Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PMQuote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 08:48:28 PMI'm not sure if you are criticizing the developers for no response, but if you are I think it's very unfair.
Silence, which is what I have gotten for pretty all of my other direct questions to the developers, is different than "no."
I'm not criticizing them for not responding to everything here. I don't think that's a good idea, given they have lots of people who will do that for them. I was only pointing out that there is a long precedent of them not responding, so it would have been a reasonable thing to do here. Much of the rest of your post is addressed by this.
Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PMQuote from: AdamH on 02 April 2017, 08:48:28 PMI disagree. "No" does not shut down discussion, and I highly doubt Stef was trying to thwart any beneficial things that could come from a debate. I completely disagree with the bolded section, the only thing I think No shuts down is debate about whether the company will do it, and that won't be helpful. It's one thing to say they need more evidence, it's another to say they were trying to shut down helpful discussion. Seriously, just think about that phrase, and try to believe it.
"No" actively attempts to shut down more discussion on what could be helpful. It is different than "no engagement required."
Look at what happened to this thread. My previous post. The discussion here has been all over the place and it's been about everything except making this issue better. I've pushed as hard as I can, repeated myself about 55 times in this thread, trying to bring other ideas out that would make the situation better, but people are just going on about the idea in my OP...
Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:10:10 PM
From my point of view, your original post seemed almost like a joke, obviously flawed and kinda harsh and assuming. I can't imagine a vastly better answer than no.
Even if my post "seemed harsh" (I read it again, I'm not seeing it); even if my post was made on April Fool's Day; these would have nothing to do with the validity of my idea. It's ironic that you say you can't imagine a better answer to my OP when right after Stef's "response" you are the person who posted next -- with a vastly better answer!
Just saying no is an argument from authority. It means nothing to me, it's not going to change my opinion. If I didn't have that opinion I wouldn't have made the OP in the first place, regardless of what "holiday" it was. You gave reasons why my idea was bad, that's the kind of thing that will make me consider other options to improve it, which I did.
It's beyond me how anyone could think Stef's post was better than yours. His was really really bad and yours was really good.
Quote from: ThetaSigma12 on 04 April 2017, 01:17:34 PM
I think there's a simple answer right under your nose: Don't play rated games.
If you are annoyed by bugs in the system and you think it's unfair the way they affect ratings, then play without ratings. I really can't think of a more efficient solution. It's perfect: You can ban the cards you want and not loose ranking due to stupid bugs, other people who don't care can enjoy having a sense of accomplishment even with slightly busted rankings.
This is what I'm going to do of course. This answer works for anyone who knows about all the bugs and chooses to do the same thing. On the other hand, anyone who sees the matching tab and sees a rated game, expects the game to work like the Dominion rulebook says, and then gets hosed by a bug and gets a bad score on the leaderboard, is going to have a really bad taste in their mouth. The leaderboard is out there now, so it should reflect what it represents as best it can so that this kind of thing doesn't happen. That's why I made this thread.