Firstly, and most importantly, I wrote Meek's report. I sent it, as a .doc file, to Tony and Greg, asking them if they thought it was appropriate and okay as a report (or whether I was laying it on too thick), and if they wanted to put it up under their name rather than me posting it up under mine. Tony's reponse was (and I quote):
Not sure about the laying it on thick - looks very reasonable. (I think you captured the essence of Meek extremely well, both during the game and in the document.) It's certainly milder than a lot of the other comments I'm seeing on the player's performance.
Could you wait until we send out the debrief (which will be sometime next week)?
I duly did, safe in the knowledge that I was functionally Tony's mouthpiece. It was functionally put up by the GMs - may we dispense with the suggestion that I sought no such permission to put it up? It just had my name on top of it, as I had played the character and given life to them in a way that the GM had intended. I have already offered to take it down and get Tony to repost it as him. The words, however, would be exactly the same. So would Meek's sentiment. It depresses me (and makes my case rather well) that it would be more credible coming from Tony than it would from me - I utterly contend that it would be to do with him being Tony, rather than the GM of the game. Had Greg put it up, I fully believe that complaints would have been received.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2013-10-22 09:20 am (UTC)Firstly, and most importantly, I wrote Meek's report. I sent it, as a .doc file, to Tony and Greg, asking them if they thought it was appropriate and okay as a report (or whether I was laying it on too thick), and if they wanted to put it up under their name rather than me posting it up under mine. Tony's reponse was (and I quote):
Not sure about the laying it on thick - looks very reasonable. (I think you captured the essence of Meek extremely well, both during the game and in the document.) It's certainly milder than a lot of the other comments I'm seeing on the player's performance.
Could you wait until we send out the debrief (which will be sometime next week)?
I duly did, safe in the knowledge that I was functionally Tony's mouthpiece. It was functionally put up by the GMs - may we dispense with the suggestion that I sought no such permission to put it up? It just had my name on top of it, as I had played the character and given life to them in a way that the GM had intended. I have already offered to take it down and get Tony to repost it as him. The words, however, would be exactly the same. So would Meek's sentiment. It depresses me (and makes my case rather well) that it would be more credible coming from Tony than it would from me - I utterly contend that it would be to do with him being Tony, rather than the GM of the game. Had Greg put it up, I fully believe that complaints would have been received.