See, people have this weird thing they do where they pretend “if I say a thing, then it is true!”
And I get a lot of people upset when I reply with “please provide a link or a reference or a fact to support your statement”.
So when I say “Shipwreck is trying to label complainers as bitter vets without regard to the meaning of bitter, or vet, or the historical usage of “bitter vet” within the context of EVE”, I don’t just make it up and say it, I can prove it. Which is more than I can say for your take on Shipwreck’s “supportive of criticism”.
Thread about declining player numbers, Shipwreck responds by labelling it a bitter vet problem. Neither the poster, nor the PCU problem and changes being referred to are at all bitter vet related. Shipwreck is just pasting his agenda onto it. (Post #22 and subsequent)
Thread about excessive multi-boxing and botting. Poster is a relatively new pilot. Post #5, Shipwreck Jones says it’s bitter vets striking again.
Complaint about mining changes. Poster predicts decline in player numbers as a result. The pilot is about 2 years into game. Post #6, Shipwreck Jones “prays all bitter vets quit the game and stop poisoning morale”.
I can literally go on with dozens of these. There’s no real point. Etch Masuka isn’t even 2 years into game yet and doesn’t have the slightest clue what actual “bitter vet” issues are about.
But, apparently according Aisha, this set of actual, demonstrable facts is merely another aggressive fanatic slab of rage. So I guess I’ll wrap it up there instead of linking 10 more.
(PS: as an aside, I don’t think most complaint threads are all that valid, though they might have some useful points here and there. I think a lot of people are whiny and lazy and don’t want to do the work needed to play EVE. Which just means EVE is not for them, it doesn’t mean they’re a “bitter vet, poisoning the morale of players, who need to quit”.)