How to Be An Effective Angry Gamer
- Thread starter mearls
- Start date
ColonelHardisson said:
Well, Colonel, think about how much thoughtful critique this site alone produces, in aggregate. It's lots. Lots and lots. The flames get noticed, but there are far fewer of them than there are thoughtful discussions.
So, how many of these thoughtful discussions are they supposed to respond to? How many would they have to respond to in order to have it noticed, when there are no flames drawing people's eyes? Would this be any more an efficient and constructive use of their time?
I personally, would prefer they not bother responding here. Just pay attention to us, and learn what we want. Spend the energy they'd use responding to flames on products, not patting us on the back for our help. Our thanks should be better products.
Or, if they find our input useful, then go pay Morrus for some advertising! Get their (now better for our input) products seen, and support the community that allowed us to have that input! Woohoo!
FDP Mike
First Post
Greetings, Bryan. 
First off, I suppose that I chose my words unwisely. Perhaps, "An intriguing flipside ..." would have made for a better, more exact direction. I'm not at all faulting Mike for any sort of silence -- I'm just making an observation on a related, if tangential, issue (particularly if you consider that the ranting, angry fans are often the ones that will draw publishers into responding, as ColonelHardisson notes).
Secondly, I'm not sure that I necessarily distract from Mike's admittedly very on-topic and focussed post (I hope that I am adding to the discussion). Publishers play a role in this dialogue as well; they must be willing to accept the need for and/or possibility of change. Yet I've noticed that "rude and angry" gamers turn up the volume even louder once they actually get a publisher to respond, often attacking the publisher for the very act of responding at all. Publishers thus often find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis precisely because of "angry gamers" -- i.e., bite the tongue and let the (sometimes unjustified) fear mongering go unchecked or enter the fracas and get roasted anway.
One aspect of why the Internet is such a powerful tool also involves the opportunity publishers have to engage directly with gamers and game critics. Insults and rants get us nowhere, to be sure, and publishers can be just as guilty. I think, though, that publishers could make what they do and why more transparent so as to head off or dampen the fires of the "rude and angry" -- with Monte Cook's cautions to publishers firmly in mind (see below).
I'm not at all trying to make an excuse for publishers to respond to anger with anger. We all saw the fruits of that strategy with Jim Ward's rant(s) against reviewers. Henry cites Monte Cook's comments on how publishers should act with regard to criticism, and I agree with Monte pretty much wholeheartedly. Publishers who lack tact, civility, and professionalism do and should lose fans. Yet in this era of such free communication on the web, why should publishers be expected always to hold their tongues? I don't subscribe to the notion that the customer is always right (neither is the publisher, mind you). I do, however, believe that a healthy, constructive exchange of ideas can quite effectively forward "change in the gaming industry." Change is not a one-way com link; there's a receiver of criticism, a respondant.
I did not suggest anything to the contrary, I hope.
I might also add that gamers should set examples for each other, for, as I wrote, maybe part of the source of "angry gamers" lies in how gamers tend to treat each other.
Take care,
Mike
Perithoth said:
First off, I suppose that I chose my words unwisely. Perhaps, "An intriguing flipside ..." would have made for a better, more exact direction. I'm not at all faulting Mike for any sort of silence -- I'm just making an observation on a related, if tangential, issue (particularly if you consider that the ranting, angry fans are often the ones that will draw publishers into responding, as ColonelHardisson notes).
Secondly, I'm not sure that I necessarily distract from Mike's admittedly very on-topic and focussed post (I hope that I am adding to the discussion). Publishers play a role in this dialogue as well; they must be willing to accept the need for and/or possibility of change. Yet I've noticed that "rude and angry" gamers turn up the volume even louder once they actually get a publisher to respond, often attacking the publisher for the very act of responding at all. Publishers thus often find themselves between Scylla and Charybdis precisely because of "angry gamers" -- i.e., bite the tongue and let the (sometimes unjustified) fear mongering go unchecked or enter the fracas and get roasted anway.
One aspect of why the Internet is such a powerful tool also involves the opportunity publishers have to engage directly with gamers and game critics. Insults and rants get us nowhere, to be sure, and publishers can be just as guilty. I think, though, that publishers could make what they do and why more transparent so as to head off or dampen the fires of the "rude and angry" -- with Monte Cook's cautions to publishers firmly in mind (see below).
I'm not at all trying to make an excuse for publishers to respond to anger with anger. We all saw the fruits of that strategy with Jim Ward's rant(s) against reviewers. Henry cites Monte Cook's comments on how publishers should act with regard to criticism, and I agree with Monte pretty much wholeheartedly. Publishers who lack tact, civility, and professionalism do and should lose fans. Yet in this era of such free communication on the web, why should publishers be expected always to hold their tongues? I don't subscribe to the notion that the customer is always right (neither is the publisher, mind you). I do, however, believe that a healthy, constructive exchange of ideas can quite effectively forward "change in the gaming industry." Change is not a one-way com link; there's a receiver of criticism, a respondant.
I did not suggest anything to the contrary, I hope.
I might also add that gamers should set examples for each other, for, as I wrote, maybe part of the source of "angry gamers" lies in how gamers tend to treat each other.
Take care,
Mike
BryonD
Hero
I'll agree that Mike makes very valid points.
Then, on the topic of Dungeon, I will refer to the following thread:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35824&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
Johnny posted his plan and feedback was provided. I said, basically, "gee, I don't like, it. But you don't owe me anything, good luck to you." See my post early in the thread for the exact quote. Most people, at that time, seemed very supportive of the change.
Now, I know what opinions are like, but I think my posts were reasonable and polite. I think they tended to be constructive criticism or at least just simple comment. I would certainly be amazed if anyone called them vitriol.
IMO, the thread started its downturn when Erik dove in with "Man, I love the smell of a good "screw Polyhedron" thread."
Now, the "is the end near" thread is one thing. And I think the web content thread going now is plain silly. But when Pazio asks for feedback and then replies this way when they get it, I get a negative feeling. Maybe I'm just sensitive that way.
So anyway, Mike is right. Civil conversation is a much more effect mechanism. But as I perceive it, Paizo has made their own bed by A) stooping to the level of some of the more basic critics and B) tending to respond more to the over-the-top posters, to the point that I have gotten the idea that they find that easier to do.
I'll still say that I don't have any interest in Poly. When my scrip is up, I'm done. No hard feelings at all there. You guys do whatever you want with your product. But when I am left with the feeling that you as professionals treated me poorly, you are going to need to look somewhere else for sympathy when the vitriol does roll your direction.
"We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures." - Ryan Dancey - March 2000
Then, on the topic of Dungeon, I will refer to the following thread:
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=35824&perpage=20&pagenumber=1
Johnny posted his plan and feedback was provided. I said, basically, "gee, I don't like, it. But you don't owe me anything, good luck to you." See my post early in the thread for the exact quote. Most people, at that time, seemed very supportive of the change.
Now, I know what opinions are like, but I think my posts were reasonable and polite. I think they tended to be constructive criticism or at least just simple comment. I would certainly be amazed if anyone called them vitriol.
IMO, the thread started its downturn when Erik dove in with "Man, I love the smell of a good "screw Polyhedron" thread."
Now, the "is the end near" thread is one thing. And I think the web content thread going now is plain silly. But when Pazio asks for feedback and then replies this way when they get it, I get a negative feeling. Maybe I'm just sensitive that way.
So anyway, Mike is right. Civil conversation is a much more effect mechanism. But as I perceive it, Paizo has made their own bed by A) stooping to the level of some of the more basic critics and B) tending to respond more to the over-the-top posters, to the point that I have gotten the idea that they find that easier to do.
I'll still say that I don't have any interest in Poly. When my scrip is up, I'm done. No hard feelings at all there. You guys do whatever you want with your product. But when I am left with the feeling that you as professionals treated me poorly, you are going to need to look somewhere else for sympathy when the vitriol does roll your direction.
"We listened to customers who told us that they want core materials, not world materials. That they buy DUNGEON magazine every two months at a rate twice that of our best selling stand-alone adventures." - Ryan Dancey - March 2000
ColonelHardisson
What? Me Worry?
Umbran said:
I'm not really in disagreement with you here, but the point I was making is - if they're going to expend the energy on replying to posts anyway, why not expend it on the thoughtful ones more often?
Olive
Explorer
BryonD said:
I thinkt he problem is that too few people acted like Mike is suggesting from the get go. It's difficult now, because emotions are high: Erik believes in Poly, and he's tired of people acting like they're owed something. I can get that, but i do think that the paizo staff sometimes react to quite reasonable coments as if they weren't. It's a shame, but if we all start acting like Mike suggests, then maybe we can wind this mess down a notch.
TalonComics
First Post
mearls said:
I would even go so far and say this is a great way to live your life by just following "treat others as you would like others to treat you."
Sometimes it's hard to do but it makes life a lot easier for us all.
~D
Similar Threads
