|
Was the purpose of posting here not so that we could provide feedback?
You are naturally entitled to write whatever you like in your article - but we are equally entitled to question and disagree with what you write. While some of the points you made are quite valid, you drew a number of overly broad generalisations which are extremely biased against certain types of mud. In particular, your implication that non-RP muds are pointless and stagnant. As someone who is developing a non-RP mud I found your premise flawed and obviously offensive. As such, I decided to step forward and defend my style of mud. Do you honestly think someone wouldn't have done the same to me if I had written an article describing how RP muds were stagnant and pointless?
|