Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[WhatGravitas]

What other would people might engage in I will not speculate...

Basically that's the main point. There are always people who are displeased. And how can you avoid it? Saying nothing (I've meant this by "So you're implying nobody should say anything until 4E is out?"), at least you don't give anybody new fodder.

Also, don't forget that the blogs and posts are not directly controlled. It was a decision by Ari & Co., and since they've understood the reason of no negative comments as "give it to the designers instead", they wanted to avoid such issues.

Don't forget that Mouseferatu predicted flak against him - had he said that he cannot say anything negative (no matter now you formulate it), then he would still catch the flak AND WotC (undeservedly, if he agrees with their argumentation, which I assume). Therefore he chose the course he thought of as better.

Furthermore, Collins has commented on that. They could've said nothing as well, the e-mail rumour caused less excitement than this now, and they've known it. They wanted to be honest with us, after all, at least that's my impression.

Cheers, LT.

 

[PoeticJustice]

There was no editorial control. Again, you should do what was asked, and re-read Andy's comment on this issue.

They did not control anything, they did not edit anything. There is no indication, AT ALL, that Ari self-edited to remove negative comments. He asked for permission to post his opinion. He was told that if he had something negative to say, then don't post at all. He did post, which means he did not have something negative to say. WOTC also said that everything Ari posted is what Ari wanted to post. There is nothing at all to indicate anything you are implying. "Nowhere did I ask folks to be deceptive about those experiences or suggest positive experiences where they didn't exist...Ari and a few other folks asked me specifically if they could talk about their positive experiences, and I said yes. Nobody here asked them to do it, and I'd never want to put Ari or any of the other fine folks who work with us in the position of feeling like extensions of our marketing department."

I've read Andy's comment and while I agree with the decision he made, it sounds like they are exerting editorial control over his blog by telling what is ok or not to post. Editorial control isn't necessarily prior review...

I still think that Ari should have prefaced his post in the way I described in my initial post. Saying that he was allowed to voice his support for 4E would have described exactly the arrangement he had with the staffer and prevented this controversy.

I realize this is a one-time situation and that admitting that might sound weird, but the topic is very controversial and could have used better discretion.

 

[Roland55]

The important fact for me, is that three designers that I like, and whose work I have enjoyed, and whose opinions I trust, like the new game, and found it fun and enjoyable.

Their opinions mean more to me than "random gamer/tester #10's" would anyways.

And that's also my opinion. I enjoyed hearing a bit from people I 'knew' and trusted, and was not surprised to find I wouldn't be getting any details yet.

I just can't get 'worked up' over this. Guess I'm just not much of an Internet Commando. :\

 

[Mistwell]

I've read Andy's comment and while I agree with the decision he made, it sounds like they are exerting editorial control over his blog by telling what is ok or not to post. Editorial control isn't necessarily prior review...

Do you have any reason to believe that WOTC told Ari to remove anything, either before or after it was posted? Do you have any reason to believe that anything Ari posted was changed in any way by WOTC, either directly or indirectly?

I still think that Ari should have prefaced his post in the way I described in my initial post. Saying that he was allowed to voice his support for 4E would have described exactly the arrangement he had with the staffer and prevented this controversy.

The controversy is, in my opinion, yours. There is no real controversy. Prefacing his comment with what you suggested would not be accurate. He had a comment already in mind before hearing anything from WOTC. He asked THEM if he could post it. They essentially said "If it is positive, then sure, and if it is negative, then no just tell us the negative so we can correct it." It was positive, so he posted it. No editorial control. No caveats. No changes. No implication that something would be changed, or he would be rewarded for posting it, or that he was supposed to be part of marketing with that post. No censoring. We don't even have any indication that WOTC even read it before it was posted. Nothing of what you are implying was actually present. In my opinion, you have stretched some some out of context facts into an implication that is false.

I realize this is a one-time situation and that admitting that might sound weird, but the topic is very controversial and could have used better discretion.

How do you define "very controversial"? We have about a 10 to 1 ratio of people who see no problem at all with this to people like you who do. How is about a 10% complaint rate the same as "very controversial"?

 

[PoeticJustice]

Don't forget that Mouseferatu predicted flak against him - had he said that he cannot say anything negative (no matter now you formulate it), then he would still catch the flak AND WotC (undeservedly, if he agrees with their argumentation, which I assume). Therefore he chose the course he thought of as better.

Furthermore, Collins has commented on that. They could've said nothing as well, the e-mail rumour caused less excitement than this now, and they've known it. They wanted to be honest with us, after all, at least that's my impression.

Cheers, LT.

I've looked into it a bit and can't find where Ari said it would cause flak. I did find places where he proclaimed the post his sincere opinion (which I believe). This doesn't change my position at all.

Being honest after the fact is still being disingenuous. I still do not comprehend your argument promoting a news gag or blackout or something. I don't promote it. Neither do you. Can we drop it?

 

[maggot]

If it is too soon to post negative comments because those areas might be changed, then is it too soon to post positive comments because those areas might be changed.

I think the posters should have been upfront by saying they were posting under the understanding that they could only post positive feedback. Do just post positive feedback left the impression that the information has the potential of being balanced, but it never did.

Maybe I'm missing something, but Andy's note doesn't make it clear who asked for what. There is a direct reference to Andy sending a note "granting" the ability to speak up (positively), and a marketing reasoning why. Where is the reference that these people asked for this?

This thing smells of marketing desperation.

 

[PoeticJustice]

I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.

 

[Wolfspider]

If it is too soon to post negative comments because those areas might be changed, then is it too soon to post positive comments because those areas might be changed.

I agree.

This thing smells of marketing desperation.

Oh, I wouldn't say that. WotC has no reason in the world to be desperate. D&D 4e is going to rock the free world with fun and coolness.

 

[Piratecat]

I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.

No, I think you're communicating pretty well, it's just that many people disagree with you.

I know Ari, and I know John. I have no doubt in my mind that neither of them deliberately excised negative feedback; even if they hadn't been asked "please say nothing rather than discuss things you don't like," my understanding is that their feedback would have been exactly the same. Andy's request was irrelevant in that regard. Ari in particular makes it crystal clear that he's sharing his personal and unconstrained opinion.

Either way, we ask that no one belittle their ethics. They're both completely clear on that front.

I think the best way to decide is to listen to feedback from the D&D Experience next month. That's going to give a fun cross-section of views from many people.

 

[WhatGravitas]

I've looked into it a bit and can't find where Ari said it would cause flak.

Anyone who feels like dismissing what I have to say because of any assumed bias is cordially invited to stop reading now.

That sounds like expecting some flak!

I am refusing to discuss this any further. Clearly I am not elucidating my opinion to you all and I am frustrated with trying.

No, you make your point and opinion very clear. I just don't share your opinion and try to find arguments against it, as you do. For me, trying to point out flaws and getting my own flaws getting pointed out is fun and educates me.

I hope I didn't get you too frustrated, if so, sorry.

Cheers, LT.