u/RemoteCartoonist4758

When users sign up for our product, they can choose from a drop down list of available data centers.

We have a new one coming in a few months, and SLT has asked me to design the following:

User fills out form to create their account.

User selects new data center.

User is immediately redirected to a page to sign up for the waitlist for this new data center. Their account is not created.

Obviously awful.

I've managed to convince them we need to at least put (join waitlist) next to the location in the drop down. But they still think a forced redirect as soon as the user selects that option is a good idea.

I've tried suggesting a line of microcopy, and the redirect to happen upon clicking the sign up button.

I suggested a checkbox for people who want to sign up with a fallback data center, but still join the waitlist.

I've tried to explain bait and switch, dark UX, and erosion of trust. Keep getting told I'm "overthinking things".

Yes, this is indicative of a larger problem within my org of UX being ignored and undervalued. But in this job market there's not much I can do about it.

So any suggestions would be great. Or if you think I am actually overthinking things, please let me know.

Sorry, this is a bit long.

TL/DR: I think a member of SLT may have either commissioned or fabricated a review of my work and passed it along to the CEO without involving me or my manager.

For reference, I'm just barely an intermediate level designer with more experience in content design than UI.

I'm also the sole member of my tech start-up's UX team, working alongside a graphic designer and digital marketing specialist. My title is Specialist, but I'm the only one making decisions about the website.

A large part of my job involves stakeholder management. In particular one member of SLT absolutely *hates* the website and has something negative to say about everything I produce. He's obviously much higher than me in terms of rank, but in a completely different department and country, so he doesn't usually get involved beyond setting expectations and final reviews.

I try to take his feedback with grace and implement it where it makes sense, but most of the time he's overruled by the other 5 members of SLT who almost always disagree with him. At a certain point I'm too low on the food chain and have to just let them fight it out and go with the majority opinion.

He recently sent an anonymous research report and review of our website to the CEO, who passed it along to me. This report was both highly critical, and mirrored almost exactly his previous criticisms. When I asked about the author, he said it was from one of our existing clients.

I can see the author of the report in the document properties, and when I reached out to him for more information, he replied saying this was a self-contained piece of consultancy work and that he was told it would remain anonymous, and that any further review work would be contract based.

He doesn't appear to actually work for this client, although possibly he did their website as a contract.

This report cites research and includes graphs, but doesn't provide any information on methodology, screening, participants' profiles etc. Some of the graphs aren't even labeled, and the recommendations directly contradict the findings in some places.

For example, over 90% of participants correctly judged what our product does, but the review suggests a complete overhaul of our content to make it easier to understand. The report first acknowledges that our target audience is highly technical, then suggests we change our tone to appeal more to non-technical users.

It mixes research results with what appear to be his personal opinions without distinguishing between them.

There's other weird errors. Qualitative research being displayed as percentages etc. Two of the 4 comparison examples are websites the author himself designed, but were presented as non-competetive best practice examples.

The most glaring issue is that he references our hover-based mega menu being an issue on touch screen devices, but our website obviously doesn't show the mega menu on mobile or tablet, it shows the mobile optimized hamburger. I happen to know the SLT member uses a chrome book, and this is something he's referenced in the past as a touch screen problem, but it seems weird the reviewer would either have not looked at the mobile site, or would also be working from a chrome book. So my guess it that was feedback the SLT member asked him to include.

It's overall riddled with bizarre errors, but this person also appears to have 10 years more experience than I do, and has completed some massive projects.

I still don't know if this review was commissioned, or if he sent it as an attempt to be hired. Any questions I've asked are ignored.

I'm stuck with how to respond. If one particular staff member is commissioning research about my work without involving me, that seems like a weird situation to try and navigate.

At the very least, if this report was paid for I feel like I should be able to access the raw data, or have more information about the methodology so I can cross-reference it against my own data.

If he did it free in the hopes of getting a job, that's fine, but then why was it given to the CEO instead of me or my manager who could actually make decisions about that?

It's difficult to take my own emotions out of this because it's been two years of feilding this one SLT member's constant criticisms, and at a certain point it starts to feel like bullying.

But I'd like to stay professional and objective if I can. Should I just ignore the whole thing?

The group I most often play with has a few people who will choose to play blind, especially if it's a script they consider easy or "boring".

I'm relatively new to the game, and thought this was standard for more experienced players, but I've recently been told it's not.

I'm curious what other people think of it.

To be honest, it sort of bothers me, especially when they do it for games with new players.

To me, it seems fundamentally unbalanced and kind of selfish.

It effectively gives the evil team an extra bluff, or in some cases removes the need to bluff at all.

There's no real benefits for the good team, and I have yet to see a storyteller balance it.

It's presented as an individual choice, but it feels like those players are choosing to make the game a bit harder for everyone else, so that they can have more fun.

With a traveler or loric, the group is generally consulted, or at the very least it's a decision the storyteller has made. But this group will egg each other on, and at the last minute while the token bag is being passed around announce that they're playing blind. Those players are making a decision that affects the whole group, and sometimes doing it in games with people who are playing for the first time.

In my opinion, if there's new players the storyteller should step in and say no. But, I'm also pretty new to the game and maybe I'm just frustrated at having to deal with an extra layer of logic. I don't want to be unfair to people who have been playing a long time and find the easier scripts too boring.

I know this is weird, sorry.

My brother is a verified genius, who also unfortunately deals with mental illness.

He's working on his PhD, and has been speaking about his research in ways that could indicate he's headed towards manic psychosis. It's important for his safety that I figure out if he's unwell or just really excited about his work.

I'm smart with words but very bad at math and I know less than zero about engineering.

I obviously can't share his research before it's published, but if I could speak to someone about the general topics he's exploring, and the claims he's making about how his research could be used, that would be very helpful. I just need to know if what he's saying is theoretically possible or not.

I cast 25 love spells on the same guy because he's perfect for me.

This is NOT a rebound, even though I just got out of a 15 year marriage and I only met this guy 2 days ago and he already has 3 girlfriends and is only in the country for another week. Other than all of that, he's PERFECT for me. So I just need to lock him down.

Anyway, I searched for love spell on tik tok and followed the first 25 videos I came across. I even drew a triangle iykyk.

But I just saw on Instagram he's out with another girl??? WTF

Did all my love spells cancel each other out? Did I not use enough rosemary? Should I put my rose quartz back in my butthole? I hope not because it was really hard to get out.

By the way do NOT recommend shadow work or talk to me about consent because I'm not interested 💅

I want a spell that will give me infinite money, S

supreme beauty, perfect health, and to be married to a celebrity of my choosing. Also anyone who looks at me will immediately turn ugly and poor. Also my mom can't take away my phone anymore.

Also I would like to be a vampire.

My materials are a bic lighter, a dirty sock, and something I found growing in my neighbor's garden that might be rosemary.

What spell can I cast?

I think I might be an incredibly powerful generational witch. I've only been doing it for three hours and this is what has happened so far:

1. I held a lighter to the wick of a candle and it caught on fire then burned until I blew it out.

2. I made a spell jar with vinegar, rosemary, rosemary, rosemary, white quartz, rosemary, and baking soda, then threw it against the wall. The glass shattered everywhere and there was magical white foam inside.

3. The girl I hate had a really bad hair day.

I will not be taking advice or criticism, and anyone who questions my power will have their bloodline cursed for 7 generations.

Blessed be!