If I may ask an honest question: what is anyone complaining looking for, at this point?
Adam admitted the situation and communication was handled in a less than optimal way, he apologized on behalf of all DDB/Curse, he assured that anyone feeling cheated can ask for a refund, he vowed to be more careful in making things more clear from now on.
So, what is your intent in keeping on dissecting whatever reply he gives?
I honestly ask, because so far Curse with DDB has been one of the more transparent and reliable companies I have interacted with, with staff members constantly clarifying doubts and trying to iron out problems for everyone raising them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
Currently playing in: Quest for the Shunned City, Coliseum of Conquest, DragonDenn's Dragonlords, Shipwrecked on Fugue, Tomb of Annihilation, Razor's Lost Mine of Phandelver, The Lost Kenku & One Grung Above
Currently DMing: Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, Coliseum of Conquest—The Arena (Sometimes)
The reasoning for that was partially not to tip our hand at those future other types of products, because as soon as we brought that up it would generate more speculation than we felt like we could handle at the time.
BadEye, the part I bolded in your post reads a lot like 'intentionally misleading customers into thinking it covers more products than you intended it to'. You admit intending it to seem like it covered all products on D&D Beyond in order to hide that you were intending to have other products that it didn't cover in the future. That... doesn't look good. You claim there was no intent to mislead, but that bolded statement is directly contrary to that - unless you misspoke?
----------------------------
There may be parts of the Terms of Sale I missed that do apply to this situation, but if so I don't see them.
I won't get into the Terms of Sale in detail, but they certainly cover our ability to make changes as needed. We would always base that on business or community needs. This change was for both reasons.
As for the bolded part, no, I did not misspeak. It was not "intentionally misleading" anyone - it was intentionally keeping some information a secret about things that did not yet exist or were not yet public knowledge. I have to do this all the time - virtually every single time I engage the community. I can't talk about the final D&D product of 2019, or the fantastic things that are coming for D&D products in 2020 because A) they are not yet public knowledge and B) things about the future could change. Me not sharing that information is in no way intentionally misleading - it is intentionally keeping it under wraps.
One more time, I'll share that this was poor communication that we have already addressed, and we will address any desired future-looking discount for map packs when the new bundles become real. (Another example of something I shouldn't have talked about yet, since they're not technically something that should be public knowledge, but I wanted to offer some assurances that the ~$2 extra spent on this first map pack would be more than made right when that bundle comes.)
The bold part sounded more like Badeye was saying nothing is set in stone for the future, so they wanted to make sure there was a distinction for any other types of products that came along.
I don't get why everyone feels like this is so shady. It seemed like it was clear from the start, there's no moral ambiguity, and it benefits people that solely want to by one type of product over another.
I trust and love D&D Beyond, or I wouldn't be here.
This analogy is not remotely the same thing. Nothing has stopped working for you.
Given the context of the analogy, the meaning is clear and entirely appropriate. Semantic reasoning with literal interpretation need not apply. To clarify the analogy: liking a product does not mean I won't hold the company responsible for its mistakes.
I fully concur that the communication of that could have been smoother from the beginning. It's easy to see those things in hindsight, and we wouldn't make that kind of mistake again.
You're basically saying what I'm saying and yet somehow we're still arguing. A miscommunication isn't the fault of the consumer. And if that miscommunication has led any reasonable person to an impression that they were purchasing something that provided a certain benefit, then saying after the fact that you always intended it as something else, is irrelevant; the company has still misled customers and needs to take responsibility for that instead of saying, "Whoopsy." Part of taking responsibility isn't just saying sorry, it's also in providing recompense to those who were misled.
The distinction between types of products has existed since Day 0, so yes, we have always meant the term like that.
I keep having to come back to this. Your intent or the company's intent is irrelevant. The fact remains that this intent was not communicated within the product description and that consumers have been led to believe, based on the description of the product which you admit was flawed, that they would get the discount on all future products. And again, trying to make a distinction between 'digital content' and 'digital whatever other term you make up to describe other content' is also irrelevant because that distinction was never made in the product in a manner that a consumer would be aware of before making a purchase.
If I may ask an honest question: what is anyone complaining looking for, at this point?
I get that you feel personally invested given your moderator status on the Discord, however I think you have to divorce yourself from personal connection to D&D Beyond and look at it as a company and not your friend. Disallowing or discouraging criticism of a company's actions is tantamount to intimidation tactics when it's done by a representative of the company, as you now are. I am criticising the actions of D&D Beyond as a company, not as a person, so do not take it personally. I feel that there is a clear-cut issue of ethical standards having been breached and feel that I have a right of reply, just as Adam has replied continuously to my comments. Or do you think I should be silent?
The honest truth is that I don't care about the discount. It's a couple of dollars off a product I probably won't even buy. To me, it's a matter of right and wrong and whether I'm personally impacted or not, has no bearing on whether or not I feel justified in bringing it up as an issue and fighting for what I perceive to be a fair resolution.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
This thread brought up a valid concern, which was fully answered by the development staff. Continued deterioration of the topic is leading into repeat arguments and serving only to cause further unrest on the forums (2c.), as well as taking sight at users on an individual level. I would like to thank those involved in the discussion of these questions and for the energy and passion they place into D&D Beyond. While I understand that individuals may not like the answer received, this is the answer given and stance taken, ending the circling debate. It is perfectly alright to disagree and all values & opinions are appreciated. No posts have been deleted, nor users censored.
I encourage everyone to take a breather from the topic, if needed, and continue to enjoy the positive community we have all helped to build here. This thread will be locked, as discussion has come to an end.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
If I may ask an honest question: what is anyone complaining looking for, at this point?
Adam admitted the situation and communication was handled in a less than optimal way, he apologized on behalf of all DDB/Curse, he assured that anyone feeling cheated can ask for a refund, he vowed to be more careful in making things more clear from now on.
So, what is your intent in keeping on dissecting whatever reply he gives?
I honestly ask, because so far Curse with DDB has been one of the more transparent and reliable companies I have interacted with, with staff members constantly clarifying doubts and trying to iron out problems for everyone raising them.
Born in Italy, moved a bunch, living in Spain, my heart always belonged to Roleplaying Games
I would have to agree with LeK. It just kind of feels like you guys are beating a dead horse at this point.
Check out my Extended signature here
Class Guides: Barbarian, Rogue, Sorcerer, Bard General Guides: PvP
Currently playing in: Quest for the Shunned City, Coliseum of Conquest, DragonDenn's Dragonlords, Shipwrecked on Fugue, Tomb of Annihilation, Razor's Lost Mine of Phandelver, The Lost Kenku & One Grung Above
Currently DMing: Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, Coliseum of Conquest—The Arena (Sometimes)
I won't get into the Terms of Sale in detail, but they certainly cover our ability to make changes as needed. We would always base that on business or community needs. This change was for both reasons.
As for the bolded part, no, I did not misspeak. It was not "intentionally misleading" anyone - it was intentionally keeping some information a secret about things that did not yet exist or were not yet public knowledge. I have to do this all the time - virtually every single time I engage the community. I can't talk about the final D&D product of 2019, or the fantastic things that are coming for D&D products in 2020 because A) they are not yet public knowledge and B) things about the future could change. Me not sharing that information is in no way intentionally misleading - it is intentionally keeping it under wraps.
One more time, I'll share that this was poor communication that we have already addressed, and we will address any desired future-looking discount for map packs when the new bundles become real. (Another example of something I shouldn't have talked about yet, since they're not technically something that should be public knowledge, but I wanted to offer some assurances that the ~$2 extra spent on this first map pack would be more than made right when that bundle comes.)
The bold part sounded more like Badeye was saying nothing is set in stone for the future, so they wanted to make sure there was a distinction for any other types of products that came along.
I don't get why everyone feels like this is so shady. It seemed like it was clear from the start, there's no moral ambiguity, and it benefits people that solely want to by one type of product over another.
I trust and love D&D Beyond, or I wouldn't be here.
-Dresden White
Given the context of the analogy, the meaning is clear and entirely appropriate. Semantic reasoning with literal interpretation need not apply. To clarify the analogy: liking a product does not mean I won't hold the company responsible for its mistakes.
You're basically saying what I'm saying and yet somehow we're still arguing. A miscommunication isn't the fault of the consumer. And if that miscommunication has led any reasonable person to an impression that they were purchasing something that provided a certain benefit, then saying after the fact that you always intended it as something else, is irrelevant; the company has still misled customers and needs to take responsibility for that instead of saying, "Whoopsy." Part of taking responsibility isn't just saying sorry, it's also in providing recompense to those who were misled.
I keep having to come back to this. Your intent or the company's intent is irrelevant. The fact remains that this intent was not communicated within the product description and that consumers have been led to believe, based on the description of the product which you admit was flawed, that they would get the discount on all future products. And again, trying to make a distinction between 'digital content' and 'digital whatever other term you make up to describe other content' is also irrelevant because that distinction was never made in the product in a manner that a consumer would be aware of before making a purchase.
I get that you feel personally invested given your moderator status on the Discord, however I think you have to divorce yourself from personal connection to D&D Beyond and look at it as a company and not your friend. Disallowing or discouraging criticism of a company's actions is tantamount to intimidation tactics when it's done by a representative of the company, as you now are. I am criticising the actions of D&D Beyond as a company, not as a person, so do not take it personally. I feel that there is a clear-cut issue of ethical standards having been breached and feel that I have a right of reply, just as Adam has replied continuously to my comments. Or do you think I should be silent?
The honest truth is that I don't care about the discount. It's a couple of dollars off a product I probably won't even buy. To me, it's a matter of right and wrong and whether I'm personally impacted or not, has no bearing on whether or not I feel justified in bringing it up as an issue and fighting for what I perceive to be a fair resolution.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
This thread brought up a valid concern, which was fully answered by the development staff. Continued deterioration of the topic is leading into repeat arguments and serving only to cause further unrest on the forums (2c.), as well as taking sight at users on an individual level. I would like to thank those involved in the discussion of these questions and for the energy and passion they place into D&D Beyond. While I understand that individuals may not like the answer received, this is the answer given and stance taken, ending the circling debate. It is perfectly alright to disagree and all values & opinions are appreciated. No posts have been deleted, nor users censored.
I encourage everyone to take a breather from the topic, if needed, and continue to enjoy the positive community we have all helped to build here. This thread will be locked, as discussion has come to an end.