Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ColonelHardisson" data-source="post: 917619" data-attributes="member: 363">Mike Mearls has made several good points, here and elsewhere, about this subject, and I agree with what he's saying, almost completely. The only thing with which I differ is in regards to what publishers actually pay attention to when they read criticism, constructive and otherwise, online. I've read (and, hell, posted) the entire spectrum of criticism of publishers on the internet - flames, praise, and constructive criticism. What I have seen publishers (and just about every other denizen of the internet) do is respond in the most vigorous fashion to the flames. We've all seen this. People responding to flames will (apparently) ignore every other post in a thread in order to wrestle with the virtual devil that has beset them. So, while I heartily encourage would-be critics to follow Mr. Mearls' advice about how they should construct their criticism, I would also encourage publishers to acknowledge more often the less incendiary criticism - the praise and the truly constructive criticism. Saying "thanks" to the praise and "hmm, you raise several good points, let me address them..." more frequently would make it more obvious that it isn't just the unpleasantly squeaky wheel getting all the grease. I'm not saying publishers don't already do this, but it sure seems like the response to the flames is more common and spirited.</blockquote>