Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 1004195" data-attributes="member: 3586">Nope. Not at all. Please read what I wrote again."A review? No. It is a rant, and I wish he'd labelled it as such. The insights given are important, but I do believe, very strongly, that more attention needed to be given to the positives for it to be properly called a "review"."Then, later:"Of course, he is also addressing people who didn't think that anything should have changed, for whom it would have been nice if he'd backed up his judgements of what was right about the revision as well.... I do wish he'd read his article again before posting and edited it to make it more balanced."Now, what has Monte done? He's edited the review, adding in his rationales for supporting certain changes.Wow. That's exactly what I wanted. I feel good. Suddenly, it's no longer a rant, it's a review, and an excellent one at that.If the original article had been called: "Monte's Misgivings about 3.5E", I'd have had no problem with it. Calling it a review, even though there were disclaimers in the text that it wasn't exactly a review, gave a false impression of it being more balanced than it was. Because the balance wasn't there, the resulting impression was "3.5E sucks!", rather than the more complex feelings I think Monte has about the revision.How did he put it?"My intention was to give a very mixed review, to show that, while I'm unhappy with the way it was done in principle, the end result is more good than bad."- Monte Cook (<a href="http://www.montecook.com/arch_review26_add.html" target="_blank">review 1.5?</a>)Do I agree with many of the misgivings Monte has about the revision? Yes, I do. Not all of them, but I can certainly see his reasoning and I appreciate that greatly.Cheers!</blockquote>

Verification