Editorial: Neutral Ground

Of late, I've been pleased to see more comments on this blog. At the same time, I am reminded that I haven't made clear any policy concerning comments and debate on this site. What policy I have been following has been based on my statement of purpose. Namely, this blog is intended as a neutral report of RPG theory, not to take one stance or theory as preferred.

This is not something that can be done easily, it is a constant effort. And part of comments is to keep me honest in my reviews, lessons, and editorials. If you feel I ignored or downplayed something important, by all means post about it. I would ask that comments be kept to RPG theory and related topics. And I intend to use my ability to remove comments on ones which are entirely inappropriate, such as spam adverts and the like. But if it pertains to RPG theory, and you think that it would help better represent the field, then I welcome your comment.

I also welcome debate on this blog. But, I will not participate in any myself. I will answer questions as a neutral party, but I feel it is inappropriate for me to take sides in a debate. I view comments as being letters to the editor, an opportunity to expand, discuss, and even debate ideas of RPG theory. But as the editor it is my responsibility to moderate, not join in. And if you have a particular perspective you would like to have aired, I am always looking for guest articles.

There are many places to argue and debate, but RPG Theory Review is a neutral ground. It is a place were we can all look at the developments of RPG theory, as they are happening and as they have happened. And I want everyone to be able to enjoy it as such.