|
|
How Necromancer Games Made Up Very Upset |
  |
From: Jonny Nexus
Dear Clark, I am writing to you because I am *very* upset with some negative comments (that I have recently been made aware of) that were made by yourself on your company's message board, regarding my ethics and conduct (and also those of John Nephew of Atlas Games). I am also CCing this mail to your colleague Bill Webb, as I feel that given that the comments were made on your company's board, they were made - at least partly - on behalf of the company. The comments were contained in the following thread: http://pub123.ezboard.com/fnecromancergamesfrm9.showMessage? I hope you appreciate that I could have responded publically, either by responding to the thread on your message boards, or by starting a thread in a different location. I didn't, because a) I don't like flame wars, which is what that would probably have become, and b) I'm actually quite a nice guy, and like to give people a chance to set things right in private. ALLEGATION 1 - THAT I "PESTERED" YOU In the thread you said: "Actually, I had no idea of what to make of that idoit email. He kept pestering me so I responded." I sent out an email, containing my theory and asking for responses I could include in an article, to 36 games companies. Your company was one of those. I sent out a single copy to each company. If they didn't respond, then I Ieft them alone. I sent you a single email, to [email protected], at 9:00 pm (GMT) on 16th January. You replied from the address [REMOVED TO PROTECT CLARK'S PRIVACY] at 9:21 pm (GMT) on the same day, with a well written response. Given that I sent you a single email, and you responded with 21 minutes, how on earth do you think it is fair to tell the world that I "kept pestering" you? It is true, that *after* receiving your response I did send you three later emails, but they were all because you replied with a response for the article. If you hadn't responded (i.e. because you did not wish to provide a response for our article) then I would have left you alone. On the 20th I sent you an email thanking you for your response, and asking you to confirm that it was okay to publish your response (I like to make sure in case people haven't realised) and asking if you wanted to see a "prototype" copy of your piece before publication. I think that to send this email was the polite, proper and professional thing to do. You responded by asking me if you could see the final article and edit any comments that were taken from your email, since you felt that the tone of your original response wasn't suitable for publication. I replied, on the 21st, explaining that as our intention was to simply publish your response in its entirety, it would be simpler if you simply re-edited the raw text of your piece (I sent the raw text back to you in case you didn't have an original). You responded within an hour with the re-edited piece. Finally, on the 5th February, I sent you a mail containing a URL to a "prototype" version of your response for your approval. Again, I feel this was a polite and proper thing to do. I think that throughout our correspondence I was polite and professional. I do not think if is at all fair for you to describe my behaviour as "he kept pestering me". ALLEGATION 2 - THAT I CONSPIRED WITH JOHN NEPHEW In the thread, you said: "I was not in cahoots with John. Though I suspect that they showed my response to John. That is just too coincidental." Firstly, I do not know John Nephew. I have never met John Nephew. (Aside from anything else, John Nephew is - I believe - American, whilst I am British and am therefore not likely to meet him). But that is incidental. The article was presented (and in fact truefully was) as a "fair playing field". The article consisted of the letter outlining the theory, followed by the responses from each company. If a company requested a preview of their finished piece, they were shown only their piece (as you were shown only yours). For me to have given one company an unfair advantage by showing them another company's response would have been unethical and unprofessional. It is simply not something I would do. There is no reason to believe or suggest that this is what happened (aside from anything else, I can't even see any linkage between John Nephew's reply and yours) and yet you went right ahead and made this allegation. Again, I think that it is completely unfair for you to cast unfounded aspersions on both my professional reputation and that of John Nephew's. IN CONCLUSION There was no element of trickery or "setting up" in what we did, which is what some of the posters to the thread seem to think. Everything was clear and above board. We have always presented ourselves as a satirical magazine. In the initial email sent to you, I described us as "Critical Miss: The Magazine For Dysfunctional Roleplayers" which I think makes it pretty clear that we are not at the serious end of the publications market. What I presented in the post was a semi-serious point, written very much in a obviously humorous fashion. Companies had the choice of either responding to the semi-serious point, or the humorous tone, or both. You chose to respond to the semi-serious point. That was fine. Basically you've made what I feel are two untrue and unfair allegations against me, which cast doubt on both my professional ethics and judgement. I would like to progress my career in rpg-related writing, and if people believe what you have said, my future progress might be affected. (At GenCon UK I was having a conversation with someone from a leading publisher who mentioned that he had read the thread. Although I had already become aware of its existence, I was somewhat disturbed to find out that it was more widely read than I'd realised). I would be grateful if you could publish a full and complete retraction on your message board, and in any other forums where you might have made similar allegations. Yours, Jonny Nexus, Editor, Critical Miss Magazine ======================================= Clark responded to this email very promptly (73 minutes) with a very short email (reproduced here in its entirety): I wasnt casting any aspersions on John at all. I like John quite a bit. I'm not publishing any retraction. Clark Well I guess that told me. I immediately dashed off the following reply (CCed to Bill also): Clark, I find it curious that you have neither denied saying what you said, nor denied that it was untrue. Instead, you have simply informed me - somewhat bluntly - that you have no intention of publishing a retraction (and by implication, no intention of apologising either). There is clearly no point in continuing this correspondence. You will not be hearing from me again. Jonny Nexus I got no response. (Not that I'd have expected one). So I had tried, privately, to get Clark to set the record straight. I now felt that I had no choice but to publically state (as I'm doing here) that the allegations that Clark made are not true. I did not sent multiple "pestering" emails to any of the D20 companies. To do so would have been rude and unprofessional, and when I then stated in my article that I sent only a single email to each company, it would have been a dishonest statement (I'd have been lying to my readers, which is something that I don't do). I did not show any company's response to any other company. To have done so would have been highly unethical, since it would be given one company an unfair opportunity to look good at another company's expense. And in addition, since my article clearly stated that each response was on the basis of the email alone, it would also have constituted lying to my readers. In short, if these allegations contained any truth, I would be guilty of rude, unprofessional, unethical and dishonest behaviour. But they don't contain any truth. Can I Prove This?I'm guessing that a lot of you reading this are saying to yourselves, "Well that's what you say happened, but Clark obviously says differently. How are we supposed to know who's telling the truth?" Good point. Well let's go thought it point by point. The "John Nephew" AllegationWell when it comes to this one, the onus is not on John and myself to prove that we *didn't* conspire together, since there is no evidence to suggest that we did, and there never was. This is the way justice works. I can only say that you did something wrong (say that you stole something) if I *know* that you did. I cannot say, "Hey Joe's got a new DVD... it's possible that he smuggled that out of the video shop without paying." The "Pestering" AllegationIt is true that I cannot prove that I sent Clark Peterson a single email, to which he responded. That is my word against his. But there is one thing I can do. Remember how I said that I sent emails to 36 companies, of which only 8 responded? Well in the original article I didn't list the companies that didn't respond. This was because they were under no obligation to respond to me, and it would therefore have been wrong for me to list them (as though I was complaining about them). But now I am going to list them, together with the email address (taken from their website) that I used to contact them, both the ones who responded, and the ones who didn't. Every single one of you readers is free (actually, I'm pretty much encouraging you to do this) to write to them asking them about the emails they received from me. *Every* single one of them (except of course for Necromancer Games) will tell you the same thing: That they received a single email from "Jonny Nexus" with a subject of "Critical Miss magazine needs your help with a theory", sent at some time between Wed 16 Jan 2002 20:30 and Wed 16 Jan 2002 21:04 (I was sending them one at a time, editing the "Dear whoever" message for each one, so it took me a little while). Those who didn't respond will tell you that they only ever received *one* email from me. Those who did respond will tell you that they only received a second email from me after they responded to the first one. Now let's say that you do email, and they all tell you that they only received a single email. What could this mean? Well basically, one of two things: a) That I singled out Necromancer Gamers for particular, individual harassment, sending them multiple mails, whilst only sending single mails to companies like Wizards of the Coast, AEG, Atlas and Eden Studios. b) That Clark Peterson is incorrect when he states that I sent him multiple emails. I'll leave you to decide which of these is the most plausible explanation. These are the companies I sent mails to. They were selected according to two criteria: a) Did they have D20 scenarios advertised on their website. b) Could I find an "info" email address listed on their website.
What Do You Guys Think?We're interested in knowing what you guys think of this whole affair. Are we getting too upset about this? Was what Clark Peterson said reasonable? What should we have done? So I'd be very grateful if you could visit our Feedback section, which this issue asks you for your opinions of this very subject. Copyright � 2003 Critical Miss Gaming Society |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Back...