The tone of muted condescention in the QA post was,, thick. Usually this is the result of decisionmaking power being concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, unaccountable to the community at large.

My biggest problem with this site in general, are the tacit justifications given by this site's commentators when Blizzard censors its coherent critics (see Lhivera), or makes redundant changes to a functioning class to fit it within its own, dogmatic vision of how spirit should function in the game. The changes themselves are bothersome, and affect many people's play.

That said, the underlying issues are more important. Mr. Belt's statements reveal the true nature of the issue, power. He, in keeping with the established norms on the issue, regards corporate totalitarianism (and here i use the term technically, an unaccountable unaccessable power structure) as inherently legitimate. I don't intend for this statement to be "value-laden", just a comment on how things are set up and how one need not necessarily view them as a priori legitimate.

As regards feedback, any institution is loathe to admit when popular action restricts its range of action. That is subversive to their actual power. At certain times in WoW, large popular resistance to proposed changes has, very clearly, resulted in a retraction of the proposed changes. If, however, Blizzard admitted this to be the case, it would undermine their ability to control decisions about the game. It is, therefore, a necessary lie to promote the idea that popular resistance/advocacy has no effect on decisionmaking, a lie which Mr. Belt unfortunately subscribes to and promotes. I would urge him to rethink his position on this issue.