Depends on what you mean by "knowledgeable"—remember, we're talking about a stalwart proponent of the fixed-TN system, and someone whose solution to wireless matrix weirdness was by-default at-range brainhacking.

That said, yes, he is more experienced with the process than your average bear.

(Also, I notice I got quoted, but it didn't seem like your post was a reply to or continuation of mine—was it intended to be?)

~J

Believe it or not, I don't keep in touch with the freelancers like I used to. Finding out that the official SR forums have a super-secret freelancer subforum and my "friends" and coworkers decided to start a thread specifically to bitch about me put the kibosh on our relationships. I don't ask for things and few people, if any, send me things anymore. So if someone leaks a document, I'm rarely the first to know. I don't pretend to have the low-down on the current goings-on at CGL as much as I did when I actually had an oar in the water over there. I find it very credible when Critias says the current crop of freelancers are working to rectify and address the problems brought to light in War!. Unlike Critias, I'm less inclined to be positive about the whole situation - because as good as the freelancers intentions may be, they don't matter.

I freelanced for SR for about five years, the last bit under Jason. I don't claim to have been perfect in my time - my mistakes are stuck in print - but I have some perspective here. The biggest problems with Shadowrun at CGL are not at the bottom, with the freelancers or artists. The biggest problems remain at the top, with the Shadowrun line developer and the people pulling his strings. I've talked to and worked with Aaron Pavao, Brandie Tahlvin, David Hill and others. They are good writers. A good line developer with a guiding vision, solid understanding of the setting and rules, and strong editorial voice can pull fantastic product out of those people. That is, sadly, what Shadowrun is missing right now.

It's not a new problem. Critias would not be aware of this, but back when I was freelancing the problems that War! is burdened down with are the exact same problems freelancers were fighting trying to put together Sixth World Almanac, Corporate Guide, 10 Jackpointers, Runner's Toolkit and other products. Lack of vision. Sloppy or non-existent editing - and failure to incorporate proofing from freelancers. I cannot begin to tell you how many freelancers filled pages of proofing comments and changes that went ignored and the book sent off to the printers with known errors...and I still couldn't tell you why. My personal concerns about the War!/Spy Games plot were voiced and evident from the beginning, and from the beginning they were shouted down or ignored.

That's what made War! the product it is: lack of vision, lack of understanding, ignorance, outright negligence. For all that, there is good material buried in this book, solid writing, some nifty gear, and I think the authors should be proud of that material. The mistakes, however, are less on the freelancers than on the people that commissioned the writing, who failed to organize the material, who permitted gross misunderstandings and errors to perpetuate in the text. Basically, the bulk of the blame for War! needs to fall on the Shadowrun line developer for not doing his job.

Sorry, I meant to quote someone else who more directly referenced the Frank Trollman worship. And yes, I am referring to Frank as knowledgeable not because all his ideas are good but because he's obviously spent a great deal of time thinking and writing about game design.

I'm not wading through the 30+ pages of the first War! thread to find it, but believe me, I mentioned that conversations had already started, and changes were already being made, over there. Somewhere. I'm not surprised it got lost in the shuffle (re: noise to signal ratio I've mentioned a few times).

And, just for the record, please don't take me as any sort of official spin control guy. I'm not. I'm just someone that's been a fan -- and a vocal one, some of you likely remember my previous bannings and such -- for a long, long, time, and I'm not going to stop posting to various forums I like just because I freelance, now. That said, I'm not going to turn a blind eye when I see utter nonsense being spewed, insults being thrown around, etc, etc...which is how I find myself in my current predicament. For the most part, official communications are taking place via the official forums, but since I'm still hanging out here on DS, I'm addressing what issues I feel comfortable addressing.

When people say things that are not true, and insult people (with Nazi sympathizer claims, for instance) that I don't think deserve it, I'm gonna pipe up. What's more, when leaked documents show an impartial picture, at best, I want to make people aware of what they're not seeing, as much as my NDA will let me.

Right, that was my point. Part of the reason the side you're complaining about being only part of the picture is because actually it's the entire picture—where by "picture" we mean "publicly available information". On one side we have specific and detailed damning information. On the other, some vague statements about how the issues are known and the process is being improved. You're not an official spin control guy giving authorized detailed statements, and you're also not leaking anything related to the process improvement—not to say that you should, assuming you want to stay on friendly terms with the company, but it gives you a little bit of a detail gap. Step back and look at that, and I think you'll agree that it's not reasonable to expect to be given the same kind of weight.

~J

One thing I hope people keep in mind about that information is that it is not complete. A month or two ago, the mysterious leak mysteriously leaked part of a brainstorming session, and the mysterious leaks buddies had a lot of fun tearing it apart, as though it were in print, in our latest book -- not as though it were the opening comments of a brainstorming session that never went anywhere.

Likewise, a project spec alone doesn't tell you what the end product of a book will be.

However, the epileptic trees made it into the book.

And a project that is about the SR/ED crossover should have a bit more required reading than that, provided that the same people working on War! also do work there.

Okay, so you posted both of these transcripts so I assume you are prepared to talk about them. I agree that the topic in the freelancer forum (especially the title) was ill-advised. Only Critias/Rusty and maybe Jason Hardy came out of that smelling like roses.

But here's the bit from the freelancer topic that caught my eye, especially in light of the developer chat transcript you posted:

I cannot know your state of mind and level of cumulative frustration by the time that developer chat happened. That said, I found your behavior in that chat to be confrontational and abrasive. I make no judgment about whether or not your attitude was justified. I can't make a judgment from text only about whether or not you even realized you were being abrasive. What I am saying is that I agree with the general sentiment behind Malachi's second point and I see evidence to support its application to you when I read the developer chat. It would be extremely difficult for me, personally, to work with someone who was confrontational like that all the time; especially when most of the interaction is not going to be in person, where body language and tone of voice can take some of the harshness out of the language used.

I know I'm sounding like I want to be your therapist and for that I apologize. However, it is a little more personal to me because years ago I ended a long-term relationship partially because of issues just like this. So I would just ask you to consider how your criticism sounds to the people who receive it, even when you are 100% correct and their ideas suck donkey balls. I believe it is possible to be diplomatic and still "stick to your guns" creatively. I hope you can do that in whatever creative endeavors you find yourself in the future.


This is, indeed, a very serious problem. It is incomprehensible that feedback would get ignored like that. My mind gropes for a plausible explanation.

Malachi and I have talked about this, and I generally disagree with his assessments. Ask any of the people I've partnered with on a project and I think they can tell you I'm generally very accommodating of the ideas and opinions of others. The exception is when I am very angry, which is often the case when the opinions presented are very bad; then my tact flies right out the window. In that particular chat, I was very angry, and the ideas were exceptionally bad. That was the same chat where immediately afterwards Jason Hardy asked for me to be removed from the freelancer pool. I don't say that as an excuse of my behavior, but as an explanation.

So, seems like what everyone need is to reread the SR books...

Y'know, as someone who has gone through dozens of these documents, some of them filtered carefully by the line developer, and some of them not: vetting and integrating these comments is a _hell_ of a lot of work. Because, frankly, the quality level and accuracy of the submitted corrections varies wildly; some of them ignore the Shadowrun style guide; some of them try to re-voice characters or sections that don't need re-voicing; some of them fix one problem but create another; some claim that a reference/rule/fact is incorrect but don't cite a source, one correction may create an inconsistency elsewhere in the book that isn't noticed, etc.

Could every single Shadowrun book ever be proofed better? Absolutely. But adding more proofreaders is not magic pixie dust, and using them well is hard frickin' work.

You're right of course, Adam. Proofing is hard work for all involved. However, I also remember how devilishly hard I worked to get PACKS fixed...after it had been screwed up by the inclusion of the playtester's comments...and Jason wouldn't even look at the changes until I dragged Mark Dynna in to vet them. The exact same sort of problems cropped up with Corp Guide, and the Sixth World Almanac. (Then I pulled my drafts and the chapters had to be re-done.)

That is true - I've proofed before, and it's a pain in the ass. However, what concerns me about these books - as I've said, and as I'm sure people tire of hearing - we're seeing errors in these books that should have been caught after layout was finished. Basic grammar and spelling, layout pieces that have been misplaced or repeated, poor layout decisions, and so on. It's been said that these are being worked on and the process is being reviewed - this is good news!

As someone who's proofread both creative pieces and hard news articles, though, these are things that lead one to wonder which copy of-well, the copy is being used for the layout process.

Regarding the beta of products? Funny thing there...it's something the Battletech line did with their most recent RPG rules. Beta'd the product ($10 for the PDF, free upgrade to the full PDF version when released), and errata was incorporated for release, with fan feedback. Even a few system changes were implemented. It's only one product (and I'd love to see it done more), but it has been done by CGL.

Also, the fans doing fact-checking work was mentioned. That's another thing the BT line incorporated. Many of the folks that make up the fact-check/errata crew (and the Master Unit List crew) came in as an unofficial fan assistance group, then moving into a more official capacity. I've had the recent perception that there seems to be a much bigger freelancer/staff pool for Battletech than Shadowrun. No idea if that is the case, but there seem to be a whole lot of folks involved over on the other side of the fence (Aerospace Cabal, the Battlecorps folks, the MUL team, the fact-checkers, etc.) that don't seem to have equivalents on the SR side.

And no, I have no answers why there's a big disconnect between the organization level that appears to be found on the BT side, but lacking on the SR side. There's a world of difference between the (relatively) minor errors found in recent BT products, and the issues found in War. I just picked up War today, and was really disappointed in the number of proofing errors, after being away from SR for a while.

Edit: Don't take the above as statement of fact, simply statement of the observations (right or wrong) of this particular fan of both lines.

If by a number of people you mean 'one guy who is a non native speaker and probably being an idiot' then yeah, Stansteele (I think that's how you spell his user name) is on my ignore list.

Blaming Hermit because you think Stansteele is an morally reprehensible is missing the point completely. I don't hold you accountable for Bull's actions either. Hermit isn't even FROM the gaming den. He has since created an account yes to post in the thread about the alt.war fan story. Seriously, if you're going to launch a barrage of accusations of sockpuppetry and trolling, some basic fact checking would be a great idea. I'd start with the posts where Stansteele says hecreated those accounts, or if you go to the offical boards, the post where he gets banned for same.



Hermit is the guy who kicked off the idea of a fan produced alternative war. He's being pretty genuinely productive, saying otherwise seems disingenuous to me - unless you think creating an alternative to a CGL product isn't being productive.

To be fair, I DID copy Frank's review into Battleshop in a fit of rage where I was unable to write any coherent review, myself. That's why they call strong anger 'mad'. I stand behind what he writes there though, and wouldn't differ much in terms of content. That's probably bad style and will be changed.

I have no clue on other stuff and don't own any 'Frank Trollman' accounts, Stahlseele did.

As for where I giggle about how clever I am? Feel free to quote me 'giggling'. And have a lapdance in your champagne room on me.

Hell yes. Misty's been aching to show me her moves.

In other words, a blatantly obvious problem was not addressed at all, until customers pointed out was was blatantly obvious. Either nobody felt responsible for quality control, or nobody dared to speak up and say "that's junk", or those who spoke up were ignored.
Now the mess in plain daylight and the company is in full headless chicken mode, because it suddenly occured to them that they've been producing crap. It's not like something never seen before, just it does not tend to end well...

If CGL & Topps want some unbiased feedback...

I've still got my credit from the ungodly late shipping of the SR4A Collector's edition and the more recent Store Credit they sent out.

I've not used either one as of yet. Then again, I've not bought any new products with my hard earned cash either. Hell, nothing from CGL even made my Christmas list this year (I always put something SR or BT on it). Why? None of the products released since then have met my minimum bar of being at least equal in quality to SR4A Collector's Edition and earlier works.

I find it greatly amusing and distrssing at the same time that earlier editions had better proofing (or better hiding of errors) and were in better chape (IMO) with regards to continuity and inter-relation of their various source books.

I may just have to write to Topps and let them know why I have refused to buy any CGL products. I like SR and BT. I'd love to have a reason to buy more books for both settings.

A few quick comments:

1) The writers being defensive: I'm sure it hurts on some level to be a writer, turn in what you think is a great idea, and have it torn apart by the fans. I'm also quite certain that it hurts to be told you can't write, a chimp can randomly string together a better sentence, that literally anyone (including an illiterate illegal alien that doesn't even know English) or a drooling crackhead can do a better job then you did, etc. But I think there are two points that are being forgotten by the writers:

A) Catalyst may sign the checks, but the fanbase is the power behind those checks and if the fans aren't happy with your work it doesn't matter how much Jason Hardy compliments you.
B) You did choose to put your work up for public consumption and review. You had to know, especially after seeing how people act online, that your work would be ripped to shreds and you would be called on it. If you can't deal with vocal fans saying your work wasn't worth the cash they paid, either take their criticisms to heart or find another job.

2) That said, there are some incredibly bad ideas in War! Turning Auschwitz into another dungeon for raiding stands out. There are a lot of half-thought out ideas like the Slow spell and monofiber grenades. There's aren't bad ideas, but they really needed to be thought out more. I don't know if it just happened that the playtesters didn't find and exploit the flaws or if they did and were ignored by the book developer or what, but there are some serious game mechanic issues. There are layout issues, the purpose of the book versus what the fanbase was lead to believe War! would be, etc. No matter what the intent of War! was, it is a very flawed product.

3) These flaws aren't unknown obsticles either. Grammar and spelling should be caught everytime by someone, especially thanks to Spellcheck programs. If the layout people and developer are doing their jobs we wouldn't have contradictory information on the same page or big gaping holes in the product like no maps. Someone really dropped the ball on the production end of this book. I'm glad to hear that steps are being taken to look into making sure this doesn't happen again, but it shouldn't have happened in the first place, especially since the guy in charge (Hardy) isn't doing this for the very first time.

4) About using the fanbase as factcheckers/idea input: simply put, it's a double edged sword. Yeah, many fans are very knowledgeble about every snippit of information that ever was written about BattleTech or Shadowrun or whatever, but it has the danger of becoming a clique of fanboys and asskissers. I think BT fell into that trap by using the fans that never said anything critical to do so much of the grunt work on the website. They drew of the online cliques that already existed and just shut out the people that were saying "wait, this product sucks." There's no loyal opposition, so to speak, nobody to say "this is a bad idea" or "this mechanic really doesn't work" or "do you even read the old stuff?" It also has the danger of setting up a superfan situation where it can be lorded over regular fans. It's bad enough when the writers and developers act like asshats towards the fans (think all the snide remarks or "we know more than you do" cracks), but when you start letting fans who have weaseled themselves into the developers' good graces do it, either as fact checkers or mods or contributors or whatever, it can lead to some resentment.

At no point did I accuse Hermit of anything, or blame Hermit for anything. I'm sorry if it came across as a personal accusation. My post was in response to his complaint about criticism not being taken seriously, and I was trying to explain how and why some criticism might not be taken seriously, that's all. Because he'd mentioned criticism being ignored, my post quoted part of his -- it was the generic "you" I was using, there -- it wasn't meant to point a finger specifically at Hermit, just to explain that the hyperbole and melodrama aren't doing anyone any favors.

If there wasn't obvious trolling and sock-puppetry nonsense going on, it wouldn't look so much like there was a lot of trolling and sock-puppetry going on, y'know?

I'm not saying that none of the criticism hasn't been constructive. I wouldn't be saying "Hey guys, let's talk about some of the criticism" on the freelancer boards, if I felt that was the case. I'm saying that the more constructive it is, the more likely it is to be paid attention to. Not just sprinkling a little bit of genuine criticism into the blender right before pureeing up a batch of vitriol, spite, religious insults, "scab" comments, and accusations of Nazi sympathizing -- but stuff that's worth reading...that's what's gonna let people take notice. I've been the vitriol guy before. I've made myself feel better by lashing out with criticism instead of saying genuinely constructive stuff. There's a reason Critias is my second account on DS, and there's a reason I couldn't post for a month at a time, shortly after SR4 came out and me and my playtester buddies felt we weren't being heard.

But if you toss in a single "fuck you" somewhere in an otherwise constructive rant, it's human nature; the "fuck you" is what people will focus on.

Okay. Then I apologize. It came across as rather ... personal.

However, I think the authors are using the few instances of sock-puppeting (there was *one*) as an excuse to handwaive valid criticism. Aaron, especially, brushed off anyone pointing to (fundamental) flaws in his arguments, and then took it to PMs to be a dick, but also Hardy and others. That they're using their secret Forum to bitch about ciritcs is, as I have said before, nromakl behavior - but extremly hypocritical and reflects intensely badly on them when they fire people over doing just that about any of the writers at CGL. But ostrich mode will not do anything to make their product better, nor will it improve their image with their customers.

Which is, if true, precisely why I'm saying "Boy, wouldn't it be awesome if there wasn't any trolling and sock-puppeting going on? Maybe the trollers and sock-puppeters will read this, and realize they're shooting themselves in the foot right now."

He has, so far as I know.

As for trolling, Aaron is really adding to that, so you might want to lay off that first stone. Also, criticism is not trolling. Even if no attempt to sugar coat it is made (and War! has nothing that warrants sugar coating).


If you do not want to be accused of being a nazi sympathiser, lay off the concentration camp jokes. Look at Mel Gibson. Learn. Thaqt's neither insulting for insult's sake nor out of the blue if you write stuff that includes "magnificent" and "Auschwitz" in one sentence. And if you gleefully describe how to incite a progrom. Now, maybe that is good fun for Americans. It makes you look like a Nazi to non-Americans. Accept that.


So what makes stuff worth reading?

That doesn't speak well about the management if true. Just because the guy who says "X on page Y is problematic because of Z" is an asshole doesn't invalidate the criticism.

I realize it's way easier to simply ignore people who say things one doesn't want to hear, especially when said in a boorish way, but we're not talking about a social circle that deicdes to keep certain people out of the clubhouse. We're talking about a business that puts out a product, one that by all accounts is seriously flawed. Simply ignoring the trolls, sockpuppets, and naysayers isn't going to fix the fundamental problems.

You might want to mention where the sock-puppetry is going on; I was writing this off as defensive paranoia, but since that seemed uncharacteristic I wandered over to check out the company boards and all of a sudden it became obvious what you were talking about.

~J

Is there more than the one account on the official board that's trolling? I was aware only of one.

I don't know, I just encountered one obvious sockpuppet. I was there to verify Critias's status relative to his rocker, not get involved in another forum

~J

I know Stahlseele registered an account named FrankTrollFan or somesuch and used it to post a couple times. More than this?

TranqFrollman, as well.

The one I ran across was TranqFrollman or somesuch; the comment didn't look obviously trollish, but it was clearly someone's sock.

~J

Yes, but was it more than once?

The account had something like 8-12 posts. I stopped looking as soon as I found it, because it demonstrated adequately that Critias's comments weren't barking mad (which they appeared to be when I'd still only seen the threads here).

~J

Americans do not grok the deep seeded kneejerk reaction to anything Nazi that Europeans have.

WWII was that thing that happened over there.
That war where their Grandparents (and in some cases great grand parents) were bad-asses.

It's not like for us Europeans who grew up with stories of how it was. in a very visceral way.

There's a "TranqFrollman," for instance, that claims not to be Frank or StahlSteele, and has had about one post out of their every three be a link to, or a copypasta of, a Frank review, a leaked document, or both.

I'm not a mod over there, so I don't know exactly how many others there are (sorry, I'm not gonna dredge through the 217 pages of user names to find more clever reformattings of Frank's name) -- but I know that that sort of stuff doesn't do anything positive. It adds to an "us vs. them" mentality, in my opinion, and doesn't contribute to the community.

I'm not a mod, so I can't ban anyone, and I'm not even sure if it's worth banning over, or anything like that...but I'm just saying, as me, personally, that stuff like that takes away from a discourse, rather than adds to it. Much like the leak itself, it's more the atmosphere it creates than any specifics of the leak that's damaging. Multiple accounts, trolling accounts, stuff like that, it all encourages a circling of the wagons, instead of open discourse. I don't want to see the Shadowrun community turn into some Seelie vs. UnSeelie court BS, that hurts the game by driving a wedge between fans and writers (because I'm both, not one or the other).

I'm not in on whatever PMs Aaron (or anyone else) sent around, so I don't know what was said. The PMs weren't to me, so I don't particularly care to know what was said. I'm just saying that either way, no matter who's saying it, stuff like this isn't doing anyone any favors.

It all comes down to the signal:noise ratio, again.

Maybe, sabs. It's still ... well, American style insensitive, at the very least. And they DO have a very active neo-nazi scene. Most real hardcore Nazi organisations active in Europe actually have their HQs in America.


I know there was this one account, but that hardly warrants accusing dozens of people to be sock puppets, does it? seems a bit like a ... comfortable excuse to me. Also, antagonising or arrogantly dismissive (or really badly communnicated) comments by authors also really help in creating this mentality.


Neither do I, but ... well, let's just say the way CGL communicates their points is not helping, either. A little less arrogance and a little more transparency would go along way, though.

Critias: I guess my larger point was that you're treating multiple different communities as the same community, which is wrong even when there's overlap, and can lead the non-overlapping parts to think you're out of your tree when you call out things like obvious sockpuppetry that are obviously absent in the place where the calling-out is happening.

~J

Really, this is just part of the difference between a discussion and a debate. When dudes are having a discussion, they can collaborate ideas into a cohesive whole as the process moves along. However, when dudes generally pick sides and set themselves into a debate, they throw the full weight of their side at the other, only keeping those parts which survive the process to integrate into the greater whole of their current opinion. So, just because people are debating, that doesn't mean that they don't consider those ideas which disagree with their view, they just integrate the strongest of those things into their view, silently, after the close of the debate. Shit that could be a discussion sometimes turns into a debate because of bias. It's a fact of working in a collaborative creative environment.

If I can add anything to this thread I'd want it to be the idea that doubting the quality or style of someone's work isn't the same as doubting their good intentions.

not me, not frank, but i know who.

Not me either. I am not registered on the official forum. I have enough forum accounts as is, and those suit my needs well enough. Feel free to compate IPs.

Also worth considering: There is ZERO obligation to keep one forum name in several communities. If the TRanqFrollman has one account on the official forum, then that is not sock puppeting. He may be known under another name at the Gaming Den or whereever, but sock puppeting really is the wrong term then.

I'm not the only one, or even the first, to treat much of this drama like it's one big snarl of arguments and debates, instead of as though it were several distinct conversations happening in several distinct places. For instance, the very post I wrote mentioning this sort of thing was in reply to comments about writers dismissing criticism as sock puppets and trolls (which, to the best of my knowledge, was a comment he made based on things being said elsewhere). But since that comment was made here on DS, I replied to it here on DS.

What was I supposed to do, copy-paste his post and start a new thread about it over on the SR forums?

At any rate, I'm glad you took a second to go find out I wasn't just making stuff up.

Elsewhere on Dumpshock.

*sigh* And another attempt at communication goes down in the snarling flames of hair splitting and argument, instead of conversation.

Please listen to me. Please. Please. I am not debating anything. I am not pointing fingers at one side or the other. I am saying that all trolling when discussing this sort of thing takes away from anything potentially positive. If Aaron pissed you off in PMs, that -- by nature -- takes away from anything positive he might have said in public, right? Likewise, if someone is posting under a variation of Frank Trollman's name, with multiple links to Frank Trollman's posts or leaked documents, then -- regardless of whether it's "sock puppetry" or not -- it comes off in a certain light, and makes it easy to want to ignore that person as a troll.

If any one writer comes off as arrogant and dismissive, suddenly all writers are said to be showing an arrogant and dismissive attitude. If one critic is seen to be blatantly trolling and insulting instead of, or in addition to, saying anything positive...well, some of that attitude might rub off on other critics. We're all human, and exactly this sort of miscommunication and stereotyping is what happens when lines get drawn in the sand, when the wagons get circled, when the drawbridge gets raised, or whatever other allegory you want to use for an "us vs. them" mentality.

And I am saying that is bad for Shadowrun. As a fan as much as a writer -- as a fan more than as a writer, since I've been playing SR since 1990, and none of my work for them has even hit shelves yet -- I'm just saying that I wish everyone could tone it down a little.

I'm not saying not to criticize work you don't like. I'm just asking people, as someone with no authority whatsoever to enforce the asking, to be aware of what they're saying and how it's being taken. When someone accuses you of being a Nazi sympathizer, for instance, it takes away from any honest message they have about liking or disliking your writing. When someone calls you a "scab" it makes it hard to think they're being unbiased with the rest of a literary review. When someone says something to you in private messages that contradicts what they say in public, it makes it hard to think they're being honest and transparent. It all goes both ways, and I'm just standing here wishing everyone could keep it a little more civil, so that the respective messages don't get lost in the noise.

Mm. At the least, it was clearly a handle not intended as a durable means of identification.


Well, like I said, I think the best solution would have been to qualify the location of the observed sockpuppetry. I don't think it's an issue of the utmost priority—it took you repeatedly making reference to obvious puppetry to make me think "wait, why haven't I seen anything like that" hard enough to go looking—but, well, during some period when it was between my threshold of notice and my threshold of going-looking it definitely cast a paranoid tone on your comments.

~J

You might not want to start your posts in a manner that sounds like you see a light and understanding that appears to be beyond the reach of everyone else. Being honest here, it just shuts people down as much as the stuff you're pissed about. And you're pissed, we get it. I am too, just at different stuff.

For my 2¥, the thing that I would like to see is someone taking those accusations of Nazi sympathy, or lack of care in their work, and addressing them point blank. If they are slander, if they are false then you can should correct them. David Hill tried that on the official forums, and though I don't think he did a very good job, I don't think his particular position was very defensible. That section needed to be cut or strongly revised and development failed him. But not saying anything at all is almost worse. Almost. When you don't hear any response, you just assume that they can't say anything to defend themselves. And that makes the accusation sound true. Yes, that tactic can be abused to slander someone, and does on most forms of talk radio. But we're not talking about an approach to foreign policy here, but a really questionable section from a book that makes some people feel legitimately uncomfortable about being in their game.

Aaron posted a really insightful bit about naming conventions in the gear section. While I don't agree with some of his choices, I respect that he is openly communicating. Will he get flamed? Of course. But the alternative is being damned by your own silence in the face of vocal opposition. It isn't really fair, but it is part of publishing these days and it needs to be addressed.

Okay, yes, that is quite in your face. I don't defend that person and I don't think it is really helping. Hoewever, it's a bad thing to insinuate I, or really anyone here, is behind this. Odds are they'Re not (it's one person and it's just as probable it's a Gaming Den person, rather than soemone who's majorly active on Dumpshock).

I am not even saying this is not trolling you, and you should heed what that person says. But not everyone criticising war is that person.


Yes, that'd be good. People like Aaron popping in and adding fuel to the fire, apparently because they think that's fun, rather than examine their writing, neither shows them as very insightful people, nor helps anything. Sure, I was very harsh, and at least on the first day way over the line, which got me a very deserved warning for trolling. However, neither was every critic, nor does that make War! in any way a better product (and no matter how much people like Aaron delude themselves, there's not much praise for War! to go around anywhere).


All who post about it in the open I know about are (well, David Hill ... maybe he was just incredibly clumsy and ingorant and stupid. Maybe.). If there was, say, Filamena Young or anyone else here and would be responding in a calmer manner - like you are - that would surely help.


I do not do this lightly, believe me. It's a damning accusation, where I come from probably far more than in America (maybe like ... being called an atheist socialist?). It's just, Hot Spots is so full of incredibly bad stuff, it's really hard not to really, really wonder about the author's intentions. Maybe this is a case of cultural misunderstanding. Sure, my own cultural background makes me biased. But I do not call people Nazis lightly. Auschwitz in itself as a setting wouldn't necessarily have sufficed, there even was a very well done concept of an Auschwitz run involving a nazi pen charegd with camp fury here. The way it is treated though is sickening. The 'explanation' and the gypsy massacre, even more so. This reflects on David. In a very, very bad way.

If you, as an author, do think gypsy massacres and Auschwitz the forbidden tomb make for fun, light hearted, good stories for a tabletop game, maybe there is something wrong with you.

Auschwitz can be used for a very.. dark, make you think story. It can be used in a way that is interesting and thought provoking, even in Shadowrun. But the treatment it got, seems very irreverent. And does make me question the writer's intentions, or at least sensitivity.

That other run discussed somewhere, about the sylvestrines wanting to release angry ghosts, crossfire and different factions being after Wirtz' pen, and the ending scene with the Mexican standoff and the remaining Sylvestrine killing herself by releasing them in the required ritual? Yes. That's actually a very good idea. It does not treat 1.1 million dead as some sort of Forbidden Tomb in the Eye of Terror where you go to loot Bile's Scalpel, it treats the whole matter sensitively enough and makes for a great story if it works as a run. Just to show Auschwitz can be used and not piss off anyone if done right.

This is untimely because of waffling over whether to comment on it, but I figure I ought to.

I believe this to not be done with malice aforethought—I've noticed that both on the board and on PMs he'll often open with something very confrontational and defensive and then move on to a reasonable discussion. After I posted this post he engaged me via PMs for more details; this opened with the observation that he suspected I was trolling, but since then the exchange has been reasonable and cordial (no one has changed their minds yet, as far as I'm aware, but serious discussion of the issues has ensued).

The problem is that, well, inflammatory openings tend to get inflammatory replies. In that sense I'm not really here to defend him, but there's evidence that the issue is more nuanced and less damning than simply refusing to consider opposing viewpoints.

~J

Well, maybe. My patience with this shit ran out around PM 2 where he told me he sees himself as incapable of making mistakes and I was a troll for not agreeing with him on how awesome he is.