Recent Posts
Wow talk about a bar brawl spilling out on to the street and turning into a riot.
Please lock this thread its is an embarrassing waste of the creative talent that all concerned possess.
He said, she said, they said, we said, blah blah blah.
Focus on bringing the cool stuff to the boards not butting heads.
Preface: I could care less what's happening the 4e forums.
But, this thread is exactly what paizo's forums needs every once in a while. Any board run on appeals to politeness and solidarity is going to need these threads. New people come in and have to learn the netiquette here. Long-time posters sometimes want to renegotiate that netiquette.
That's why I'm posting in this thread. I do care when posters like the above ask for a thread lock because they are, essentially, bored. This is a productive thread, because people are working things out constructively. If you're not interested, try to avoid silencing people. It's very rude.
You'll have to explain to me then, Matthew, how exactly we are supposed to follow Lisa's instruction to self-police.I'm not Matthew, but I'd interpret an instruction to 'self-police' as an instruction to police myself and my own actions, not an instruction to tell other people what they should say and think.
Your case is not as airtight as you think. Check out the wikipedia entry on self-police:
"In direct self-policing, the organization directly monitors and punishes its own members. For example, many small organizations have the ability to remove any member by a vote of all members.
Another common form is where the organization establishes an external policing organization. This organization is established, and controlled by, the parent organization, so cannot be considered independent, however.
In another form, the organization sets up a committee or division for policing the remainder of the organization. The House Ethics Committee is an example in the United States government, while various police departments employ an Internal Affairs division to perform a similar function."
All of these indicate collective action. Community policing works the same way. I feel that Stevens' statement can be interpreted as meaning BOTH "watch your own behavior" and "keep an eye on each other."
No one is trying to engage in "vigilante moderation" (as much as some people might want to label the actions of certain posters as such). That's not even possible, as the most any person can do is say the equivalent of "Please take posts like this somewhere else because I don't think they belong here." This is, of course, nothing like actual moderation, but attaching labels like "self-appointed" or "vigilante" to it help make the behavior sound bad.
Yes you are engaged in "vigilante moderation". Does anyone really think otherwise?
Less deception, more truth, try it even just as a change of pace for a bit.
Actually, yes, I think otherwise. From the evidence of this thread, he's been of the cool head while you've been throwing around names and quotation marks like they've been going out of style.
I think there's clearly some sincere, well-thought out disagreement between long-time posters, which requires both parties to have A truth. As such, both sides deserve a respectful hearing, especially if you disagree with them. That's part of the Paizo way.
I'm relatively new to these boards, and probably a blank page member of the community, (i.e. an unrecognisable name, avatar).
But one of the reasons that these are about the only boards I post on/read regularily is because they are in general quite polite and mature, obviously this is relative to its internet forum status.
The idea of a thread like this is a good one. So I'd like to respectfully state my opninions on what I've read so far:-
I do think self-policing does include a certain element of 'keep an eye on each other' however, decrying someone else's posts as vitriolic by your standards isn't itself that helpful, and certainly doesn't give you the right to claim they shouldn't have posted.
The tone of most of the 'self-moderation/vigilantism' (slash is to indicates both sides veiw of said actions) is what causes the increase flaming. Maybe in response to serious personal insults or outright racism, a 'whoa now, that was somewhat uncalled for, its okay to state your opinions, but calling someones mother a hamster is unneccesary and rude' is okay in terms of moderate community correction (that phrase sounds terrible, put hopefully the intent stands.)
However, self-moderation of the extreme and imperious sort displayed in the reference thread is knee-jerk and flame starting, thats just an example I'm using, by the way. There was no inquiry into the perceived vitriol, especially important in this case as the 'troll' in question has pointed out his own mistakes, and apologized in an extremely good-natured and genuine way, which is itself quite admirable.
So try to moderate yourself, ignore trolls. If you must engage, which is eneveitable, maybe a more practical suggestion would be, not to not call someone out, but to ask for a clarification of intent first.
Because this is the internet, 70% (figure on memory actual value may vary) of human communication is entirely non-verbal, and here we got that, possible language difficulties, regional dialect/phrasing/implications to deal with, so anything you say will be atleast 80-90% misunderstood/misinterpreted.
So an important addendum to the fairly reasonable 'Don't feed the Trolls' rule of thumb could be, have a look under the bridge first and see if your actually even dealing with one. Who knows, maybe its just an orc.
Sorry to interject, just my 'two cents'.
Regards.
Sorry to interject, just my 'two cents'.I would say not to apologize for that interjection. That was very well said, and was what I was trying to impress upon people - just made much clearer and understandable.
I thank you for your input.
Most humbly welcome, its a damn good point requiring reiteration! I phrased it carefully because I am cursed with a bluntness. A blind warhammer-like bluntness, so its a massive annoyance for me people not trying to understand what I mean.
...Their Adventure Path products are just as important to what I do as 4th Edition D&D is.
Can you share what you do with 4th Edition, Scott?
I'm not Scott, and I'm not trying to speak for him, but I think he was making a reference to his Paizo AP conversion blog.
I'm not Scott, and I'm not trying to speak for him, but I think he was making a reference to his Paizo AP conversion blog....Their Adventure Path products are just as important to what I do as 4th Edition D&D is.
Can you share what you do with 4th Edition, Scott?
Yep, that's what I was making reference to.
Really, though, I can't imagine why what I use them for is important. What matters is that I use them both, and I couldn't do it without either of them. In terms of spending, I probably pay roughly equal amounts for Paizo and WotC physical products. They both receive my patronage in roughly equal measure, though WotC does get a monthly subscription fee from me, and I'm not a Pathfinder subscriber.
You can feel that you moderate the boards in a way that "works for you", but the reality is that moderation here is close to nonexistent when compared to other boards within the tabletop community. I'm sure all flags get a looksee, but when nothing is done about a persistent problem like the one being addressed in this thread, the perception that the boards are not actively moderated very quickly takes hold.No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.
Yeah, the boards here are laissez faire compared to most, but then, a lot of what's being hand wrung about could fairly be called a case of thinskinitis as well.
I know of people who have been banned (mostly in the Beta play test and political off topic threads), but the level of "discourse" they decided to conduct was far more egregious than most of what I've seen here in the 4e boards. And some people, especially during the height of the "edition wars", were banned or temp banned then, as well.
Scott, you do good things, like your conversion of RotRL to 4e and helping people learn some of the finer points of how to run/play the new edition, but, honestly, you do tend to look for malice in any criticism of 4e, whether it was intended or not.
You do have to remember that this place is one of the very few refuges(Candlekeep, Canonfire and P&PGames being the others I know, and the latter is just a nice community like that where people are nice to each other, generally, and all editions are discussed without issue) for people not enamored with 4e. You should consider how people get treated (and how one sided moderation is on the more "moderated" sites, for that matter) on other boards for not being on the 4e bandwagon, and just kind of ignore the posters who go off on their tirades.
99% of the time, they'll only post that once if no one responds, so if you just ignore them and move on like it didn't happen, I think things would go more smoothly.
Just a thought.
You can feel that you moderate the boards in a way that "works for you", but the reality is that moderation here is close to nonexistent when compared to other boards within the tabletop community. I'm sure all flags get a looksee, but when nothing is done about a persistent problem like the one being addressed in this thread, the perception that the boards are not actively moderated very quickly takes hold.No need Joela, Scott explained to everyone that flagging is pointless.As I just pointed out in that thread, Matt, this assertion is wrong.Yeah, the boards here are laissez faire compared to most, but then, a lot of what's being hand wrung about could fairly be called a case of thinskinitis as well.
I know of people who have been banned (mostly in the Beta play test and political off topic threads), but the level of "discourse" they decided to conduct was far more egregious than most of what I've seen here in the 4e boards. And some people, especially during the height of the "edition wars", were banned or temp banned then, as well.
Scott, you do good things, like your conversion of RotRL to 4e and helping people learn some of the finer points of how to run/play the new edition, but, honestly, you do tend to look for malice in any criticism of 4e, whether it was intended or not.
You do have to remember that this place is one of the very few refuges(Candlekeep, Canonfire and P&PGames being the others I know, and the latter is just a nice community like that where people are nice to each other, generally, and all editions are discussed without issue) for people not enamored with 4e. You should consider how people get treated (and how one sided moderation is on the more "moderated" sites, for that matter) on other boards for not being on the 4e bandwagon, and just kind of ignore...
You raise a number of very good points.
Another thing Scott a few people and I am not gonna say who, Like to bait you.
I have been critical of you at time as you come off overly gun-ho, I know you mean no malice but your an easy target man. I think some post just hopping you will show up and say something, there by proving them"right"
Derek is right just let them post the once and ignore them. Nothing upsets a troll more then not taking the bait they lay
Sometimes threads will drift and that's fine but responding to folks trying to derail it into edition war stuff helps them do that
Just a thought
another thing I think is key is actually seeing how threads respond to comments, in the original thread this is based off of, I pretty much diffused the situation with a one line sarcastic remark. And the thread had gotten back on topic before some posters brought it back up. I don't think they were intentionally bringing it back up, I think they read the comment and hit reply without seeing the rest of the thread. but if they did see that the thread had pretty much dealt with it and then chose to post bringing it back to the forfront then yeah that was a pretty intentional derailment just to defend against something that otherwise had passed as trolling.
Actually, yes, I think otherwise. From the evidence of this thread, he's been of the cool head while you've been throwing around names and quotation marks like they've been going out of style.
Prehaps you might take the time to read the thread this one spawned from then. I quote people when they say either uninformed things, things that display the issue I am going to write about, or to set up my post with either support from another poster/or disagreement with one. Why is quoting an evil act in your mind? And yes I point out the names of those whose action I am talking about. I prefer my disagreements more honest, less passive agressive then some.
Prehaps you might take the time to read the thread this one spawned from then. I quote people when they say either uninformed things, things that display the issue I am going to write about, or to set up my post with either support from another poster/or disagreement with one. Why is quoting an evil act in your mind? And yes I point out the names of those whose action I am talking about. I prefer my disagreements more honest, less passive agressive then some.
Actually, yes, I think otherwise. From the evidence of this thread, he's been of the cool head while you've been throwing around names and quotation marks like they've been going out of style.
If I am understanding his post, he said your use of quotation marks, not quoting people. For example, posting things in the form of "self-appointed" or "vigilante". Of course I might be wrong.
...you should be immune to all mind-affecting effects?I'm confused.You're also undead, so...
Oops! I forgot. Maybe I need more brainnnnnsss......
Tharen the Damned
(Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules Subscriber)
Oops! I forgot. ......you should be immune to all mind-affecting effects?I'm confused.You're also undead, so...
Of course, since you are confused!
...you should be immune to all mind-affecting effects?I'm confused.You're also undead, so...
I never understood why liches in 1st edition were specifically said to be immune to insanity, and it seemed like all of the ones met in modules (such as Acerak) were then described as stark raving mad.
'Immunity? I think that word does not mean what you think it means...'
Yeah, I'm threadjacking a thread entitled 'keeping threads on track.' What's your point?
Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
How does that explain those of us who like 4E and Pathfinder and play them both? In fact, the only reason I'm not running a 4E campaign with my tabletop group is because we started our campaign playing 3.5 and found Pathfinder to be a much easier switch. Plus Pathfinder Alpha was available before 4E was.
Isn't that other person's point that many people who like Pathfinder have good reasons for it? It strikes me that he was actually attempting to defend Pathfinder fans in the face of criticism against them. Is that not how you see it?Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
I suppose the slightly less facetious "that's not strictly fair" comment is simply that not everyone who dislikes 4e was a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing, and a fair number simply found an edition (or other stand-alone game) that they liked best, and stuck with it.I've seen similar posts to this, but if you didn't note this, then that would go quite a way to explaining the disparity between my view of the Avengers and yours.
I'm not entirely sure why it is ok to say, "...a gullible moron that got pulled in by Paizo's anti-4e marketing," and bad to say, "...not everyone who doesn't like Pathfinder RPG isn't a gullible moron that fell for WotC's marketing."
If that is ok, then I would suggest that the anti-4e posters on these forums are matching the standards of the Avengers.
Actually the other poster implied by his post that anyone who likes Pathfinder is a sucker who got pulled in by anti-4E marketing, any anyone who doesn't like 4E but aren't suckers have found other 3.5 analogs besides Pathfinder.
"...not everyone who doesn't like Pathfinder RPG isn't a gullible moron that fell for WotC's marketing."
Okay I think what we have here is a case of one too many negatives, a triple negative makes a negative, but I'm having a hard time with the wording whooboy that's a doozy of a sentence.
Not everyone who hates pathfinder isn't a guillible moron that fell for WotC's Marketing
okay now it's a little easier and this means that most people who hate pathfinder aren't people who fell for WotCs marketing, but that some are.
I think that what that was meant to say is, "not everyone who dislikes pathfinder is a gullible moron who fell for WotC's marketing."
Implying that some might not be but most are, which is the analouge to what the 4e avenger was saying about pathfinder.
Which he then edited to try and make himself sound like less of a jackass, but nope, that was still a jackass statement that specific poster pulled.
"...not everyone who doesn't like Pathfinder RPG isn't a gullible moron that fell for WotC's marketing."
Okay I think what we have here is a case of one too many negatives, a triple negative makes a negative, but I'm having a hard time with the wording whooboy that's a doozy of a sentence.
Not everyone who hates pathfinder isn't a guillible moron that fell for WotC's Marketing
okay now it's a little easier and this means that most people who hate pathfinder aren't people who fell for WotCs marketing, but that some are.
I think that what that was meant to say is, "not everyone who dislikes pathfinder is a gullible moron who fell for WotC's marketing."
Implying that some might not be but most are, which is the analouge to what the 4e avenger was saying about pathfinder.
Which he then edited to try and make himself sound like less of a jackass, but nope, that was still a jackass statement that specific poster pulled.
Yes, that was a poorly written sentence, and I think that it was unnecessary overall.
Which is why I ended up deleting that comment. (Although I wasn't fast enough to avoid it being quoted.)
How does that explain those of us who like 4E and Pathfinder and play them both? In fact, the only reason I'm not running a 4E campaign with my tabletop group is because we started our campaign playing 3.5 and found Pathfinder to be a much easier switch. Plus Pathfinder Alpha was available before 4E was.Maybe I'm not familiar enough with the topic, but what portion of the post in question did you find misleading or factually incorrect? At a glance, it looks like the worst sin of the poster in question was accusing Paizo of "anti-4e marketing". And I mean, yeah, of course they're marketing to the anti-4e crowd. It's a significant part of their potential playerbase.I have seen a lot of Avenger posts. And have seen many cases where they have said things that are not factually correct. They are the among the most negative force on those boards. Their goal was a good one, but I've found their membership often lacking that ideal.
Edit: Like this.
That's wonderful, and I wish more people were able to do the same, but the reality is that most people are not so dedicated to or involved in the hobby that they are able to spread their play among multiple games. That involves investing in more than one system at a time in terms of purchasing sourcebooks, and then finding the time to participate in more than one regular game. Perhaps the Pathfinder crowd is different in that it is particularly involved in the tabletop hobby, but on the whole people do tend to stick with one game.
It makes sense for Paizo to aim their product at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition; one need only read the reactions to a mention of 4e on a Pathfinder thread to get an idea of how much of their player base views the game.
It makes sense for Paizo to aim their product at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition; one need only read the reactions to a mention of 4e on a Pathfinder thread to get an idea of how much of their player base views the game.
I don't think we're aiming our products at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition, any more than we're aiming them at those dissatisfied with GURPS or the World of Darkness or any other game. We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5, and want to see it survive and evolve.
I don't think we're aiming our products at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition, any more than we're aiming them at those dissatisfied with GURPS or the World of Darkness or any other game. We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5, and want to see it survive and evolve.
Fair enough, Vic. I get why Paizo doesn't want to be defined as the "anti-4E company," but it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that there is no relation. Surely you realize there is significant overlap between those who are sticking with 3.5 and those don't like 4E? Far more, say, than those who might not like GURPS?
It makes sense for Paizo to aim their product at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition; one need only read the reactions to a mention of 4e on a Pathfinder thread to get an idea of how much of their player base views the game.I don't think we're aiming our products at those dissatisfied with 4th Edition, any more than we're aiming them at those dissatisfied with GURPS or the World of Darkness or any other game. We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5, and want to see it survive and evolve.
The implicit words that aren't being said are "We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5 and have decided not to follow the D&D brand into 4th Edition, for whatever reason." Pretending that the same continuity of playerbase exists between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th Edition as between D&D 3.5 and GURPS is nonsense, and I'm sure you're aware of that.
You can't deny that a) the reason your product is even feasible in the first place is that 4th Edition exists, and b) that a huge chunk of your eventual playerbase will be those who considered 4th Edition and decided against it.
3.5 and 4E are both brands of D&D, as are 3.0, Players Option, 2nd Edition, 1st Edition or AD&D, the Basic through Immortals color box sets, the published conversion rules to Boot Hill, and probably other things in there I'm missing. I guess I really don't get all the hate, but then I prefer tea to coffee so what do I really know.
edit: just my 2 cp, feel free to ignore.
The implicit words that aren't being said are "We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5 and have decided not to follow the D&D brand into 4th Edition, for whatever reason."
You are correct that we're not saying that, and the reason we're not saying that is that it isn't precisely accurate. We are aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5, and want to see it survive and evolve. Period. There *is*, after all, a subset of 3.5 players who are *also* playing 4E, and if your statement were strictly true, we wouldn't be aiming our products at that subset. We are! It is true that we are *not* especially aiming our products at those who have already elected to given up 3.5 for 4E, though—there's just not a lot of point in that.
I get why Paizo doesn't want to be defined as the "anti-4E company," but it is somewhat disingenuous to claim that there is no relation. Surely you realize there is significant overlap between those who are sticking with 3.5 and those don't like 4E? Far more, say, than those who might not like GURPS?
Pretending that the same continuity of playerbase exists between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th Edition as between D&D 3.5 and GURPS is nonsense, and I'm sure you're aware of that.
You can't deny that a) the reason your product is even feasible in the first place is that 4th Edition exists, and b) that a huge chunk of your eventual playerbase will be those who considered 4th Edition and decided against it.
Make no mistake, we're well aware that a significant part of our potential audience has placed themselves in the anti-4E camp. But there's a big difference between the "3.5 thrives" approach we're taking and an anti-4E approach, which we have zero interest in taking. You won't see us creating an ad campaign that specifically targets the anti-4E market. First of all, that's not who we are, and second of all, that strategy would only appeal to a portion of our potential audience anyway.
To be clear, just like I said before, we're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5, and want to see it survive and evolve. If those people also play 4E or GURPS or whatever, that's just fine with us. And if those people really dislike 4E or GURPS or whatever, that's fine too. We're about what you *do* play, not about what you *don't* play.
The implicit words that aren't being said are "We're aiming our products at those who enjoy 3.5 and have decided not to follow the D&D brand into 4th Edition, for whatever reason."
Scott, as has been pointed out by at least one person in this thread, not all who enjoy 3.5 have decided not to play 4e. As such, the implicit nature of those words is not as implicit as I think you are making them out to be.
Granted, for those of us who have embraced PFRPG, 3.5 is most likely the preferred ruleset for AD&D (myself included ... I have tried 4e and it really was not to my liking), but this is not the case for everyone who is buying Paizo PF products. I believe this would include you in that you prefer 4e but still buy Paizo products and adapt them for your 4e game (correct me if I am wrong on this, I'm running from memory about some of your previous posts).
Pretending that the same continuity of playerbase exists between D&D 3.5 and D&D 4th Edition as between D&D 3.5 and GURPS is nonsense, and I'm sure you're aware of that.
While there is certainly more of a level of continuity between the two incarnations of the AD&D system, the statement Vic made is no less valid. If someone finds a system that they truly prefer over another, they are going to stick with it.
You can't deny that a) the reason your product is even feasible in the first place is that 4th Edition exists, and b) that a huge chunk of your eventual playerbase will be those who considered 4th Edition and decided against it.
Actually, I beg to differ with your first position here. The model for the product came into being while Dungeon Magazine was still in existence. As an old school player, I can tell you the only accessories I bought for AD&D for the last decade or more (outside of dice and core books) was Dungeon Magazine. The AP model they built up was solid from the get go. If WotC had not made the move to 4e, that model would still have been solid for a continued product line.
With the move of WotC to 4e, it did open up additional opportunities (the PFRPG, etc), but Golarion could have ended up as a 3.5 campaign setting (much like Faerun, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, etc) if WotC had not made the move.
Actually, I beg to differ with your first position here. The model for the product came into being while Dungeon Magazine was still in existence. As an old school player, I can tell you the only accessories I bought for AD&D for the last decade or more (outside of dice and core books) was Dungeon Magazine. The AP model they built up was solid from the get go. If WotC had not made the move to 4e, that model would still have been solid for a continued product line.
With the move of WotC to 4e, it did open up additional opportunities (the PFRPG, etc), but Golarion could have ended up as a 3.5 campaign setting (much like Faerun, Greyhawk, Dark Sun, etc) if WotC had not made the move.
The product I was referring to was the Pathfinder RPG; I should have made that clearer. It exists because 4th Edition exists. And given that all future Pathfinder products will be grounded in the PFRPG rules, what holds true for the target audience of PFRPG will largely hold true for the target audience of other future Pathfinder products as well. If they didn't expect this to be the case, I doubt they'd put all this effort into developing their own rules system in the first place.
Actually, I beg to differ with your first position here.
You can't deny that a) the reason your product is even feasible in the first place is that 4th Edition exists, and b) that a huge chunk of your eventual playerbase will be those who considered 4th Edition and decided against it.
Oh—right... I forgot to address that bit in my last post. Scott, I *do* deny that the existence of 4th Edition made the Pathfinder RPG "feasible." After all, True20, C&C, Conan, and other OGL standalone RPGs were "feasible" before 4E was even announced. However, the existence of 4E—or, more accurately, the fact that Wizards stopped printing and supporting 3.5—made the Pathfinder RPG (or something like it) *necessary*, and the fact that every 3.5 player didn't automatically convert to 4E made the Pathfinder RPG more likely to succeed in a big way.
The product I was referring to was the Pathfinder RPG. It exists because 4th Edition exists.
The PFRPG is only part of of the product offering that Paizo has put together. The point I was making is that to make a statement that such a product grouping as Paizo has been able to successfully put together would have been feasible even if WotC had not created 4e.
Even so, the PFRPG could still have been put out in the form as a 3.5 variant to tie in with the campaign setting, though by the nature of the product it would not have been required for compatibility and usability.
Would it have attracted as many folks as it has? Most likely no, but it still would have been a feasible product for Paizo to publish as they worked on their next move.
Oh—right... I forgot to address that bit in my last post. Scott, I *do* deny that the existence of 4th Edition made the Pathfinder RPG "feasible." After all, True20, C&C, Conan, and other OGL standalone RPGs were "feasible" before 4E was even announced. However, the existence of 4E—or, more accurately, the fact that Wizards stopped printing and supporting 3.5—made the Pathfinder RPG (or something like it) *necessary*, and the fact that every 3.5 player didn't automatically convert to 4E made the Pathfinder RPG more likely to succeed in a big way.Actually, I beg to differ with your first position here.
You can't deny that a) the reason your product is even feasible in the first place is that 4th Edition exists, and b) that a huge chunk of your eventual playerbase will be those who considered 4th Edition and decided against it.
I'm not a business guy, so this isn't really an area I can speak with any solid knowledge on, but as far as I know the True20 guys made their system as a system first. Paizo makes adventures first and their system second. The latter exists to support the former. Yes, you might have been capable of creating PFRPG prior to 4th Edition. It would have been just about the worst decision Paizo could make, however. With your own standalone RPG system you need to make your adventures compatible in order to sell the RPG, and you need to eliminate all those customers who don't buy your RPG system as potential customers of your adventure products (save those who a) are willing to do the work to convert them and b) those who aren't planning on using them in a game anyway). In fact, the very reason it's necessary to create PFRPG now is the same reason it wasn't feasible before then. It's only because there is a vacuum of material for the 3.5 system that Paizo can make this business model work at all. If you had done it while WotC was still producing 3.5, Paizo would probably not have lasted long at all. It would not have been feasible, the way I see it.
Yes, you might have been capable of creating PFRPG prior to 4th Edition. It would have been just about the worst decision Paizo could make, however.
Considering the sheer number of 3.5 fans that love the PFRPG Beta, not to mention the number of 3.5 "haters" that love PFRPG Beta, and the number (no matter how small) of 4e fans that love PFRPG Beta, I'd wager you are wrong on this point.