Of course there are. As alluded to earlier Mark. I think there is a good sized subset of the ASL playing world that probably doesn't care. All that really matters is if they are fun to play or not.
Whether that means they are indeed playtested .. and done without your express knowledge... or not playtested which probably makes the designers genius for some of the best, most fun, challenging and creative stuff I have played has been from CH. But at the end of the day what matters is .. is it fun to play or not. Why would waste the time considering whether was it playtested or not if they are fun and challenging to play.. what really is the point of caring.
Seems those who don't play CH are far more concerned with it than those that do play it. Which says it all really....
Ummm... NO!
If you paid attention it's about the ethics of the company. When I owned half of CH. Yes, I created CH and I'm the one who came up with the name CH. It's about ethics and how CH treats its customers. I was in charge of articles. He was in charge of scenarios. When I sent him a bunch of scenarios for consideration to be playtested, he published EVERY single one as is, without playtesting, without looking at them for design flaws, without checking anything. Designers expressed concerns about this to me and asked why. When I asked him why, he told me his philosophy behind scenarios:
"If you throw enough shit up against the wall, some of it is going to stick."
I left CH immediately after that. I wanted no part of a company with that as its philosophy behind designing ASL products. I take pride in my work. His further actions later on confirmed how correct I was for leaving and not wanting to associate my name with shit.
1. - The ripping off of Time on Target scenarios. When called on it by Mark he changed the titles, some wording and a few of the units, so it wouldn't be 'copying'. It is still stealing.
But, to you "they are fun and challenging to play.. what really is the point of caring." correct?
2. - Scott Holst submitted a scenario pack with 7 scenarios and was told he needed 8 scenarios. When Scott said he only had seven, an eighth was created out of the air by taking one of the seven, copying it, choosing two different boards and PRESTO! a new scenario!
But, to you it's all just "pure white noise man."
3. What's Deperation Morale readers #1 reason for Mark continuing to write about CH? Because they are desperate to know which CH modules and scenarios are purposely being renamed, so they don't spend their money buying the same product over and over.
Some of us choose to draw a line in the sand, while some look the other way. I choose to support companies that don't blantantly rip people off. It's has ZERO to do with playtesting! Lack of playtesting is just a symptom of a much greater disease.
But Sparky dude... to you, "... at the end of the day what matters is .. is it fun to play or not."
Ummm... NO!