"BobcatSkywalker;c-2041509" wrote:
"Kyno;c-2041465" wrote:
"Col_Janson;c-2041142" wrote:
Kyno I think a better wording than "less crucial issue" should be used. It was specifically said that the original question was misunderstood, and specifically said that an answer would be returned because it was understood now. The question of rotating TBs around to accurately reflect progression directly impacts Guilds and there member participation and roster development. This is a problem of accountibility at this point and is completely fair to have appropriate reminders and bumps to have it addressed. The original request at the beginning of this thread was extremely polite and non-confrontational, please do not lump in those who have appropriately questioned with the trolls.
The answer to this question even if it was given right away, is not critical. This issue is not critical and wouldnt have been implemented right away had they interpreted this correctly the first time.
I'm not sure why the politeness of the question should matter at all, since all communication should be that way, but the OP recieved a polite reply already...
Who should be accountable for what? Crumb responded and is not the person who can answer that question. No timeline was given that could have been violated. I dont think Crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary timeline set by the community, that doesnt seem reasonable.
No one has commented that seeking a reply is not ok, I have actually tried to keep up with this in reminding him to get an answer, but again this question/answer is not critical and when the answer does come around nothing is going to change right away.... I'm not lumping anything together, just trying to get an answer and keep perspective that this is not a huge issue on any front.
Who should be accountable for what?
Crumb should be accountable for his word.
Your lying when you say no timeline was given see below.
"CG_SBCrumb;c-2024522" wrote:
Hey folks, sitting down with Tophat at lunch today to get a better answer to your question. I should have an update this afternoon
6 weeks isnt arbitrary deadline set by the community. 6 weeks is just the amount of time that has passed since crumb said he should be able to have an update that afternoon.
I agree I don't think crumb should be accountable to an arbitrary deadline set by the community but should he as the community manager be accountable based on his word?
And after that he replied that he couldnt get a solid answer. So again, he did what he said in the quote you have there and came back with a response.
"CG_SBCrumb;c-2024816" wrote:
Hey folks, apologies. I couldn't get a solid answer today for this but I've covered their desk in sticky notes to remind them Monday. Sorry for the run around
Capital Games Team
