3484 réponses à ce sujet

[XDogSoldier]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Suspire wrote...

Thank you for that.  The guy who wrote that previous PR is probably fired, because they are completely contradicting messages. (why would PR approve of saying they only listen to praise anyway)
The issue with fans taking heat for charity while BW doesn't is still present.
(you post faster )

That statement was clearly in relation to accepting the cupcakes themselves rather than the criticism attached.

Also the 'issue' that you and the other guy seem to have come up with doesn't add up at all. Penny Arcade pulled the Child's Play campaign because they felt that people were donating for the wrong reasons. It was causing a lot of hassle with people asking for money back and in general others being so dense as to not be aware of the reasons behind it and thus actually expecting something from donating. That sort of thing is not good for a charity and thus Penny Arcade were right to pull it.

When it comes to Bioware giving away the cupcakes it's a completely different story, for one them giving them away serves no ulterior motive, the cupcakes were sent to Bioware as a message from the fans. Bioware got the messages but instead of eating the 400 cupcakes they didn't need they opted to simply give them to a local youth shelter to kids whom would appreciate them far more. How can anyone have any complaints about that at all?

 That is what I was trying to convey. Thank you for your well thought out post. It's 1am and I've taken my sleeping pill so i can't really think to clearly.

Modifié par XDogSoldier, 01 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[XDogSoldier]

Suspire wrote...

Donating food is not charity? Okay, it'd also make sense for the fans to donate the food themselves, but that would be seen just as badly as child's play... you know, nevermind.

Didn't know they still close threads because of that. Just forget about it.

 I didn't say it wasn't a charity I meant I didn't see their donating it to a youth center as charity. More like gifting. In the manner of a bakery or restaraunt giving food to a School for an event or prize. If that makes ANY sense.

PS- I'm not a voice of reason. Just been following this a while and like bioware as a whole. And unfair judgement erks me wrong when people try to fire up the crowd.

Modifié par XDogSoldier, 01 avril 2012 - 06:19 .

[Viyu]

XDogSoldier wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

Suspire wrote...

Thank you for that.  The guy who wrote that previous PR is probably fired, because they are completely contradicting messages. (why would PR approve of saying they only listen to praise anyway)
The issue with fans taking heat for charity while BW doesn't is still present.
(you post faster )

That statement was clearly in relation to accepting the cupcakes themselves rather than the criticism attached.

Also the 'issue' that you and the other guy seem to have come up with doesn't add up at all. Penny Arcade pulled the Child's Play campaign because they felt that people were donating for the wrong reasons. It was causing a lot of hassle with people asking for money back and in general others being so dense as to not be aware of the reasons behind it and thus actually expecting something from donating. That sort of thing is not good for a charity and thus Penny Arcade were right to pull it.

When it comes to Bioware giving away the cupcakes it's a completely different story, for one them giving them away serves no ulterior motive, the cupcakes were sent to Bioware as a message from the fans. Bioware got the messages but instead of eating the 400 cupcakes they didn't need they opted to simply give them to a local youth shelter to kids whom would appreciate them far more. How can anyone have any complaints about that at all?

 That is what I was trying to convey. Thank you for your well thought out post. It's 1am and I've taken my sleeping pill so i can't really think to clearly.

So he specifically said that he retracted those statements and somebody else wrote them?

[XDogSoldier]

Viyu wrote...

XDogSoldier wrote...

DayusMakhina wrote...

Suspire wrote...

Thank you for that.  The guy who wrote that previous PR is probably fired, because they are completely contradicting messages. (why would PR approve of saying they only listen to praise anyway)
The issue with fans taking heat for charity while BW doesn't is still present.
(you post faster )

That statement was clearly in relation to accepting the cupcakes themselves rather than the criticism attached.

Also the 'issue' that you and the other guy seem to have come up with doesn't add up at all. Penny Arcade pulled the Child's Play campaign because they felt that people were donating for the wrong reasons. It was causing a lot of hassle with people asking for money back and in general others being so dense as to not be aware of the reasons behind it and thus actually expecting something from donating. That sort of thing is not good for a charity and thus Penny Arcade were right to pull it.

When it comes to Bioware giving away the cupcakes it's a completely different story, for one them giving them away serves no ulterior motive, the cupcakes were sent to Bioware as a message from the fans. Bioware got the messages but instead of eating the 400 cupcakes they didn't need they opted to simply give them to a local youth shelter to kids whom would appreciate them far more. How can anyone have any complaints about that at all?

 That is what I was trying to convey. Thank you for your well thought out post. It's 1am and I've taken my sleeping pill so i can't really think to clearly.

So he specifically said that he retracted those statements and somebody else wrote them?

Not in so many words. His "I go rouge" "PR hates me" posts kinda tell the story.

edit: don't want to be yelled at for putting words in others mouths. go to 109 and forward find all posts by Chris if you want to know for sure.
edit 2: but there was talk about "Bluntness" and "Polished PR" stuff. just sayin, don't want to paint the wrong picture.

Modifié par XDogSoldier, 01 avril 2012 - 06:27 .

[Viyu]

It's not there. I checked.

Modifié par Viyu, 01 avril 2012 - 06:30 .

[XDogSoldier]

Chris Priestly wrote...

 
Blunt and honest.  Why aren't all posts by BW staff like this?

In all honesty it is because we are a business. What we say and do when we interact with the public matters and will be remembered. As such we make sure that our replies for things are worded carefully and correctly. That is why many times you will see a "PR" style message out of me or other staff.

Still.... every once in a while... I go rogue. PR hates me.

Page 116. About the post I reposted earlier. Oldbones2 wrote the "Blunt and Honest" part on page 115.

Modifié par XDogSoldier, 01 avril 2012 - 06:38 .

[Viyu]

XDogSoldier wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Blunt and honest.  Why aren't all posts by BW staff like this?

In all honesty it is because we are a business. What we say and do when we interact with the public matters and will be remembered. As such we make sure that our replies for things are worded carefully and correctly. That is why many times you will see a "PR" style message out of me or other staff.

Still.... every once in a while... I go rogue. PR hates me.

Page 116. About the post I reposted earlier.

Actually I was hoping I'd get the page for the other quote, because I was hoping there was more to it, and more to hopefully clarify this issue. I'm willing to be wrong on it, and I'm hoping what you're saying is true. But until there is more clarity on the issue, here are my present qualms with this, and I stress that it will/would be different if Chris or another forumer could kindly clarify the following:

1) Did he or did he not say what he said? You see, saying something in a "PR style" could mean that he is speaking in a style that reflects utmost professionalism. He is saying that he has to word his statements carefully. But the statement does not mean that he did not actually say what he said, nor does it in any way negate what he said previously. Unless Chris comes out and says that somebody else went under his name and made statements that he did not make, then we have to assume that he was making a statement in a professionally groomed "style".

Could PR hate him? Weeell, I don't think "really", but sure it's possible. But that could possibly be because he's not speaking to the fans in the way they'd want him to. That doesn't mean that the CONTENT of what somebody says in a PR style is false. What he said previously isn't contradicted simply because he wants to have a more "humanly" tone in the quote you posted, as refreshing as it is.

2) In no place does it say that the cupcakes WEREN'T given to charity because they were disagreeable with the message that was behind them. Just because they "got" the message(s) does not the cupcakes weren't given because their message was disagreeable. Just because he says they didn't stop the cakes from being made or delivered doesn't change this either. Regardless if you think it's smart or not of them to let them go, to charity rather than rot, what is important to me was the reason he gave for them being given away.

Modifié par Viyu, 01 avril 2012 - 07:07 .

[XDogSoldier]

Viyu wrote...

XDogSoldier wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

Blunt and honest.  Why aren't all posts by BW staff like this?

In all honesty it is because we are a business. What we say and do when we interact with the public matters and will be remembered. As such we make sure that our replies for things are worded carefully and correctly. That is why many times you will see a "PR" style message out of me or other staff.

Still.... every once in a while... I go rogue. PR hates me.

Page 116. About the post I reposted earlier.

Actually I was hoping I'd get the page for the other quote, because I was hoping there was more to it, and more to hopefully clarify this issue. I'm willing to be wrong on it, and I'm hoping what you're saying is true. But until there is more clarity on the issue, here are my present qualms with this, and I stress that it will/would be different if Chris or another forumer could kindly clarify the following:

1) Did he or did he not say what he said? You see, saying something in a "PR style" could mean that he is speaking in a style that reflects utmost professionalism. He is saying that he has to word his statements carefully. But the statement does not mean that he did not say what he said, nor does it in any way negate what he said previously. Unless Chris comes out and says that somebody else went under his name and made statements that he did not make, then we have to assume that he was making a statement in a professionally groomed "style".

Could PR hate him? Weeell, I don't think "really", but sure it's possible. But that could possibly be because he's not speaking to the fans in the way they'd want him to. That doesn't mean that the CONTENT of what somebody says in a PR style is false. What he said previously isn't contradicted simply because he wants to have a more "humanly" tone in the quote you posted, as refreshing as it is.

2) In no place does it say that the cupcakes WEREN'T given to charity because they were disagreeable with the message that was behind them. Him saying that the "got" the message regardless of whether or not they kept them does not mean that the reason the cupcakes were ultimately given up was for that reason. Just because he says they didn't stop the cakes from being made or delivered doesn't change this either. Regardless if you think it's smart or not of them to let them go, to charity rather than rot, what is important to me was the reason he gave for them being given away.

 Well I see your qualms. But remember the point of the message. They were not obligated to eat the gift. They just were wanting the messages to come out loud and clear. As far as his statements go I can only repost and read into what they mean. 
 We are all human after all. We say one thing, mean another, and others interprut in many different ways. And in some cases PR will read what is written before posting. Did this happen? Who knows but the people involved. In either case the situation was handled with Respect on all Parties. Bioware Moderaters didn't have to respond to any of this. They went out of thier way to Post pictures, be curtious with the Fuss company and Shadow, and talk to us like we are human beings ourselves.
 I can agree with BW on the "Not sent out of celebration" reason for one fact: They really weren't. It was a tounge in cheek "Hey great game! We had the bitter, here is the sweet!" message. And once recieved they had the right to do as they pleased with them.

[MikoDoll]

Viyu wrote...

Actually I was hoping I'd get the page for the other quote, because I was hoping there was more to it, and more to hopefully clarify this issue. I'm willing to be wrong on it, and I'm hoping what you're saying is true. But until there is more clarity on the issue, here are my present qualms with this, and I stress that it will/would be different if Chris or another forumer could kindly clarify the following:

1) Did he or did he not say what he said? You see, saying something in a "PR style" could mean that he is speaking in a style that reflects utmost professionalism. He is saying that he has to word his statements carefully. But the statement does not mean that he did not actually say what he said, nor does it in any way negate what he said previously. Unless Chris comes out and says that somebody else went under his name and made statements that he did not make, then we have to assume that he was making a statement in a professionally groomed "style".

Could PR hate him? Weeell, I don't think "really", but sure it's possible. But that could possibly be because he's not speaking to the fans in the way they'd want him to. That doesn't mean that the CONTENT of what somebody says in a PR style is false. What he said previously isn't contradicted simply because he wants to have a more "humanly" tone in the quote you posted, as refreshing as it is.

2) In no place does it say that the cupcakes WEREN'T given to charity because they were disagreeable with the message that was behind them. Just because they "got" the message(s) does not the cupcakes weren't given because their message was disagreeable. Just because he says they didn't stop the cakes from being made or delivered doesn't change this either. Regardless if you think it's smart or not of them to let them go, to charity rather than rot, what is important to me was the reason he gave for them being given away.

It doesn't matter whether or not it's really him or PR. Either way the message would still be from Bioware.

Modifié par MikoDoll, 01 avril 2012 - 07:11 .

[Suspire]

What baffles me is how PR thinks is okay to say what they did ("cupcakes rejected because it's criticism and we don't want criticism as feedback" is the only way to understand that message)

[Viyu]

Suspire wrote...

What baffles me is how PR thinks is okay
to say what they did ("cupcakes rejected because it's criticism and we
don't want criticism as feedback" is the only way to understand that
message)

Priestly didn't say that PR said that statement for him. Notice how carefully the statement XDogSoldier quotes is worded. From a professional point of view, if he's not going to clarify who said it, we have to assume he said it.
However, MikoDoll has a point that I didn't think of.... regardless if he said it or not, the statement did come from behalf of Bioware's team.

XDogSoldier wrote...

Well I see your qualms. But remember the point of the message. They were not obligated to eat the gift.

They are not obligated to eat the gift. Fair enough. But I think you're missing the point. I'm focusing on the reason Bioware gave for giving the cupcakes away to a charity. That reason has not at all been contradicted by Chris' follow-up statement, regardless of how "human" it sounds.

Theyjust were wanting the messages to come out loud and clear. As far as his statements go I can only repost and read into what they mean. 

We are all human after all. We say one thing, mean another, and others interprut in many different ways.

Priestly didn't retract what he said (or what Bioware said as him), he simply said that PR "hates" him for speaking more "human". Sure someone can say something and mean another, but I don't see where the contradiction to Bioware's previous statement lies. I just see a different tone to one of them.

And in some cases PR will read what is written before posting. Did this happen? Who knows but the people involved.

Again if PR read what was written before posting, it's still a statement made on behalf of Bioware. And, why didn't he just come out and say that PR had said something he didn't co-sign with? There have been several times when Bioware employees have opened their mouths about the endings, and things to come, that did not reflect the direction of the company, and they were quickly silenced and corrected. There been no initiative that I know of to date to retract it, which is somewhat telling, until clarity proves otherwise.

I can agree with BW on the "Not sent out of celebration" reason for one fact: They really weren't. It was a tounge in cheek "Hey great game! We had the bitter, here is the sweet!" message. And once recieved they had
the right to do as they pleased with them.

I'm not questioning whether it was their "right" or not. I'm asking why there is a double standard being placed upon the ChipIn that was not placed upon Bioware? Technically, the ChipIn people had a right to make donations regardless of whether any of us thought it was right or not, yes?

XDogSoldier wrote...

I didn't say it wasn't a charity I meant I didn't see their donating it to a youth center as charity. More like gifting. In the manner of a bakery or restaraunt giving food to a School for an event or prize. If
that makes ANY sense.

FYI: People send school supplies to poor kids, and Christmas gifts to charity all year around. If you give up clothes to Goodwill, that's technically gifting, but you can still put it on your taxes.

PS- I'm not a voice of reason. Just been ollowing this a while and like bioware as a whole. And unfair judgement erks me wrong when people try to fire up the crowd.

I'm hoping by now it's obvious that it wasn't the intention to "fire up" anyone for the heck of it.Some of us don't have the feasible time to keep up with this topic 24/7, (its still up in the air what page Priestly said the follow up). But to be fair, despite your evidence, I still don't see how you dismissing the previous statements as merely "PR", is relevant to the discussion.

Modifié par Viyu, 01 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[DayusMakhina]

[quote]Viyu wrote...
[quote]Suspire wrote...

What baffles me is how PR thinks is okay
to say what they did ("cupcakes rejected because it's criticism and we
don't want criticism as feedback" is the only way to understand that
message)[/quote]

Priestly didn't say that PR said that statement for him. Notice how carefully the statement XDogSoldier quotes is worded. From a professional point of view, if he's not going to clarify who said it, we have to assume he said it.
However, MikoDoll has a point that I didn't think of.... regardless if he said it or not, the statement did come from behalf of Bioware's team.[/quote]
There was nothing wrong with that statement in the first place, considering it's a statement about the cupcakes and not feedback in general. Not eating the cupcakes (cupcakes are generally seen as a nice thing and thus a reward) because they are really a protest is not only logical but the best thing to do.


[quote] Viyu wrote...
[quote]XDogSoldier wrote...

Well I see your qualms. But remember the point of the message. They were not obligated to eat the gift. [/quote]

They are not obligated to eat the gift. Fair enough. But I think you're missing the point. I'm focusing on the reason Bioware gave for giving the cupcakes away to a charity. That reason has not at all been contradicted by Chris' follow-up statement, regardless of how "human" it sounds.
[/quote]
This 'reason' is just something you've twisted from Chris' words and your interpretation of them to try and create an imaginary problem. Cupcakes were better suited going to a local youth shelter to kids whom would appreciate them more. That is ALL there is to it.



[quote]
[quote]Theyjust were wanting the messages to come out loud and clear. As far as his statements go I can only repost and read into what they mean. 

We are all human after all. We say one thing, mean another, and others interprut in many different ways.[/quote]

Priestly didn't retract what he said (or what Bioware said as him), he simply said that PR "hates" him for speaking more "human". Sure someone can say something and mean another, but I don't see where the contradiction to Bioware's previous statement lies. I just see a different tone to one of them.


[quote] And in some cases PR will read what is written before posting. Did this happen? Who knows but the people involved. [/quote]

Again if PR read what was written before posting, it's still a statement made on behalf of Bioware. And, why didn't he just come out and say that PR had said something he didn't co-sign with? There have been several times when Bioware employees have opened their mouths about the endings, and things to come, that did not reflect the direction of the company, and they were quickly silenced and corrected. There been no initiative that I know of to date to retract it, which is somewhat telling, until clarity proves otherwise.
[/quote]
Except it's not telling, because the statement was made about CUPCAKES, and not about feedback.


[quote]
[quote]I can agree with BW on the "Not sent out of celebration" reason for one fact: They really weren't. It was a tounge in cheek "Hey great game! We had the bitter, here is the sweet!" message. And once recieved they had
the right to do as they pleased with them.[/quote]

I'm not questioning whether it was their "right" or not. I'm asking why there is a double standard being placed upon the ChipIn that was not placed upon Bioware? Technically, the ChipIn people had a right to make donations regardless of whether any of us thought it was right or not, yes?
[/quote]
That's just plain wrong. There is no double standard, my previous post explained that perfectly well. Giving cupcakes to a youth shelter with absolutely no stigma attach is hugely different to giving to Child's Play in the hope of getting a new ending. That should be clear to anyone that the situation was hugely different. 

[quote]
[quote]XDogSoldier wrote...

I didn't say it wasn't a charity I meant I didn't see their donating it to a youth center as charity. More like gifting. In the manner of a bakery or restaraunt giving food to a School for an event or prize. If
that makes ANY sense. [/quote]

FYI: People send school supplies to poor kids, and Christmas gifts to charity all year around. If you give up clothes to Goodwill, that's technically gifting, but you can still put it on your taxes.

[quote]PS- I'm not a voice of reason. Just been ollowing this a while and like bioware as a whole. And unfair judgement erks me wrong when people try to fire up the crowd.[/quote]

I'm hoping by now it's obvious that it wasn't the intention to "fire up" anyone for the heck of it.Some of us don't have the feasible time to keep up with this topic 24/7, (its still up in the air what page Priestly said the follow up). But to be fair, despite your evidence, I still don't see how you dismissing the previous statements as merely "PR", is relevant to the discussion.
[/quote]
Realistically all you are doing is attempting to 'fire up the crowd', because all you've done is taken one point that can be explained with a valid explanation (Chris' line) and attempted to compare two completely different situations to create an issue.

Think of it this way... most people just saw Bioware giving the cupcakes to a more deserving group of people as a nice thing and were happy about it. The fact that noone else bar you and the other person whom has seemingly attached his/her self to your views have said this should indicate pretty clearly that it just your rather negative perception of the whole event.

Modifié par DayusMakhina, 01 avril 2012 - 12:35 .

[Travie]

John Epler wrote...

Tuatha de Danann wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...
PR hates me.

They aren't alone.

And this would be an example of how not to post.

I don't know why, but this made me laugh pretty hard 

[Gabriel S.]

Gabriel Stelinski wrote...

The question is... Will they eat them?

Nope, Gabe, they didn't eat them but they sent them to a charity so you can't 'itch about it. Besides, you didn't contribute to the effort, did you?

[marshkoala]

@Logan.key and Shadow

Thanks for everything!

@Chris Priestly and all the other mods
Thanks for acknowledging us as people and I'm glad you understood what we were trying to say!
We love you, just not the ending

[Suspire]

DayusMakhina wrote...

Theyjust were wanting the messages to come out loud and clear. As far as his statements go I can only repost and read into what they mean. 

We are all human after all. We say one thing, mean another, and others interprut in many different ways.

Priestly didn't retract what he said (or what Bioware said as him), he simply said that PR "hates" him for speaking more "human". Sure someone can say something and mean another, but I don't see where the contradiction to Bioware's previous statement lies. I just see a different tone to one of them.

And in some cases PR will read what is written before posting. Did this happen? Who knows but the people involved.

Again if PR read what was written before posting, it's still a statement made on behalf of Bioware. And, why didn't he just come out and say that PR had said something he didn't co-sign with? There have been several times when Bioware employees have opened their mouths about the endings, and things to come, that did not reflect the direction of the company, and they were quickly silenced and corrected. There been no initiative that I know of to date to retract it, which is somewhat telling, until clarity proves otherwise.

Except it's not telling, because the statement was made about CUPCAKES, and not about feedback.

It explicitly says it's about feedback: "we decided ultimately the reason that they were sent was not done in the context of celebrating the work or accomplishment of the Mass Effect 3 team. This is a subtle, but important aspect in determining how to pass the feedback to the team."
The reason for the cupcakes = the feedback. In what other way is it important "how to pass the feedback" in this sentence?
It has to be a mistake and then Chris tried to fix it. Or my english really really sucks. Or you have to read minds to read their messages to know what they really mean.
I don't think they can say PR makes mistakes or if he does or doesn't co-sign things, but I'm guessing.

I don't think anyone sees the whole event as negative. Chris tended to the PR message already and if I had seen it before I'd have assumed it was a bad PR mistake.... what's one more mistake by BW, right. About the charity/eating thing I see both sides, which is one more reason I'm not commenting about it anymore.

[Viyu]

About the charity/eating thing I see both sides, which is one more reason I'm not commenting about it anymore.

I think people are looking too much into protecting Bioware and their decisions, and we're sort of forgetting that the point isn't about attacking Bioware, but to call foul on their supporters who are inconsistent with their claims, and need to (IMO) mind their business if they're going to pick sides. Discussing what Bioware said or did is simply a means to making that point. It isn't the point.

DayusMakhina wrote...

There was nothing wrong with that statement in the first place, considering it's a statement about the cupcakes and not feedback in general. Not eating the cupcakes (cupcakes are generally seen as a nice thing and thus a reward) because they are really a protest is not only logical but the best thing to do.

I'm saying that when you send the cupcakes away because they were not celebratory, that's indirectly acknowledging them as feedback, and not simply as multi-colored cupcakes.

This 'reason' is just something you've twisted from Chris' words and your interpretation of them to try and create an imaginary problem. Cupcakes were better suited going to a local youth shelter to kids whom would appreciate them more. That is ALL there is to it.

Here's the thing. I don't think giving to the kids was wrong at all. Why was all that talk about how the cupcakes weren't celebratory of ME3 relevant? I ask you, how was I twisting his words? I am open to discussion about this, but I just don't see how that paraphrase was contradicted by the follow-up. My issue again is, why are Bioware supporters going to complain about the chipin movement because helping the kids wasn't the "primary motive" and then let Bioware slide when the sake of the kids wasn't the "primary motive" in donating the cupcakes.

I don't have to justify this attitude, it's the people complaining about the Chipin movement that have to explain their double standard as to why they feel its okay to whine about the fans, but not when Bioware does the same thing.

Realistically all you are doing is attempting to 'fire up the crowd', because all you've done is taken one point that can be explained with a valid explanation (Chris' line) and attempted to compare two completely different situations to create an issue.

I told people several times that I was actually hoping I was wrong. I wasn't trying to compare two completely different situations. I'm saying that the follow up quotes don't contradict the content in the first one, simply because "PR hates him". You are telling me I am twisting his words, but you are not actually supporting where and how. Nowhere in the follow-up did it state that a mistake was made, and that wasn't the reason they gave the cupcakes up. Just, that it shouldn't matter why they gave the cupcakes up because they kept the messages. But that doesn't change what the reason they gave them up was because of the message they were associated with. They didn't like the jab so that was why they were given up.

Think of it this way... most people just saw Bioware giving the cupcakes to a more deserving group of people as a nice thing and were happy about it.

I think it was wonderful that they got the cupcakes. Kind of like how I think it was wonderful needy children got helped from ChipIn, even if the motive behind that might be a bit questionable. My issue isn't exactly towards Bioware. or the ChipIn. I guess I might be sloppy at conveying that. But my issue isn't exactly towards them, nor do you see me shaking my finger at the ChipIn donators. My issue is more or less towards the critics picking sides.

The fact that noone else bar you and the other person whom has seemingly attached his/her self to your views have said this should indicate pretty clearly that it just your rather negative perception of the whole event.

1) Appeal to bandwagon fallacy.


2) I had said before that I'm willing (and hoping) to be proven wrong about the issue. I don't view the whole event as negative at all. Actually, I personally commend people for being honest about who and what cause the cupcakes were going towards, and in the end that honesty was rewarded by helping needy children, regardless of who is at fault, or who was in the wrong.

However, if certain people are going to criticize one side to "stir things up" (Penny Arcade), I think criticism should be distributed equally without bias. That is to say, if you've got a problem with fans giving money to kids to protest, then it would only be consistent to complain (IF you were in that camp of complainers) to moan about Bioware giving cupcakes to the kids because they didn't like the messsage of the cupcakes and communicated this by refusing to eat them.

If the people moaning about the fanbase over the ChipIn issue can't be consistent in their complaining, they need to mind their own business and not vocally take any sides, because it just feels like pretentious "concern" was given to needy children just to kick down a movement. Ironically hypocritical....

Modifié par Viyu, 01 avril 2012 - 11:57 .

[Estelindis]

 Thanks for the update on the kids receiving the cupcakes, Logan!  It put a huge smile on my face.  

[DayusMakhina]

I can't properly quote right now because I'm on my phone, but here's a rebuttal anyway.

Those two comparisons aren't valid because your statement that they gave them away to send a message to the fans is just your personal (and negative) view of the situation. The way I see it, they gave them away because they would not have been able to eat them, It made sense to give them away and thus they've recieved no criticism for them.

The Child's Play situation did warrant criticism, because that was using the charity in order to send a message, something that was clearly a bad idea as evidenced by the numerous issues caused by it.

Theres no double standards in complaining about the Child's Play movement but defending Bioqares because the situation of them is so hugely different. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer than that.

[kaztas]

DayusMakhina wrote...

I can't properly quote right now because I'm on my phone, but here's a rebuttal anyway.

Those two comparisons aren't valid because your statement that they gave them away to send a message to the fans is just your personal (and negative) view of the situation. The way I see it, they gave them away because they would not have been able to eat them, It made sense to give them away and thus they've recieved no criticism for them.

The Child's Play situation did warrant criticism, because that was using the charity in order to send a message, something that was clearly a bad idea as evidenced by the numerous issues caused by it.

Theres no double standards in complaining about the Child's Play movement but defending Bioqares because the situation of them is so hugely different. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer than that.

You're wrong and right. We didn't "use"  the charity, but you can believe whichever you wish. $80,000 was raised for Child's Play, but that doesn't matter because we're all so "devious".  While only a few..very very very few, asked for their money back, with anything you do a few sour grapes are always in the bunch, they don't represent the mass of the ReTake movement.

Points are made, children are happy. What's wrong with this? Nothing. Now grabbing kids and putting placards on them and marching them around....that's using them....however...hmm (im kidding)


BioWare made the right decision in donating the cupcakes (which I fouind to be poetic Irony in itself)

Modifié par kaztas, 02 avril 2012 - 02:48 .

[kbct]

kaztas wrote...

BioWare made the right decision in donatting the cupcakes (which I fouind to be poetic Irony in itself)

Sweet, sweet irony. It's really the icing on the cupcake.

[DayusMakhina]

Do quit being so defensive and flat out putting words in my mouth. I have never once called any of the Retake movement "devious" or even commented on the movement at all so your attitude is nothing more than pointless. I equally have made no attempt at all to write off the money made by that campaign.

Furthermore you have completely taken my use of "use" out of context. The retake movement did use the charity, they raised money for Child's Play and thus made use of the charity. That is all that comment meant. If you reply to me again please atleast try to be objective.

[Suspire]

Viyu wrote...

About the charity/eating thing I see both sides, which is one more reason I'm not commenting about it anymore.

I think people are looking too much into protecting Bioware and their decisions, and we're sort of forgetting that the point isn't about attacking Bioware, but to call foul on their supporters who are inconsistent with their claims, and need to (IMO) mind their business if they're going to pick sides. Discussing what Bioware said or did is simply a means to making that point. It isn't the point.

Yeah. There are kind of a lot of different things being discussed, but I don't wanna get more into that than I already have. I don't have your desire to argue my point/my views, I've seen the result and don't think people want to touch this with a ten foot pole, because it has hungry kids in it, and just wanna "see the good" and ignore the rest, like some even said in the locked thread. I said that in the quote because DayusMakhina was accusing me of  "attaching his/her self to your views" (thanks btw dude, call me anytime you want someone to assume you don't have your own opinion). So I was telling him one of the reasons I don't wanna argue myself to death.

Modifié par Suspire, 02 avril 2012 - 03:29 .