Encounter Logging

Wolfkeks

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

So, I propose this analogy: Forbidding that a log be taken is no different than forbidding other participants in the dungeon or trial run from telling stories about what happened. If you disagree, then please tell me how it differs. Why are the three examples that I've given acceptable, but a recording of sorts of a dungeon or trial run not acceptable?

Good point.
See, I often sit there in TeamSpeak with my friends and guildies while they're doing their dungeons while I do my own stuff in the game. Most of the time there's at least 1 PUG member with them. The way they usually talk during the run about that stranger (who, luckily, doesn't hear anything) and that talk isn't nice to hear at all. They're nice guys, though, but the toxicity has spread to such an extent that it seems normal to them to bash someone with incredibly aggressive words.
Let's not get into "words don't hurt" or "guy can't hear", because it's not the point. The point is general toxicity. And, whether the logger is better or worse than what's already available in the base game or via addons, it adds yet another layer of toxicity to the pile, and a significant one.

It seems from this thread, the thread poll and the comments on the twitch stream that there's, again, no consensus : it's a 50/50 split in opinion, just like it was two or three years ago with "Group Damage". It's pretty much the same discussion anyway, with the same legit but irreconciliable arguments on both sides.

Can't we make everyone happy by asking the 2 following things :
- Feature must be disabled by default (active opt-in policy)
- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

That way, progression groups can use the tool all they like, and people who don't like it can rest assured that nothing happens behind their back.

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

I think that would be the best solution for both sides. Kudos!

Alienoutlaw

FleetwoodSmack wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

So, I propose this analogy: Forbidding that a log be taken is no different than forbidding other participants in the dungeon or trial run from telling stories about what happened. If you disagree, then please tell me how it differs. Why are the three examples that I've given acceptable, but a recording of sorts of a dungeon or trial run not acceptable?

Good point.
See, I often sit there in TeamSpeak with my friends and guildies while they're doing their dungeons while I do my own stuff in the game. Most of the time there's at least 1 PUG member with them. The way they usually talk during the run about that stranger (who, luckily, doesn't hear anything) and that talk isn't nice to hear at all. They're nice guys, though, but the toxicity has spread to such an extent that it seems normal to them to bash someone with incredibly aggressive words.
Let's not get into "words don't hurt" or "guy can't hear", because it's not the point. The point is general toxicity. And, whether the logger is better or worse than what's already available in the base game or via addons, it adds yet another layer of toxicity to the pile, and a significant one.

It seems from this thread, the thread poll and the comments on the twitch stream that there's, again, no consensus : it's a 50/50 split in opinion, just like it was two or three years ago with "Group Damage". It's pretty much the same discussion anyway, with the same legit but irreconciliable arguments on both sides.

Can't we make everyone happy by asking the 2 following things :
- Feature must be disabled by default (active opt-in policy)
- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

That way, progression groups can use the tool all they like, and people who don't like it can rest assured that nothing happens behind their back.

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

I'd certainly be okay with that.

this would be the best way to go with this

ZOS_RogerJ

Just a friendly reminder to keep the thread civil, on-topic, and constructive. While it’s okay and very normal to disagree with others, and even to debate, but provoking conflict, baiting, inciting, mocking, etc. is never acceptable in the official The Elder Scrolls Online community.

code65536

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

Example 1 – I am only walking down the street unless they are trying critique how I am walking along with everyone else or following me and keeping a constant record this is vastly different. Wait with logs you will have a constant record of someone and critique it. There are laws against this – stalking.

Let's alter the analogy a bit. You're not just idly walking down the street. You're standing on a street corner performing. People still have the right to record you, post a video, which may be subject to praise--or critique.

Or let's say you're caught on someone's dashcam failing to stop at a stop sign and almost causing an accident. Again, they are free to record that, share that on reddit, and subject you to the critical judgement of the public forum. And that, again, is perfectly legal.

As for stalking, it is defined in the US legal system as "engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person that would cause a reasonable person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of others; or suffer substantial emotional distress." It's a bit of a vague definition, but typically requires proving malicious intent. I think it's quite a stretch to get there from observing how someone plays a game.

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

Example 2 – You cannot name and shame on the forums ZOS does not allow it. They have no control over video sharing service. But here ZOS is allowing it. Double standard.

That makes no sense. You are perfectly free to say on the forums, "this tank that I ran with today is a complete idiot... he had no taunt, had no idea how to block, and stood needlessly in red". The only time it's a problem is if you replace "this tank" with something identifiable like "that code guy". And that's what anonymization is for. If I post a screenshot of CMX showing that I did 80% of the group damage, implying that the other unnamed DD did at most 20%, that's perfectly fine on the forums.

And that's also assuming that the only use case of this thing is for naming and shaming. What if it was, "Hey everyone, I just got vFV no-death in a random Group Finder PUG! Take a look!"

Hotdog_23 wrote: »

Example 3 – Sounds more like someone just talking about their experience of playing the game and not taking notes to compare with others.

So you're saying that the level of detail matters? When I tell horror stories of dungeon runs go bad, I include details like what the other person did wrong ("the tank seems allergic to the use of the block button and blamed the healers whenever they got 1-shot"). Okay, sure, a log would be a bit more detailed than that. But that's not valid grounds for treating it differently than someone's recollection.

Reistr_the_Unbroken

Starlock wrote: »

Stuff like this makes me glad I play on console.

God same

Pevey

I think another important thing to consider here is that even the anonymous option is questionable. If the tool is outputting a text file that is being uploaded to another site, it can easily be manipulated. The combat data cannot be manipulated easily because all the numbers have to add up, but a simple find and replace of "anonymous" with something else (like your actual username, even though you opted out) by group member would not be that hard. And then this will be uploaded to a third-party site, so even though ZOS allowed the collection of the data, they will almost certainly not accept any responsibility after the fact if the data is used improperly.

I have all sorts of concerns about this. Why let it be exported at all? Why can't this tool just be internal to the game, non-exportable, and leave it at that.

mareeelb16_ESO

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

See, I often sit there in TeamSpeak with my friends and guildies while they're doing their dungeons while I do my own stuff in the game. Most of the time there's at least 1 PUG member with them. The way they usually talk during the run about that stranger (who, luckily, doesn't hear anything) and that talk isn't nice to hear at all. They're nice guys, though, but the toxicity has spread to such an extent that it seems normal to them to bash someone with incredibly aggressive words.
Let's not get into "words don't hurt" or "guy can't hear", because it's not the point. The point is general toxicity. And, whether the logger is better or worse than what's already available in the base game or via addons, it adds yet another layer of toxicity to the pile, and a significant one.

It seems from this thread, the thread poll and the comments on the twitch stream that there's, again, no consensus : it's a 50/50 split in opinion, just like it was two or three years ago with "Group Damage". It's pretty much the same discussion anyway, with the same legit but irreconciliable arguments on both sides.

Can't we make everyone happy by asking the 2 following things :
- Feature must be disabled by default (active opt-in policy)
- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

That way, progression groups can use the tool all they like, and people who don't like it can rest assured that nothing happens behind their back.

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

Exactly this... I joined two guilds already partly because they prided themselves on fostering a non toxic atmosphere only to witness the same old behaviour in guild chat -regularly ridiculing and belittling pug group members.

I'm already sick of the elitist mind set and I'm afraid that this tool will just further propagate the insidious nasty toxic attitudes. In my case, it's simple -I just minimise the amount of group content that I take part in. I hate the unnecessary aggro and the locked horns. It's horrible to watch people lose their sense of humanity, treat a game as though it were a job, seemingly place their sense of self worth on achievements and reinforce their perceived superiority by shredding other peoples' confidence. Encounter logging is going to exacerbate this sort of behaviour.

I'd be surprised if there weren't privacy directives that already make this tool dubious, certainly here in the UK it's impossible to visit a website without consenting to cookies and data protection is taken extremely seriously. At the very least I would expect the default settings to block data collection with the ability to opt in if all members of a group agree.

Meanwhile, I just find it ironic that my experience of group content in a multiplayer game has put me off taking part in group content. It's a game for goodness sake, it's supposed to be fun

code65536

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

That way, progression groups can use the tool all they like, and people who don't like it can rest assured that nothing happens behind their back.

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

As I've stated in earlier posts, I would be okay with a solution like that. Even though I am still unconvinced that it's necessary because I am still unconvinced that this will exacerbate the toxicity problem as you claim. As your own example illustrates, people are already judgemental without the use of such a tool. So the question becomes, does this exacerbate the problem in a significant way? You are convinced that it does, but I am not.

So why do I disagree that this will exacerbate the problem? Because it's not the tool of least resistance. If I'm in a bad dungeon run, and I'm going to form a negative opinion of, e.g., the tank, I don't need to review the log later to form that opinion. I can see them dying on my screen. I already have addons like LGM that tell me--at the moment of their death--that the killing blow was an unblocked heavy attack 1-shot. In your own example, the people you are in TS with are forming their negative opinions as things are unfolding live.

That is, after all, ZOS's main safeguard for this--that it's ex post facto. And what people have been arguing throughout is that if negative judgement is rendered, it will already have already been done long before the data is uploaded, analyzed, and consumed.

Noisivid

...

idk

Destruent wrote: »

idk wrote: »

Nifty2g wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

I'm just confused by why people are upset with this. It looks like it will be a great tool, and I am honestly having a hard time envisioning the kinds of abuse that people are afraid of. Which, again, is why I am bringing up CMX--not as a distraction, but as a point of comparison to what is already possible in terms of toxic usage.

The vast majority of users will set themselves as anonymous and be done with it and never think about it again. I also truly don't understand what some people are freaking out over. Tracking websites are in almost every online game. I'm starting to believe that ZOS has babysitted the players too much and they've gotten used to it.

Here is hoping that this tool is here to stay, I hope they don't get rid of it.

In game opt out is not truly anonymous and I expect you see that. Even Kihra stated to be truly we would have to email them or create an account on the website to be truly anonymous. Lets make sure we use accurate information.

I do not want to see the tool go. I just want it done the right way and not rely on third parties for being anonymous.

I think you misunderstood her. If you choose to opt out ingame there's nothing to further hide on the website bc the transmitted data cannot be assigned to you.
But IF you forgot to opt out ingame, you'll need to message her, to delete your name from logs/rankings whatever.


I'm really looking forward to this.

Reading their post again it seems you are correct and this is more problematic that it seemed at first. To bad Zos was not smart about this.

Nifty2g

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

Have to make sure whatever you suggest or propose to zos is actually possible with the tool

AgaTheGreat

So, PC people are getting another thing to help them get better and console crowd needs to rely on good old trial and error methods -_-

We are not your poor distant cousins, @ZOS_BobbyWeir , so don't treat us as such. Console community is quite large and we support this game with our money just like PC players, yet we can never have nice things.

Quality of life for consoles, now!

anitajoneb17_ESO

Nifty2g wrote: »

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

Have to make sure whatever you suggest or propose to zos is actually possible with the tool

Why shouldn't it ? It's not an issue on Kirah's side. And on ZOS' side, how is it technically difficult to make the /logencounter command trigger something similar to a ready check and launch only if everyone in the group agrees ?

karthrag_inak

AgaTheGreat wrote: »

So, PC people are getting another thing to help them get better and console crowd needs to rely on good old trial and error methods -_-

We are not your poor distant cousins, @ZOS_BobbyWeir , so don't treat us as such. Console community is quite large and we support this game with our money just like PC players, yet we can never have nice things.

Quality of life for consoles, now!

get a keyboard

Kihra

From my perspective, I just need complete fight information for the log to work. A partial log (e.g., if I only see 3 out of 12 people) could actually cause more harm than good, since it could lead people to make incorrect assumptions about what is going on. Healer absorbs would also be undercounted (there are other examples I mentioned also, like buff overwriting). Also, the more data you omit, the easier it would become to mess with the log in ways that would not be as visible.

I'm personally fine with any solution that ensures I get complete fight data, i.e. I'd rather get no data than partial data.

Alienoutlaw

as suggested before, when in a dungeon or raid group either all in or all out not the current we'll do it anyway stance

Elsonso

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Gilvoth wrote: »

i want the choice to opt out and for it to not be Obvious i opted out.

^^ THIS ^^

Yes. It is folly to assume that no one knows who the one guy with the paper sack on his head is. It is a simple matter to note who was in the group and compare that list of names with the list of names coming from this tool.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

See, I often sit there in TeamSpeak with my friends and guildies while they're doing their dungeons while I do my own stuff in the game. Most of the time there's at least 1 PUG member with them. The way they usually talk during the run about that stranger (who, luckily, doesn't hear anything) and that talk isn't nice to hear at all. They're nice guys, though, but the toxicity has spread to such an extent that it seems normal to them to bash someone with incredibly aggressive words.
Let's not get into "words don't hurt" or "guy can't hear", because it's not the point. The point is general toxicity. And, whether the logger is better or worse than what's already available in the base game or via addons, it adds yet another layer of toxicity to the pile, and a significant one.

I watched this happen in a Twitch stream while the streamer was complaining about the behavior of other players in a PUG dungeon. Some player was not doing the right thing, and they were being negative about it in the stream. It was not obnoxiously toxic, but it was toxic enough.

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

Can't we make everyone happy by asking the 2 following things :
- Feature must be disabled by default (active opt-in policy)
- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

I think so, yes, if by "actively agree to it" you mean that they have enabled the feature in the settings.

anitajoneb17_ESO

lordrichter wrote: »

I think so, yes, if by "actively agree to it" you mean that they have enabled the feature in the settings.

Either that, or, better, a prompt similar to "ready-check" to make sure everyone knows they're being logged and are ok with it.

Elsonso

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

lordrichter wrote: »

I think so, yes, if by "actively agree to it" you mean that they have enabled the feature in the settings.

Either that, or, better, a prompt similar to "ready-check" to make sure everyone knows they're being logged and are ok with it.

I would rather not be pestered by a "ready check" if I have already given permission. A notification that the session is being recorded would also be handy. The devs need to decide whether a change in settings while a recording is taking place takes effect immediately, retroactively, or next time.

templesus

anitajoneb17_ESO wrote: »

code65536 wrote: »

So, I propose this analogy: Forbidding that a log be taken is no different than forbidding other participants in the dungeon or trial run from telling stories about what happened. If you disagree, then please tell me how it differs. Why are the three examples that I've given acceptable, but a recording of sorts of a dungeon or trial run not acceptable?

Good point.
See, I often sit there in TeamSpeak with my friends and guildies while they're doing their dungeons while I do my own stuff in the game. Most of the time there's at least 1 PUG member with them. The way they usually talk during the run about that stranger (who, luckily, doesn't hear anything) and that talk isn't nice to hear at all. They're nice guys, though, but the toxicity has spread to such an extent that it seems normal to them to bash someone with incredibly aggressive words.
Let's not get into "words don't hurt" or "guy can't hear", because it's not the point. The point is general toxicity. And, whether the logger is better or worse than what's already available in the base game or via addons, it adds yet another layer of toxicity to the pile, and a significant one.

It seems from this thread, the thread poll and the comments on the twitch stream that there's, again, no consensus : it's a 50/50 split in opinion, just like it was two or three years ago with "Group Damage". It's pretty much the same discussion anyway, with the same legit but irreconciliable arguments on both sides.

Can't we make everyone happy by asking the 2 following things :
- Feature must be disabled by default (active opt-in policy)
- No logging is possible for anyone in the group unless all group members actively agree to it.

That way, progression groups can use the tool all they like, and people who don't like it can rest assured that nothing happens behind their back.

Could we all agree on that and communicate to ZOS in that direction ?

No, I don't agree with this at all, because I want logs of all of my runs so that I can go back and reflect on how I did and attempt to improve myself. What you're proposing would make that only possible in my 3 guild runs a week I have time for, and none of the many PuGs I do that I actually do have time for. Someone else should not have the ability to prevent me from furthering myself.

muh

@ZOS_BobbyWeir

I'm so happy to see a Kihra combat log website for ESO. Now for all lazy toxic elitist who think this is a useful tool, does it come with or can we get an API call to enable/disable logging as well?

Would love to have an addon that automatically enables it when inside/starting a trial and disable it when not. You usually don't want to have it enabled all the time and it's much easier to forget to activate it than one likes to believe.

To all those with privacy concerns... Why?
If you've set it to be annonymous (I agree that should be the default) no one on the internet can figure out who you are in game. If you're concerned about dungeon PUGs getting more toxic, you can be certain that it is less convenient than Combat Metrics that shows total group DPS. With just two DD it's not rocket science to figure out if both DD or which one of the DD is dealing less damage.

It's also not fair towards people like me, who will primarily use it to optimize their own gameplay, to say that it shouldn't be possible to log at all if someone in the group thinks it does compromise their privacy in any way... Like how?

For constructive gameplay analysis this is just so much more detailed and useful than % uptimes and a DPS number at the end of a fight.

Lastly, if you're already so concerned people will single you out because you think/know that you're not performing as good as others... Why don't you take like 5 minutes out of your gameplay session to educate yourself about combat mechanics, practice them a bit. Like just using a Light Attack + Ability (light attack weaving) will increase your DPS by a good amount and it's not a lot of effort to learn. Just do yourself a favour and google animation canceling right now, either Dottz' or Alcast's video is fine. They are a 5 to 10 minute watch each.

anitajoneb17_ESO

muh wrote: »

Lastly, if you're already so concerned people will single you out because you think/know that you're not performing as good as others... Why don't you take like 5 minutes out of your gameplay session to educate yourself about combat mechanics, practice them a bit. Like just using a Light Attack + Ability (light attack weaving) will increase your DPS by a good amount and it's not a lot of effort to learn. Just do yourself a favour and google animation canceling right now, either Dottz' or Alcast's video is fine. They are a 5 to 10 minute watch each.

Of course. That HAD to end with a "L2P" (or GTFO...)

templesus

@ZOS_BobbyWeir

The current design of the tool is fine. Make the default to be Anonymous, and you can implement it as is. It is a great tool and extremely good for the game, keep up the good work!

driosketch

Kihra wrote: »

Varana wrote: »

So our group wants to use the tool with all the details visible, no one's anonymous. We upload it - is there an option that only members of our group will be able to see and analyse that log?

Yes, logs on the site can be public, private or unlisted.

Public = anyone can see them
Unlisted = anyone can see them as long as they know the URL to go to
Private = only people who have signed up an become members of the guild on the site can see them.

At the moment, all logs are forced to Private and will be for the duration of the PTS NDA.

@Kihra I saw this asked, but never answered. Can any one in the group upload the log? Could a guild leader upload it to private/unlisted, but random #12, picked to fill out this run, upload it to public?

While were at it, if players swap to anonymous between log and /log, how would the data show?

Also guilds on site. Is there some verification? Can anyone createcand claim a guild? Can anyone register as part ofva guild, or does it need approval from the leader? What about removing them from a guild when they leave the guild in game, and how does this effect previous private logs?

Honestly, I'm not sure why there needs to be a public category at all. Can you explain it? If anything, it seems the unlisted link that can be posted in chat or Discord is all you'd need.

Elsonso

templesus wrote: »

No, I don't agree with this at all, because I want logs of all of my runs so that I can go back and reflect on how I did and attempt to improve myself. What you're proposing would make that only possible in my 3 guild runs a week I have time for, and none of the many PuGs I do that I actually do have time for. Someone else should not have the ability to prevent me from furthering myself.

Point taken, but Combat Metrics will do a lot to tell you how you did while you were in the dungeon. What the encounter logging does is provide detailed information on how the GROUP did, in addition to yourself. If you do not have this data, you are no worse off than you are today.

It is always an interesting question regarding how to proceed when the rights of one person conflict with the rights of others.

AgaTheGreat wrote: »

So, PC people are getting another thing to help them get better and console crowd needs to rely on good old trial and error methods -_-

We are not your poor distant cousins, @ZOS_BobbyWeir , so don't treat us as such. Console community is quite large and we support this game with our money just like PC players, yet we can never have nice things.

Quality of life for consoles, now!

He explained this on the stream. This solution requires that data be stored locally and then uploaded to the website from that file. This isn't something that can be easily done on the console. For that, a different, and I would imagine, more expensive, solution would be needed, probably along with a host of complications, reviews, and approvals that were not needed for this tool.

Having met him, I can say that if it was within the scope of this tool to bring it to consoles, he could do it. While I was talking with him, he presented as a person who really wants to make something that is useful and is willing to listen to players and make adjustments, where possible. Don't dismiss this guy.

Gilvoth

instead of showing anonymous just put an

" on / off "

option in our settingfs that allows to turn "ON" or "OFF" your complete and total display of damage COMPLETELY.
nothing will show, not my name not "anonymous", nothing
just a blank space.

so when i go into that group, my numbers will not show AT ALL, and niether will my name and niether will the name "anonymous", unless i want it to show,
if i have it turned ON then everything shows.

Gilvoth

analyse and study and dissect as much as you want to with your own numbers and your friends numbers.
but, i want the choice to opt out and for it to not be Obvious i opted out.
right now, the way its set up, its Way too easy to determine the person whom flagged himself as anonymous, especially if is only 4 members in the group and only 1 is flagged anonymous.
that's not cool.

let me be as clear as possible on this, i simply don't want to be a guinea-pig test subject. and allowing us to personally choose to opt out would show obviously we alone chose to opt out and would lead to even more griefing and trolling and harassment then we Already have, especially from the elitist.

this is horrible.

templesus

lordrichter wrote: »

templesus wrote: »

No, I don't agree with this at all, because I want logs of all of my runs so that I can go back and reflect on how I did and attempt to improve myself. What you're proposing would make that only possible in my 3 guild runs a week I have time for, and none of the many PuGs I do that I actually do have time for. Someone else should not have the ability to prevent me from furthering myself.

Point taken, but Combat Metrics will do a lot to tell you how you did while you were in the dungeon. What the encounter logging does is provide detailed information on how the GROUP did, in addition to yourself. If you do not have this data, you are no worse off than you are today.

It is always an interesting question regarding how to proceed when the rights of one person conflict with the rights of others.

AgaTheGreat wrote: »

So, PC people are getting another thing to help them get better and console crowd needs to rely on good old trial and error methods -_-

We are not your poor distant cousins, @ZOS_BobbyWeir , so don't treat us as such. Console community is quite large and we support this game with our money just like PC players, yet we can never have nice things.

Quality of life for consoles, now!

He explained this on the stream. This solution requires that data be stored locally and then uploaded to the website from that file. This isn't something that can be easily done on the console. For that, a different, and I would imagine, more expensive, solution would be needed, probably along with a host of complications, reviews, and approvals that were not needed for this tool.

Having met him, I can say that if it was within the scope of this tool to bring it to consoles, he could do it. While I was talking with him, he presented as a person who really wants to make something that is useful and is willing to listen to players and make adjustments, where possible. Don't dismiss this guy.

We don’t have CMX on console. I’m hoping and praying on them porting this to console eventually.

Pevey

Anonymous is not enough. If you use group finder, you never know if someone in the group is streaming that on twitch. That's bad enough, but not really zos's problem. But if that streamer then immediately posts the log, it is definitely not anonymous, and that IS something ZOS enabled and that IS their problem.

This needs to be opt-in, meaning if not all group members have it enabled, you can't log and post it to the web site. If you want to log and don't like that a group member has it disabled, you have the option to kick or be kicked or make your own group.

Don't get me wrong, I want this tool. I want the analytics. Not asking for it, but wouldn't turn it down and would definitely use it at times. But we need more control. We need to be able to opt in.

anitajoneb17_ESO

lordrichter wrote: »

Having met him, I can say that if it was within the scope of this tool to bring it to consoles, he could do it. While I was talking with him, he presented as a person who really wants to make something that is useful and is willing to listen to players and make adjustments, where possible. Don't dismiss this guy.

He looked quite embarrassed though during the stream (or is it me... ?). He tried to explain vaguely (with Gina and Jessica laughing their a** off ) that they're always close to addon developers - although this isn't an addon, but Kirah came to them to suggest this "pretty cool tool"... Not a word as to why and how they willfully disabled group data sharing in the API 2 or 3 years ago just to change their mind now... and @code65536 , who's a very active addon author, mentioned in another thread that this has never been discussed with the community of addon developers.
That doesn't sound very transparent, nor consistent.