Anderson’s point here is that they understood what people said, but believed the dev blog to mean there was a more in-depth requirement in January due to the use of ‘December update’ in the dev blog. Nobody was addressing that in anything they posted to Anderson at that point in time.
My experience with Anderson is that they interpret posts in an extremely literal fashion. Precision in communication is critical to being understood with this poster - not out of malice, that is just how they process communications.
I imagine the experience is very frustrating on their side as well, as they probably feel like they have clearly identified their issue. Put yourself in their shoes for a second: everyone is quoting information about a December update, but nothing about January, and from Anderson’s read of the Dev Blog, this means there is additional change coming in January to apply more restrictions. Nobody is addressing the difference in dates other than your brief ‘The functionality goes live, but the cores aren’t required until January 12.’ comment, - which really doesn’t make sense in the context of an update schedule, as how could the functionality ‘go live’ on day X and be required on day Y when it is a requirement function?
Anderson specified that conflict in dates, but it seems like people treated this as willful misunderstanding rather than a genuine effort to reconcile conflicting data points.
You did perceive the use of December and January to be conflicting - you have already shown the automatic assumption you made to reconcile these items. Anderson doesn’t make those automatic assumptions to resolve the conflict, because of how Anderson processes information.
Different people handle data in different ways. If you find Anderson’s processing frustrating, you can choose to not engage with them.
When everybody else in the thread reads something one way and you read it differently, do you automatically assume that they’re all wrong and you aren’t? I don’t.
The only thing I assume at that point is that there is a gap in understanding somewhere - either on my part directly, or in how others are processing what I am trying to communicate.
You do have the luxury to not make posts like this:
I feel like you are going out of your way to misunderstand this.
It’s not the processing that I find frustrating. It is the attitude that the error is always at the other person and the refusal to acknowledge when they are wrong, resulting in a forum fight each time someone at the other side also refuses to back down.
I’ve been at the other end once (no idea what about or who was wrong ) and have seen it happen in multiple other threads to others. I know now to avoid such a situation, but if @Anderson_Geten also wants to avoid those confrontations, I recommend to:
sometimes acknowledge when the other has made a good point
sometimes acknowledge when you have made a mistake
(This is something a lot of people could learn by the way. )
The gap in understanding is simple: there is no point defending somebody who is willfully misreading things, getting bent out of shape and cursing at others because they don’t understand what has been explained a dozen times over.
Strongly disagree. Anderson Geten is one of those people who treats forum arguments as some bizarre masturbatory e-sport, and they have a long and well established history of this behavior. Their goal is to “win” the argument by any means necessary. They’ll hunt through an ongoing discussion for some minor point they can take out of context, defend their interpretation of it to the death even if you directly say “no, that’s not what I meant”, and make up arbitrary rules about how you “win” or “lose” based on things like using profanity too much. And when they’re called on it or caught in a mistake they will absolutely not, under any circumstances, ever admit defeat. It’s always someone else’s fault for being unclear or taking their words “out of context” or whatever.
In short: this trainwreck of a thread is a textbook Anderson Geten trolling attempt. But you are correct: the best way to deal with it is to refuse to engage and explain this fact to anyone unfortunate enough not to understand who they’re dealing with.
I’ll admit i may have overlooked it, but could the misunderstanding be due to existing vs new structures?
I’m not sure if it has been made clear if cores are removable. IE for existing structures if you never insert a core you lose those 3 basic services.
However for any new structure post January, it won’t fully online without a core so a core is REQUIRED just to fully deploy. However if the core is then removable you have the same situation where you lose those 3 services. That is entiredly different however if the cores are not removable, meaning they are fully required no matter what for new structures.
To my knowledge this question hasn’t been answered yet. However I lost track of the original thread after the first few hundred posts.
) and have seen it happen in multiple other threads to others. I know now to avoid such a situation, but if 
)