In light of recent events by Avalanche Press (Company bashing not desired)

[Mistwell]

You know this how?

I see nothing in your post to say how you came by this information. All I see in your post is a jerk with an arrogant attitude that is slapping other posters down like a bunch of niave children.

I've responded to this. If you want to discuss it further, we can do it in email. Calling me names will not help this thread.

 

[Fast Learner]

I've responded to this. If you want to discuss it further, we can do it in email. Calling me names will not help this thread.

I agree that calling you names is pointless. I disagree, however, about taking the conversation offline because you're leaving the impression that you have some inside knowledge and are therefore correct without backing it up. Taking it to email simply allows you to leave it a mystery as to whether or not you're right, clouding the issue of games reviews needlessly. It only makes sense if we all take it offline, but that obviously would be pointless.

You've made strong allegations about game reviewers and book reviewers. You've been countered by people with firsthand experience. You're insisting that your defense of your views be taken offline. I'm sorry, but while you may have something valid to say about this, so far it only appears that you're unwilling to make your defense public, leaving me to question whether or not you have one.

The only way I'd take it offline is if I can simply post all of our emails here, making taking it to email pointless, right?

As it stands your accusations are completely unsupported.

 

[Fred Delles]

Re: Embarrassing....

Since the cover illustration was obviously not well researched, I assumed that the product's content was also inferiorly investigated.

That's one of our beefs, myself included. AP was obviously trying something that ended up ridiculous and it only backfired. Assuming that the Celtic book is a change of pace, I hope AP has learned its lesson.

I know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but on a limited budget one has to make choices. This bias could hold true for many of Avalanche's products, and is not simply based on sexism of the cover image as I've shown.

On the sexism note, I should make a few brief points. First of all, someone indicated that there were no scantily clad women in history. That's simply wrong, for many eras. The book Nile: War in Heliopolis is inaccurate historically because the woman is wearing too much clothing (though, ostensibly, she could be wearing an Egyptian (Kemetic) robe, many women went topless in ancient Egypt). One might also note that some recent releases by Avalanche don't have such risqué covers (I, Mordred, All for One and One for All, and Vlad the Impaler Blood Prince of Wallachia).

But, mind you, this is not the "Book of Carnal Knowledge in the (insert era/setting here)" nor "The d20 Caligula RPG". (Well, Vlad might make sense, as seduction could be the name of the game, and the recent Celtic sourcebook has no cheap sexuality on the cover whatsoever.)

We see the riduclousness. Do you?

 

[Mistwell]

I agree that calling you names is pointless. I disagree, however, about taking the conversation offline because you're leaving the impression that you have some inside knowledge and are therefore correct without backing it up. Taking it to email simply allows you to leave it a mystery as to whether or not you're right, clouding the issue of games reviews needlessly. It only makes sense if we all take it offline, but that obviously would be pointless.

You've made strong allegations about game reviewers and book reviewers. You've been countered by people with firsthand experience. You're insisting that your defense of your views be taken offline. I'm sorry, but while you may have something valid to say about this, so far it only appears that you're unwilling to make your defense public, leaving me to question whether or not you have one.

The only way I'd take it offline is if I can simply post all of our emails here, making taking it to email pointless, right?

As it stands your accusations are completely unsupported.

1) His post was concerning book reviews, not gaming reviews. Someone in the game industry also mentioned recently that a similar policy exists in his/her experience as well (see above). I, however, have not made strong allegations about game reviews in general. I never mentioned game reviews until someone else mentioned them first to me. In fact, I specifically was not making a generalization about that industry, and said as much when I responded. I don't know why the subject continues to resurface in responses to me. I do not know enough about that industry to make any kind of generalization about it.

2) Taking it to email does not leave anything to mystery. I am willing to bet most people in this thread could care less what I think, or know, about the sci-fi/fantasy book industry. However, if you feel you want to "solve" the mystery, just email me.

3) I'm not going to be the one to hijack this thread by discussing specific publishers review-policies. It would be rude. This thread isn't about what I know, or don't know, about the sci-fi/fantasy book industry. If you honestly want to know about that industry, email me. But it is off-topic for this thread. My point was that, if this kind of review policy offends people, then they should try to be consistent in their opposition to it. If you choose to think my "accusations" about one specific industry are completely unsupported simply because I will only discuss them privately, then so be it. My feelings will not be hurt if you think I am lying about review policy standards in other industries. I just hope you will take the time to investigate the issue yourself, and come to your own conclusions about it for those other industries.

4) If you work in the sci-fi/fantasy novel, or gaming, industry, and something I have said in one of my posts in this thread has offended you, then I am sorry. That was never my intent.

 

[Simplicity]

(snip)

Furthermore, I apologize to all of the staff at ENWorld for making unwarranted statements about your review practices. I do not in any way perceive a complimentary review copy as a bribe for a favorable review. I began my career in this industry as a reviewer for Space Gamer/Fantasy Gamer Magazine, and Shadis Magazine, so I am angry with myself that I even made such a statement in the first place.

(snip)

Sincerely,

Marcelo A. Figueroa
Sales Manager
Avalanche Press, Limited
"Walk with heroes."

To me, this is a perfectly reasonable apology. Sure, there was
also the discussion of misidentity in the letter, but this paragraph
still says: "It's not a bribe. I'm angry I said that. I'm sorry."

It seems to be the normal tendency of message boards to crucify someone who said something wrong, but come on... This
company just sent a fan website a prompt letter saying that
it's a misunderstanding, and they're sorry.

What more do we want? You got to eat a lot of crow to send a letter like this.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Wow...Hold the phone you guys! Don't you think that you guys--Mistwell, Doc Moriarty, Fast Learner--maybe a few others that I missed--are taking this whole thing a bit *too* seriously? I'm not trying to bite at any of you--just asking you to maybe reassess your perspective on the matter. You guys are arguing and getting heated up over what?--the supposed review policies of different companies, sometimes in different industries? Maybe something that I missed, but why are you guys arguing such a ethereal point? Not saying that persona A can't have an opinion that it should be done one way, and person B has a different opinion,--but you guys are *arguing* over something that to the best of my knowledge--none of you has any direct control over in any way. In any event, why are you letting such a trivial subject upset each other so much for?

Think about what it is that you are getting so upset over, you know? Originally, this thread was about the policies of a company that no one here even works for, and about their apology letter. What is there to really fight about?

Just some thoughts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Mistwell]

Greetings!

Wow...Hold the phone you guys! Don't you think that you guys--Mistwell, Doc Moriarty, Fast Learner--maybe a few others that I missed--are taking this whole thing a bit *too* seriously? I'm not trying to bite at any of you--just asking you to maybe reassess your perspective on the matter. You guys are arguing and getting heated up over what?--the supposed review policies of different companies, sometimes in different industries? Maybe something that I missed, but why are you guys arguing such a ethereal point? Not saying that persona A can't have an opinion that it should be done one way, and person B has a different opinion,--but you guys are *arguing* over something that to the best of my knowledge--none of you has any direct control over in any way. In any event, why are you letting such a trivial subject upset each other so much for?

Think about what it is that you are getting so upset over, you know? Originally, this thread was about the policies of a company that no one here even works for, and about their apology letter. What is there to really fight about?

Just some thoughts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

You are 100% right. I feel bad for my role in starting this part of the discussion, since it really is a trivial matter.

 

[Dragongirl]

To me, this is a perfectly reasonable apology. Sure, there was
also the discussion of misidentity in the letter, but this paragraph
still says: "It's not a bribe. I'm angry I said that. I'm sorry."

It seems to be the normal tendency of message boards to crucify someone who said something wrong, but come on... This
company just sent a fan website a prompt letter saying that
it's a misunderstanding, and they're sorry.

What more do we want? You got to eat a lot of crow to send a letter like this.

I guess it depends on . . .
1) If you believe the apology was meant.
2) If you believe that the person writing it truly mistook ENWorld for the other site, and Simon Collons of the other "Simon".
3) If you believe the person apologized because they truly thought they were in error or in actuality because a) all the angry email Avalanche recieved and/or b) his boss came down hard on him and ordered him to apologize.
4) If you believe that since it was not really ENWorld that they meant that it was ok they said what they did.
etc.

 

[Simplicity]

>>> 1) If you believe the apology was meant.

It's pretty hard to ever tell if an apology is meant. I'm willing
to give them the benefit of the doubt. As someone else said,
a boycott from ENWorld would hardly affect their business.

>>> 2) If you believe that the person writing it truly mistook
>>> ENWorld for the other site, and Simon Collons of the
>>> other "Simon".

I'm not even sure it IS a different site. The reviews HERE
have a bunch of people with S.C. for initials. I don't see
why it matters whether it was a case of mistaken identity
for ENWorld.

>>> 3) If you believe the person apologized because they truly
>>> thought they were in error or in actuality because a) all the
>>> angry email Avalanche recieved and/or b) his boss came
>>> down hard on him and ordered him to apologize.

If he made the apology because he was sorry, then I accept it. And if the boss came down hard on him and made him apologize,
then it sounds like Avalanche Press DOESN'T approve of bribery
for reviews. So, I accept the apology on behalf of Avalanche Press. What's the problem?

>>> 4) If you believe that since it was not really ENWorld that >>> they meant that it was ok they said what they did.

Note that this is why I took out that paragraph. The letter does say that there was a case of mistaken identity, but the apology is not connected to that. He says he's angry that he said what he did, and that he's sorry to the reviewers of ENWorld. It shouldn't
matter whether or not there was a mistaken identity in there...

He directly says a free review copy is not meant to be a bribe.
That has nothing to do with mistaken identity.

(edit: took out some quotes to prevent any confusion)

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Mistwell, I like you, and I respect your opinions. I am glad that you can see the issue with clarity. It just seemed that you guys were getting heated up for a very trivial matter. That is something that I kept thinking to myself as a reader, and I thought I would encourage some self-reflection. Thanks!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK