somenewnoob wrote on Oct 31
st, 2016 at 9:37am:
Because that's usually the type of discussions that happen on the intrawebz.
Let me rephrase then: "Here's how someone who actually cares about getting a crit bug fixed would act:"
Because here is what I saw:
Railroader: There is a crit bug.
Sgtgig: I don't see a crit bug.
Railroader: That's because you are a dumbass who has no clue.
Sgtgig: That was rude. I'm not seeing a crit bug in my testing. What is your build/test method?
Railroader: I was rude because you are a noob who dared question me. That you even asked for my proof rather than accepting my word on this is proof of your stupidity. I work with the devs directly on this and we hold them accountable. You do not. Go away and wait for me to be awesome and get this "problem", that I will not discuss in detail or specifc, fixed. Oh, but if you want to learn from me and my "partners", we may deign to teach your novice ass how to use the LFM panel to find a clue.
Sgtgig: Look you ass, here is some more info about what I am seeing. How about posting some details.
Jake: I am not seeing a problem. Can I get some details.
To me, if you found a bug, then posting some data, maybe a video of the bug, and your test methodology to allow others to duplicate it and confirm it would make sense. Build some community support around the idea. The first step in troubleshooting a software bug is being able to recreate the problem. Should be simple for Railroader to document it with a video or some data. Wonder why he seems opposed to doing so?