Editorial Time!-split 2/16/09

[AngharadTy]

Bumping this is okay. *gives mod thumbs up*

[zebru]

That explanation is completely unconvincing. The pets that had it on still get to keep it apparently *points at her ex usul Gizd*

[Officer 1BDI]

Yeah, I smell BS as well. If it was always meant to be a Neohome item, why did some poor artist bother drawing the customization image at all? This seems more like backpeddling than a mistake; I don't see why they reversed the decision at all.

[Wingsrising]

This pleases me:

Hi TNT! I have a Neopet on a side account wearing the Ficus Tree. Originally, the item worked as both a Neohome and customisation item, and it looked great in both. Will I get in trouble if I leave the Ficus Tree on my Neopet? =( If so I will remove it. ~magicpinball
Not at all! Actually, we'd like to make an addendum to last week's Editorial. It seems the Ficus Tree was meant to be both a Neohome and customisation item, and should now be working properly again as both. Huzzah!

[varii]

Why publish an editorial if you aren't going to fact check? Someone there needs to learn that talking out of your butt is not attractive.

[Jessi]

Geez, Varii, I think you're being a little too judgmental and looking into it too hard.

What probably happened was the Ficus Tree was meant to be released as one or the other and there was a lack communication; it was released as both on accident. However, since people were asking about it and it was already released as both, they decided to go ahead and keep it that way.

Not EVERYTHING TNT does has to be OH SO AWFUL, you know.

[Huggles]

Given the history of the Editorial, I don't think it was at all harsh.

[Jessi]

Yeah, well on that same note, given the history of the Editorial, it's nice that they actually -fixed- it.

[Usul_Princess]

Yeah, but by the way that editorial submission is written, it's normal for a user to live in fear/paranoia of what nonsensical rule TNT is going to add next. The policing of this site is getting outta hand. To where they add so many rules, you start freaking out because they never give you a reason why.
I would submit a question like the above one too if I thought they were gonna freeze me for keeping a fracking plant attached to my pet. They left that question partially answered last week, and TNT should have some idea how they've invoked merciless fear with unforgiving freezings. I don't see how what varii said was harsh at all either.

[varii]

I don't think my comment was harsh at all. The editorial has a ridiculous history of 'clarifying' a rule one week, and then back tracking the next. I don't think it is too much to ask for them to learn from their past mistakes and ask around before they commit it to paper.

And releasing it as both wasn't accidental. It was drawn three ways; for the original neohomes, the new neohomes and for customisation and then uploading a bazillion times so it would work for each pet and then it was actually released for use (which is a miracle in itself these days). The accident probably occured when they made it compatible with the new neohomes.

And I don't think that everything TNT does is 'oh so awful'. I just think that when they publish the editorial they should make it as accurate and helpful as possible. Obviously that's a bigger issue than whether or not the ficus tree was meant for customisation or not.

[Larkspurlane]

http://www.neopets.com/ntimes/index.pht ... l&week=374

Was hoping for something re: the stupid About Us update that makes the entire site seem reduced to an exercise in translation, but alas

I was going to complain about how they always answer relatively trivial inquiries but then I realized that triviality is in the eye of the beholder and maybe kougra ear dents actually matter so I should shut up.

[Usul_Princess]

If you haven't heard, all of the 'pound_release' pets have been coded so that when you look up that account it'll display "This user has no neopets" when people look them up, they can't guesstimate when they'll be re-released because of people constantly stalking them. For once I agree that should've been done. I'm kinda sick of the pissing and moaning myself about the "when will millions of pets be released?". I do hope they acknowledge why that was done in the editorial. (I'm sure it's been asked already.) Although I can't help but think why wouldn't they at least delete horribly bad-named, basic, converted pets from the database. That'd clear it up a little.

[Rainbow Daydreamer]

Although I can't help but think why wouldn't they at least delete horribly bad-named, basic, converted pets from the database. That'd clear it up a little.

Because without some serious board-stalking they wouldn't know which pets people might be waiting to catch? I don't imagine they want a massive "YOU KILLED MY NEOPET!" outcry on their hands.

[Jessi]

Well, except when you have, say, 50 pets all named "Eeeeeeee123" , "Eeeeeeeee124", "Eeeeeee125" etc (didn't check the number of E's e_e), it usually means some idiots were flooding the pound anyway, and I seriously doubt anyone is waiting for those pets.

Not that I don't think some people ARE waiting for their badly named pets, but it's probably not as 'massive' as you think it is - considering these pets were in the pound in the first place.

[Iggy]

I think they should delete that stupid UC Plushie Draik that people are wetting their panties on, though.

This thing is going to be AAed, anyways.