The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration. I understand the site's policy and privilege to alter the books is technically legal but that does not make it right. At the end of the day text material was removed from a book after money had changed hands, apparently it was legal and allowed based on the regulations in place. This does not mean that the change has the moral high ground, it means the regulations and legislation in place is insufficient to protect the wellbeing of the customer and need to be ammended.
You're kidding right? If dndb hadn't changed the text on their site as contractually obliged, but lets just forget that for a while, there would have been a massive outcry that people buy digital for the convenience of always having up-to-date sources. And Now you, and others, are complaining about that??? I'm so glad I'm not working in any capacity with customers any more.
The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration. I understand the site's policy and privilege to alter the books is technically legal but that does not make it right. At the end of the day text material was removed from a book after money had changed hands, apparently it was legal and allowed based on the regulations in place. This does not mean that the change has the moral high ground, it means the regulations and legislation in place is insufficient to protect the wellbeing of the customer and need to be ammended.
You're kidding right? If dndb hadn't changed the text on their site as contractually obliged, but lets just forget that for a while, there would have been a massive outcry that people buy digital for the convenience of always having up-to-date sources. And Now you, and others, are complaining about that??? I'm so glad I'm not working in any capacity with customers any more.
A little off topic, but I recently learned that the phrase we hear bandied about on a near constant basis these days: “the customer is always right” is only half of the original expression. The complete phrase is: “the customer is always right in matters of taste”, meaning we’re not supposed to tell Mrs. Smith that the fuscia blouse with the bigass flowers on it she is considering is ugly AF. Contrary to what every retail manager seems to believe, it does not mean Mrs. Smith gets to be an unpleasant, demanding pecker until she makes the cashier cry to get a better price on that ugly AF blouse.
I have never met a group of people more wrong about everything than “the customer”.
I'm sure you feel strongly about this, since you decided your very first post would be dedicated to this sorry subject, but this is a gross overstatement. You're making it sound like entire swathes of text were removed wholecloth, while in actuality rather few words were actually taken out and the resulting changes in what the material conveys are practically negligible because they were largely redundant. Some absolutes were done away with in order to let context be more meaningful. That's it. Drow, mindflayers, beholders, they're all still the same. The notions in the three paragraphs about roleplaying a beholder were about how to roleplay a stereotypical beholder as they are described on the previous pages already. No information was lost. WotC is simply saying "this is how you might likely roleplay a beholder, though you are free to deviate from the norms we explained in detail already" instead of "you should roleplay a beholder in the following way, which happens to be the way we already told you beholders typically are anyway". I'm looking at the book right now, it's in my hands, and there's nothing in those three paragraphs that's not an echo of something explained in greated detail already on the previous pages.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What gets me is the complete lack of specificity in venting over these "injuries." If the text that were removed, for a streamlined and more DM imagination driven game experience, really mattered _that much_ to these folks who show up in the forum to express injury, they'd recognize exactly how "small potatoes" the lore excisions were*, but how such missing content as well as the more mechanically significant change to ability score modifiers (from over a year ago) are easily redressed through using the tools D&D Beyond provides to homebrew the "retro" modifiers and even document a whole "retro" lore in a homebrew copy's notes. It's one of those what I call "bro, do you even D&D Beyond, bro?" moments. (I also get a lot of folks come to the forum who don't really use D&D Beyond but see the site as some sort of official commons for D&D ... because they got kicked off ENWorld and even Reddit pushes back on the frankly idealogical motives for a lot of this venting now wrapped in pseudo legalism and "consumers rights" but that gets into community management).
FWIW, someone with one post on their counter does not necessarily mean it's the only time the account's been activated to post. Threads get deleted, and that gets deducted from post count, and I think there are a few "heated" voices that self-delete upon reflection or job application asking for social media identities or what have you. At least that's my read, a lot of the "brave first posts" come from folks whose accounts seem to have been active for at least a year or so.
I really want someone to show me how the removal of the text of "role playing an X" ruins a DM or player's game, when all the foundational lore that gave the designers the grounding to write what they now recognize as unnecessary and game limiting "role playing dictates" still exist in the pages of Volo's, the Monster Manual, etc. You can still play a monster per "roleplaying an X" its just that with the text removed, it becomes a way not the way to play by extrapolating role playing clues from the rest of the text (I actually engaged someone in the support forum, posting the simple solutions for maintaining Orcs to their ways and they're red font colored response told me they weren't nearly as familiar with the books content as the tone of their injury was trying to indicate ... I used to among other things copy edit and managing edit, the degree of bowdlerization the latest wave of change haters is trying to claim is demonstrably unfounded, I'm not going to waste my time on the guy who wanted to yell at me in red typeface, but maybe I'll post some actual numbers to quantify the degree to which the texts have "changed").
The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration. I understand the site's policy and privilege to alter the books is technically legal but that does not make it right. At the end of the day text material was removed from a book after money had changed hands, apparently it was legal and allowed based on the regulations in place. This does not mean that the change has the moral high ground, it means the regulations and legislation in place is insufficient to protect the wellbeing of the customer and need to be ammended.
I don't really disagree with this perspective, but we all literally signed up for this. It's nothing new. It's not a great deal -- renting is always inferior to owning, right -- and I'm happy to support change in this regard, it's just weird that nobody's been talking about it until now.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
The thing is, your point is regarding any update made to a product already established - meaning that you have a problem with ALL erratas, not just this one - which, although valid, is not the main subject of the poll and the reason behind the comment on the age you are responding to.
That doesn't take away the fact you disliked the errata, is just that the reasoning behind your disliking is a subsegment of the total - which I assume is the minority, since there were not even half the uproar on any other errata.
Many people don't realize the economic impact of patching culture, which is significantly more impactul on things like virtual card games - and I fully agree the need of a regulatory discussion on the subject. That said, I honestly don't see how the erratas from 5e create any substantial devalue on the product, since the nature of the game is established on building your own lore with flexibility in rules.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
Again, nothing substantive was removed. Furthermore, since D&D is a social activity, a group thing, something you need others for to really work, the value of rulebooks is to an extent tied to the community of D&D players. These changes aim to promote that community without - again, without - making any meaningful removals from the books' contents. Changes that enhance the community actually increase the value of the books, even if only incrementally. The outdated mindset is not caring whether companies stand for good values, no offense.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
I expected much more, really. In the circles I frequent, the general feeling is of discomfort with the latest changes. Anyway, that usually happens with changes.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
ROFLMAO the naivety is just precious. Devaluing your whatever is exactly what every corporation works hard to do. We live in a world of programmed obsolescence, where the need to replace your whatever is built right into the manufacture and purchase price of that whatever. When your current whatever breaks down as it was designed to by the lowest bidder using the cheapest stuff possible, you have to buy a new one. People want to sell you stuff. They can’t sell you stuff you already have.
Virtually nothing in this world retains value. The exceptions are rare and valuable only because they are exceptional. Never mind that your books were devalued in no way by the errata—if anything they gained value because they will be sought by the grognards or because they are no longer being printed that way and have the chance at becoming rarities—the notion that corporations should not devalue products after they’ve been purchased is not an outlier mindset, it’s the very foundation of capitalism.
It's worth noting, given current poll numbers, that Wizards has been on record in the past as stating that seventy percent approval rates for new UA, via their surveys, is enough for them to feel confident in printing the material. They prefer higher, of course, but seventy percent is high enough.
Obviously the poll is not all-inclusive and conclusive, but a hundred and forty votes isn't nothing. With all due grains of salt, could be enough to be at least one data point.
I wonder if the new book might help clarify that it appears all existing lore remains, but the overall descriptions of the races and such are now inclusive of all the different realms? My initial understanding was that the FR lore was being rewritten, t be more care-bear-y. The more I see of these changes, the more I believe in FR lore, Drow are still "mostly evil" due to how they came to be there. In another setting, they are about on par with Humans, Dwarves and the like for being good or evil and in yet another, they may well be the righteous ones, wanting peace and solidarity for all. I'm picking Drow because it's the most visible and spoken about with regards to the changes. To me it looks like the general page now references ALL the places these races exist and how they are vastly different from one realm to the next in some cases.
That type of adjustment and clarification makes perfect sense to me for a fantasy, fictional multiverse. I don't see CHANGING lore to be overly helpful, but ADDING lore slides in nicely, especially since it opens everything for discussion so far as ideas and ideals might be for a civilization, or what not. Any race can be any thing and there's a world for that. Expanding ideas and opportunities and growing the worlds is a better method than revamping everything. Maybe it'll help more DM's expand their own worlds as well? I doubt that's much of an issue, but in some cases having clear examples of something that directly contradicts FR ways might help it be used more often.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
I expected much more, really. In the circles I frequent, the general feeling is of discomfort with the latest changes. Anyway, that usually happens with changes.
And I don't know a single D&D player who dislikes this change or hadn't already done basically the same thing in their homebrew already.
What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, because we're both working with small, non-random samples that are not reflective of the general population.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
Obviously the poll is not all-inclusive and conclusive, but a hundred and forty votes isn't nothing. With all due grains of salt, could be enough to be at least one data point.
I'd even suggest that only 140 people voting yields another data point. The General board here sits with ~100 active users on a regular basis. To only have 140 votes after a couple of days tells me that the "I don't care one way or the other" option is probably more heavily weighted than this poll displays. If users see the "Poll: Latest Errata" thread and don't bother to even click into this conversation, it's a telling hint enough for me.
The reason people are upset is not changes to the established lore of settings, people are upset because a product they paid money for was altered without any consent or consideration.
There are two options here.
Like me, you've bought the physical book. That belongs to you, and nothing has changed in it. You're more than free to ignore any errata. In fact, you have to go out of your way to incorporate it.
You've rented a service which provides the most up to date electronic copy of the books. Yes, rented. I'm pretty sure that if you read the Ts & Cs, you'll find that it doesn't actually belong to you and you have essentially paid for DDB to provide you access to a copy - but not the book itself. It may not use the word rent, but it will be to that effect. If DDB goes bust tomorrow, you lose your content, which is why I'm pretty hesitant to pay for books when I'm not given PDFs or a physical copy. More importantly, the second half says that it provides you with the most up to date version. That means that errata has to be incorporated. It's literally what is being paid for.
You say that consumers need more protection...you'll find that is not going to get traction. DDB is providing what was paid for. If they deleted what was in the book and replaced every page with "Sucka!", you'd have a point. DDB is just fulfilling its contractual obligations to its customers (and WotC).
If it bothers you enough to complain, lobby WotC to provide PDFs. When new errata arrives, you can choose to replace the old ones or not, as you see fit. I'd be much quicker to spend coin here with the knowledge that the products I buy aren't going to disappear one day (or if it does, then it's my fault). How things are, with DDB insisting on showing only the most up-to-date version, isn't going to change otherwise, because of the contracts.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
You're kidding right? If dndb hadn't changed the text on their site as contractually obliged, but lets just forget that for a while, there would have been a massive outcry that people buy digital for the convenience of always having up-to-date sources. And Now you, and others, are complaining about that??? I'm so glad I'm not working in any capacity with customers any more.
A little off topic, but I recently learned that the phrase we hear bandied about on a near constant basis these days: “the customer is always right” is only half of the original expression. The complete phrase is: “the customer is always right in matters of taste”, meaning we’re not supposed to tell Mrs. Smith that the fuscia blouse with the bigass flowers on it she is considering is ugly AF. Contrary to what every retail manager seems to believe, it does not mean Mrs. Smith gets to be an unpleasant, demanding pecker until she makes the cashier cry to get a better price on that ugly AF blouse.
I have never met a group of people more wrong about everything than “the customer”.
I'm sure you feel strongly about this, since you decided your very first post would be dedicated to this sorry subject, but this is a gross overstatement. You're making it sound like entire swathes of text were removed wholecloth, while in actuality rather few words were actually taken out and the resulting changes in what the material conveys are practically negligible because they were largely redundant. Some absolutes were done away with in order to let context be more meaningful. That's it. Drow, mindflayers, beholders, they're all still the same. The notions in the three paragraphs about roleplaying a beholder were about how to roleplay a stereotypical beholder as they are described on the previous pages already. No information was lost. WotC is simply saying "this is how you might likely roleplay a beholder, though you are free to deviate from the norms we explained in detail already" instead of "you should roleplay a beholder in the following way, which happens to be the way we already told you beholders typically are anyway". I'm looking at the book right now, it's in my hands, and there's nothing in those three paragraphs that's not an echo of something explained in greated detail already on the previous pages.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What gets me is the complete lack of specificity in venting over these "injuries." If the text that were removed, for a streamlined and more DM imagination driven game experience, really mattered _that much_ to these folks who show up in the forum to express injury, they'd recognize exactly how "small potatoes" the lore excisions were*, but how such missing content as well as the more mechanically significant change to ability score modifiers (from over a year ago) are easily redressed through using the tools D&D Beyond provides to homebrew the "retro" modifiers and even document a whole "retro" lore in a homebrew copy's notes. It's one of those what I call "bro, do you even D&D Beyond, bro?" moments. (I also get a lot of folks come to the forum who don't really use D&D Beyond but see the site as some sort of official commons for D&D ... because they got kicked off ENWorld and even Reddit pushes back on the frankly idealogical motives for a lot of this venting now wrapped in pseudo legalism and "consumers rights" but that gets into community management).
FWIW, someone with one post on their counter does not necessarily mean it's the only time the account's been activated to post. Threads get deleted, and that gets deducted from post count, and I think there are a few "heated" voices that self-delete upon reflection or job application asking for social media identities or what have you. At least that's my read, a lot of the "brave first posts" come from folks whose accounts seem to have been active for at least a year or so.
I really want someone to show me how the removal of the text of "role playing an X" ruins a DM or player's game, when all the foundational lore that gave the designers the grounding to write what they now recognize as unnecessary and game limiting "role playing dictates" still exist in the pages of Volo's, the Monster Manual, etc. You can still play a monster per "roleplaying an X" its just that with the text removed, it becomes a way not the way to play by extrapolating role playing clues from the rest of the text (I actually engaged someone in the support forum, posting the simple solutions for maintaining Orcs to their ways and they're red font colored response told me they weren't nearly as familiar with the books content as the tone of their injury was trying to indicate ... I used to among other things copy edit and managing edit, the degree of bowdlerization the latest wave of change haters is trying to claim is demonstrably unfounded, I'm not going to waste my time on the guy who wanted to yell at me in red typeface, but maybe I'll post some actual numbers to quantify the degree to which the texts have "changed").
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I don't really disagree with this perspective, but we all literally signed up for this. It's nothing new. It's not a great deal -- renting is always inferior to owning, right -- and I'm happy to support change in this regard, it's just weird that nobody's been talking about it until now.
So we are hoovering around 25% now. I will admit that is a little more than I had expected, but still not too bad. I felt that 20ish% would be about where the number actually were.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Honestly, I'd see that number as a by-product of what message boards are. They tend to attract an older audience, who would be the ones potentially stuck in older mindsets over older editions.
I'd be curious on how the same type of poll from an established personality on twitter vs reddit vs facebook would trend
If you think wanting your moneys worth from goods and services and not wanting corporations to devalue products after they've been purchased is an outdated mindset, then that is a serious problem.
Hello IronZealot196,
What has been devalued, as far as you are concerned? In what way was it devalued?
DM mostly, Player occasionally | Session 0 form | He/Him/They/Them
EXTENDED SIGNATURE!
Doctor/Published Scholar/Science and Healthcare Advocate/Critter/Trekkie/Gandalf with a Glock
Try DDB free: Free Rules (2024), premade PCs, adventures, one shots, encounters, SC, homebrew, more
Answers: physical books, purchases, and subbing.
Check out my life-changing
The thing is, your point is regarding any update made to a product already established - meaning that you have a problem with ALL erratas, not just this one - which, although valid, is not the main subject of the poll and the reason behind the comment on the age you are responding to.
That doesn't take away the fact you disliked the errata, is just that the reasoning behind your disliking is a subsegment of the total - which I assume is the minority, since there were not even half the uproar on any other errata.
Many people don't realize the economic impact of patching culture, which is significantly more impactul on things like virtual card games - and I fully agree the need of a regulatory discussion on the subject. That said, I honestly don't see how the erratas from 5e create any substantial devalue on the product, since the nature of the game is established on building your own lore with flexibility in rules.
Again, nothing substantive was removed. Furthermore, since D&D is a social activity, a group thing, something you need others for to really work, the value of rulebooks is to an extent tied to the community of D&D players. These changes aim to promote that community without - again, without - making any meaningful removals from the books' contents. Changes that enhance the community actually increase the value of the books, even if only incrementally. The outdated mindset is not caring whether companies stand for good values, no offense.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I expected much more, really. In the circles I frequent, the general feeling is of discomfort with the latest changes. Anyway, that usually happens with changes.
It is what it is. Just roll with it :)
Whooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooosh
ROFLMAO the naivety is just precious. Devaluing your whatever is exactly what every corporation works hard to do. We live in a world of programmed obsolescence, where the need to replace your whatever is built right into the manufacture and purchase price of that whatever. When your current whatever breaks down as it was designed to by the lowest bidder using the cheapest stuff possible, you have to buy a new one. People want to sell you stuff. They can’t sell you stuff you already have.
Virtually nothing in this world retains value. The exceptions are rare and valuable only because they are exceptional. Never mind that your books were devalued in no way by the errata—if anything they gained value because they will be sought by the grognards or because they are no longer being printed that way and have the chance at becoming rarities—the notion that corporations should not devalue products after they’ve been purchased is not an outlier mindset, it’s the very foundation of capitalism.
It's worth noting, given current poll numbers, that Wizards has been on record in the past as stating that seventy percent approval rates for new UA, via their surveys, is enough for them to feel confident in printing the material. They prefer higher, of course, but seventy percent is high enough.
Obviously the poll is not all-inclusive and conclusive, but a hundred and forty votes isn't nothing. With all due grains of salt, could be enough to be at least one data point.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wonder if the new book might help clarify that it appears all existing lore remains, but the overall descriptions of the races and such are now inclusive of all the different realms? My initial understanding was that the FR lore was being rewritten, t be more care-bear-y. The more I see of these changes, the more I believe in FR lore, Drow are still "mostly evil" due to how they came to be there. In another setting, they are about on par with Humans, Dwarves and the like for being good or evil and in yet another, they may well be the righteous ones, wanting peace and solidarity for all. I'm picking Drow because it's the most visible and spoken about with regards to the changes. To me it looks like the general page now references ALL the places these races exist and how they are vastly different from one realm to the next in some cases.
That type of adjustment and clarification makes perfect sense to me for a fantasy, fictional multiverse. I don't see CHANGING lore to be overly helpful, but ADDING lore slides in nicely, especially since it opens everything for discussion so far as ideas and ideals might be for a civilization, or what not. Any race can be any thing and there's a world for that. Expanding ideas and opportunities and growing the worlds is a better method than revamping everything. Maybe it'll help more DM's expand their own worlds as well? I doubt that's much of an issue, but in some cases having clear examples of something that directly contradicts FR ways might help it be used more often.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
And I don't know a single D&D player who dislikes this change or hadn't already done basically the same thing in their homebrew already.
What does that prove? Absolutely nothing, because we're both working with small, non-random samples that are not reflective of the general population.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
I'd even suggest that only 140 people voting yields another data point. The General board here sits with ~100 active users on a regular basis. To only have 140 votes after a couple of days tells me that the "I don't care one way or the other" option is probably more heavily weighted than this poll displays. If users see the "Poll: Latest Errata" thread and don't bother to even click into this conversation, it's a telling hint enough for me.
There are two options here.
You say that consumers need more protection...you'll find that is not going to get traction. DDB is providing what was paid for. If they deleted what was in the book and replaced every page with "Sucka!", you'd have a point. DDB is just fulfilling its contractual obligations to its customers (and WotC).
If it bothers you enough to complain, lobby WotC to provide PDFs. When new errata arrives, you can choose to replace the old ones or not, as you see fit. I'd be much quicker to spend coin here with the knowledge that the products I buy aren't going to disappear one day (or if it does, then it's my fault). How things are, with DDB insisting on showing only the most up-to-date version, isn't going to change otherwise, because of the contracts.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.