RE: Splinterlands: Post-Mortem Analysis of Riftwatchers Presale Proposals

The combining of 4a and 4b was definitely problematic. If the passing of #4 would require a further board vote to be implemented, that caveat should DEFINITELY have been mentioned in the proposal. AND, in the case it did pass (with such a caveat provided to voters) one would hope that he board might then choose to vote in the interest of the community that participated in the voting process (much like how the electoral college system in the US operates).

This lumping together in #4 also seems to have adversely affected the exclusion of players from the presale. For example, Neal McSpadden talked about prop 4 in the TH and only mentioned the fact that refunds seemed redundant when compared to prop 3, and seems to have voted against #4 solely for that reason. It is very important to point out that he did not mention the part about extending the window for people who were delayed when buying, many of whom were struggling to navigate a defective interface.
We know the interface was defective via video evidence, and prop #2 helped partly 'right' this issue (my main account was one of the ones that did not even get to see the voucher field, but was within the presale timeframe so made whole by #2).

However when I went to purchase for an investor on a second account, the interface presented me with a voucher field only halfway opened, stuck behind the other two fields, inaccessible, with no way to enter the vouchers for bonus packs. I spent time trying to get the field to fully populate (unsuccessfully) and finally hit 'buy' when hearing Aggroed counting down to the very end... and as a result of this delay missed the presale by only a few blocks. Had I not wasted time trying to correctly fill in all fields I would have been able to simply claim bonus packs after the fact and been included in the presale.

Many community members (Neal included) publicly expressed desire to vote to benefit the entire community due to the company blunder (defective interface), but the refund 'source' lumped in with the presale window extension in prop #4 prevented this it seems. Since the company (not the DAO) provided a defective purchase interface, the company should be making the call about making this right... not putting it to a vote where a large number of the voters were fortunate enough to not even have experienced the UI defect (I saw this argument a LOT in the chats - 'well it worked fine for ME, those who missed out/messed up should have done a better job when buying'). However, I know for a fact that others experienced this same issue.
It is also prudent to point out that in the TH, Aggroed himself 'introduced' prop #4 as being about the company (not the DAO) providing the refund and did not even mention the window extension associated with it, which imo, is an EXTREMELY important provision that got swept under the rug.

Prop #2 and the window extension provision in #4 should have been immediately 'righted' by the company who provided the faulty interface, and not even put to a DAO vote imo.

For transparency, I voted against #3 only because I did NOT like the idea of ANY packs being burned in such a limited edition printing.

I should also point out that it seems like, moving forward, proposals need to be reviewed by multiple high ranking team members in order to detect and correct redundancies or loopholes in the wording before being published for voting.