Global Alpha Test Start Date

[Abriael]

Ahem... Note the post below that YOU YOURSELF wrote... (especially the bolded part)

"ticked off" (I just repeated your term, mind you) is quite different from "angry". I find the confrontational attitude that some have against those that are already displeased by not being selected highly distasteful and unbecoming of a community. More distasteful than the complaints.

Complaining about Complainers and all that.

Being "angry" is a whole different thing.

Except the ones who clearly state their self-entitled reasons for whining. lol You know, the ones I was writing about in the first place?

They're not "self entitled". That's a rather meaningless and derogatory catchphrase. Square Enix created that entitlement in the first place by putting the "Must currently have an active FINAL FANTASY XIV account" caveat in writing.

There's nothing "self" about that entitlement. And mind you, considering that they supported the game thus far, while people that aren't subscribed didn't, it's very, very debatable that that entitlement isn't justified to begin with.

The concept of customer loyalty is very important for a company, and loyal customers normally do have a degree of reason to expect a better treatment than casual ones. It's a simple give-and-take issue.

I never said it was. I used that term in a sense to describe how they didn't get the info out they should have. Or rather, how they got the wrong info out, saying that only those with active accounts would be let into alpha, when that clearly isn't the case. And again, it's not the people with legit concerns over that that I was referring to. (How many times do I have to say that? lol)

It wasn't really wrong info. The info is legit, as the rules were there, quite clearly stated. What's wrong is how those rules weren't applied.

Indeed. But as I said before, I doubt this misinformation about this phase of alpha is really as serious as you're painting it to be.

What you seem to have missed is that I did not make any precise statement of seriousness. Whether it's serious or not, it brings a degree of damage. And it's a degree of damage that 1: could be avoided 2: brings absolutely no advantage to balance it.

So it's a bad thing that should be avoided, regardless of how serious it is.

A good boxer also knows what kinds of hits to take seriously and what kind of boxer isn't going to hit that hard. Mike Tyson might have a lot to worry about in a match against Evander Holyfield. But I don't think he'd be all that worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts. My point is, yes, misinformation can be critical. But knowing what to be super worried about and what not to be superworried about is just good judgment and perspective. And, really, I don't think this is a red-alert, world-ending critical problem. (shrug)

Damage adds up over time. He might not be worried about taking a couple of hits from Don Knotts, but he won't certanly consider them a good thing, especially if there's the possibility to receive more hits over time.

I suggest googling "strawman argument", because by continuing to describe it as something that isn't a "red alert, world ending critical problem" you're doing exactly that.

You're refuting something that no one argued. It gets tedious.

That's a really interesting phenomenon. People have expressed similar feelings / opinions with regard to my posts on other forums (different language, though). I think it's induced by well thought out, on-topic, smart posts with accurate use of grammar and an actual value compared to others.

Why, thank you