Hey, don't know if I agree with everything you've said of late
but it's nice to see you responding and actively participating. Thanks
for taking the time (and from todays posts looks like a lot of time) to
answer some of our questions.
Cheers, Karl
On Sun, 17 Nov 1996 01:28:42 -0800, Karl Innes <in...@infomatch.com>
wrote:
[ quoted text not captured ]
I want to second Karl in thanking you for getting around to responding
to us. All past complaints aside, I hope that you continue to respond
to us and spend time on our concerns as you have within the last few
days. I might personally want a bit more in the way of answers or
rulings, but I understand that you need to contact Tom Wylie to get
the "official answers", and that you probably don't want to go out on
a limb with us rabid fanatics slavering underneath.... ;)
Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to
spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
much, perhaps?
Anyway, thanks for being our first real net-rep in I don't know how
many months! ;)
Alec Chang
In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote:
>... that you probably don't want to go out on> a limb with us rabid fanatics slavering underneath.... ;)
Nah, that's not it at all! ;)
> Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to
> spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
> discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
> your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
> people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
> argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
> much, perhaps?
I'll try, but I'm hesitant for two reasons:
1) Anything I say can be taken as "official". For instance, my opinion
on CL/NCL could be seen as WotC's "official" view.
2) I'm really busy. I'm continuing the "From the Library of Leng" column
on the Duelist Web site, and doing some other projects at work.
3) There is no number three.
Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd like
some feedback before jumping in!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Wilkie Wot...@aol.com
a.k.a."Scalpel" Customer Service, Wizards of the Coast
"This isn't going to have a happy ending"
-Detective Somerset, Se7en
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang)
wrote:
>> Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to>> spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
>> discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
>> your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
>> people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
>> argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
>> much, perhaps?>I'll try, but I'm hesitant for two reasons:>1) Anything I say can be taken as "official". For instance, my opinion
>on CL/NCL could be seen as WotC's "official" view.
>2) I'm really busy. I'm continuing the "From the Library of Leng"
column
>on the Duelist Web site, and doing some other projects at work.
>3) There is no number three.>Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd
like
>some feedback before jumping in!
I would like to see you opinions. It would be a good idea for you to have
an tagline for rulings and official stuff and a different one for personal
opinions.
Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
Jon Wilkie (Wot...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote:: > Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to
: > spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
: > discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
: > your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
: > people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
: > argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
: > much, perhaps?: I'll try, but I'm hesitant for two reasons:: 1) Anything I say can be taken as "official". For instance, my opinion
: on CL/NCL could be seen as WotC's "official" view.
Both Shawn and Tom (on occasion) commented on the various debates which
continually rage around here. When they did, they made it very clear,
usually through an explicit sentence at the beginning of the post, that
they were speaking as players of the game and not in any sort of official
capacity. Tom also had two different .signatures (IIRC); one which said
'Official Netrep for WotC' and one which just had a regular old quote for
the rare occasions when he spoke as himself.
If you were to make it clear in a similar way that the opinion-post in
question was just that - opinion - then I do not see there being any sort
of fallout where people claim that WotC supports one side or the other
merely because you do so personally.
: 2) I'm really busy. I'm continuing the "From the Library of Leng" column: on the Duelist Web site, and doing some other projects at work.
This is a valid point, one which we can do little about. Given a choice,
I'd rather see you keep up on rulings-questions and not give out personal
comments. I don't think that anyone is suggesting an involvement along the
lines of the more rabid posters here (Hi Alec, Curt, Scott, James, etc!)
but merely an occasional comment when a subject flashes by about which you
hold strong personal opinions.
: 3) There is no number three.
This sort of language/argument/debating style is totally unpardonableand
certainly not the way we do things in _this_ Newsgroup. I don't know
where you've been hanging out previously that you think this is acceptable
behaviour, but be prepared to be torn to shreds over this one. Of course,
many might ignore such a breach of ettiquette as blatant as this, in the
hopes that it will be self-correcting behaviour, but others are doig so
just so that you'll give them enough rope to hang you with...
:-) :-) <-- (smileys for the humour impaired.)
: Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd like: some feedback before jumping in!
Jump away! Leap before you look! Come on in - the water's fine!
Still not Nicole...
Shane H.W. Travis | Unquestionably, there is progress. The average
ro...@duke.usask.ca | American now pays out twice as much in taxes as
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan | he formerly got in wages. -- H. L. Mencken
On 23 Nov 1996 04:40:18 GMT, curt...@aol.com wrote:
>Wot...@aol.com (Jon Wilkie) writes:
>
>In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang)
>wrote:
>>>> Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to
>>> spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
>>> discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
>>> your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
>>> people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
>>> argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
>>> much, perhaps?>>>I'll try, but I'm hesitant for two reasons:>>>1) Anything I say can be taken as "official". For instance, my opinion
>>on CL/NCL could be seen as WotC's "official" view.
Just make it clear, in a different sig file or a note somewhere in the
post that you're speaking in an unofficial capacity. That would be
fine with me and with most people, I'm sure. And if people have
problems with being able to tell if something is your opinion or that
of WotC, when there are notes telling them which a particular post is,
then they need to have their heads looked at.
>>2) I'm really busy. I'm continuing the "From the Library of Leng">column>>on the Duelist Web site, and doing some other projects at work.
S'fine. I have college applications and homework on my back. There
are reasons that people don't post all that often; we just do it when
we find time. The same would apply to you, I assume.
>>3) There is no number three.
;)
>>Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd
>>like some feedback before jumping in!>>I would like to see you opinions. It would be a good idea for you to have
>an tagline for rulings and official stuff and a different one for personal
>opinions.
>
>Curt Adams (curt...@aol.com)
First, Curt, I must congratulate you on taking up Jon on the ptang,
ptang.(etc...) message header. ;)
Second, I would like to back up curt in his request for your personal
opinions, which should be held under a different tagline than that
which you use for official rulings. I don't know if Ptang, or some
other handle, would be appropriate, but it might come out easier if
you just made a distinction between Scalpel and Jon Wilke.
Something along the lines of "Scapel" is used only on official
rulings, and Jon Wilkie for personal opinions in ongoing discussions.
As long as you don't attach the WotC netrep section of your sig file,
or add on a "speaking in an unofficial capacity" addenum, then no one
should get confused over whether it's Jon the netizen or Scalpel the
netrep speaking.
Anyway, It's nice to see you paying attention to us maniacs here....
Alec Chang, ptang, ptang, ptang, ptang, ptang, ptang, wibble Cthulhu.
:P'
Jon,
I think it might be interesting to hear your opinionson these questions
that pop up. We don't have any insight into the way you guys think about
the game except what we can infer from the cards, rules and
rulings/errata. I would enjoy hearing how the game works for you.
Additionally, if you gave us your opinions we could have a give-and-take
with you that might be valuable for you when you go to the rules team. If
they tell you something that we've already hashed out with you on the
group you could bring up our points to them (politely, of course) and not
just have us pointing out what we feel are problems with the ruling to you
after you post it to the group. (Does this make sense?)
I am trying to say that each of the two groups, rules team and newsgroup,
might get to understand each others perceptions of the game a bit better
through you since you are the only person who can exchange with both. Of
course that might put a lot more pressure on you...
Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions but won't ask you to sacrifice
your work or your social life just for that. Glad you are here.
Doug Dunaway
Jon Wilkie wrote:
>
> In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote:<snip>> Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd like
> some feedback before jumping in!
>> -------------------------------------------------------------
> Jon Wilkie Wot...@aol.com
> a.k.a."Scalpel" Customer Service, Wizards of the Coast
> "This isn't going to have a happy ending"
> -Detective Somerset, Se7en
> -------------------------------------------------------------
Go for it. Your free time permitting, feel free to jump and and contibute intelligent
comments to ongoing discussions.
If you're worried about it being "taken as official," maybe putting a disclaimer before
your comments is acceptable?
Join us if you dare! ;-)
Merlisk
Jon Wilkie (Wot...@aol.com) wrote:
: In article <3290567b...@news.lava.net>, te...@lava.net (Alec Chang) wrote:: >... that you probably don't want to go out on: > a limb with us rabid fanatics slavering underneath.... ;)
:
: Nah, that's not it at all! ;):
: > Oh, I don't suppose that you have time for this, and you might want to: > spare yourself the grief, but would you mind saying something in
: > discussions every once in a while? I, for one, would be interested in
: > your personal opinion, and what you can tell us about the opinions of
: > people at WotC. Now, if you don't want to get dragged into an
: > argument or debate, I can understand that, but if you don't mind too
: > much, perhaps?
:
: I'll try, but I'm hesitant for two reasons:
:
: 1) Anything I say can be taken as "official". For instance, my opinion
: on CL/NCL could be seen as WotC's "official" view.
Good point, if someone with any sense was making the WoTC
official line, WoTC's image would degrade.
However, I don't think that's a problem, just insert the words
"not official" at the top of all such postings.
: 2) I'm really busy. I'm continuing the "From the Library of Leng" column: on the Duelist Web site, and doing some other projects at work.
You're probably wasting time eating or something, aren't you? ;)
: Does anyone have any strong feelings on this one way or another? I'd like: some feedback before jumping in!
Well, you have to promise to be extreme, flagrant, bizarre and
uncompromising. Start out by asserting that, unofficially,
Celerity should be banned, and then remember to post hostile stuff
everytime anyone mis-spells anything to tell them what an itdiot they are.
Seriously, though, with the number of the jerks (such as yours truly)
posting on the internet, it seems obvious to me that the discourse
couldn't help but benefit from someone with a less negative alloquot of
good sense.
Garry