1. Demanding instant forum feedback from developers comes across as incredibility entitled.
Using the word 'demanding' is incredibly defensive. It suggests an unreasonable and aggressive request. It attacks the nature of the presentation and not the content. It is saying "I wont respond if I don't like how you phrase your bug-reports". Feedback on bug reports is not, I think, an unreasonable request.
Also I don't see any demand for instant feedback... waiting 4 years for feedback is quite a long stretch from instant. More like... requesting eventual feedback which doesn't sound half as outrageous. Or wishing for some feedback, not shouting at a wall and hoping someone hears.
"comes across as incredibly entitled"... firstly there's the typo. incredibility suggests that you didn't read what you wrote before posting. Incredibly, meaning 'extreme or hard to believe', and then entitled 'deserving of privilege or special treatment'.
So you're saying asking for feedback on bugs posted is an arrogant demand. That expecting timely feedback is hard to believe, outrageous to expect and that by replying you're not just doing your job but actually going above and beyond it, bestowing your gifts and giving special treatment to a privileged few. It doesn't sound good. It sounds arrogant and condescending. It is also a direct insult to volunteers to not pay them with developer time, respect and courtesy.
2. Rivers... I'll happily post a new thread about rivers. I hadn't realised that they were a design choice. The river mouth is shown on the cloth map but it's not at the coast and there is no close-up river mouth graphic. I assumed incorrectly that it was an oversight and not a design choice... but I don't think you can, from that bug report assume I had full knowledge of both your aesthetic preferences, the fact that you knew about it and that it was intended for no rivers to reach the sea. And, that bug-reporters are maliciously adding design ideas into bug reports... for some reason. I already have a design thread, if I thought they were completely intended and not oversights (but I disagreed with them) I'd post things there. I wouldn't think-up ways to disguise them as bugs and slip them into a bug-thread that isn't noticed or commented upon in the vague hope they'd be tacked on to the end of some to-do list.
A lot of the things listed as "Bugs" are simply player preferences.
Shall we start with the words: A lot. I'm used to Heroes of might and magic and other games that gave you rough estimates of numbers using words. Here's the table from HOMM III:
Obviously it's not accurate in general usage but it's just meant to indicate that there are several steps below 'lots' that you could have used. Choosing lots is demeaning. It suggests that the bug-reporting is sloppy, that most of the bugs aren't actually bugs and so the entire thread is unworthy of feedback.
Saying the "Bugs" (I'm picturing the air quotes here) are simply player preferences, and that these player preferences will be ignored/thrown away if they're not in the perfect form and place on the forums is so... immensely and deeply distressing it's hard to put into words.
the quickest way to get them to ignore you is to disguise your feature requests as bug reports.
don't throw away good feedback by inserting a bunch of personal preferences (rivers not ending at the sea is not a bug).
Anyway, since I mentioned typos and the impression of a lack of effort and intended insults:
Rivers trnches and such. Not every river starts at a mountain for instance. no early spies for [the] guardian just meant they weren't in yet (I've got a page of them).
I'm glad the Guardian is getting some spies... or sprites? or recipes? or specials? spells and skills? any would be good. But being clear and checking your writing would be even nicer.
still good to report and talk about but don't confuse lack of beta content or cosmetic choices to bugs.
I see here you don't consider missing content a bug. Should we avoid posting the missing descriptions? (shrills) missing tooltips? (sovereign skills) missing artwork? (portraits, icons, backgrounds) missing features? If you think we are confused to even mention them perhaps we shouldn't bother posting at all. I have asked, but without a reply I was erring on the side of caution, opting to be fastidiously thorough. If you have no Bug reporting guide, then complaining that bugs aren't in the correct format, that they aren't constructive but confused and shouldn't involve cosmetic issues... that is both strange and maddening.
Lastly, how are we supposed to know what's a cosmetic choice when it takes extreme poking over several months/years to get you to say anything? Are we supposed to divine your true intentions, compare then to the reality and never mention bugs if the sheep's entrails suggest you like rivers to have no mouths, or bridges, or accurate erosion algorithms?
I'll still provide feedback... I think the game needs it. But please don't think that means I condone your behaviour. I do not.
Many of your comments I perceive as back-handed compliments they may or may not be intended as such. I'm not trying to quote you out of context but pair up the give and take, positive and negative swinging back and forth of your words. The effect is that even the compliments are seen in a negative light, because they are followed in the same post by negatives it throws doubt onto the sincerity and true feeling behind each comment.
Great thread... disguising feature requests as bugs.
Carefully researched... confused.
a ton of very good, very useful bug reports... inserting a bunch of personal preferences.
I believe very strongly that you are wrong to suggest such things. It is rude and aggressive, demeaning, belittling and condescending. Treating volunteers so disrespectfully is, in my view, disgusting. Taking four years to fix a bug and then complaining and insulting those that mention old bugs is not good.