Steve:
thanks for stopping by. these days must be when you like your job the least since people tend to shoot messengers.
I understand there is frustration on both sides. I personally believe that you and many of your colleages are working to find the best solutions to make profit for PS while making/keeping us players happy.
please understand that it is frustrating to get changes announced last minute, then stating you guys are open for discussion, then disappearing from any discussion (I understand you can't be at the forum 24/7, but maybe colleagues could help out here) for a long time. The invite of players to IOM is appreciated, and I can understand why you would like to show real numbers rather live than online, so noone can record anything despite any NDA etc. I do not necessarily think it would be necessary to go down that road to show some players all the sensitive data.
what is NOT ok is, that you offer to discuss changes/mitigating factors AFTER you actually hit the switch and make the changes. You are leaving many of us in the dark for the beginning of the year and many need to know the final outcome of those discussions before the year starts in order to reach their VIP goals either on stars or somewhere else.
edit: the OP of this thread pretty much sums up what the majority here wants:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/28...hread-1145908/
forumers:
maybe it would make sense to make another thread where people can be suggested and elected to represent us at IOM if need be. Again, I don't think it would really be necessary, however we should be prepared to send people (and that should work with those ppls schedule obv.)
Since not everybody is familiar with everybody, I suggest that for nominations you include not only the screenname, but also their area of expertise.
We can only pick very few posters so it would be good of the selected posters might have more than 1 area which they would feel comfty representing. We need to avoid that we avoid 3 NLHE 200FR players etc.