I still maintain that this absolutely does not happen in the course of normal document revision and should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Simple answer: it's not a document revision, it's a completely new document. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be suspicious of -- just what bad behavior do you think is being somehow hidden by producing a new shorter document?
I still maintain that this absolutely does not happen in the course of normal document revision and should be viewed with extreme suspicion.
Simple answer: it's not a document revision, it's a completely new document. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be suspicious of -- just what bad behavior do you think is being somehow hidden by producing a new shorter document?
Externalizing the VTT policy to an uncontrolled location is pretty huge one. Pages weren't cut, they were just moved somewhere else.
This loophole leaves them the ability kill any OGL 1.2 VTTs which would be the obvious move once WotC finally releases their VTT-as-a-service.
Is it suspicious that the leaked one was so long, and so bad? Absolutely. And you could make an argument that the longer the document, the more suspicious because it might be filled with more confusing legalese than a shorter document.
Is it suspicious that the new version is closer in length to the one people like, and is a lot less bad? Well, if it's shorter, there's probably less confusing language. And the parts people still don't like are probably more obvious as things WotC actually intends to do, as opposed to things they might do. I'd say that probably makes it clearer and less "sus" overall.
By all means, be suspicious of that bad leaked version and the motivations of the people who put it in writing. It was truly awful. But people didn't like it, and they voiced their opinions about it, and the new version reversed course on 90% of it. People can look at this new one in a transparent, official capacity and give feedback on it. It seems really improbable that they're trying to sneak some secret language into it that they hope no one will notice.
Now does that mean you have to like the new version? Of course not. But be suspicious about what's actually there, not what could be there.
I said I smelt smoke, then we discussed and now we found a fire that we are discussing.
Unfortunately I can't edit the topic.
You can edit the topic using “Edit thread” found under “Tools”. (Upper right on all devices that aren’t phones. You have to turn the screen sideways to see it on a phone.)
I said I smelt smoke, then we discussed and now we found a fire that we are discussing.
Unfortunately I can't edit the topic.
You can edit the topic using “Edit thread” found under “Tools”. (Upper right on all devices that aren’t phones. You have to turn the screen sideways to see it on a phone.)
Wait that's how you do it, I've always just turned on desktop mode. I feel both stupid and irritated right now.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Simple answer: it's not a document revision, it's a completely new document. I'm not even sure what we're supposed to be suspicious of -- just what bad behavior do you think is being somehow hidden by producing a new shorter document?
Externalizing the VTT policy to an uncontrolled location is pretty huge one. Pages weren't cut, they were just moved somewhere else.
This loophole leaves them the ability kill any OGL 1.2 VTTs which would be the obvious move once WotC finally releases their VTT-as-a-service.
Is it suspicious that the leaked one was so long, and so bad? Absolutely. And you could make an argument that the longer the document, the more suspicious because it might be filled with more confusing legalese than a shorter document.
Is it suspicious that the new version is closer in length to the one people like, and is a lot less bad? Well, if it's shorter, there's probably less confusing language. And the parts people still don't like are probably more obvious as things WotC actually intends to do, as opposed to things they might do. I'd say that probably makes it clearer and less "sus" overall.
By all means, be suspicious of that bad leaked version and the motivations of the people who put it in writing. It was truly awful. But people didn't like it, and they voiced their opinions about it, and the new version reversed course on 90% of it. People can look at this new one in a transparent, official capacity and give feedback on it. It seems really improbable that they're trying to sneak some secret language into it that they hope no one will notice.
Now does that mean you have to like the new version? Of course not. But be suspicious about what's actually there, not what could be there.
I said I smelt smoke, then we discussed and now we found a fire that we are discussing.
Unfortunately I can't edit the topic.
You can edit the topic using “Edit thread” found under “Tools”. (Upper right on all devices that aren’t phones. You have to turn the screen sideways to see it on a phone.)
Only spilt the party if you see something shiny.
Ariendela Sneakerson, Half-elf Rogue (8); Harmony Wolfsbane, Tiefling Bard (10); Agnomally, Gnomish Sorcerer (3); Breeze, Tabaxi Monk (8); Grace, Dragonborn Barbarian (7); DM, Homebrew- The Sequestered Lands/Underwater Explorers; Candlekeep
Done, cheers.
Wait that's how you do it, I've always just turned on desktop mode. I feel both stupid and irritated right now.
If I can't say something nice, I try to not say anything at all. So if I suddenly stop participating in a topic that's probably why.