Ah, I read a bit more and you are right.
- Status
Ah, I read a bit more and you are right.
DeletedUser191218
D
If/when carriers arrive I'll change my opinion. Until then, I have found it most pragmatic to assume non delivery of 'intended' content. Then we can all save ourselves the 'but, but they didn't PROMISE [insert content here] so it's fine to fail in delivering it' discussions. It's July. There's no sign of content that was due almost a year ago. That constitutes failure to me.
Which quote?
The thing is, I made no claims about your conversation before I arrived, that's why you are shooting a strawman, if that's false then quote me.
I never said you did. But again you replied to a reply I gave someone else which bugs was not in the conversation, and after that initial few posts I made it clear I did not want to discuss bugs. It was you that wanted to discuss bugs, not me, i was just being polite. End of story. Now shove off please.
Do you even know what strawman even means? How am I shooting a strawman. That makes no sense.
Last edited:
Fun read. The common ground here is that we don't know anything, because even the stuff we think we know has been established to be so vague that it could happen in the next release all the way to never actually happening at all (ie cancelled).
We do know what has been delivered, and we know that some stated features have not been delivered (yet).
I don't think there is any reason to bring the concept of FDev lying into the discussion though, plans change & previous information was just their best guess, the plan at the time. It makes sense to me that as the plan changes updates are posted to help clarify this kind of thing.
We do know what has been delivered, and we know that some stated features have not been delivered (yet).
I don't think there is any reason to bring the concept of FDev lying into the discussion though, plans change & previous information was just their best guess, the plan at the time. It makes sense to me that as the plan changes updates are posted to help clarify this kind of thing.
If you wanted to discuss that is irrelevant, what matters is if you did and you did which is what I claimed, you claim my claim was false because you didn't discuss bugs before I posted about it, that is a strawman because it is a counter argument to a claim regarding your conversation before my post. That's the strawman and you shooted it with this:
"I wasn't talking about bugd in general, I said I hadn't experienced them apart from that one. I am sure there are plenty, but again that was not part of the original conversation I was having and that you butted into (which is allowed). I was not interested in dicussing the numerous bugs. All I was doing was being polite. Something that seemed to go straight over your head. I said that in the next post very clearly. "
The quote I asked would be proof that the strawman was not a strawman after all, sadly for you, such quote doesn't exist.
I never said that quote existed. Shove off, I have no wish to discuss this stupidty anymore. Get over it. You are wrong and you can't except it.
That's another strawman. And I admit defeat when I'm wrong, this page has an example of this.
Sure. I think that's what lots of people have been doing. Assume a feature isn't over the line until it's over the line. Most of us don't make weird 'I was right you were wrong, a non-existent deadline has passed, best assume it's cancelled!' threads though. Guess I'll leave that you
EDIT: Whoops, just after the petty handbags ruling
Prioritize comes from the latin word PRIOR which means in a comparison between 2 the “prior” is the first one.
Ice carriers and ice planets were not released as first features after Beyond so re-prioritized was used improperly by Zac.
Ice carriers and ice planets were not released as first features after Beyond so re-prioritized was used improperly by Zac.
We are not talking latin though. We are talking in the english language and it doesn't mean that in English. Zac was perfectly correct.
As already quoted above, English is using this word with the same meaning so don't play that card with me
I can't and I don't want to convince you. For me it was an improper message and the evidence in fact is that now many people are upset. Transparency would have been better.
I posted a definition form a dictionary earlier. The use of reprioritise makes perfect sense because fleet carriers are no longer a priority.
In this case de-prioritized would be a more accurate word
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
In the Star Citizen sense of 'working on it'?
I think there are very few developers that can reach that level; and that also continue charging for it for 7 years
Last edited:
Prioritise: to decide which of a group of things are the most important so that you can deal with them firstAs already quoted above, English is using this word with the same meaning so don't play that card with me
I can't and I don't want to convince you. For me it was an improper message and the evidence in fact is that now many people are upset. Transparency would have been better.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/prioritize
Re-priotise: To arrange things in a new order of importance; to prioritize again
https://www.yourdictionary.com/reprioritize
I think it describes things perfectly.
S, you've already been pointed to the context at the time. They made it sound like it hadn't been assigned a scheduled slot for delivery. It seemed unlikely it was coming in the next update. But sure, poor use of the word (that I will not mention
) potentially.
Last edited:
- Status