Re: sloooow group.

From: Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>

Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 16:12:56 +0000

MadCentral wrote:

> I was talking about in GM to GM discussion, GM panels back in the days when
> general PBM cons used to happen, response to rumours and the like.

Oh right - sorry, my misreading. I can imagine how this happens, though. I
suspect that the psychological process at a con is to look round a hall and
assume that everyone there is a potential/actual player - and then multiply
by twenty to include all the bodies who haven't attended.
   GMs need to be wildly optimistic, after all.

> Its funny, readers divide the number of players they think you've got and
> quadruple the amount of money they think you make. <grin>  I've had players
> phone me up and tell me that they've worked out what I earn and its.... some
> ridiculously huge figure. <grin>  Makes me laugh.

Oh yes, if only. And of course the game runs itself, because they're the ones
who do the work by filling in their turnsheets... We get a similar response
to Flagship: because we sweat cobs to make it look professional, we must be
making a huge profit, and are therefore dodgy.

But all the same, when they've played games and (hopefully) read Flagship for
a while they usually get a more accurate idea of what goes on. The thing that
I like most about PBMers (I suppose it's true of most games players) is that
they're fair-minded.

Carol

References

Re: sloooow group.
Carol Mulholland <carol@flagship-pbm.co.uk>
Tue, 19 Mar 2002 09:28:05 +0000
Re: sloooow group.
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 19 Mar 2002 11:27:19 +0000