Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Mistwell" data-source="post: 4029183" data-attributes="member: 2525"><p>OK, you're both repeating a misrepresentation. So, I guess it's time to correct it again.</p><p></p><p>First guy, you phrased it "they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. " Not accurate. They were given clearance to give their opinion if their opinion was positive. That is not the same as given clearance to give only positive opinions. If you read it, then their opinion was positive. It is not the case that these people had both positive and negative opinions and only offered the positive. Their posts were about general impressions, and their general impression was positive. To imply otherwise is to misrepresent what happened.</p><p></p><p>Second guy, you said "...comment with no indication that they're restricted in what they can say."</p><p></p><p>That is a misrepresentation of what happened also.</p><p></p><p>Three people asked to be able to say their opinion about 4e. They were told if their comment (an opinion already formed before being told this) is positive they can post it, and if it is negative then tell WOTC so it can be corrected.</p><p></p><p>So if you see a comment by one of these people, it's said without a restriction on what they can say beyond the "no details" rule that they all posted about up front. There is no evidence, at all, that anyone (including themselves) edited their comments, or had negative things that they felt they could not say, or were influenced to say something different than what they honestly thought about the game.</p><p></p><p>Your paraphrasing of the issue implies different. And I think it's inappropriate to continue to misrepresent what happened. Unless you have any evidence, at all, that the three people who posted their opinions edited their comments in any manner to not offer a negative impression of the game, it's simply inappropriate to continue to repeat that their comments themselves were somehow restrained in what they said (beyond the "no details" restriction that they all mentioned up front in their posts).</p><p></p><p>In conclusion, do you guys get that it's not a case of "don't say the negative part of your opinion, just the positive parts"? That isn't what happened. And by continuing to imply that friends of people here, and of this board, and fellow peers of yours, are somehow lying in their opinions or leaving part of their opinion out after they already said they are not doing that (which is another way of you saying they are lying), is at best impolite.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mistwell, post: 4029183, member: 2525"] OK, you're both repeating a misrepresentation. So, I guess it's time to correct it again. First guy, you phrased it "they've been given clearance to give only positive opinions on their experience thus far. " Not accurate. They were given clearance to give their opinion if their opinion was positive. That is not the same as given clearance to give only positive opinions. If you read it, then their opinion was positive. It is not the case that these people had both positive and negative opinions and only offered the positive. Their posts were about general impressions, and their general impression was positive. To imply otherwise is to misrepresent what happened. Second guy, you said "...comment with no indication that they're restricted in what they can say." That is a misrepresentation of what happened also. Three people asked to be able to say their opinion about 4e. They were told if their comment (an opinion already formed before being told this) is positive they can post it, and if it is negative then tell WOTC so it can be corrected. So if you see a comment by one of these people, it's said without a restriction on what they can say beyond the "no details" rule that they all posted about up front. There is no evidence, at all, that anyone (including themselves) edited their comments, or had negative things that they felt they could not say, or were influenced to say something different than what they honestly thought about the game. Your paraphrasing of the issue implies different. And I think it's inappropriate to continue to misrepresent what happened. Unless you have any evidence, at all, that the three people who posted their opinions edited their comments in any manner to not offer a negative impression of the game, it's simply inappropriate to continue to repeat that their comments themselves were somehow restrained in what they said (beyond the "no details" restriction that they all mentioned up front in their posts). In conclusion, do you guys get that it's not a case of "don't say the negative part of your opinion, just the positive parts"? That isn't what happened. And by continuing to imply that friends of people here, and of this board, and fellow peers of yours, are somehow lying in their opinions or leaving part of their opinion out after they already said they are not doing that (which is another way of you saying they are lying), is at best impolite. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Andy Collin's comments re censoring playtester reviews
Top