I also wanted to address the concerns I'm seeing about a lawyer specializing in an area making their opinion more or less valid. I thought I had added this to my original post when I edited it, but it didn't seem to take.
Whether a lawyer specializes in a field isn't particularly relevant in terms of devaluing their opinion on something. Specializing in a field can boost a lawyers credibility on a topic in that field, but when it comes to contract law, all lawyers are familiar with the ins and outs. Contract law is a general area of practice that all lawyers are charged with having proficiency in. That's because contract law permeates all areas of practice. So arguments attempting to devalue one lawyer's opinion because they specialize in a certain area aren't helpful or persuasive to the conversation. Contracts I and II are required courses in all law schools because contract law is a key area on every state's bar exam.
I'm sure every law student and bar exam taker has to know something about contracts....but that doesn't mean they deal with it (and keep their knowledge fresh or even present) on a regular basis. Regular practice in any specialty keeps knowledge fresh and relevant for that specialty, and likewise not having regular practice in a specialty can cause that knowledge to atrophy.
For the specific lawyer whose video was being commmented on, they missed a pretty basic element of the definitions of "draft", plus there is the general desire to increase views and monetization for his videos, which can bias the information provided towards hyperbole and misinformation in the pursuit of anger, since the more mad we are, the more we tend to pay attention (for a more universal example, see fox news and most other news media)
Also, not all lawyers specialize in an area at all. Many if not most of us, myself included, are general practitioners. The training and teaching to become a lawyer is less about learning specific things in the law and more about learning the general methods of reading legal writings, understanding them, and formulating arguments. That skill carries through regardless of one's specialization. This is the focus rather than memorizing specific areas of law by design because the law changes sometimes daily. It would be malpractice to only learn an area of law once and then rely on that learning for the remainder of your career.
In a perfect world, you would be right, but as a lawyer I'm sure you know terrible lawyers, right? I sure do, and I'm not even one (just like how I, as an architect, know some terrible architects). Terrible lawyers can also make videos and arguments, with the mistakes that come with being terrible at it.
Ultimately, I am not disagreeing with your long post above for the most part. It is absolutely not good PR to use technical language to defend an argument when plain language would offer a different connotation ("draft" vs draft), and the statements themselves are not perfect in picking which one to use. My issue is people claiming that such a usage is an entire reason to discard the rest of the content of said communication, which many posts on this and other threads have said.
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback. That is clear evidence it wasn't a "draft" as their messaging now claims it to be.
As for what we know and don't know about WotC's initial road map that is on WotC for not being transparent about it before the leak. If they intended it start the discussion and ask for feedback they certainly didn't operate in that manner and they should not get the benefit of the doubt on their hidden intentions when their actions don't match. No judgment on that decision from me as it was their decision to make and I'm not privy to their internal strategizing around the issue. However, the risk of choosing to keep things like this behind closed doors is garnering distrust from the community, which is exactly what is happening.
Runkle is a lawyer, but not a contract law lawyer. Treating all lawyers like they should know everything about the law is like expecting a personal injury lawyer to be an expert on tax law. Lawyers specialize for a reason. There is simply too much law out there to know it all.
Adding a second voice against this statement. Contracts are pervasive in law - even if you are a litigation specialist, you still are negotiating draft orders to resolve your cases—and a fully agreed order is basically a contract that the judge also signs off on. It is hard not to have some part of one’s practice intersect with contracts.
That said, there is some reason to be skeptical based on their self-identification of practice area, but that skepticism should be based on concerns of bias influencing the legitimacy of their claims, not on qualification. I know I’d be skeptical of a lawyer who self-identified as “dog whistle for certain populations” (regardless of what “side” they are signalling to) as opposed to using a more neutral term like “criminal lawyer”. I find those folks who wear their politics on their sleeves tended to get into law to pontificate and promote their own personal opinions, rather than actually practice the profession.
So, yes, there are reasons to question Runkle’s analysis and whether being informative is their true motive - qualification is not one of those.
I also wanted to address the concerns I'm seeing about a lawyer specializing in an area making their opinion more or less valid. I thought I had added this to my original post when I edited it, but it didn't seem to take.
Whether a lawyer specializes in a field isn't particularly relevant in terms of devaluing their opinion on something. Specializing in a field can boost a lawyers credibility on a topic in that field, but when it comes to contract law, all lawyers are familiar with the ins and outs. Contract law is a general area of practice that all lawyers are charged with having proficiency in. That's because contract law permeates all areas of practice. So arguments attempting to devalue one lawyer's opinion because they specialize in a certain area aren't helpful or persuasive to the conversation. Contracts I and II are required courses in all law schools because contract law is a key area on every state's bar exam.
I'm sure every law student and bar exam taker has to know something about contracts....but that doesn't mean they deal with it (and keep their knowledge fresh or even present) on a regular basis. Regular practice in any specialty keeps knowledge fresh and relevant for that specialty, and likewise not having regular practice in a specialty can cause that knowledge to atrophy.
For the specific lawyer whose video was being commmented on, they missed a pretty basic element of the definitions of "draft", plus there is the general desire to increase views and monetization for his videos, which can bias the information provided towards hyperbole and misinformation in the pursuit of anger, since the more mad we are, the more we tend to pay attention (for a more universal example, see fox news and most other news media)
Also, not all lawyers specialize in an area at all. Many if not most of us, myself included, are general practitioners. The training and teaching to become a lawyer is less about learning specific things in the law and more about learning the general methods of reading legal writings, understanding them, and formulating arguments. That skill carries through regardless of one's specialization. This is the focus rather than memorizing specific areas of law by design because the law changes sometimes daily. It would be malpractice to only learn an area of law once and then rely on that learning for the remainder of your career.
In a perfect world, you would be right, but as a lawyer I'm sure you know terrible lawyers, right? I sure do, and I'm not even one (just like how I, as an architect, know some terrible architects). Terrible lawyers can also make videos and arguments, with the mistakes that come with being terrible at it.
Ultimately, I am not disagreeing with your long post above for the most part. It is absolutely not good PR to use technical language to defend an argument when plain language would offer a different connotation ("draft" vs draft), and the statements themselves are not perfect in picking which one to use. My issue is people claiming that such a usage is an entire reason to discard the rest of the content of said communication, which many posts on this and other threads have said.
Regular practice in an area certainly helps, that's why I said specialization can boost the credibility of a lawyer on a specific topic, but shouldn't be used in the reverse to diminish an opinion from someone not specialized in that field. I haven't watched his video, but lawyers are humans and we make mistakes too, even those specialized in an area. The mistake can be a reason for stating his opinion is less valid, but not the fact he specializes in a different area. It's possible upon realizing his mistake he will correct the error and address it by either reaffirming his stance or changing it. Not all mistakes change the outcome of an argument.
To the broader point of his mistake being missing a part of the definition of "draft," I again reiterate arguing over the definition misses the point and if his video was about that specifically rather than just the general sentiment I expressed above about the real meat of why people are upset then I would agree he shouldn't have focused on that at all. A big part of this argument over the definition is irrelevant. As I said above that is a legal argument for the courtroom, and presently we are not in a courtroom.
I unfortunately know too many bad lawyers. One is too many, but I know substantially more than one.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
This might be true in your local area of practice; it isn’t true everywhere and you should avoid the word “always” in making such a claim. In my jurisdiction, for example, our drafts often look like “final” versions - something the other side can just quickly print and sign if they agree to the terms. And, if they don’t, they’ll send back a “ready to sign” version to me and I’ll either have the client print and sign or we’ll do another counter offer.
The fact that it looked ready to be signed is a non-issue; that very easily could just be how they do business. Especially since the only real piece of information we have is Kickstarter specifically saying that they were having negotiations, that their negotiations resulted in some compromises, and that their negotiations were still ongoing as of the time of the leak.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
Given that we apparently have a statement from a third-party publisher who was actually engaged with WotC on the matter that they negotiated the royalty down to 20%, it's very clear that this was a negotiation.
WotC did a really shitty thing. That doesn't change the fact that quibbling over the word "draft" is extremely silly and betrays a lack of critical thought.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
This might be true in your local area of practice; it isn’t true everywhere and you should avoid the word “always” in making such a claim. In my jurisdiction, for example, our drafts often look like “final” versions - something the other side can just quickly print and sign if they agree to the terms. And, if they don’t, they’ll send back a “ready to sign” version to me and I’ll either have the client print and sign or we’ll do another counter offer.
The fact that it looked ready to be signed is a non-issue; that very easily could just be how they do business. Especially since the only real piece of information we have is Kickstarter specifically saying that they were having negotiations, that their negotiations resulted in some compromises, and that their negotiations were still ongoing as of the time of the leak.
You are correct that it isn't always the same and I shouldn't have used the word always. The first thing you learn is law school is the phrase "it depends" for a reason. My point remains though. To my knowledge, prior to the leak the draft was intended to be sent to content creators with a deadline to sign. That is why I state the use of the term draft after the fact is misleading.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
Given that we apparently have a statement from a third-party publisher who was actually engaged with WotC on the matter that they negotiated the royalty down to 20%, it's very clear that this was a negotiation.
WotC did a really shitty thing. That doesn't change the fact that quibbling over the word "draft" is extremely silly and betrays a lack of critical thought.
We also have statements from third parties that were not allowed to negotiate. Just because Kickstarter got to negotiate doesn't mean the others would have. The information I've seen indicates that prior to the leak the intent was for the 2.0 draft to include a deadline to sign which would mean it wasn't likely intended to solicit feedback.
I agree that quibbling over the word draft misses the point. That's what my initial post on this thread was getting at. We should give more weight to the context of the situation than the specific word itself.
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
And yet, we know for a fact they were getting feedback, and were responding to it
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
And yet, we know for a fact they were getting feedback, and were responding to it
And we know for a fact they weren't getting feedback from the community at large or even all parties they intended to offer the OGL 2.0 to. If I negotiate with Caerwyn_Glyndwr on a resolution to this discussion and exclude you, would you say you had an opportunity to provide feedback when I come to you with the resolution? No. To my knowledge, the feedback you are referring to was prior to the community knowing anything about revisions to the OGL which is the bigger issue many have. That is supported by the fact they are now seeking that feedback openly. They themselves admitted they went about it the wrong way.
Ultimately I think the vast majority of us here agree. There are hardliners on both sides for sure, but most people simply want to make sure this game we love isn't destroyed. Like I said in my original post, I'm glad WotC is walking things back and taking a more open approach going forward. It is a step in the right direction, but there also remains reason to be skeptical.
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
And yet, we know for a fact they were getting feedback, and were responding to it
And we know for a fact they weren't getting feedback from the community at large
Well, no, because until the leak happened it was purely an internal negotiation between WOTC and their partners. Again, at this point we have no idea whether the plan was to have a wider discussion with the community or not, but there was certainly no reason to have rando DMs and players weigh in on negotiations with Kickstarter
I mean, why would I even expect you to solicit my input on a deal between you and Caerwyn?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
Those upset with the use in the statements, including myself, are upset because it implies WotC intended to receive feedback from the beginning when it's clear that was not the original intent.
How is it clear that wasn't the original intent?
The only direct quote that I'm aware of from a major third party, as opposed to rumors and games of telephone, is the one from Kickstarter that said, "We've got them down to 20 percent and are still negotiating"
We actually have no idea what WOTC's initial road map for all this was, because it got blown to smithereens after the leak
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback.
And yet, we know for a fact they were getting feedback, and were responding to it
And we know for a fact they weren't getting feedback from the community at large
Well, no, because until the leak happened it was purely an internal negotiation between WOTC and their partners. Again, at this point we have no idea whether the plan was to have a wider discussion with the community or not, but there was certainly no reason to have rando DMs and players weigh in on negotiations with Kickstarter
I mean, why would I even expect you to solicit my input on a deal between you and Caerwyn?
You wouldn't, but you would expect to be included in a resolution to the ongoing disagreement you and I are having was the point of my question.
As to the ongoing argument over WotC's intentions I've stated multiple times the evidence I have to imply they did not intend to solicit feedback outside of that which they received from their partners as have the content creators that brought the issue to the public light. You can continue to disagree with me on that, but at this point we are just going in circles so I'm going to say we may just have to agree to disagree on that point. And that's okay. Like I said earlier, I believe each of us in this thread is seeking the same thing. Which is to protect the game and culture we love.
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
I don't think anyone is whining. We are discussing differences of opinion. There is no reason we can't do both that and review the new OLG draft. In fact, we are on the other thread. This discussion is equally relevant as it provides context necessary to the review of future offerings from WotC. I realize you don't see whether the use of the word is misleading as a big deal, but many do. Regaining trust is a process and often involves/requires resolution of past grievances leaded to the distrust
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
I don't think anyone is whining. We are discussing differences of opinion. There is no reason we can't do both that and review the new OLG draft. In fact, we are on the other thread. This discussion is equally relevant as it provides context necessary to the review of future offerings from WotC. I realize you don't see whether the use of the word is misleading as a big deal, but many do. Regaining trust is a process and often involves/requires resolution of past grievances leaded to the distrust
This assumes that parties want resolution. From some posts being made, it seems some of these folks just want to rage about their grievances ad infinitum, and they will use any opportunity they have to do so...heck, there is a thread saying the new one is bad because its only 3 pages long as opposed to the 15 page leaked version.
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
I don't think anyone is whining. We are discussing differences of opinion. There is no reason we can't do both that and review the new OLG draft. In fact, we are on the other thread. This discussion is equally relevant as it provides context necessary to the review of future offerings from WotC. I realize you don't see whether the use of the word is misleading as a big deal, but many do. Regaining trust is a process and often involves/requires resolution of past grievances leaded to the distrust
This assumes that parties want resolution. From some posts being made, it seems some of these folks just want to rage about their grievances ad infinitum, and they will use any opportunity they have to do so...heck, there is a thread saying the new one is bad because its only 3 pages long as opposed to the 15 page leaked version.
There are always going to be bad actors. In this case there are people on both sides. We have people refusing to accept WotC is trying to fix it and we have people refusing to see what WotC did as a problem at all. I'm not referring to those people here, I'm referring to those in this thread adding legitimate discourse like you, myself, and those I'm directly responding to above.
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
1.0a is the current OGL. There's not much to review. You, know, since you're so keen on being technical. Once 1.2 launches, there will be two current OGLs. Possibly 3. It will be madness.
If you're confused about something, by all means, ask. It's 23 years old, I'm sure someone has the answer.
That said, there's nothing to review in the new "draft" ogl that IS a very rough draft, since the whole thing is subject to change. Get back to me when it includes a draft SRD 6.0, draft CC license (one that clearly states that using it does not opt me into 1.2/2.0 and giving wizards the right to arbitrarilly yank the rug out from under me if I threaten their business model) and draft VTT policy and all the links work and go to actual documents we can read, and I'll give my opinion on it. Right now it's just a big empty wooden horse. Looks kinda inviting even. I really wonder what's inside. Chances are, I'll not be touching it.
I'm sure every law student and bar exam taker has to know something about contracts....but that doesn't mean they deal with it (and keep their knowledge fresh or even present) on a regular basis. Regular practice in any specialty keeps knowledge fresh and relevant for that specialty, and likewise not having regular practice in a specialty can cause that knowledge to atrophy.
For the specific lawyer whose video was being commmented on, they missed a pretty basic element of the definitions of "draft", plus there is the general desire to increase views and monetization for his videos, which can bias the information provided towards hyperbole and misinformation in the pursuit of anger, since the more mad we are, the more we tend to pay attention (for a more universal example, see fox news and most other news media)
In a perfect world, you would be right, but as a lawyer I'm sure you know terrible lawyers, right? I sure do, and I'm not even one (just like how I, as an architect, know some terrible architects). Terrible lawyers can also make videos and arguments, with the mistakes that come with being terrible at it.
Ultimately, I am not disagreeing with your long post above for the most part. It is absolutely not good PR to use technical language to defend an argument when plain language would offer a different connotation ("draft" vs draft), and the statements themselves are not perfect in picking which one to use. My issue is people claiming that such a usage is an entire reason to discard the rest of the content of said communication, which many posts on this and other threads have said.
Their intent is derived from their actions. You don't send a contract with a deadline to be signed expecting feedback. That is clear evidence it wasn't a "draft" as their messaging now claims it to be.
As for what we know and don't know about WotC's initial road map that is on WotC for not being transparent about it before the leak. If they intended it start the discussion and ask for feedback they certainly didn't operate in that manner and they should not get the benefit of the doubt on their hidden intentions when their actions don't match. No judgment on that decision from me as it was their decision to make and I'm not privy to their internal strategizing around the issue. However, the risk of choosing to keep things like this behind closed doors is garnering distrust from the community, which is exactly what is happening.
Literally yes you do. That's exactly how contract negotiation works.
Adding a second voice against this statement. Contracts are pervasive in law - even if you are a litigation specialist, you still are negotiating draft orders to resolve your cases—and a fully agreed order is basically a contract that the judge also signs off on. It is hard not to have some part of one’s practice intersect with contracts.
That said, there is some reason to be skeptical based on their self-identification of practice area, but that skepticism should be based on concerns of bias influencing the legitimacy of their claims, not on qualification. I know I’d be skeptical of a lawyer who self-identified as “dog whistle for certain populations” (regardless of what “side” they are signalling to) as opposed to using a more neutral term like “criminal lawyer”. I find those folks who wear their politics on their sleeves tended to get into law to pontificate and promote their own personal opinions, rather than actually practice the profession.
So, yes, there are reasons to question Runkle’s analysis and whether being informative is their true motive - qualification is not one of those.
Regular practice in an area certainly helps, that's why I said specialization can boost the credibility of a lawyer on a specific topic, but shouldn't be used in the reverse to diminish an opinion from someone not specialized in that field. I haven't watched his video, but lawyers are humans and we make mistakes too, even those specialized in an area. The mistake can be a reason for stating his opinion is less valid, but not the fact he specializes in a different area. It's possible upon realizing his mistake he will correct the error and address it by either reaffirming his stance or changing it. Not all mistakes change the outcome of an argument.
To the broader point of his mistake being missing a part of the definition of "draft," I again reiterate arguing over the definition misses the point and if his video was about that specifically rather than just the general sentiment I expressed above about the real meat of why people are upset then I would agree he shouldn't have focused on that at all. A big part of this argument over the definition is irrelevant. As I said above that is a legal argument for the courtroom, and presently we are not in a courtroom.
I unfortunately know too many bad lawyers. One is too many, but I know substantially more than one.
No the feedback comes before the offer to sign when the parties are allowing negotiations. As I said in my main post, what WotC offered is more of a contract of adhesion, one where feedback is not requested or desired. If the parties are negotiating the drafts will always be stamped as draft to make it clear no one intends it to be signed and the accompanying cover letter will also state it is intended to solicit feedback and further discussion.
This might be true in your local area of practice; it isn’t true everywhere and you should avoid the word “always” in making such a claim. In my jurisdiction, for example, our drafts often look like “final” versions - something the other side can just quickly print and sign if they agree to the terms. And, if they don’t, they’ll send back a “ready to sign” version to me and I’ll either have the client print and sign or we’ll do another counter offer.
The fact that it looked ready to be signed is a non-issue; that very easily could just be how they do business. Especially since the only real piece of information we have is Kickstarter specifically saying that they were having negotiations, that their negotiations resulted in some compromises, and that their negotiations were still ongoing as of the time of the leak.
Given that we apparently have a statement from a third-party publisher who was actually engaged with WotC on the matter that they negotiated the royalty down to 20%, it's very clear that this was a negotiation.
WotC did a really shitty thing. That doesn't change the fact that quibbling over the word "draft" is extremely silly and betrays a lack of critical thought.
You are correct that it isn't always the same and I shouldn't have used the word always. The first thing you learn is law school is the phrase "it depends" for a reason. My point remains though. To my knowledge, prior to the leak the draft was intended to be sent to content creators with a deadline to sign. That is why I state the use of the term draft after the fact is misleading.
We also have statements from third parties that were not allowed to negotiate. Just because Kickstarter got to negotiate doesn't mean the others would have. The information I've seen indicates that prior to the leak the intent was for the 2.0 draft to include a deadline to sign which would mean it wasn't likely intended to solicit feedback.
I agree that quibbling over the word draft misses the point. That's what my initial post on this thread was getting at. We should give more weight to the context of the situation than the specific word itself.
And yet, we know for a fact they were getting feedback, and were responding to it
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
And we know for a fact they weren't getting feedback from the community at large or even all parties they intended to offer the OGL 2.0 to. If I negotiate with Caerwyn_Glyndwr on a resolution to this discussion and exclude you, would you say you had an opportunity to provide feedback when I come to you with the resolution? No. To my knowledge, the feedback you are referring to was prior to the community knowing anything about revisions to the OGL which is the bigger issue many have. That is supported by the fact they are now seeking that feedback openly. They themselves admitted they went about it the wrong way.
Ultimately I think the vast majority of us here agree. There are hardliners on both sides for sure, but most people simply want to make sure this game we love isn't destroyed. Like I said in my original post, I'm glad WotC is walking things back and taking a more open approach going forward. It is a step in the right direction, but there also remains reason to be skeptical.
Can we drop the deadline/draft thing? It's a moot point, the outrage did it's job, we're all reviewing the current OGL now. If you feel WotC stole your lunch money and kicked your dog, fine - but we have an actual job to do now, and whining ad infinitum about the past isn't it.
Well, no, because until the leak happened it was purely an internal negotiation between WOTC and their partners. Again, at this point we have no idea whether the plan was to have a wider discussion with the community or not, but there was certainly no reason to have rando DMs and players weigh in on negotiations with Kickstarter
I mean, why would I even expect you to solicit my input on a deal between you and Caerwyn?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
You wouldn't, but you would expect to be included in a resolution to the ongoing disagreement you and I are having was the point of my question.
As to the ongoing argument over WotC's intentions I've stated multiple times the evidence I have to imply they did not intend to solicit feedback outside of that which they received from their partners as have the content creators that brought the issue to the public light. You can continue to disagree with me on that, but at this point we are just going in circles so I'm going to say we may just have to agree to disagree on that point. And that's okay. Like I said earlier, I believe each of us in this thread is seeking the same thing. Which is to protect the game and culture we love.
I don't think anyone is whining. We are discussing differences of opinion. There is no reason we can't do both that and review the new OLG draft. In fact, we are on the other thread. This discussion is equally relevant as it provides context necessary to the review of future offerings from WotC. I realize you don't see whether the use of the word is misleading as a big deal, but many do. Regaining trust is a process and often involves/requires resolution of past grievances leaded to the distrust
This assumes that parties want resolution. From some posts being made, it seems some of these folks just want to rage about their grievances ad infinitum, and they will use any opportunity they have to do so...heck, there is a thread saying the new one is bad because its only 3 pages long as opposed to the 15 page leaked version.
There are always going to be bad actors. In this case there are people on both sides. We have people refusing to accept WotC is trying to fix it and we have people refusing to see what WotC did as a problem at all. I'm not referring to those people here, I'm referring to those in this thread adding legitimate discourse like you, myself, and those I'm directly responding to above.
1.0a is the current OGL. There's not much to review. You, know, since you're so keen on being technical. Once 1.2 launches, there will be two current OGLs. Possibly 3. It will be madness.
If you're confused about something, by all means, ask. It's 23 years old, I'm sure someone has the answer.
That said, there's nothing to review in the new "draft" ogl that IS a very rough draft, since the whole thing is subject to change. Get back to me when it includes a draft SRD 6.0, draft CC license (one that clearly states that using it does not opt me into 1.2/2.0 and giving wizards the right to arbitrarilly yank the rug out from under me if I threaten their business model) and draft VTT policy and all the links work and go to actual documents we can read, and I'll give my opinion on it. Right now it's just a big empty wooden horse. Looks kinda inviting even. I really wonder what's inside. Chances are, I'll not be touching it.