>Big deal out of nothing
If I was negative, I would ask why it mattered anyways because "The pre-readers are worthless"/"EqD is made of egostatiscial people with superiority complexes"/"My suggestion will be ignored" (although you're trying your best to prove that last point).
I believe I succinctly pointed out why it was, indeed, a problem.
Here's a fun one from World War I: The Canadian army issued tin helmets about a year in yet found that injuries, for some reason, had skyrocketed since their introduction. It took a few months of puzzling over why there were more injuries until someone said, "Well, what about the death rate?" It turned out those injuries were the result of the soilders not dying upon being brained by a bullet, which is a rather important distinction to make. Such is the power of a poorly-conceived census system, which is what you have. It is easily fixed, of course, by simply asking the right question from a large enough pool of users.
What is the point of a question when there is no one to answer it? You got one person, one, and that was most likely borne of luck, not design.
>I never said we're going to change the entire EqD submission system based on what is said here.
And I never implied that was the case, merely said that if it was, then you had to cast your net out a bit more.
>No, we can't put it in a roundup, because getting Seth to actually post something like that is impossible
And pray tell, why not? The latest Round-Up featured a call for animators to work on a story animation. You're asking for Seth to post one, maybe two sentences and a link. I do not think that even approaches "improbable", never mind "impossible". I've seen some pretty vacuous stuff on the Round-Up and if that can squeeze in there, then I imagine something that can actually contribute to the fandom should have no problem. I'm sure he'll be able to find room between the bacon ponies and whatever new one-week guild in some MMO is
>As far as putting it on a podcast goes, we don't know when the next podcast is going to be.
Well then, why didn't you say that, instead of blithly brushing us off? If you'd actually been up-front about it we wouldn't have gotten into this mess, now would we? Besides, that still doesn't answer the question of whether or not you can do it, only delays it. Stop avoiding it, please and thank you.
>I'm sure you wouldn't want to derail this thread
I'm asking about the system, and I'm asking you about it. It concerns the Pre-Readers, the Pre-Reader's system, and is being answered by the Pre-Readers (although it's singular, in this case). As far as I can see, not only am I not derailing this, I'm so spot-on that I've driven one arrow into the centre of the target then sent another one down the first's shaft.
>You: One, this wasn't a question. It was an opinion.
>Him: perhaps even use the podcasts
>Me: ignored his suggestion
>More Me: suggestion
I never said it was a question. Please read my replies more carefully.
>But the answer isn't a "question box on the submission form."
I never said it was. Please stop trying to assume things. In fact,
You: I would rather think a link on the submit page would do just fine.
>Me: It is not linked to in the submission form or the submission rules page as far as I can tell.
I inferred that a link was the obvious solution from the get-go. Where you are drawing these conclusions from, I do not know.
>It would help if you asked something, you tart
I posed problems with the obvious intent of having him explain the reasons why they were there. A question does not always need an accompanying punctuation mark.
But since you're so intent on them:
>And how many people know of this thread?
There, a question in my reply that he did not answer, thereby rendering your absolute worthless.
>"Hey, I saw your response, and I'm taking note of it."
Which is the polite way of saying "Your suggestion, questions and concerns have been sent to the incinerator for immediate disposal" in my personal experiences.
>Do you feel miffed when you reach voice mail?
Yes I do, actually, to the point of where I often do not leave messages on machines.
>No, you leave your message and trust that eventually, the other person will deal with you.
You assume too much, and so far it has not served you well.