HELLO! WOC! HELLO!

Hi Methuselahs, Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near future, I propose we take action ourselves. I think it is imperitive that we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. What do you think? Am I over-reacting? Algustas *****If a man does not keep pace with companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away***** Henery David Thoreau, Walden

Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: >Hi Methuselahs, > Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is >going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near >future, I propose we take action ourselves. I think it is imperitive that >we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is >what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we >have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. >Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about >politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. > What do you think? Am I over-reacting? No, you're not over-reacting. But perhaps a quick note to the over-absent Shawn, copied to Matt Burke and/or others on the Rules Team requesting "an update on pending issues before the Rules Team and/or a schedule for Shawn's return" would be more appropriate. I'm in, regardless. Let me know when. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | One single fact can ruin a http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | perfectly good argument. Graphics Specialist and V:tES Rulemonger. |

>> Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is >>going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near >>future, I propose we take action ourselves. I think it is imperitive that >>we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is >>what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we >>have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. >>Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about >>politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. >> What do you think? Am I over-reacting? >No, you're not over-reacting. But perhaps a quick note to the over-absent >Shawn, copied to Matt Burke and/or others on the Rules Team requesting >"an update on pending issues before the Rules Team and/or a schedule for >Shawn's return" would be more appropriate. >I'm in, regardless. Let me know when. As am I Scott's idea should probably be tried now and the mass mailing can be organized over the next few days. Stu -.sigless [ quoted text not captured ]

On 7 Oct 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: > Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: > > Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is [not] > >going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near > >future, I propose we take action ourselves. Hear, Hear... > >I think it is imperitive that > >we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is > >what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we > >have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. To second this, I also think that we need to distill these questions down to a _small_ core, not only so that we will be taken seriously (and not regarded as "whiners"), but so that they can take the time to look at them. Here are some I find more important: 1. Special Floor Rules: Are the disallowed repeat actions only disallowed if they are successful or if they are attempted (i.e, is it, no minion may attempt the same action, or no minion may perform the same action, twice) 2. Ian issues... ('nuff said) 3. LSJ's list of unresolved things... LSJ, please send them to me so I can pick through some of the more important things, as I see them. Maybe we can get consensus on it. 4. Shawn's lack of presence here. I remember reading somewhere (before he was netrep) that he was often a lurker, but this absence is ridiculous. > >Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about > >politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. Politely is _very_ good. > > What do you think? Am I over-reacting? No, I don't think so. The release of the Sabbat will be _CRITICAL_(!!!)! As I have said before, I believe that ever since Jyhad was created, the Design Team has consistently taken the wrong turn when given the opportunity to choose paths. I know too many people who are letting Jyhad go because of their disgust with WotC's treatment of the game. The Sabbat will be the last straw if it is as broken as I fear it could be. > No, you're not over-reacting. But perhaps a quick note to the over-absent > Shawn, copied to Matt Burke and/or others on the Rules Team requesting > "an update on pending issues before the Rules Team and/or a schedule for > Shawn's return" would be more appropriate. Appropriate, shmapropriate. Politeness is one thing, but I think it would be appropriate for a NetRep to be responding to the group they are supposed to be. (If you read this Shawn, RESPOND, damnit!) > I'm in, regardless. Let me know when. As am I, Algustas. Lead the way, oh fearless leader. :) [Reply-to:sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu] @ The Corrupter - Adrian Lee Sullivan @ GAT/CS/WS R+++* r(+)>++ # Gamer Coffee-Addict Scripter Author # C(+++)$ USX+$ N++ e+* @#$ Comments ? sull...@cslab.uwlax.edu $#@ tv(+)> X++ b++(+++) @#$ <http://cslab.uwlax.edu/~sulli_al/jyhad> $#@ PS+&-+ PE&-&++ z*+?

Algustas (arob...@efn.org) wrote: : Hi Methuselahs, : Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is : going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near : future, I propose we take action ourselves. I think it is imperitive that : we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is : what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we : have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. : Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about : politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. : What do you think? Am I over-reacting? First of all, with regards to the Sabbat expansion: Um, actually, I think you _are_ overreacting. Particularly since, if you have been following Shawn's responses to the Ian debate, that all "decisions" which were going to be made about the Sabbat have already been made, nothing will now be changed w.r.t. to the printed cards or printed rules or marketing as a standalone expansion which it isn't, and that the Sabbat is more than likely is being printed as we speak. In other words, timing is no longer as sensitive. This might have been an effective strategy six months ago when the Sabbat was still being formulated, but the possibility that something will change now is minimal. What difference will it really make if we get a Sabbat ruling now or after release, knowing that it will be yet another addendum which will not be included in the released product in any form? Second of all, in regards to the tournament rules questions: Again, I think you may be over-reacting. Why do you need so desperately to have the official rules clarified? If you are running a non-sanctioned tournament then you should make a decision regarding these policies as tournament rules and publicize them beforehand, as you would do with rules regarding timing, or seating, or anything else pertaining to your tournie. If you are about to participate in a tournament and want to know how the rules will be interpreted, then you should contact those that are running the tournament to determine the policy which will be followed. If you are going to run a sanctioned tournament, you should have more direct contacts to WotC as it is. Remember that even if Shawn were to make some kind of ruling here on the net, it is another thing entirely to be sure that this ruling is included in all distribution channels of the DC tournament rules. And finally, in any case: Just sending email with these questions to anyone that you might have an email address for at WotC is more likely than not only going to get people angry at you. Shawn is currently the designated NetRep. As such, it is his responsibility to communicate with us, not whomever it is that you might find an email address for. If we really want WotC to respect us and our opinions, we need to respect their process, whether it is broken or not. -spongy

Look, I'm as concerned as the next guy about Shawn not being around these past few weeks, but is harassing him further the right answer? When Shawn was posting, he posted sporadically, and often complained of people yelling at him and blaming him for all the company's ills. It seems like every time he posted, he'd say "Hi! Here I am! I represent WotC!" and everyone else would say "He's to blame for all of the problems with this game! Get him!", and people would harangue him until he stopped posting. At least, that's how I saw it. I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. With Sabbat coming out soon, he might be very busy. Heck, he might even have quit. I agree that it is unfortunate that we seem to have lost our netrep in one way or the other, but if we keep harassing WotC and their employees, they might stop supporting this game whatsoever. Mail-bombing WotC is probably not a good idea. Making some inquiries by e-mail is a good idea, but I don't think that we need to be more belligerent than we already have been. If you _do_ go through with this plan, I _urge_ you to be as polite and understanding as possible. James -- | James Hamblin | "It's not Magic, kid. It's evil." | | je...@cornell.edu | -- Tom Servo, "MST3K: Pod People" |

theCorrupter <adr...@picard.cs.wisc.edu> writes: >On 7 Oct 1996, L. Scott Johnson wrote: >> Algustas <arob...@efn.org> writes: >> >I think it is imperitive that >> >we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is >> >what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we >> >have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. >To second this, I also think that we need to distill these questions down >to a _small_ core, not only so that we will be taken seriously (and not >regarded as "whiners"), but so that they can take the time to look at >them. Here are some I find more important: >3. LSJ's list of unresolved things... LSJ, please send them to me so I can >pick through some of the more important things, as I see them. Maybe we >can get consensus on it. I will post the UAQ here (again) for my own benefit as well as to give Shawn a heads-up in case some post from this group is accidentally forwarded to him :-). You are welcome to distill this down to whatever you like - although I don't regard any of it as petty of whiny (unlike the Kherebutu-in-empty-library question). These are all real issues that need answers. Old-and-gray questions: (This list last posted on 9/11/96 - a repost of the 8/20/96 repost of the 7/30/96 initial summary of the questions left hanging from Tom's reign.) 6/20/96: "Cannot commit diablerie" is a function of card text but "Non-Camarilla" is a funcion of clan. Why the distinction? 6/26/96: Why does the acting minion's S:CE resolve before the defender's S:CE, when the rulebook states that thy resolve simultaneously? 7/01/96: Why can't you play Rotschreck in response to aggaravated damage dealt by non-strike cards (like DBR, Pulled Fangs, etc.)? 7/08/96: Blood to Water can still be played at the beginning of a round, when range is irrelevant. Why add useless errata saying that it can only be played at close range? 7/31/96: Who is the controller of Phobia and Temptation (the "you" seems to be referring to the player who played the card, not the one who, by definition of minion cards, is the controller of it once it is in play)? 7/31/96: Is Bastard Sword a hand strike, or is Burning Wrath not? (This will affect Scorpion Sting unless errata is forthcoming). CLARIFICATION: What card text denotes a "hand strike"? 8/02/96: When can Press-step events be played? (before presses, after presses, or at any time?) ------- Comparatively recent stuff: Anathema: Is the "only kicks in if the vampire is reduced to 0 blood due to effects errata? Would that allow a vampire to burn his own blood paying costs (of combat cards) to "save" himself from Anathema? Tomb of Ramses: (was cited as being revised by the RT). What's the scoop? Also: If I steal a Tomb of Ramses III from someone (via Disputed Territory), what happens? 1) The Tomb continues to function normally, giving the target vampire (in someone else's uncontrolled region) a blood for every transfer I make to one of my uncontrolled vampires. 2) The Tomb ceases to function. 3) I put the Tomb on one of my vampires when I steal it (since Tomb text has innapropriately used the "place on vampire" instruction instead of "name a vampire" or "select a target" text that a *location* should have). [ quoted text not captured ]

Algustas <arob...@efn.org> wrote: >Hi Methuselahs, > Since it is pretty clear that Shawn (or anyone else at WOTC) is >going to answer our questions about these new tournament rules in the near >future, I propose we take action ourselves. I think it is imperitive that >we establish contact with WOTC before The Sabbat is released, so here is >what I propose: We make a list of people at WOTC who's E-mail addresses we >have, and we make a second list of our important, unanswered questions. >Then, on an agreed upon day, we all very politely (I'm serious about >politely) E-mail our questions to everyone on the list. > What do you think? Am I over-reacting? No, I don't think you over reacting at all. I have been trying to get answers to certain questions for about a month now. I feel like going postal on WOTC... Tell me when you want to do it. Steve Bucy

jam...@dgii.com (James Puzzo) writes: >And finally, in any case: > Just sending email with these questions to anyone that you might have an > email address for at WotC is more likely than not only going to get people > angry at you. Shawn is currently the designated NetRep. As such, it is > his responsibility to communicate with us, not whomever it is that you might > find an email address for. > If we really want WotC to respect us and our opinions, we need to respect > their process, whether it is broken or not. The process isn't broken. It simply isn't being used. Shawn doesn't read this group. He has read it about twice a month, at the first and 15th. He is late in his schedule currently, and the schedule is insufficient. As you say, it is his responsibility to communicate with us. He isn't holding up to his end. To boot, even when he reads, he can't provide any useful answers, because he doesn't know them, because the RT (which Shawn claims meets every week to discuss VtES issues) hasn't addressed them. The process is a good one, but only when it is used (see Tom's posts on the "other" game's newsgroup - or as archived from this group on DejaNews. In the Era of Tom, the WotC presence was respectable and timely. When Tom needed the RT for something, he got them (and he said that he was going). Shawn merely waves the "I'll pass this to the RT" flag, and that's the end of it). Is it Shawn's fault? No. He probably really does have other things on his schedule. It's time to find someone (or some group) that can maintain access to the group for more than one day every fortnight. It's also time to find someone to get the RT to at least talk about the issues raised here (and elsewhere). Get *them* angry? So be it. Karma and all that. -- L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to http://www.math.sc.edu/cgi-bin/sjohnson/home | achieve vice. [ quoted text not captured ]

James Hamblin <je...@cornell.edu> writes: >Look, I'm as concerned as the next guy about Shawn not being around >these past few weeks, but is harassing him further the right answer? >When Shawn was posting, he posted sporadically, and often complained of >people yelling at him and blaming him for all the company's ills. Only about private e-mail - he didn't consider the newsgroup posts to be confrontational (at least, back when he was around) >It seems like every time he posted, he'd say "Hi! Here I am! I represent >WotC!" and everyone else would say "He's to blame for all of the >problems with this game! Get him!", and people would harangue him until >he stopped posting. At least, that's how I saw it. Nah. We were all very welcoming when he first showed up. We welcomed the prospect of having a Net.Rep who wasn't bogged down in his support of the other game. I supported him on this group, on my web page, in private e-mail, and F2F at GenCon. I sent him suggestions on the prelimary look at the Sabbat cards. I sent him (via private e-mail) lists of questions, and thoughts on problem-solving. And then he was gone. He came back for a second, handed out some rulings (batting 1 for 3 on his answers, and only answering 3 out of a dozen or more). He appologized for his absence. And then he was gone again. This is not the way to support a game. Shawn seems to be very earnest in his desire to see the game do well, but this is not the way to help. A NetRep should be on the Net more often. And should represent the net to the Rules Team, and vice-versa. There is a breakdown here. >I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. With Sabbat >coming out soon, he might be very busy. Heck, he might even have quit. Then someone needs to replace him. Tom never got "too busy" when expansions came out - even answering our questions within days after a deluge of question stemming from a new expansion to that other game. >I agree that it is unfortunate that we seem to have lost our netrep in >one way or the other, but if we keep harassing WotC and their employees, >they might stop supporting this game whatsoever. As opposed to now, which is "no visible support". A simple request to be acknowledged (from many of the netizens on this group) would go a long way to getting some motion from that inertia-stalled beast of the coast. >Mail-bombing WotC is probably not a good idea. Making some inquiries by >e-mail is a good idea, but I don't think that we need to be more >belligerent than we already have been. If you _do_ go through with this >plan, I _urge_ you to be as polite and understanding as possible. No one suggested mail-bombing. Simply all of us mailing our concerns in a time-synchronous manner. Not to kill their systems, but to get their attention. [ quoted text not captured ]

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: > >I'm still inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. With Sabbat > >coming out soon, he might be very busy. Heck, he might even have quit. > > Then someone needs to replace him. Tom never got "too busy" when > expansions came out - even answering our questions within days > after a deluge of question stemming from a new expansion to that > other game. Hmm, my question, Scott, is why they haven't approached you to be their netrep? Despite my unintentionally caustic comments on another thread, I do have a great deal of respect in your ability to have as firm of a handle on this game as you do. I think you would be a hell of a lot better than Shawn or Tom (no offense intended guys), the only (minor) problem would be your physical location (not being in Washington and all that). In this day and age, that shouldn't be a big problem. -- R. Brian Smith tam...@nurk.com "To date, your phone tips have led to the capture of 400 dangerous fugitives ‹ not one alien, not one sewer monster, not even a vampire. . . . GET WITH IT PEOPLE!" -Gillian Anderson

sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: >DejaNews. In the Era of Tom, the WotC presence was respectable and timely. >When Tom needed the RT for something, he got them (and he said that >he was going). Shawn merely waves the "I'll pass this to the RT" flag, >and that's the end of it). >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to In Support of LSJ, I will make my mind known to you. Tom often responded with answers that we questioned the wisdom of and occasionally gave us rulings we outright ignored. But that was a difference of opinion that we had and we argued with him and he was responsive and receptive to our problems. Presently we have a near total lack of presence in this forum of WotC empowered representatives. A wind up period is to be expected but we are now out of our patience for a wind up period and are now seeking to take action to demand more omnipresent informed representation. Stu

Here I will respond to Stuart and LSJ both. First off, let me say that I am as upset with the support from WotC as you two (and others) and that I think we SHOULD be getting better and more timely support. In fact, I completely agree with the comments by LSJ. The ONLY thing I was disagreeing with in my original message was the method proposed. Stuart J. Pieloch (st...@atl.mindspring.com) wrote: : sjoh...@math.scarolina.edu (L. Scott Johnson) wrote: : >DejaNews. In the Era of Tom, the WotC presence was respectable and timely. : >When Tom needed the RT for something, he got them (and he said that : >he was going). Shawn merely waves the "I'll pass this to the RT" flag, : >and that's the end of it). : >L. Scott Johnson (sjoh...@math.sc.edu) | Virtue is the failure to Indeed, Tom was an excellent support representative. He was an example of someone meeting and exceeding the expectations of the process. Shawn is no Tom. However, it certainly appears (to me) that his responses to our newsgroup are only indicative of the support V:TES gets in general from WotC. And yes, it would be nice to get better support, but (being realistic) I don't see that sending email to people demanding better support (however kindly it is worded) will help. : Tom often responded with answers that we questioned the wisdom of and : occasionally gave us rulings we outright ignored. But that was a : difference of opinion that we had and we argued with him and he was : responsive and receptive to our problems. But the key was that Tom WANTED to respond and tried his best to get us answers, clarifications, etc. Tom has moved on, and it appears that there IS NO resource which is willing to do as much as Tom did. : Presently we have a near total lack of presence in this forum of WotC : empowered representatives. A wind up period is to be expected but we : are now out of our patience for a wind up period and are now seeking : to take action to demand more omnipresent informed representation. You are absolutely correct. And the squeaky wheel does get the grease and all that. However, we need to squeak in such a manner that we will actually be listened to. To LSJ -- yes, there is a process in place to provide rulings, etc., to the newsgroup. Yes, this process appears to be broken. However, WotC also has a mechanism for the handling of complaints. It is THIS process that we need to respect. I don't object to the attempts to get better responses. What I objected to was the assertion that we should collect as many WotC email addresses that we could find and all email our complaints to all of these people at the same time. This does nothing but make the group members appear to be a group of people who do not respect the employees of WotC by sending them messages which may not necessarily pertain to them or their performance. If anything should be done, email should be sent to Shawn. Ideally, perhaps, email could also be sent to the WotC complaint department or whomever it was that assigned Shawn to this task, or the V:TES product manager. If you feel that sending things to Shawn may make things worse by putting him on the defensive, imagine how someone completely detached from the situation would feel if they received this message calling for V:TES support simply because someone happened to know their email address. -spongy

This might be a slow way of getting a responce from WotC but the use of snail mail, sent dirrectly to WotC might just get a responce. In the letter, not only ask the questions that we all wish to get answered but also a POLITE complaint at the way Jyhad(A.K.A. V:TES) is turning out to be like M:TG. If WotC recieved about say 100 letters from fans of Jyhad all with the same message and questions; I believe they just might take a look at their fan base and might just try to see what the fans would like to see in the game. If they don't look at what the fans they are basicly inviting the slow demise that M:TG is beginning to see. Just my 2 cents. thanx for listening. ============================================================================ * Isn't it amazing how almost all female characters come out of a battle * * untouched and when they are injured, almostalways heal without a scratch * ============================================================================ *************Zelf the Worox at andb...@prairie.nodak.edu******************* ============================================================================