query re policy on 'bigwigs'

[DanMcS]

Actually, I would not mind if they did coddle the bigwigs a bit. One thing I love about ENWorld is having the opportunity to interact with Gary Gygax, Monte Cook, Erik Mona, Chris Pramas etc. I do not want to lose that.

Heck, I think that may be one reason that the Wizards people are not around as often these days.

If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.

 

[S'mon]

If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.

Hm, they didn't pull the threads about the recent pay-to-LARP fiasco (& WW allowed pretty heated threads on their own forums, eventually resulting in them rescinding the policy). rpgnet moderation always seems to me far more hands-off than on ENW.

 

[Dinkeldog]

S'mon, you say that like it's a good thing.

 

[Belen]

If you suck up to publishers, you end up with rpg.net, where people from white wolf can and have had the mods pull threads they didn't like, despite the thread not breaking any rules at all.

I am not advocating that anyone "suck" up. However, I like the friendly atmosphere of ENWorld. You do not find that anywhere else. I also like the fact that we can interact with people who are famous in our hobby. If they are flamed all the time, then they will not return.

So, I like the policies here. These are the only boards I ever post too because people can be civil and friendly.

 

[S'mon]

S'mon, you say that like it's a good thing.

I've never found the relative lack of moderation on rpg.net to be a problem; the sheer volume of posts and focus towards games I'm not interested in (Vampire, Exalted) limit my time there.

 

[Darkness]

I've never found the relative lack of moderation on rpg.net to be a problem

If you're referring to the current level of moderation (i.e., last year or so) or only the gaming section (RPG and otherwise - plus Other Media), I agree.

 

[diaglo]

If you're referring to the current level of moderation (i.e., last year or so) or only the gaming section (RPG and otherwise - plus Other Media), I agree.

ditto.

 

[Kanegrundar]

OTOH, if they did coddle the big-wigs and they started acting like jerks, that could turn people off from their products. I think it's best to just treat everyone the same across the board.

Exactly. Like has been seen in a few threads of late.

Kane

 

[Darth K'Trava]

OTOH, if they did coddle the big-wigs and they started acting like jerks, that could turn people off from their products. I think it's best to just treat everyone the same across the board.

True. If a publisher comes across acting like a jerk, then we, the consumer, can just react with our closed wallets.

But everyone, like a few have said, should be treated equal. Whether they be a publisher, writer, artist, long-time poster, newbie or other.... We're all equal here, no matter where we come from or what our personal beliefs/lifestyles are.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm glad this thread came up, because I've been wondering exactly the same thing myself.

If you say that only an idiot would develop a ruleset like xxxx, then you're making a personal attack on the developer. This happens a lot.

If you say that you would like to take pieces of this ruleset and that ruleset, then you're not.

In general, if you think you're skirting the borderline cleverly, you've probably crossed it.

If this is true, then why is the Rick James thread at this URL: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=144161 still open when its a blatant attack on two publishers who visit these boards? Just curious, because I know the thread has been reported by several people.