Are reviewers evil?

[Psion]

1.) You imply with the thread title that Jim Ward says that reviewers are evil but he never says that in his article (regardless of how he feels on the subject.)

So I am not allowed to summize his negative impressions of reviewers in the thread.

2.) You started a thread designed (by the aforementioned implication) to create a general feeling about Ward and FFE.[/b]

Presume you to read into my motivations? I did no such thing. I started a thread to solicit whether people really think reviewers are being unfair to FFE. My motivation had nothing to do with creating any feeling towards Ward or FFE.

3.) Kicking a guy when he is down might be the easiest time to do it, but it doesn't make it right.

Ward just posted the article. I fail to see how I selected a special time.

What is not right is to make disingenuous statements about the content of unlinked reviews, and I do not think I am in the wrong for rebutting it, sorry.

Did you think that your reputation as a reviewer was in jeopardy and required fanning the flames in a open forum?

Did I flame Ward? No. When I did address his article (not in the inagural post, mind you) I adressed his article and defended my reviews against innacurate statements. Those aren't flames in my book; I did not flame Ward.

 

[pennywiz]

I imply no such thing that wouldn't be obvious by reading the link. It is obvious if you read the link that Jim Ward thinks that reviewers are not being fair to him and are otherwise engaging in improper review techniques. Excuse me for being succinct in the title.

Again, I did no such thing. I started a thread to solicit whether people really think reviewers are being unfair to FFE. My motivation had nothing to do with creating any feeling towards Ward or FFE.

Ward just posted the article. It's not like I waited around until WotC made FFE wear the OGL scarlet letter.

And what is not right is to make disingenuous statements about the content of unlinked reviews, and I do not think I am in the wrong for rebutting it, sorry.

Did I flame ward? No. I adressed his article. Nothing more, nothing less.

You did not start a thread countering statements by Jim Ward. You started a thread attributing by implication that Jim Ward says/thinks reviewers are evil. That has nothing to do with rebutting anything at all. Your first post does nothing to refute or rebut anything.

It is disingenuous to say that you began the thread in that manner when it is easy to read the first post (and the title of the thread) and see that you did no such thing.

What you did was point people to the article and make the implication. Saying (now) it is obvious that he says/thinks reviewers are evil just furthers the offense. If it was not your motivation, but only the result, then you should apologize for the offense and move on rather than defend it. Highly unprofessional.

 

[Psion]

What you did was point people to the article and make the implication. Saying (now) it is obvious that he says/thinks reviewers are evil just furthers the offense. If it was not your motivation, but only the result, then you should apologize for the offense and move on rather than defend it.

There is no offense on my part to apologize for. If you still insist on reading it that way, I cannot stop you and any more discussion is fruitless.

 

[pennywiz]

There is no offense on my part to apologize for. If you still insist on reading it that way, I cannot stop you and any more discussion is fruitless.

I can see why you would be prone to wave off what you wrote but it is now as much a part of the record as his article.

You are right that there is no further discussion needed since reading what has been written makes it obvious, just as you claim reading Jim Ward's article makes your implication obvious but it needs to be remembered that it is your implication and not his words. My insistence has no bearing on it since it is easily read by anyone who wishes insight on your level of professionalism. You claim that you started the thread to rebut what he said in his article but nowhere in your first post do you rebut anything at all. Not in the least.

Everyone makes mistakes and sometimes people write something they may later regret. Not apologizing for the offense is what makes it unprofessional, whether it is written by Jim Ward or written by you. Next time, whether it is one of your posts or reviews, your reputation precedes you.

 

[Psion]

My insistence has no bearing on it since it is easily read by anyone who wishes insight on your level of professionalism.

It has everything to do with it. I have already stated that I did not mean to imply anything that he had not said, "evil" was merely meant as a summation of his negative impressions. You can take me at face value, or you can continue to cast aspersions on me by calling me unprofessional.

You claim that you started the thread to rebut what he said in his article but nowhere in your first post do you rebut anything at all.

Good thing I didn't say that I did then, eh? I said the first post was to solicit opinion on whether anyone really thinks that reviewers are being unfair to FFE.

I only referred to the rebuttal after you accused me of flaming, and to point out that I never attacked him, but pointed out things about his article.

 

[pennywiz]

It has everything to do with it. I have already stated that I did not mean to imply anything that he had not said, "evil" was merely meant as a summation of his negative impressions. You can take me at face value, or you can continue to cast aspersions on me by calling me unprofessional.

Starting a thread titled "Are reviewers fallible?" sums up what Jim Ward suggests in his article just as well without casting aspersions on Jim Ward which you did. Now that unprofessional choice of words on your part are evidence of your intent and reputation, as is your inability to own up to manipulating the direction of the thread by choosing the word "evil" instead. If it wasn't your intention, change the thread title, apologize for the unprofessional choice of words and let's all move on like adults. This continuation on your part might suggest that better title for the thread would be "Do reviewers think they can be fallible?" but I've not read another reviewer in this thread or elsewhere with that much gall.

 

[Psion]

Starting a thread titled "Are reviewers fallible?"

I think that reviewers, being human, are inherently fallible, so posting that as a thread title would be beyond pointless as the answer is trivial. No, I think that Mr. Wards words, if taken at face value, imply some deeper malice among reviewers. Ergo, I think my question is valid as originally conceived.

I am sorry you see something more sinister in it, but again I insist that there is not. Take that at face value or deride my professionalism again as you wish; it is obvious that I am not going to change your mind. But as it stands, I don't see entertaining this discussion as productive and we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

 

[pennywiz]

Good thing I didn't say that I did then, eh? I said the first post was to solicit opinion on whether anyone really thinks that reviewers are being unfair to FFE.

I only referred to the rebuttal after you accused me of flaming, and to point out that I never attacked him, but pointed out things about his article.

Judging by the thread title it is obvious you wanted the ball rolling in a favorable direction before you stepped in with you rebuttals.

My contention is still that it is foolish for a professional reviewer to persue such an issue in a public forum and unprofessional to do it in the manner in which you did. There's a difference between fanning flames and flaming. I said you did the former, you claim I said you did the latter. This is another instance of you manipulating the debate in this thread when you really should, as a professional reviewer, be above such blatantly false tactics. Anyone who wants the truth of the matter can read my posts and see that I did not say that you flamed anyone.

Just apologize and move on.

 

[pennywiz]

I think that reviewers, being human, are inherently fallible, so posting that as a thread title would be beyond pointless as the answer is trivial. No, I think that Mr. Wards words, if taken at face value, imply some deeper malice among reviewers. Ergo, I think my question is valid as originally conceived.

I am sorry you see something more sinister in it, but again I insist that there is not. Take that at face value or deride my professionalism again as you wish; it is obvious that I am not going to change your mind. But as it stands, I don't see entertaining this discussion as productive and we are going to just have to agree to disagree.

You imply, and now overtly state, that Jim Ward had some sinister intent and then claim I am accusing you of the same? That seems incredibly arrogant to me. I am sure that I am not alone in this. Apologize as a professional would do and we do not need to agree to disagree any longer.

 

[Psion]

You imply, and now overtly state, that Jim Ward had some sinister intent and then claim I am accusing you of the same?

I stated no such thing. I said I think that he thinks reviewers have sinister intent. Difference.