The concern now isn’t the time‑limit change itself, but the inconsistencies in how it was communicated — both before and during that thread. Details in the staff responses changed over time, earlier information was removed or revised, and the final message didn’t address those discrepancies. The thread was then closed shortly afterward.
I’d like clarification on two points:
Why was the original thread closed while these inconsistencies were still unresolved?
Can we get a clear, stable explanation of the communication process behind this change, and why the messaging in the original thread shifted mid‑discussion?
These are process questions, not disagreements about the feature itself. The closure prevented them from being addressed.
Thanks for reaching out. I understand you’re asking about the communication process rather than the change itself.
I’m not seeing that staff posts in that thread were edited or revised after being posted. The information shared there remained consistent with what was communicated through other channels, including emails to active free users, our Discord, blog posts, and additional announcements.
Regarding the timing and visibility of the change: this feature wasn’t rolled out all at once. New accounts have had the session timer for around three months, while existing members have had a grace period. Because of that staggered rollout, it wasn’t included in a single changelog entry; doing so would have caused more confusion.
We do recognize that, even with multiple announcements, not everyone may have seen or connected all the information, and we’re sorry if it came across as sudden or unclear.
If you still have questions or want to go deeper into any part of this, feel free to reach out at support@wand.com and we can continue the conversation there.