Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews

[Mistwell]

I think it's a somewhat spurious distinction myself because it relies on other assumptions. For what you've suggested to be so we have to assume that the people that commented simply had no issues whatsoever with 4E and their experience was without exception positive.

Nope. If you read their posts, all they did was offer general impressions. There was no detail that could really go deep enough to distinguish an issue one way or the other with a smaller portion of their experience. And that restriction was known and posted about up front.

Had it been otherwise they would not have commented. Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly?

They really didn't comment on "things" and "points" one way or the other.

I don't see any definitive evidence for either position, which has led to the doubt that's sprung up over the issue for some people.

Except that they told you in their posts that it was their complete and honest general impression.

For example, Owen wrote in his opinion:

However, it's also unprofessional to give anything but my honest opinion even if it's light on specifics. That would be lying, to fans and to other designers who may read my thoughts. It could do a lot of damage if the stars were aligned right. (Most likely to my reputation – don't think I believe I can bring down a game with a casual untruth.) I have been at this for quite some time, I have been talking about games before they come out for nearly a decade now. I hope the fact that my opinion on the EverQuest RPG, Gamma World, Black Company, Thieves World, Dragon Magic, and Star Wars Saga Edition remain consistent before and after their release is a reasonable show of good faith.

However, you are claiming he is giving you "anything but [his] honest opinion" by claiming he is holding back the negative portion of his opinion. But if he were, it wouldn't be the consistent thing he mentions in the final sentence, would it?

The other two playtesters wrote something similar. They tell you that it's their honest impression. Not a part of an impression, but ThE impression they got.

You are calling into question the honesty and credibility of these people, without cause.

 

[Mistwell]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

What characteristic or belief of did he comment on? He is mentioning personal experience in the topic, which is not the same as mentioning personal characteristics or beliefs. Experience is relevant to the topic (particularly when the OP questioned the credibility of Andy), but characteristics or beliefs are not.

 

[Mephistopheles]

Furthermore, Ari said this upfront:

...

But I am getting fed up with the ongoing (and unjust) misattributions on this thread.

Thanks for the quote from Ari, although it does seem to imply that there are indeed points they might have critiqued but kept themselves on topic with the aspects they felt positively about.

In any case I am with you on being over the topic. I was not personally bothered by it to begin with and only got involved in response to some comments from Scott Rouse in another thread that I took objection to on a matter of principle.

 

[Mephistopheles]

You are calling into question the honesty and credibility of these people, without cause.

If that's what you're getting from my posts I'd ask you to reread them.

I guess I'll agree to disagree with you and leave it at that as I'm done with this topic.

 

[pemerton]

Thanks for the quote from Ari, although it does seem to imply that there are indeed points they might have critiqued but kept themselves on topic with the aspects they felt positively about.

This implies that you have not read what Ari actually said. If that is so, then I don't understand on what basis you can be criticising it, or alleging that its content was influenced in a certain way that Ari was not upfront about from the beginning.

 

[Falling Icicle]

What characteristic or belief of did he comment on? He is mentioning personal experience in the topic, which is not the same as mentioning personal characteristics or beliefs. Experience is relevant to the topic (particularly when the OP questioned the credibility of Andy), but characteristics or beliefs are not.

Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).

 

[RigaMortus2]

Doesn't it seem more reasonable to assume that the positive comments they gave were honest, but that there were also things they didn't like or problematic points that they brought to the attention of the designers but did not comment on publicly?

Yes, but only because they are under NDA and are not allowed to comment on things publically, regardless if they are postive OR negative.

 

[RigaMortus2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Thanks for the link, as I did not know what ad hominem meant. I have gained some wisdom.

However, my statement still stands. And if the person I was referrencing did have some background in beta testing, they could have refuted my claim. Since they didn't, the point stands. They don't know what beta testing and NDAs are all about.

So ad hominem that ;0

 

[RigaMortus2]

Rather than challenge the OP's points, he attempted to smear the OP by insinuating that he's not qualified to have an opinion on the matter. A person's characteristics or beliefs have no bearing on the truth or accuracy of their statements. I could be a scoundrel, but if I said that grass is green that statement would be no less true because of my character (or lack thereof).

But when I reply by saying "I guess you have never had any experience in botany", and you don't refute that, it doesn't make it any less true. Because SOME grass is green, and some grass is not. So your statement isn't really completely true.

 

[Christoph the Magus]

I haven't read most of the entries in this post, as most of it is just the usual suspects showing up shouting, "I'm right, you're wrong, and I going to keep rewording the same general argument 3 or 4 times each page until you either agree with me or go away."

My knee jerk reaction to this situation is this: WOTC shouldn't give any playtester special permission to comment on the new edition. I want to hear unrestricted comments from both positive and negative sources before I decide to buy into 4E. I already don't like the direction the game is going with DDI, and doing marketing things that feel a tad shady aren't improving my opinion.

As has been noted in many other posts, there are enough 3E materials for most groups to play/explore to last at least a decade, if not longer. If WOTC wants me and my group to spend money on multiple core books, DDI, and the usual range of splat books they had best not only produce a kick butt new edition but stop making stupid marketing decision/mistakes that tick us off. I mean, come on, I can go on ebay or to my local discount book store and get enough books for a half dozen 3E variants to cover my entire group for the same price as picking up the three 4E core books and 6 months of DDI.

Make the game the best it can be, show us some real rules info, and then let the game and the players speak for themselves.