I hope so. Pancake's wording was clear.
And the words of any single forum-goer has precisely zero bearing on your freedom of speech. Even if Pancake were to call for you to be silenced, your freedom of speech is not being limited. Even if the mods were to *actually* silence you, your freedom of speech is not being limited. Your freedom of speech simply does not apply here.
This site is not obligated to provide you a forum to express your opinion. Others are not obligated to listen, agree, or respect any opinion you express beyond the terms of agreement under which we all share the *privilege* of expressing our opinions here. To proclaim you have a freedom of speech to express your opinion, or to suggest that you are defending that freedom when another forum-goer disagrees with you, illustrates that you simply do not understand what freedom of speech means.
Ah, that explains your comments. You are partly right and partly wrong.
I've already acknowledged the partly right component in this thread and elsewhere e.g. internal information, plans etc.
However, Marketing involves an interaction with the community. Competitive intelligence is also key. Please read my Post 144 on Page 5 and also Erik's response where he acknowledges that Distant Worlds is not as well known as it's direct competitors. Awareness is a key component of Marketing.
All you did in that post was point out an observation. You highlighted that there are few to no Distant World reviews and/or ratings. All you have is an observation. If you just left it at that and asked for an explanation, that you have been fine. Unfortunately, you then proceed to make a claim that if things were done your way, if the product was placed on the sites and publicized the way you think it should be, it would generate better results.
Unfortunately, you don't have any evidence to show this is true. You don't have any research to determine the best way to market Distant Worlds to its target demographic. You don't have any cost-benefit analyses to justify any promotional campaigns or distribution deals. You don't have any legal analysis to show that such campaigns and deals are even possible. You don't even have any information on whether such ideas were already investigated and not pursued. Or maybe they were pursued and there was a problem that you're not aware of. Or maybe they simply wouldn't work the way you think they would.
The point is, you simply don't have any information. All you have is an observation, and a claim that results would be different based on your guess of how to market the game most effectively. Erik, however, has the information. He is informed, while you are not. His knowledge of what was done, what is being done, and what can be done is simply better than your observation and subsequent guess.
Which comes full circle to the freedom of speech point again. You suggested that Pancake was unreasonable to simplistically dismiss your opinion as a sense of entitlement and cited, then subsequently removed, freedom of speech. Not only does freedom of speech not apply in the slightest, but your complete lack of information to inform your opinion means Pancake could dismiss it with just as much reason and evidence as you provided to support it. Namely, none. You have an observation, then made an uninformed claim. He made an observation, and dismissed your claim. Please don't pretend this discussion is anything more than that.
FFS. Can we please move on from uninformed forum-goers pretending to be Directors Of Marketing here? If you think Matrix Games needs help marketing the game, how about asking how you might do so? How about letting those who know what has been done, is being done, and can be done inform *you* on what might be helpful, rather than you who does *not* know what has been done, is being done, and can be done telling them what to do?