Loral's Declaration of Principles
by Loral on February 24, 2005
In the movie Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane writes a front page editorial in his newspaper called the "Declaration of Principles". I often thought about what my duty as a writer for Mobhunter includes. What do I offer the readers of these articles? What is my purpose?
I have written forty six articles in the past year. In a few comments over this last year, my objectivity and my purpose are questioned by those who obviously do not agree with my views. While I have little chance of convincing these people that my views are correct, at least I can explain both my purpose and perspective.
So in marking my one year anniversary as a writer for Mobhunter, I offer to you my Declaration of Principles:
I. I will attempt to help players better enjoy Everquest.
II. I will attempt to help Sony Online Entertainment make Everquest a better game.
Some may feel that the purpose of editorials like these are to put the screws to SOE much as a free press keeps a government in check. SOE isn't the government, it's a company with a product. I make the assumption that by reading articles about Everquest, you too enjoy the game. If I did not enjoy this game, I would not bother to write articles about it nor would I expect you to read them.
In order to accomplish the objectives above, I will perform the following actions:
I will write articles and editorials weekly or bi-weekly on the latest Everquest news or topics.
I will write bi-annual "Loral's Evil Agendas" with general suggestions for areas of improvement.
I will offer up several paths for communication from the readers of my articles including emails to loral@loralciriclight.com, in-game tells to "Loral" on Quellious, and comments on each article.
Here is what I will NOT do:
I will not say something I do not believe.
I will not bash anything or anyone without purpose or reason.
I will not focus on any one class, level range, or style of play. I will attempt to focus on the game as a whole.
I will try not to waste people's time.
In return for my effort on these articles and the time others spend reading them, I ask for something in return. When commenting here on Mobhunter, over at the EQ Live forums, or sending feedback to SOE, consider the following guidelines:
1. When offering feedback, clearly state what problem you have or what solution you desire.
2. Act with the information you possess. Do not use false statistics or misrepresentations of the player base.
3. Speak in detail. Do not overgeneralize.
4. Do not use overdramatic metaphors. Let us toss "slap in the face" and "red headed step child" onto the piles of Gehenna where they belong.
5. Do not write with emotion, speak with facts and detail.
6. Do not use threats. Ever since Furor's "I will leave in 18 days unless you fix Time", everything else pales in comparison.
7. Ask yourself what purpose your note serves or how it will help improve the game. Do not use feedback simply to vent.
8. Avoid overdramatics. SOE doesn't hate you, your playstyle, or your class.
9. Maintain your perspective. Every one of us has important views, but it is only OUR view, not the view of all players. Never assume everyone is just like you.
10. Remember that this is a game. It isn't a civil rights movement. It isn't the federal, state, or local government. Remember that you vote with your dollar.
In the movie Citizen Kane, Charles Foster Kane states that he will act as a champion of the people to protect their rights as citizens and as human beings. No one person in the Everquest community can act as this champion. No Everquest player requires such a champion.
Every one of us acts as our own champion. We vote with our dollar. We have multiple vehicles to offer feedback. Do not look to any one person or group to act as your champion. Act as your own champion and tell SOE exactly what you want.
Loral Ciriclight
24 February 2005
loral@loralciriclight.com
Comment Posted by: on February 24, 2005 11:05 PM
nice CV, you forgot to put your hobbies down too, and marital status etc.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on February 25, 2005 12:33 AM
In number 9 I belive you meant to say 'perspective' instead of 'prospective'.
I can't speak for anyone but myself, but I normally find your editorials/articles worthwhile and somewhat informative. My biggest issue with the site since you took it over from Moorgard has been that there's news happening out there that doesn't seem to make it into your weekly/bi-weekly post. While that annoys me, I don't blame you for it, and I don't consider you a rabid fanboi or anything of the sort. Not everyone has time to go troll all the different forums out there, not even the official ones most of the time. Ultimately the source of my frustration is not Mobhunter, but MMORPG fansites in general, the majority of which have in my opinion gone from being useful places for news and information about the game to being vehicles for poorly- or half-written editorials that leave the reader wanting for more. While I don't have the resources (or really, the time) to run my own fansite, it bothers me that I feel like I can write a better editorial on the changes in a patch message and how they'll effect players than i can read on any of several sites from people who do it all the time AND have an audience. Mine just get posted to a guild website (unless I cross-post to official forums, but those are usually about mechanics), and occasionally people see them and comment, but very few do.
Needless to say, the fact that I still visit Mobhunter, even though I no longer actively play EQ (and in fact now spend time in three different games, of which EQ2 is only one) should hopefully illustrate my faith that you will continue to provide relatively unbiased views of the goings-on of EverQuest.
Thanks for the affirmation.
Comment Posted by: Talaen on February 25, 2005 12:34 AM
That should be believe, not belive. I need to learn to spell.
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on February 25, 2005 04:21 AM
Phanboi, phanboy . . . phanbhoi and, uh fanbhoi? Hm, the last two could be better.
Comment Posted by: Redcloud on February 25, 2005 05:06 AM
Where to begin?
You ask things to your posters then I guess we might be entitled to the same courtesy:
"I will not bash anything or anyone without purpose or reason."
Calling people that disagree with you cynics doesn't set a good example, now does it?
"Do not use false statistics or misrepresentations of the player base."
Ditto.
"Do not overgeneralize."
Talk about your playstyle, fine, but don't make it as if it's the one of the majority nor that's the better for the game if you please.
"speak with facts and detail"
That's in fact why we post. We often cover facts and details you (sometimes intentionaly?) leave out of your editorials. Namely raid content, bugs, a number of gameplay issues, all sorts of other things that may give a more objective perspective than one-sided fanboism.
"Ask yourself what purpose your note serves or how it will help improve the game. "
Well that's the problem, really. When an editorial turns into a selling pitch, that can't possibly help the game to really improve. Reason why what you call cynics actually are doing your job.
" Never assume everyone is just like you."
Indeed. It works both ways. Same problem as mentionned above and moreover the intent of force feeding your view of what the new content should be is the root of biased and untruthful editorials that get smashed for what they are. Those who are objective and more balanced don't. Not surprisingly.
In conclusion, enthousiasm are enjoyable to read, blind fanboism or just completely one sided editorials aren't. To ask something from others, you might need to set yourself the example. Which remain to be seen if you intend to change yourself as you try to change the nature of the game content.
Comment Posted by: Loral on February 25, 2005 08:21 AM
Fixed the typo, thank you Talaen.
You're right about calling people cynics, Redcloud. The people I had in mind are the continuing "EQ is dead" crowd, who ARE cynics, but not everyone who disagrees with me is a cynic so I removed it.
I can't always cover every piece of news that happens in a week and often pieces get cut out. If you think there is a topic worth covering, always feel free to send me an email to loral@loralciriclight.com. If I don't cover it, at least I will send you an email and explain why.
There are a few things I won't cover. When there are bugs that SOE clearly knows about and has already addressed on the EQLive forums, I don't know that there is value in bringing them up here. If there are topics I am simply unqualified to discuss, I usually won't get into them (details of raid content is one of these).
I do have a general idea of the number of players at various levels and playstyles based on numbers I received from SOE. Those statistics somtimes guide what I will cover and what I will not. Even still, I won't discount any one playstyle but as far as raiding goes, there are many champions of raiding that hold SOE's ear far better than I could.
I believe in constructive criticism. While I wrote a positive review (a review I still stand behind) for Omens of War, I also followed up with an article outlining the problems with that expansion in "The Warts Under the Emperor's Clothes". Many of the problems mentioned in that article were addressed in Dragons of Norrath, including the time requirements to play and the lack of purpose in expeditions.
In my preview of Dragons, I was very positive about it (again, I still am). It often takes a couple of weeks to see all of the rough edges once I see and understand these rough edges I will bring them up in a more critical article.
Again, Redcloud, it appears from your comments that the primary thing you have a problem with is that I don't cover raid content or stand as a champion of that particular playstyle. There are certainly other websites that cover the details of raid content better than I ever could. As for my views on it, I believe what I believe. We simply disagree.
Comment Posted by: Perc the Shadow Bard on February 25, 2005 08:36 AM
Loral, a good friend of mine has a saying that I believe works wonderful in these types of settings (eq, devs, cynics, etc) that he uses at work (not publicly). And that is, "Everyone is entitled to their opinion no matter how stupid, ignorant, and worthless it might be." Hehe, just thought that was funny. Keep up the good work, Loral. (get rid of the bad...lol) Thanks for writing this stuff. Now if I can only get my company to serve nachos all day... or at least at lunch. :)
Comment Posted by: ironglove on February 25, 2005 08:38 AM
Loral I read you articles with pleasure, and know that you are passionate about the game we all love and hate at times.
So how on earth at point five can you say do not write with EMOTION?
If your passionate about something it affects you emotionally, this will come out in anything that a person writes in response to a comment or aspect of the game they are unhappy with.
You yourself are guilty of writing with emotion.
Comment Posted by: Elfauna Eaglewing on February 25, 2005 11:08 AM
I think every writer has to lay themselves out to possible criticism. I'm sure actors, artists, game developers and all creative people feel the same way about criticism. Keep up the good work Loral and I'm glad it isn't me who has to write this every week.
Comment Posted by: on February 25, 2005 11:13 AM
I guess the degree of disagreement is a matter of perspective too.
"The people I had in mind are the continuing "EQ is dead" crowd, who ARE cynics, but not everyone who disagrees with me is a cynic so I removed it."
They are indeed bitter and often for good reasons but that doesn't make it right nor healthy. So in that it's not really a disagreement to me.
"I can't always cover every piece of news that happens in a week and often pieces get cut out. If you think there is a topic worth covering, always feel free to send me an email to loral@loralciriclight.com. If I don't cover it, at least I will send you an email and explain why."
I'm not a big fan of emails. Often different people have different insights on the same topic and I enjoy thought provoking counter-arguments as much as defending my views. Reason why I'd rather comment in posts as they are here.
"There are a few things I won't cover. When there are bugs that SOE clearly knows about and has already addressed on the EQLive forums, I don't know that there is value in bringing them up here. If there are topics I am simply unqualified to discuss, I usually won't get into them (details of raid content is one of these)."
That's why I nailed you once over a post on raid content difficulty, but that's another matter.
Take DoN. Your editorial was ringing too much as a selling pitch rather than the list of practical benefits for gamers. People may care to loose the arena in the bazaar, that the bazaar is a mess as is. That the summon corpse feature is a blast, that the DON augments are considerably better than LDON, etc.
"I do have a general idea of the number of players at various levels and playstyles based on numbers I received from SOE. Those statistics somtimes guide what I will cover and what I will not. Even still, I won't discount any one playstyle but as far as raiding goes, there are many champions of raiding that hold SOE's ear far better than I could."
I doubt you write these editorials for SoE if you can email them directly. The main audience here is the playerbase, not SoE.
Despite our frequent disagreements there aren't that many sites with editorials with current EQ content. So in short I'm stuck with you and you with me P).
"Many of the problems mentioned in that article were addressed in Dragons of Norrath, including the time requirements to play and the lack of purpose in expeditions."
No doubt that in a number of cases SoE listens and improves the gameplay since Omens. I still hate the "anti-immersiveness" of point systems within a RPG MMO but I won't deny they provided worthwhile content in DoN so far. Immersion is an order of magnitude better than in LDON. And it brought back a few people. So it's all good on that front.
"In my preview of Dragons, I was very positive about it (again, I still am). It often takes a couple of weeks to see all of the rough edges once I see and understand these rough edges I will bring them up in a more critical article."
I would be curious to read that one. All the more that a number of issues remain pending about DoN, first of which the faction system.
"Again, Redcloud, it appears from your comments that the primary thing you have a problem with is that I don't cover raid content or stand as a champion of that particular playstyle. There are certainly other websites that cover the details of raid content better than I ever could. As for my views on it, I believe what I believe. We simply disagree."
I don't expect you to cover in any depth raid content rather than aknowledging its existence, its playerbase, its community-rich value, the benefits of having a strong raid content going for people to switch from single group to raid playstyles. In short to aknowledge that it's due to raiding and guilds that EQ owes its a large part of its longevity and that systematically undermining that playstyle for the single group casual crowd is bad for the game. It's changing the nature of the game and a dumping down of its longevity no matter what amount of single group content they may provide. That is the kind of objectivity I expect from you when you don't try to openly marginalize that playstyle. And yes I suppose we'll keep disagreeing and I'll keep setting the records straight if only for the sake of completeness. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy reading you, Loral, even if I rail into a number of subjects for the reasons stated above P)
Comment Posted by: loral on February 25, 2005 11:40 AM
"In short to aknowledge that it's due to raiding and guilds that EQ owes its a large part of its longevity and that systematically undermining that playstyle for the single group casual crowd is bad for the game. "
It is there that we disagree, but I certainly acknowledge the viewpoint. I hear it quite often.
"I would be curious to read that one. All the more that a number of issues remain pending about DoN, first of which the faction system. "
I am already collecting some of the issues they are working on, but faction is not one of them. I have yet to see a compelling reason why entire guilds chose only one faction instead of letting their members work on either side. For years people asked for faction to make more of a difference. Any problems we see are problems with having both good guys and bad guys as playable races. In any case, you will see an article with some problems and areas for improvement within DoN.
People also seem to forget that I outlined the largest problem within Dragons of Norrath: the lack of content for players below 45. People are quick to dismiss that criticism because they simply don't care. I do. I think a lot of other players care as well.
"I doubt you write these editorials for SoE if you can email them directly. The main audience here is the playerbase, not SoE. "
The champions of raiding I was referring to are the high visibility guilds who post their latest exploits on their homepages as well as some of the summit representatives who continually champion the call of the raider above all other content.
"Take DoN. Your editorial was ringing too much as a selling pitch rather than the list of practical benefits for gamers. "
I took the points I discussed about DoN all as practical benefits to gamers. The guild hall, potion belt, bandoleer, corpse summoner, guild message board, email system, missions, mission point vendors, and tradeskill additions are all very useful features for a lot of the players of EQ.
As mentioned above, I also criticized them on the lack of content below 45. Glowing advertisement propaganda wouldn't mention a problem as large as that.
In any case, I mainly wrote this article to inform readers that if they expect to read brutal articles that put the screws into SOE and air out all of their dirty laundry, they can go read the two hundred negative posts a day over on EQLive.
I'm here to help people enjoy Everquest and to help SOE make it a better game.
By the way, I generally hate big introspective conversations that stroke my ego. This is a mid-week article that won't take the place of the regular Monday article I plan to write. Monday we will return to talking about topics of importance, like Brenlo's new articles, the server mergers, and last night's dev chat.
Comment Posted by: Loral on February 25, 2005 12:50 PM
" Keep up the good work Loral"
Thanks mom =D /hug
Comment Posted by: Quesci on February 25, 2005 01:14 PM
My only concern with this is that you state two objectives, three things you will do, and four things you won't. Then you follow that up with TEN things that you want from your readers. This seems less like a declaration of principles and more like a contract. I don't think Mr. Kane asked his readers to follow more rules than he set down for himself.
Comment Posted by: Alan on February 25, 2005 01:48 PM
I just wanted to congratulate you on your first anniversary.
A
Comment Posted by: Horzek on February 25, 2005 03:48 PM
I always appreciate your site and comments about the genesis of EQ. My account is set to expire this coming week and I have not yet decided if I will renew or not. Coming here and reading all the comments has been huge in my decision process.
This past week I logged in after a few weeks off and I was pleasantly surprised to see that 29 of my guild mates were there happily raiding away. I was a bit too late for the first raid but I joined them for the second one. I really missed them and it was great to see them all again. The numbers of folks playing was the most pleasant part of the surprise because we are not one of the uber raiding guilds.
I walked into the bazaar and thought I had gone into the wrong place. I sure dont remember any of you saying anything about the changes there. I still cant say if I like it or not but it was still a pleasant surprise.
Now I ask you all once again, how do you like the new DoN? I see some mention of the new features but I dont seem to see too much one way or the other on actually liking it. Is it fun? Is it fair to both single and small guilds as well as to the big raiders?
Is there a new spell for me that would make my cleric worth having around? IM still cranky about the spells from GoD of which I have maybe one or two max. I really dont think I got my moneys' worth out of GoD and while I did manage to die a lot in OOW Im not so sure of the value there either.
Can you believe it, 9 additions now to EQ.
Keep up the good work all of you. This is the only eq related site I read and I value the info here greatly.
Horzek
68 and holding
Comment Posted by: Solistic on February 25, 2005 07:50 PM
Congradulations on you first year Loral. I really enjoy reading this site, and I enjoy the comments of your's and serveral other people that write in.
Yes so far I really like DoN. The missions seem a bit hard, but then they are brand knew and that may change with experience. I love the Guild halls, our is being used so much, that is almost like we have a large guild LOL. I have not used the potion holder but I have used the bandolier, and love it. I also LOVE what they did with the maps. It is like having Black&white tv all your life and finally getting a Color TV. WoW
Comment Posted by: Naladini on February 26, 2005 10:47 PM
"People also seem to forget that I outlined the largest problem within Dragons of Norrath: the lack of content for players below 45. People are quick to dismiss that criticism because they simply don't care. I do. I think a lot of other players care as well."
Maybe they're just leaving the door open to start characters at level 45 to help condense the population a bit ;)
Comment Posted by: Ranger Dave on February 27, 2005 04:04 AM
SOE hates Rangers and is working hard to rid the game of us. I will never buy another expansion. And I won't touch EQ2 either.
Comment Posted by: Loral on February 27, 2005 10:38 AM
Here's a contest. How many of the guidelines did Ranger Dave's post violate? The first winner gets a prize mailed right to your door. Post your answers here and email me a valid email address so I can get your address for the prize.
Comment Posted by: Always2XS on February 27, 2005 01:37 PM
Okies, I count 9. Points 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. I gave Ranger Dave a pass on point 10 cuz he is voting with his dollars.
Comment Posted by: Loral on February 27, 2005 04:28 PM
Always2XS wins, although I don't necessarily agree with the same results. The answer is nine.
He didn't clearly state a problem or offer a solution.
He didn't act with the information possessed (he jumps to the conclusion that SOE hates rangers without offering facts to back it up).
He didn't speak in detail.
He didn't use an overdramatic metaphor, I don't count him as having violated guideline number 4.
He wrote with emotion instead of speakin in facts and detail.
He used a threat.
He probably didn't ask himself what purpose his note served. It certainly doesn't help improve the game.
He certainly didn't avoid overdramatics. (SOE wants to get rid of rangers?)
He didn't maintain his own perspective. I doubt he speaks for all rangers yet he groups them into his statement.
I argue that his statement goes way beyond the feedback a consumer offers to a game producer. While he may vote with his dollar, he isn't necessarily voting with his feet if he comes here to make a statement like that.
Overall, though, I counted 9 out of 10 and Always2XS's answer met that count. Always2XS wins the contest and his prize will be in the mail on Monday (assuming I can acquire his address).
Thanks for playing!!
Comment Posted by: on February 28, 2005 11:36 AM
Hubris is posting an article about yourself on a site allegedly devoted to EverQuest.
Comment Posted by: on March 1, 2005 12:48 AM
fan boy
Comment Posted by: Bearage on March 1, 2005 07:33 AM
Dear Loral,
I am a reader of your posts. I have recently posted that I believe your posts seem to be more sales SOE related than neutral.
I think it is very brave to make an article and then allow anyone - even ones without a name (albeit made up) post a reply/comment. Indeed mostly - due to the intellectual nature of the content the reads tend to be the same - mostly. So I guess you actually avoid a lot of trash that say Allaks forums may receive.
However, since you do allow comments I guess you have to expect the good and the bad (from your point of view). Likewise when you make an article the more suggestion you add - or the more weighted it feels towards one side or another you will set yourself up on a particular side of the fence. Naturally the posters will then make their position known in their replies. This is really I guess the reason for your article on this subject begins.
I remember in school (yes I went but a long time ago) that the teacher told me when writing articles about news that the write should be 'without opinion', 'state facts' and 'ask questions' but do not answer them. I always remembered it was very hard to do and took some practice. It was so easy to add a little comment about how you felt - or more so - disguise your opinion by weighting the facts/information in favour of one thing.
I feel that some of your articles and most recently your DoN reviews that you had done exactly that.
I understand that you were invited to the SoE summit. As such SOE are setting you up as 'a neutral'. As such when you write a reports the readers tend to think of you as someone who is bringing the community to SoE and vice versa. They do not expect you to be weighted on Sony's side - and if you did seem that way (which you did in DoN) they will start to hate you and see you as an enemy. Better you remain as neutral as possible and then people will read your comments and trust you more.
Have a read over the article you wrote about DoN and look for the tainted, weighted side. Are you being as open as you can? Did you ask enough questions in your article? Did you try to answer questions?
Btw, I think you should carry on - I do enjoy reading what others think and certainly the posters too.
Bearage.
Comment Posted by: Glamdrigg on March 1, 2005 10:43 AM
I just love those brave souls who post criticism without an identity attached to it. I work in corrections and in my field we call that Steel Door Courage.
I'm Glamdrigg on the Fennin Ro server and I'll stand by anything I post... here or in game.
Maybe others should include that on their posting guidelines.
Congrats Loral on your anniversary. Carry on the good work!
Comment Posted by: Scott Adams on March 1, 2005 01:30 PM
Wow a year already. Time flees when ur having fun!
Congrats Loral, I think you have done Mobhunter proud. Still one of my favorite fan sites!
Comment Posted by: Aviron on March 1, 2005 07:44 PM
I'm more of a lurker...while I don't agree with Loral all the time (Who does?). I check almost daily for an update, because I like to see what he has to say. Agree or not. 'Grats on the year and keep up the awesome work.....I'll keep reading no matter what.
Aviron - Veeshan <---not afraid to give out his identity either.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 2, 2005 11:51 AM
Thank you for the useful comments (those of you who did know who you are).
I think it's important to understand the difference between news, unbiased articles, and editorials. These articles are editorials. I could easily just post the news, but anyone can already go visit the EQLive forums and read exactly what's happening. Every other major EQ website already posts objective news without editorial. Here I try to post a bit of opinion as well, though I try to keep that opinion as wide as I can.
There is one opinion I hold onto that seems to bother a few folks who comment here (and perhaps some who do not). I tried to make this clear in the Declaration of Principles but perhaps it is more clearly stated thus:
I love Everquest. If I didn't love Everquest, I wouldn't write here and I wouldn't play.
I am very biased towards this game. It is the first MMO I ever played and five years later I still feel like I get an amazing bargain for the $30 expansions and the monthly fee. Certainly there is room for improvement and I hope to help point these areas out, consider them, and offer recommendations.
Everquest isn't a pure objective news site, but then again, neither is CNN or Fox News. News is quite often laced with opinion, if not in word than in the topics covered. In my articles for Mobhunter, I offer editorials. These editorials are often wrapped around recent news, but I try to focus on the things I feel are important.
Again, if people think I'm not covering important topics; topics that cover the whole spread of the game; I ask them to either bring them up here or send me an email at loral@loralciriclight.com. I am always interested in what people think.
Comment Posted by: Bearage on March 4, 2005 08:51 AM
Well I do thank you for replying and telling us which side of the fence you're on. Obviously some less articulate people have simply replied 'fanboi' where as I have gone into the subject with some detail and examples.
I guess then it is reasonable to believe that when Sony say they are inviting 'x' people to their summit - it is not a summit of players it is more a summit of puppets. I don't wish to offend you and obviously using that term I'm probably on the boardline. It is not really your fault - you have made your position clear - however I do feel that if Sony are to invite what they publish to be a varied selection of the community then they should invite people who 'in your own words' aren't biased.
Again, I thank you for being honest.
Bearage.
Comment Posted by: Loral on March 4, 2005 06:23 PM
You would call Woody, the guy who said that John Smedley stole his wallet, a puppet?
http://www.gucomics.com/archives/view.php?cdate=20040526
You might enjoy the idea that the Summit reps are a bunch of puppets but trust me, they aren't. I think you need to do a bit more research.
And yes, calling me a puppet borders on personal insult. If you don't care for me or these articles, go elsewhere.
Comment Posted by: on March 8, 2005 05:08 AM
As I understand it Woody changed his story/opinions the moment he got back from the summit - going from ARRGH I HATE SONY blar blar to ahh Sony are nice guys.. You know a trip to a game and a few donuts does wonders for PR..
It's ok - My duty here is done. I just wanted to bring your character and your nature out into the open by example, reason and logical explanation and I think this has been done now.
I will go elsewhere - I just wanted to know which side of the fence you were and to see the kind of people Sony were inviting to their so called summit.
Bearage.
Comment Posted by: Stonehewer Forkenbeard on March 9, 2005 05:11 PM
Why does there have to be a fence, that people need to be on the side of? Is it so hard for Loral to say hey, I like this game, and I'm going to report on the game from my point of view of liking it, denounce the things I don't like, and suggest changes as necessary? Does an EQ site that's not sponsored by SoE have to be an anti-SoE site that breaks them down in detail on every move? I think the naysayers here are deriding Loral for being Loral. From that perspective, nothing Loral ever does will be right.
Editorials by their very nature are not objective. News, as much as people wish it, is not objective. As much as people try to be careful about selecting the facts, the views and beliefs of those who put the 'news' together will always slant it, even if ever so slightly, towards the newsman's point of view. EQ has a lot of fan sites. This is a fan site. If you don't like the way the news is presented here or the opinions of the editor, go elsewhere or start your own. Spinning your wheels trying to wrangle words and score a 'point' by getting the editor to admit to a 'bias' is petty and counterproductive.
Congratulations Loral on completing your first year of hopefully many with Mobhunter, I hope you're around as long as EQ is. There's too many downer sites out there that do nothing but bitch and moan, it's nice to have a site that is positive and works from the idea that EQ is great but can get better, rather than the multitude of sites that profess that EQ sucks and will do nothing but get worse. Cheers to ye, oh myghtee PELC. =)
Comment Posted by: Maitreya on March 10, 2005 12:40 AM
Well said, Mr. Forkenbeard. You said pretty much what I wanted to say, but was too lazy to type out.
Calling Loral a puppet for liking EQ is pretty biased too. You're implying that it's an objective fact that EQ is bad, and not just your opinion, and that there's something wrong with those who like it.
I had a bit more to say in response to Bearage's posts, but I fear they may border on personal attack, so I'll omit the rest.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Email Mike at mike@mikeshea.net for more questions or comments.