Someone seriously needs to get over themselves.

+1 on that.

This thread needs to be closed, but I'd hate to be responsible for somebody rage-quitting GameDev again, so I guess I'll leave it open for a little while...

At any rate, though, this thread does not belong in the Business forum, since it's just sour grapes. Moving to the Lounge.

I am interested in whether the OP will ever return and pursue a further discussion or post some responses, locking the thread might derail that opportunity. As to the degree of cynicism over post origination and the blog, this is not unreasonable criticism (imo) given the circumstances as covered by various member responses.

...Article is now on GDNet?

http://www.gamedev.net/page/resources/_/business/435/exhibiting-prismata-how-we-got-screwed-by-pax-blew-6500-showing-our-game-off-and-then-lost-our-entire-mailing-list-r3816

Well it's in review as an article. You can vote yea or nay.

Well it's under a different account at least, so I'm going to assume the OP is *NOT* the author.

Well it's under a different account at least, so I'm going to assume the OP is *NOT* the author.

Same ISP though...

Didnt want to be the skeptic* but figured that could be the case.
Double accounts are still prohibited right?

- Contacting PAX without following up.
- Assuming PAX isn't completely slammed by everyone else as well.
- Complaining that life isn't fair.
- Complaining about money spent when nothing had been confirmed.

- Assuming an event that sold out annually since its inception will take a no-name rather than a big-name whenever possible.

- Assuming the organizer's motives are aligned with the show entrant's motives. They are not.

- Repeating because of significance, failure to follow up. If follow-up does not happen in a timely manner by email, use a telephone.

- Trying to "name and shame" in a passive-aggressive format. It is okay to tell the organizers directly, "We had a horrible experience, can you help us next year?" It is okay to tell the world "We had a hard time getting in," which can work if you proceed with caution. Instead they went with 'I don't really mean to call out name and name for this problem, or name for this problem. The policies say one thing but name and name really didn't seem to follow it." That kind of passive aggressive response closes a lot of doors in business. I would not be surprised if that kind of shenanigans gets them added to the "dis-invited" list in the future.

- Why would you use Google Docs for critical lists like that? The only potential benefit I've seen from G Docs is the collaboration mode where you can fight with each other during editing and the searches. Otherwise you are trusting one of your most valuable resources to a third party. I know a surprising number of business are like "We can host it on our private GitHub" or "We can keep all our documents on G Docs", and then sometime later find themselves completely screwed over by an outage. Not to long ago we saw that again in the art world: Adobe Creative Cloud went down. There was no offline option. Lots of meetings were cancelled. Lots of people sat idle or were told to just go home. Companies may have saved a few bucks per year in licenses, but how much did they lose during outages? Those with software licences and running directly on their machines just shook their heads and chuckled. This is not a new issue. This is an issue that has been part of computing since the 1960's with the ever-swinging pendulum of server-side vs client-side. Learn from history or not, at your own peril.

If I were the boss of the company, I'd remove and rewrite the first page of the rant. It is highly inappropriate and just reveals their own naivete.