Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[PoeticJustice]

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 pretty much inconsequential in that regard.

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.

I agree with you, but I didn't want to start a flame war or anything over the difference between editorial control and prior review. Since I've tried already to explain this, mentioning that they are different things, but made no progress.

Wizards has denied them the ability to post negative commentary on 4E, whether they have negative feedback or not. That is editorial control. Prior review is a form of editorial control including the altering or deleting of their words.

I also agree that none of the message would have changed. The community still should have been informed that they were forbidden from writing negative feedback on 4E.

 

[Darrin Drader]

Frankly, the only thing I'm surprised about is that Andy is making public his instructions to only post positive comments. It takes a lot of guts to stand up and admit openly to people that it is not in their best interest for them to detract from their own product. Allowing playtesters to comment at all is nearly the same thing as the company itself issuing the statement. How many companies so you know of that tell people that their product is flawed? None that I'm aware of.

Personally, I'm glad I'm taking a break from WotC right now. Since I'm not part of the 4E design process, I can give whatever gut reactions I want, positive or negative, and of course they're all based upon information that the company has released. The fact that I don't really like the sounds of some of the things they've revealed has no bearing upon how I feel about them as people or designers (the truth of the matter is that I think they have one of the most capable group of designers on the planet and all of the R&D people I still know there are wonderful individuals). I still have high hopes for 4E, even if I have been a little critical of the information they've released in the past.

The job of the playtesters and the designers is to take a work in progress and make it better. How would it be in the company's best interest to allow those people to undercut not only the company's best interests, but their own, by effectively airing a negative commercial? It's a no-brainer that they would ask these people not to say anything negative, and it's actually unusually honest that they would reveal this fact to the public. This is really just common sense.

 

[fnwc]

I just read Andy Collins' comments quoted on ENWorld's front newspage today explaining what playtesters were and were not allowed to say.

In this regard, WotC is not behaving any different than any other company in the world.

 

[Piratecat]

I also agree that none of the message would have changed. The community still should have been informed that they were forbidden from writing negative feedback on 4E.

I only find that relevant if it would have affected their opinions. I understand your position, though. Mine just differs. For me, it seems like you're holding them to a level of standard that just isn't applicable here.

 

[RigaMortus2]

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...

Let's not forget that Ari signed an NDA, which basically is an Agreement to not discuss what you are asked not to discuss. So in a round about way, you are right. Except you seem to imply that WotC is "forcing" him not to say anything negative, when in actuality, he AGREED to not say anything negative. BIIIIIG difference there...

Sorry, but if you sign an NDA you are supposed to honor it. And if those terms are "don't say a word" or "only post positive comments, direct any negative experiences back to R&D" then that is what you agreed to.

 

[Wolfspider]

In this regard, WotC is not behaving any different than any other company in the world.

I could have sworn recently that someone from WotC posted in their blog how much he or she hated that people considered the company to be souless and moneygrubbing, just like any other company out there, but I can't find the quote now.

Oh well.

 

[fnwc]

I understand that Ari has a positive outlook on 4E, but his playtest report implies that he had generic clearance to talk about 4E--we didn't know what editorial controls he was under and I think he should have at least mentioned them.

I believe I would have had no problem nor would my opinion of his post been changed if he had said something to the effect of "I've been given permission to voice my support of 4E" or "I've been allowed to announce the positive experiences I've had playtesting this product".

I can't help but feel like Wotc is being disingenuous here. They shouldn't use a private blog as a marketing tool without telling us.

Huh? Andy Collins said that Ari and John had specifically asked permission to comment about 4th edition:

"To sum up: 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."

The cynicism runs high here...

 

[SpiderMonkey]

I stopped reading a few pages ago. I just want to say this:

Andy, thanks for being as forthcoming as possible with the release of this product. Despite the ridiculous amount of internet drama, many of us are really excited to see the little bits you've been able to release and value what Ari and John have shared.

Please don't be discouraged by the sound and fury.

 

[fnwc]

In this regard, WotC is not behaving any different than any other company in the world.

I could have sworn recently that someone from WotC posted in their blog how much he or she hated that people considered the company to be souless and moneygrubbing, just like any other company out there, but I can't find the quote now.

I was referring specifically to the NDA and the rights that beta testers have agreed to under those terms.

 

[the Jester]

Whether WotC (or you) considers them to be reviews or not, *that is* what many (if not most) of the player-base that read them considered them to be. Incomplete reviews, yes, but still *reviews*. There was no hint in the posts that they were "censored". Legally, was WotC in the clear? I assume so. I cannot see how they wouldn't be. However, it was blatantly obvious that people would treat the posts as partial reviews, WHETHER that was the intent or not. Which means that they treat the "censorship" as just that, and respond as if WotC wasn't playing fair.

In short, given that people *would* treat the posts as reviews (and they did, shocker!), censoring them was *stupid*.

Well, I consider them to be "movies."

First time in years that I've seen a movie that didn't have any moving pictures. What a stupid movie.

Does my opinion make them movies?