Re: Bad Publicity

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Chris Dempsey wrote:

> Carol checks and  is far more careful
>

Thanks! Nicky wrote very much as a player, while I have to be careful
not to be too GM-oriented.

I do my best but it's a balancing act. It's important to have players
feel confident that their complaints will get an airing; it's important
to have GMs given a fair chance to reply. While I need to resist the
temptation to suck up to GMs, they're our main source of new readers.

There's one comment in the current issue that I wish hadn't been sent
in; one that I should have checked out with a GM, but missed because it
wasn't in the queries section; a couple that I did check out. No prizes
for identifying these.

The comment that Roy rates as bad publicity (p39) is one that that I
did tell him about on July 2nd, but without warning him that it was a
Rumours comment, which maybe I should have done. I've suggested that a
right-of-reply is the best response (it's always safe to blame the post
office); I've not yet suggested that the clever response would be to
get round to accepting the guy... Coals of fire are pretty darn
effective...

Carol

References

Re: Bad Publicity
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Bad Publicity
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Bad Publicity
"Chris Dempsey" <Chris@spelbinder.demon.co.uk>
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: Bad Publicity
"Steve Pritchard" <steve@spelbind.demon.co.uk>
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Bad Publicity
madcentral@aol.com (MadCentral)
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: Bad Publicity
"Chris Dempsey" <Chris@spelbinder.demon.co.uk>
Tue, 27 Jul 1999 00:00:00 +0000