being mean?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Patrick Riley at 2000-02-15 12:48:42
Converted from Phorums BB System

<I>When we ran a humorous rant (masquerading as a review) about a John Wick article, an important question came up. Just why did we run that?</I>

The question is not why did you run that, but why would you not run it? I was under the impression that reviews and message boards were open and not edited.

<I>To boost readership?</I>

To boost readership, people have to know about it. Headlines boost readership. Editorials buried in the review column does not.

<I>Because it was entertaining?</I>

I certainly found it more amusing than Wick's original rant.

<I>To be mean to John Wick, even though he's already given us an interview and a column, and even though we respect his body of work?</I>

Is posting a negative review (or counter-rant) "being mean?" Was the review mean to Mr. Wick? Whether it was or not, how does that factor into RPGnet's review policy?

Would you not post a negative review of advertisers' products? What if someone posted a negative review of Miskatonic U? Would you pull the review so that RPGnet did not appear mean to its customers, contributors, or staff? I hope the answer is "obviously not."

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sandy Antunes at 2000-02-15 14:38:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hi,

There is open and there is indiscriminate. Or, put more clearly, filtering based on category versus filtering based on content.

Although reviews are open, we do filter out things that aren't reviews. The John Wick column review was borderline-- mostly, it was Op Ed. We've had some humor bits (the generic review, for example) that we've also allowed in. Those were editorial calls as to whether it fell into the category of 'Review'.

We actually don't publish everything that comes through the Review relay. Maybe 85% of the stuff lately gets through. It has to be RPG-related and it has to be a review. It can't come from the writer or publisher of the product.

As a nice side-effect, this ends up filtering out some truly subliterate stuff, since if I can't even understand what the piece is, I tend to assume it's not a review.

I haven't yet been faced with a review written in a foreign language... I suppose in that case, I'd have to run it through babelfish before deciding.

Cheers,
Sandy
Coordinator, RPGnet
sandy@rpg.net

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Dr. Cruel at 2000-02-22 16:22:26
Converted from Phorums BB System

John Wick is the new 'hot' commodity. His words are important. Thus, whatever might make him displeased is dangerous. He might decide not to give any more interviews, thus cutting the interviewees off from an important, previously accessible resource.

And so on.

Perhaps I've been jaded with age, but I don't think I'd take the designer's words on his own game at face value, in any case. Although I fully understand the need to be extraordinarily civil to those that put butter on your bread, this sort of thing hardly convinces me of a supposed 'objectivity' on the part of the presenters.

Caveat Emptor. And carry on...