Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Brown Jenkin" data-source="post: 4244112" data-attributes="member: 2572">In my first post I refered to it as Rules Familiarity Playing not Playtesting. You yourself agreed you wern't doing full playtesting. Sure you provided feedback, but that wasn't your primary objective in playing. He said he wrote it because he was tired of people bashing it. The motivation is part of the bias. It was not being done as a review, it was being done to defend something he loves. A reviewer can also do a positive review, but if he wants it to be taken more seriously he needs to do it in a manner that isn't fawning all over it. Same goes for negative reviews, and that Bratz review shows that he also has a nagative review style that could use some reigning in as well. I repect that you are supporting your friend. I will however respectfully dissagree with your opinion on the need for proper disclosure at all times. I will grant that mentioned it in the first review and that I am mistaken there, although the WotC restrictions even if oral in nature should have been mentioned there. The second review though did need another disclamer just like EVERY MSNBC article that involves any GE subsidiary mentions that MSNBC is also a subsidiary of GE. I never however mentioned that you worked on the core books. You do however write 4E suplements and therefore are financially impacted by the success or failure of 4E.</blockquote>