[I wanted to respond to Shawn's Original post, but couldn't think of a
Good way to start it. Alec has, and so I'll follow up]
On Mon, 26 Aug 1996, Alec Chang wrote:
> In article <322201...@castle.wizards.com>, sw...@castle.wizards.com
> says...
> >First off, I refuse to answer beligerent e-mail.
[snip]
> >I chose to be the NetRep for this newsgroup because I care about the
> >game and the people that play it. Still, I don't like personal attacks
> >(my NetPersonality is that of a lurker, commenting only when I think it
> >is necessary). Sure, they're bound to happen from some people, but I
> >don't have to put up with them.
> No, you don't, and you shouldn't. However, 'Belligerent' may have
> different meanings for different people. I, for one, hope that my post
> in response to your response to Doug's comments on Ian Forestal was not
> interpreted as 'belligerent'.
I also, hope that you don't feel I was being belligerent. Harsh I would
expect. If you felt I was being belligerent, I don't ever mind being
told so. Conflicting opinions and observations are always welcome in my
mailbox.
[snip]
> >My apologies to those who are not responsible for this outrage I
> >currently have. It is always a few people who ruin it for others. In
> >short, I am a Network Representative, not a target. Please treat me as
> >such, and we will have no difficulties. Thank you.
> I would hope that no one on this newsgroup would treat you as a target,
> Shawn. As our only means of communicating with WotC, that might cause us
> a lot of problems if you got peeved at us and stopped responding...
I must agree with Alec. I don't consider you a target. I do, however,
percieve you as the line through which communication with WotC happens.
If I have caused you outrage, I do apologize. Be aware, however, that my
comments about the design team reflect the outrage that many people I've
talked to have felt since the release of the original set.
> But more seriously, I don't think that most of the people on this
> newsgroup are attacking you personally. If there are any cases of this
> being openly posted, I did not read them. What I have seen is commentary
> on the balance of the game, which sometimes slipped into a generalized
> condemnation of rules or design teams, without supporting evidence in
> that particular post. The arguments have been supported at various
> times.. just not in those post, and are not supportable when being
> expressed in ways which seem to be over-reactions.
This is much the case. The arguments have been aired so many times
(usually without dissent) about the design team's mistakes, that
occasionally it is easy to forget to make all of the requisite supports
for an arguement.
> I, for one, am unsure If you(Shawn) interpreted my earlier post as
> belligerent. If you did, then I assure you that it was not meant as a
> personal attack but as a commentary upon the state of the game and
> communications between players of Jyhad/V:tES and WotC. If you didn't,
> please tell me so I can have my paranoia eased(it's not easy being a
> malkavian....).
I would like to echo Alec's statement. As I've said, my post wasn't
meant to be anything beligerent, and I hope it wasn't interpreted as such.
[snip]
> Too much rides on our ability to convey our concerns to Shawn and WotC by
> extension to let us make him ignore us because he thinks that we're being
> unreasonable.
Exactly.
@ 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*+?