Well okay, I see where you are coming from.
My impression was just that the developers don't answer things because they can't read everything, and they can't always see a valid question which is in post #455 on some random topic, which actually deserves receiving an answer.
When we don't say something, it's not because we are too "lazy" to post on the forum. It's either because we don't know at this point, or we do know and don't want to communicate it yet.
I fear this is a basic problem. You created the "cRPG: status and plans" topic in the announcement forum, and when I saw it I was really tickled, but when I read it I was rather disappointed. Yes, it actually contained the stuff promised in the headline, but I was also hoping for some general, more basic plans and philosophies. Like the questions I mentioned above: what should be more important for success? Skill or teamplay? How far do you want to go into the realism direction? How close will you stick to unrealistic but skill demanding gameplay? What is the way you balance items? Do you have a certain background in mind, which cultures/time periods are okay, which are not? Why? Do you try to force the players to behave like in a real battle (e.g. shoulder to shoulder with your teammates?) or are battles only a basic background for indipendant fights? Are you planning on adding "secondary" skills which help in battles, like in SP where charisma or intelligence also play a (minor) role? What is the targeted relation of the influence of skill and character stats on your success? 50-50? 40-60? 90-10?
If those questions could be clarified, a lot of arguments in this forum could be prevented, because everyone tries to interprete your intentions his way, and that's why his opinion is the right one. If everybody knew what the developers would want to achieve, there would be not much room left for discussions.
If you don't really know it yet: then discuss it! Put things clear, I think your work can only benefit from it.
And when I have some real info, I have to take the time to explain it to the community manager and make sure he does understand it so he doesn't misquote me.
And how would that be easier or faster than me posting it directly?
It is not, of course. And if it is a more complicated matter, it's best you post it yourself. It would still be faster because you don't need to read through the entire forum to find the question worth an answer, the CM does it for you, all you have to do is to answer it.
It's really just a guy in the middle that takes away community interaction.
Which interaction?
I think, at least the suggestions which are declined deserve an answer and a short explanation. If someone makes the effort to write a suggestion, then he deserves an answer, I think.
Edit: and if you think the forum is the wrong medium for those things: then I think this ought to be changed, because messages on IRC channels don't last, and if some info is given 99,9% of the playerbase won't get to know it, as it will disappear. You need a medium which is more "sustainable", like a forum. That way you can also refer to older statements. You can't always rely on community members picking up the information in IRC and posting it somewhere in the forum.
