Our indie interview

[Vault Dweller]

Neither me nor Baby Arm demanded that you should remove the AoD-bits.

You didn't have to.

You corrected it in the worst possible manner.

In your opinion. Once again, we disagree.

That is pretty much bullshit. It all boils down to proper marketing. And Mount & Blade, while not being exactly a true RPG, is paving the road for you there. And you are doing quite a fine job at "hyping" the game yourself, I admit. I could give examples of non-hardcore RPG fan-friends of mine who have found and are interested in your game independently of me, but you've shown what you think of those examples (Your view is warranted, don't misunderstand me, after all, I might as well just make that up).

Mount & Blade is an action game, so its success doesn't count at all here. I pay attention to reaction to AoD on the net, and I can assure you that only hardcore gamers would be interested in a game like that. Your friend is either an exception to this rule or he's more hardcore than you believe.

If many enough people have the same view and have the same "bad taste in their mouth" then it is a problem.

While we can argue how many is "many enough", and I can point out that I haven't seen any negativity about the interview outside the Codex, I do agree that some people saw a problem, which is why...

No, you did because you are trying to prove some point I don't quite get (that's my impression, at least).

Are you illiterate, Dementia? Did the art of reading escape you completely? I left nothing to guesswork. I presented my position openly, arguing with you, and I posted a reasonably long explanation after. There is nothing else to it.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Neither me nor Baby Arm demanded that you should remove the AoD-bits.

You didn't have to.

Then why did you remove any mention about AoD? I clearly stated that I see no problem in interviewing yourself, as long as that message get through.

You corrected it in the worst possible manner.

In your opinion. Once again, we disagree.

Well the rest of the Codex seem to agree with me on this particular account.

That is pretty much bullshit. It all boils down to proper marketing. And Mount & Blade, while not being exactly a true RPG, is paving the road for you there. And you are doing quite a fine job at "hyping" the game yourself, I admit. I could give examples of non-hardcore RPG fan-friends of mine who have found and are interested in your game independently of me, but you've shown what you think of those examples (Your view is warranted, don't misunderstand me, after all, I might as well just make that up).

Mount & Blade is an action game, so its success doesn't count at all here. I pay attention to reaction to AoD on the net, and I can assure you that only hardcore gamers would be interested in a game like that. Your friend is either an exception to this rule or he's more hardcore than you believe.

I honestly think you are in for a suprise, there. Differing opinions again, I guess.

If many enough people have the same view and have the same "bad taste in their mouth" then it is a problem.

While we can argue how many is "many enough", and I can point out that I haven't seen any negativity about the interview outside the Codex, I do agree that some people saw a problem, which is why...

...you instead of adding a single paragraph, removed all mention of AoD?

No, you did because you are trying to prove some point I don't quite get (that's my impression, at least).

Are you illiterate, Dementia? Did the art of reading escape you completely?

*sigh* I surely could turn that remark back to you, but I won't. I see no need for name calling.

I left nothing to guesswork. I presented my position openly, arguing with you, and I posted a reasonably long explanation after. There is nothing else to it.

Just as you don't manage to see my explenations for my view, I likewise don't see why you had to pull out the AoD-bits, rather than just adding that little paragraph.

Edit: Let me just add that I think you are unfairly selective in what you reply to.

 

[almondblight]

I disagreed with him, but I couldn't ignore the criticism any longer. If baby arm says it's tacky, then I'm pretty damn sure it's tacky, even though I can't see it myself. Well, that's what friends are for. If I'm hurting the site's image, then I have no choice but to remove the controversial parts of the interview, which is what I did. No drama, no hurt feelings.

Ehh...that makes no sense. "You missed a spot while painting the table." "I'm sorry, I guess I'll have to throw away the entire table then." If you're really just responding to criticism - everyone thinks removing the AoD parts was bad. If you aren't - there's no reason to remove them. As people have said, all the critics wanted was a line saying what was going on. No one -no one - said that the AoD parts should be taken out.

Personally, I have no thoughts on the disagreement one way or the other - not really sure what the point is of the cloak and dagger stuff, but you may have your reasons. But, if you are going to be a game developer, it's going to be useful to learn how to deal with criticism without over reacting.[/i]

 

[Koby]

I see that we have no choice but to talk about it until the thread is 10-page long.

Not if everyone agrees that this is a classical "Two wrongs don't make a right" and leave it at that, but that probably won't happen.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Then why did you remove any mention about AoD? I clearly stated that I see no problem in interviewing yourself, as long as that message get through.

You pointed out a problem and suggested a solution. Eventually I had to accept that there is a problem, but I chose a different solution, the one that fixed the problem better, in my opinion.

Well the rest of the Codex seem to agree with me on this particular account.

The rest of the Codex didn't give a damn about the problem or didn't see that there was one. Now they are simply disappointed that the interview was reduced in scope, which doesn't imply that they agree with you.

I honestly think you are in for a suprise, there. Differing opinions again, I guess.

I sincerely hope that you are right.

...you instead of adding a single paragraph, removed any mention of AoD?

I didn't see how adding a single paragraph would fix the problem.

No, you did because you are trying to prove some point I don't quite get (that's my impression, at least).

Are you illiterate, Dementia? Did the art of reading escape you completely?

*sigh* I surely could turn that remark back to you, but I won't. I see no need for name calling.

I didn't call you any names, and you know that. I'm sure you've witnessed some epic battles here, so you *know* that I being nothing but polite here. I simply dislike that "you must be trying to prove some point here" angle that you decided to run with.

Just as you don't manage to see my explenations for my view, I likewise don't see why you had to pull out the AoD-bits, rather than just adding that little paragraph.

You failed to explain why the original interview was "tacky", using babyarm's definition. You kept saying that it's wrong and that a disclaimer is required to fix the problem as soon as possible. I tried to present some facts pointing that no integrity breach was detected, but you kept arguing that it could have been, and that's basically, what we should look at.

My explanation of why I removed the AoD content was more straight-forward in comparison. You and baby arm convinced me that there was a problem caused by me participating in the interview as a developer, so I removed the problem. You may disagree, but you should see why I did it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Edit:[/b] Let me just add that I think you are unfairly selective in what you reply to.

What did I miss?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Please note: VD is never wrong. Even if he admits he is wrong, he is right about HOW he is wrong.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Ehh...that makes no sense. "You missed a spot while painting the table." "I'm sorry, I guess I'll have to throw away the entire table then."

The analogy doesn't work. You know that many aspects of AoD have been criticized to death. Obviously, I didn't stop the development throwing what we've done out. This case is different. I can do whatever the fuck I want with AoD and stand by it. I can't do the same with the Codex. AoD is my game. The Codex isn't my site to do what I please, and there is a huge difference in responsibilities between making a game and running a public site. I can defend my opinions that I express in news posts and reviews, but I can't defend something as questionable as "interviewing myself", since that's how many people saw the article.

If you're really just responding to criticism - everyone thinks removing the AoD parts was bad.

I understand, but the site's image is now clear.

But, if you are going to be a game developer, it's going to be useful to learn how to deal with criticism without over reacting.[/i]

Please. Like I said, every aspect of AoD has been criticized. Give me a single example of me overreacting. This situation was not about AoD, it was about the Codex and one of the admins answering his own questions.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Please note: VD is never wrong. Even if he admits he is wrong, he is right about HOW he is wrong.

Let me quote baby arm here, both from this thread and the staff forum:

I don't think you should correct anything now, just don't do it again. Very tacky, and not in the good Charo kind of way.
...
The only thing that could be done now is editing out your contributions or adding a disclaimer at the beginning. I'm not sure enough people around here care enough about it to do that. And you obviously don't agree that there's a problem. So leave it unless DP or myself convinced you otherwise. I was just expressing my view so in the future you don't make an ass of yourself. Also, I like to complain.
...
The point/harm is that interviewing yourself puts a bad taste in readers' mouths, especially if they find this out afterwards. It looks shady. My first reaction was the same as LCJr's ("You interviewed yourself?"). Now if I wasn't a regular here, I'd think "what a douchebag" and probably not bother coming back if this was my first experience with the site. While the Codex doesn't exist to cater to everyone's needs, it also doesn't need to chase away reasonable readers who expect some degree of professionalism when it comes to things like interviews and reviews. Humor jokes are one thing, self-interviews are another.

Need I say more?

 

[almondblight]

This situation was not about AoD, it was about the Codex and one of the admins answering his own questions.

Please. Baby Arm was the only one that said there was a problem with interviewing one's self (and even then, said the big problem was finding out after), the others just asked for clarification. There was only the tepid criticism of one poster who said it was better to leave the AoD stuff in, and others who just asked for clarification. "This situation" was mostly about clarification, something easy enough to do that everyone would have agreed with.

If you think that something like this helps the site's image...

 

[Koby]

...Let me quote baby arm here, both from this thread and the staff forum:

I don't think you should correct anything now, just don't do it again. Very tacky, and not in the good Charo kind of way.
...
The only thing that could be done now is editing out your contributions or adding a disclaimer at the beginning.

Why have you decided to take the more drastic measure?

Removing the answers is IMHO much more drastic then adding a disclaimer.

I guess what I am trying to say is I think that removing your answers from the interview is a larger 'wrong' then having them in the first place, i.e. altering the review (or any piece of writing for that matter) in a large way is worse then adding a 2 to 3 line disclaimer.

Furthermore If I had the option to choose between the original articles and the current articles I would have choose the original.

 

[Vault Dweller]

If you think that something like this helps the site's image...

It removes a weak, hard-to defend issue. I made a mistake and I fixed it quickly.

 

[aboyd]

Well, I'm disappointed to see that VD isn't being vindictive here. Or at least he's putting up a good show implying otherwise.

Personally, when people complain about my handling of my own projects, I tend to say, "this ain't worth the trouble" and I remove the project. I've done it a few times in my life, and I've found that it works really well. You can call it "taking your ball and going home" or you can say it's an overreaction or whatever other negative label you want to apply. But even with the negative labels, such huffy responses actually work in many cases. What is it that they do? They get the whiner to shut up, or leave, or it steel's the resolve of the remaining participants. But more than anything, it gives the person behind it a chance to wash his hands of it... to put it behind himself and say, "screw it, I'll move on to something else." It's psychology to a small degree -- freeing yourself of the problem issue by simply walking away from it, even as everyone else stands around the horse corpse, calling for you to come back and kick it a few more times.

I like that -- it's powerful to feel "this doesn't define me and I'm not beholden to it." But I guess that's not really what VD was doing. He was just honestly choosing a course of action to address his friend's criticism. Oh well. Sometimes being a bit more tough can have good consequences, even if people classify it as an overreaction.

 

[Dementia Praecox]

Then why did you remove any mention about AoD? I clearly stated that I see no problem in interviewing yourself, as long as that message get through.

You pointed out a problem and suggested a solution. Eventually I had to accept that there is a problem, but I chose a different solution, the one that fixed the problem better, in my opinion.

There you have the differing opinions again, and it seems to me that the Codex care more for this one, and have a different one than you.

Well the rest of the Codex seem to agree with me on this particular account.

The rest of the Codex didn't give a damn about the problem or didn't see that there was one. Now they are simply disappointed that the interview was reduced in scope, which doesn't imply that they agree with you.

They agree with me on that particular account. Which was that It's far worse to remove the AoD parts, than adding the single paragraph I requested.

...you instead of adding a single paragraph, removed any mention of AoD?

I didn't see how adding a single paragraph would fix the problem.

Ah, but that is what I firmly believe it would have. Ask in the admin-forum again, if you must.

No, you did because you are trying to prove some point I don't quite get (that's my impression, at least).

Are you illiterate, Dementia? Did the art of reading escape you completely?

*sigh* I surely could turn that remark back to you, but I won't. I see no need for name calling.

I didn't call you any names, and you know that. I'm sure you've witnessed some epic battles here, so you *know* that I being nothing but polite here. I simply dislike that "you must be trying to prove some point here" angle that you decided to run with.

OK, I'll let this one pass, even though illiterate is a title around these corners. And I'll retract that angle of mine, once you explain how removing the AoD-part is a better solution than simply adding the requested paragraph.

Just as you don't manage to see my explenations for my view, I likewise don't see why you had to pull out the AoD-bits, rather than just adding that little paragraph.

You failed to explain why the original interview was "tacky", using babyarm's definition. You kept saying that it's wrong and that a disclaimer is required to fix the problem as soon as possible. I tried to present some facts pointing that no integrity breach was detected, but you kept arguing that it could have been, and that's basically, what we should look at.

Getting closer to the core, still. It wasn't an assumed integrity breach in what you wrote in the interview, per se, but that the lack of a disclaimer (again not of the "hot content"-sort), might hurt the Codex in the bigger picture. Regarding non-regulars that is. I never blamed you for what I used as examples of what non-regulars might think. Quite the contrary in fact.

My explanation of why I removed the AoD content was more straight-forward in comparison. You and baby arm convinced me that there was a problem caused by me participating in the interview as a developer, so I removed the problem. You may disagree, but you should see why I did it.

If it's not because you took it personally, I honestly don't see why.

Edit:[/b] Let me just add that I think you are unfairly selective in what you reply to.

What did I miss?

Never mind this one. I'm not saying this to sound condescending, but I seriously don't feel like browse back and and copy/paste stuff I've already written right now. Pretend I never wrote it.

Please note: VD is never wrong. Even if he admits he is wrong, he is right about HOW he is wrong.

Thank you, kind sir. I've been looking for a new sig for quite some time.

For closure, I have to leave for the evening, have a serious thought on this one:

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

 

[Vault Dweller]

Why have you decided to take the more drastic measure?

Removing the answers is IMHO much more drastic then adding a disclaimer.

Because adding a disclaimer doesn't solve the problem. At all. Again, if the problem is "OMG! I interviewed myself! The shame!", then no "Hey guys! Guess what? I done interviewed meself!" clarification will fix it. Thus, removing questionable content is the only way to fix the problem.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I like that -- it's powerful to feel "this doesn't define me and I'm not beholden to it." But I guess that's not really what VD was doing. He was just honestly choosing a course of action to address his friend's criticism.

Yep.

 

[Vault Dweller]

There you have the differing opinions again, and it seems to me that the Codex care more for this one, and have a different one than you.

It happens.

They agree with me on that particular account. Which was that It's far worse to remove the AoD parts, than adding the single paragraph I requested.

They agree, but for a different reason.

Ah, but that is what I firmly believe it would have.

We've already established that we have different beliefs, have we not?

OK, I'll let this one pass, even though illiterate is a title around these corners. And I'll retract that angle of mine, once you explain how removing the AoD-part is a better solution than simply adding the requested paragraph.

See above (my response to Koby).

If it's not because you took it personally, I honestly don't see why.

I explained it so many times already that I think it would pointless to try to explain again. File it under "unexplained mysteries".

Please note: VD is never wrong. Even if he admits he is wrong, he is right about HOW he is wrong.

Thank you, kind sir. I've been looking for a new sig for quite some time.

*rolls eyes*

 

[almondblight]

Again, if the problem is "OMG! I interviewed myself! The shame!", then no "Hey guys! Guess what? I done interviewed meself!" clarification will fix it. Thus, removing questionable content is the only way to fix the problem.

And again, only one poster said that was a problem, and he said the way to fix it was either to remove the content or to put a disclaimer.

 

[Severian Silk]

SHUT THE FUCK UP!

 

[Hazelnut]

Why have you decided to take the more drastic measure?

Removing the answers is IMHO much more drastic then adding a disclaimer.

Because adding a disclaimer doesn't solve the problem. At all. Again, if the problem is "OMG! I interviewed myself! The shame!", then no "Hey guys! Guess what? I done interviewed meself!" clarification will fix it. Thus, removing questionable content is the only way to fix the problem.

I thought the problem, as stated by others, was only that you 'interviewed yourself' without full disclosure. Hence the suggested solution of said disclosure.

I personally think that it wasn't really that important because it was a group of four indie RPG devs answering questions that were clearly stated along with the answers. Not really an 'interview' as such, the questions were more like an agenda of starting points for discourse.

Anyhow, thanks for the time and trouble you went to for a great interview VD, it is appreciated.

 

[Koby]

Because adding a disclaimer doesn't solve the problem. At all. Again, if the problem is "OMG! I interviewed myself! The shame!", then no "Hey guys! Guess what? I done interviewed meself!" clarification will fix it. Thus, removing questionable content is the only way to fix the problem.

At first when I read the first "Weller:" I thought "that’s kind of tacky". A fraction of a second later I thought "this will be probably be brought up anyway, get discussed, and probably not happen again so no biggy".

It really wasn’t that much of an issue in the first place. And I really and truly believe that that is/was the main thrust of baby Arm comment, and I'm saying that with confidence because he said so himself:

...I'm not saying you should go back and cut or edit anything at this point, just that DP's not the only one having these thoughts.

But then, somewhere, it took a bad turn.

The only thing that could be done now is (*1)editing out your contributions or (*2)adding a disclaimer at the beginning. I'm not sure enough people around here care enough about it to do that. And you obviously don't agree that there's a problem. So (*3)leave it unless DP or myself convinced you otherwise...

I disagree at the *1 course of action/suggestion completely, and not only that but I think you have chosen to follow that suggestion for the wrong reasons.

Allow me to diverse for a just a moment.

Well, I'm disappointed to see that VD isn't being vindictive here. Or at least he's putting up a good show implying otherwise.

Personally, when people complain about my handling of my own projects, I tend to say, "this ain't worth the trouble" and I remove the project. I've done it a few times in my life, and I've found that it works really well. You can call it "taking your ball and going home" or you can say it's an overreaction or whatever other negative label you want to apply. But even with the negative labels, such huffy responses actually work in many cases. What is it that they do? They get the whiner to shut up, or leave, or it steel's the resolve of the remaining participants. But more than anything, it gives the person behind it a chance to wash his hands of it... to put it behind himself and say, "screw it, I'll move on to something else." It's psychology to a small degree -- freeing yourself of the problem issue by simply walking away from it, even as everyone else stands around the horse corpse, calling for you to come back and kick it a few more times.

I like that -- it's powerful to feel "this doesn't define me and I'm not beholden to it." But I guess that's not really what VD was doing. He was just honestly choosing a course of action to address his friend's criticism. Oh well. Sometimes being a bit more tough can have good consequences, even if people classify it as an overreaction.

I am seeing this situation from a different point of view.

Baring ones scares attain in a defeat is as impotent as baring the scars of victory, it is the scares of defeat that reminds one of his own failures and mistakes so he shell not repeat them, and to teach him modesty.

VD, even if you still don’t think that you have done nothing wrong, it doesn’t change the fact that other have disagreed with you. You shouldn’t have retracted your answers from the interview, for the above reason alone, it should have stayed either unedited or with a disclaimer.

...I was just expressing my view so in the future you don't make an ass of yourself.

The second reason the review shouldn’t have been edited, is oldschool journalism ethics, which I gather from my year of reading the RPGcodex, you care about with a passion (and rightfully so) and go to some efforts to achieve them, and I would like to take this opportunity to command you on that.

Once any piece of writing you have wrote goes out into the wild, you should stand by it for better or worse, if at any point in time you see an error in your work, admit it but don’t go back and alter it, in any way, issue an admission of error, a correction, maybe an apology, whatever fits the situation, but don’t go back and change it!

Bare your scars with pride, all of them!

 

[Elwro]

I think cutting out the Vince D. Weller responses from the interview was unnecessary. While I agree with VD's initial assessment that the piece's content didn't really leave any kind of conflict-of-interest aftertaste, I don't really see the problem with clarifying at the start by saying "Yes, Vault Dweller and Vince D. Weller are one and the same person", either. Why not put the entire "we set up a mailing list, and VD/VinceD are one and the same" in a little paragraph at the start?
I'd say the current solution is just about the worst one; the answers from indie-dev-VD are just as valuable as those from the other three, no matter who's asking the questions.

Maybe it doesn't count now, but I just want to say I fully agree with Calis. Even making a lame jokeish disclaimer at the end would be better. Also, some interviewees might feel ripped off now - for some time their games were covered in the same interview as the famous Age of Decadence, and now what? :D

 

[Vault Dweller]

At first when I read the first "Weller:" I thought "that’s kind of tacky"...

Then I'm glad I deleted it.

I am seeing this situation from a different point of view.

Baring ones scares attain in a defeat is as impotent as baring the scars of victory, it is the scares of defeat that reminds one of his own failures and mistakes so he shell not repeat them, and to teach him modesty.

It's easy to be brave when someone else/something else (in this case the Codex) pays the price - reputation, integrity, etc.

The second reason the review shouldn’t have been edited, is oldschool journalism ethics, which I gather from my year of reading the RPGcodex, you care about with a passion (and rightfully so) and go to some efforts to achieve them, and I would like to take this opportunity to command you on that.

Once any piece of writing you have wrote goes out into the wild, you should stand by it for better or worse, if at any point in time you see an error in your work, admit it but don’t go back and alter it, in any way, issue an admission of error, a correction, maybe an apology, whatever fits the situation, but don’t go back and change it!

I believe that this principle applies to opinions and facts. I can and will stand by my opinions and will never retract them to please critics. This was not about opinions, this was about me answering my own questions, which some people found, well, questionable and reflecting poorly on the site.

 

[Amasius]

Yay, another codex drama, I'm starting to love it.

I'm just glad that I read the thing before it got mutilated. It was (and still is) a good piece of work and while I was a bit surprised about the absence of a disclaimer at the beginning it dosn't really bothered me, because the overview was very informativ and in no way hyping. The presentation of AoD was also very low key. Maybe the whole problem is a result of VDs unusual and somehow refreshing insisting on his anonymity. Anyway, as a compensation we deserve another interview with this strange "Mr. Weller".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Maybe the whole problem is a result of VDs unusual and somehow refreshing insisting on his anonymity.

I have a mile-long employment contract that doesn't allow me to run, consult, or represent in any way other companies. Besides, people I work with simply wouldn't understand why someone like me is wasting his time making a game with imaginary characters when there is "real" work to be done. I'm the youngest (36) executive on the board, the second "youngster" is 48. 'nuff said.