been, but I'd hope it's a step in the right direction nonetheless.


See my answer about the future availability of Mirror Universe stuff. We don't know yet. This is a new market for us, and these decisions will be made as we take more cues from the market. It's also why we're reading your feedback. Knowing what you guys like and don't like helps us make decisions for the future.
Marketing Guy Star Trek Online/Champions Online
Picard Song, Best Song
Follow me on Twitter!

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.
Originally Posted by Jnoh
Careful! "Unique" has no significance as a word! Something that is "unique" is clearly still able to be commonplace, by the interpretations of this forum.
( Agreed completely unique refers to type and not exclusivity )

At any rate, you know it would have been Defender... and then wed get nothing but "WE HAVE TO BLOW UP **ALL** THESE KLINGON SHIPS!!! THEY'RE WHATS CAUSING THE KLINGONS TO ATTACK!!!" every time we load into a kill 6 patrols or deep space encounter mission.

Or worse, Foxbat for the Klingons... That away team encounter wouldn't end well.
victory, victory, victory.......