Re: Origins PBM Winner

From: jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)

Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:13:30 +0000

lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl) wrote in <9igtjj$187$1@feed.textport.net>:

>In article <Xns90DB1D3C5A0DDjasonmmsd@128.242.172.155>,
>Jason Paul McCartan <jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com> wrote:
>
>>No, you never actually explained why it's bogus. Just commented that
>>the community couldn't vote for various reasons. That doesn't
>>invalidate the award by making it bogus.
>
>I explained why it was bogus. Carol agreed with my reasoning, as did
>Enno. Go back and look.

I think I may be missing some posts on the server I'm using. I honestly
can't see you explaining why it was bogus.

I've got this from you

"
Well, for PBM games, it sucks, because most people have only played a
couple of PBM games, and so there is no "community" that can actually
compare games with one another.

For board games and RPGs, it's probably a bit better.

But Starweb gets kudos from people who have played lots of games, and
magazine editors and the like. I've only played 1 game, and I was
impressed."

and this from Carol ...

"
I agree. The reason I think that it's worthwhile including PBM games is
that most people who play games over the table imagine that PBM is some
sort of slow and inferior substitute for 'real' gaming.

So showing them how a game like Starweb is ideally fit for PBM play
is good publicity for our whole hobby.
"

>>Your sentence doesn't actually make sense (the one quoted
>>above). You're saying basically give people reviews of games they
>>haven't played, with the reviews written by authors that haven't
>>played the games,
>
>No, I didn't say that. So first you misquote me, and then you
>missummarize it.
>
>Let me restate it to be more clear: Publishing reviews when the
>reviewers and players have no games in common is useless for creating
>a basis for comparison.

Ok, THAT makes a lot more sense than they way you originally wrote it, which
reads different.

>Now, if this isn't clear, maybe you could consider asking me to
>clarify, instead of jumping to conclusions AGAIN? I do like to try to
>do a good job to express myself well. Often I fail. Your lame
>insistance on repeatedly misinterpreting me is a waste of everyone's
>time.

I misinterpreted it because you didn't say exactly what you meant. You
clarified that with the above restatement.

>>Have you attended the Origins awards at all ? Do you know how the
>>mechanism works for it ?
>
>Yes. The first year I voted in the Origins awards was 1984.

So did you vote this year ?

--
Jason Paul McCartan

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
                http://www.usenet.com

References

Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Sat, 07 Jul 2001 03:49:31 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:34:19 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:44:31 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:54:24 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:01:07 +0000

Referenced By

Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Sat, 07 Jul 2001 03:49:31 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:34:19 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:44:31 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
jasonm@spamkiller.mindshiftdesign.com (Jason Paul McCartan)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 06:54:24 +0000
Re: Origins PBM Winner
lindahl@pbm.com (Greg Lindahl)
Wed, 11 Jul 2001 07:01:07 +0000