There were no defenseless mom and pop creators that received a copy of the draft. They were all established and successful companies. There were no victims of the OGL 1.1 to release. That is the point being made to Salguod that you seemed to have missed.
1.1 is the general release OGL 1.0a replacement. It does not refer to any side deals that wizards may have offered any partners in exchange for other concessions... but you're right, aside from the fact that 1.1 requires you to register your product with WotC and waive ANY claim you have over that IP, it's a victimless contract that mostly only targeted well established and successful companies, and my understanding is that NO mom and pop publishers were consulted about it ever.
Edit: I haven't heard of part time pay-what-you-want publishers over at DM's guild getting the 1.1 runaround, and if they did, all the more reason why claiming this was not intended as an ACTUAL rollout of the new 1.1 is total BS, so if that's actually true, Salguod, I'd like to know. Anyone specific you know of?
OGL 1.2 was revoked. We all read the announcement. I never saw anywhere that OGL 1.1 has been revoked. (twirling mustache)
Bottom line, WotC has to come clean if they want to regain the respect of the community. Denying that WotC applied pressure tactics on much smaller businesses is not becoming. No, it was NOT just Critical Role, Paizo, Kobold Press and the big boys who got that letter. Small businesses also received the high pressure sales pitch for OGL 1.1. A little honesty and a blunt confession would go far to restore faith in WotC's integrity.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
I did not get the feeling that they were respectful at all. And they did repeat several questions/ask questions that he'd already given the answer to. I remember thinking several times during the video "Dude, he already answered that, why are you wasting time asking things he already gave an answer to". And it wasn't entirely clear why there were 3 people involved when 95% of the video only involved two of them.
The interview definitely felt unprofessional to me.
As I said, the times they probed further on a given answer made sense to me - but it's a moot point anyway, the interview is what it is and I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
As for why there were two of them... I mean, that's the show (it's actually usually more than two) and I have no doubt WotC knew that going in when they picked them to interview Kyle in the first place. Clearly Kyle was fine with it and he handled himself well. And regarding their professionalism... I mean, again, WotC willingly picked them and I doubt they rolled a d100 to do so.
My point was that Kyle's answer concerning the "Draft" OGL 1.1" was far from satisfactory. There will be other interviews, and Kyle will have another chance to answer. We are talking about the interview here, are we not? Sorry to intrude on your private little spat.
I for one hope you get no other answer or insight regarding 1.1 beyond what was said here, it's a dead document that will never be relevant to anything ever again. Time to move on.
Were it true that Wizards had no intention of going after less established and successful companies, how do you figure that '20 or so' figure makes any sense?
Can you list even a dozen companies producing games using the OGL that are anywhere near as big as Critical Role or Kobold Press?
I came up with 8, but i'm not really paying attention. Paizo, CR, Roll 20, Goodman Games, Kobold Press, DM's guild, MDCM <--some configuration of letters and Fantasy Grounds.
That being said, my being able to name or not name 20 does not mean that there are fewer than 20, nor does it imply that the other 12 sweetheart deals went to baby fish for the sake of inclusivity or whatever. If we're still talking about the 20 biggest names in RPG publishing, then I'd argue that calling them 'defenseless mom and pop creators' is a disingenuous approach to this conversation. Especially when we're looking for "honesty and blunt confession."
No, it was NOT just Critical Role, Paizo, Kobold Press and the big boys who got that letter. Small businesses also received the high pressure sales pitch for OGL 1.1. A little honesty and a blunt confession would go far to restore faith in WotC's integrity.
If true, I want to know. If it's "technically true" in the sense that the draft OGL was "technically" a draft, I then... you can finish my thought. Suffice to say, I'm not impressed.
Do you think that there were defenseless little mom n pop creators sitting at a table with hired thugs glaring at them while WotC lawyers forced them to sign contracts as they twirled their mustache?
Some of those "defenseless little mom n pop creators" chose to cease distribution of their games until Wizards chose to back down. Let's not pretend Wizards' behavior this past month has earned them many friends in the industry.
Ultimately, it no longer matters. Wizards chose to back down.
I know a lot of sore losers here want to start thread after thread or post post after post about "much needed" changes to the existing OGL or why Wizards "deserve" royalties but the war is over.
There were no defenseless mom and pop creators that received a copy of the draft. They were all established and successful companies. There were no victims of the OGL 1.1 to release. That is the point being made to Salguod that you seemed to have missed.
So are you saying that an organization can do what they want, demanding responses in a week, if the other side has potential defenses?
Sure they had defenses and they chose to leak the ready-to-sign documents to an associated journalist. However, organizations, whether they have defenses or not, shouldn't have to work like this, and nor should a mom or pop.
"You hit-hassled me with a 9,000-word, short turnaround response legal document! Why did you do that?" "Well, you had defenses!"
Goodman Game released a statement as early as January 12 saying they would not be impacted and telling their customers not to worry.
That's great for them. Doesn't mean they did, or did not get a letter, just means that if they did, I don't need to demand satisfaction by dueling someone on their behalf. Otherwise, my hands would be tied, and murder charges are so tedious these days.
You had small and very much mom and pop type deals like France's the Merry Mushmen cancelling their subscriptions here and making their own game. But perhaps this was just in protest.
It's a very important distinction to make. Wizards actively peddling 1.1 in the broader community would be huge news imo and would utterly kill the draft/draft controversy in it's sleep.
Kickstarter confirmed Wizards sought 20 percent on anything earned above 750,000 on the platform, no?
Oh, that's riiiight! They totally signed something, didn't they? They announced it and everything. Edit: nope, nope, they didn't. All crowdfunding under 1.1 is subject to 20%, not just them. Weird that WotC would single them out like that.
EDIT: Maybe you've forgotten the original point you and someone else were trying to make here. You claimed no mom and pop creatives were going to be harmed by the intended changes. That's simply not true. No matter how snide your replies.
Citation needed. Don't lump me in with crazy people.
What I said was: 1) anyone who WAS 'harmed' by rumors about something wizards of the coast was planning on doing, no matter how heinous, jumped the gun and should have waited to act until the dust settled (or they were put into a corner that absolutely forced them to move, like wizards officially revoking 1.0a)
2) I said they weren't CONSULTED and then I edited that response that says I don't think they were consulted and if anyone knows of someone small who GOT A LETTER i'd love to hear about it. I think that would be newsworthy.
Edit: My comment about KS was not intended to be snide. I genuinely forgot that there was a special carve-out for Kickstarter and the OP, the original post we are all responding to, was asking about people who signed on the dotted line. It occurred to me when you said this "oh hey, I wonder if they signed something?"
EDIT: Maybe you've forgotten the original point you and someone else were trying to make here. You claimed no mom and pop creatives were going to be harmed by the intended changes. That's simply not true. No matter how snide your replies.
Citation needed. Don't lump me in with crazy people.
What I said was: 1) anyone who WAS 'harmed' by rumors about something wizards of the coast was planning on doing, no matter how heinous, jumped the gun and should have waited to act until the dust settled (or they were put into a corner that absolutely forced them to move, like wizards officially revoking 1.1)
2) I said they weren't CONSULTED and then I edited that response that says I don't think they were consulted and if anyone knows of someone small who GOT A LETTER i'd love to hear about it.
1 I said before Wizards can't really be blamed for this. But it's not hard to imagine why some ceased distribution of their games provided some are dependent on print and demand and probably didn't want to find themselves promising products to people and then having to turn around and cancel their orders and destroy printed product in the event things didn't go so well.
2 But you believe Paizo, Critical Roll, Roll20, Goodman Games, Kobold Press, Dungeon Masters Guild , MCDM Productions, Fantasy Grounds all were? Some of these publishers made announcements directly in response to the leak but gave little to no indication they were in 'talks' with Wizards. Have you got a letter to show otherwise? I'm not sure why you've chosen a publisher's being consulted as the decisive factor here and not whether publishers—big or small—were deeply concerned about the intended updates and let themselves be heard.
1) yes, but you're claiming I said something other than these two things. Something involving small buisness owners not caring, or not being harmed by the TEXT of 1.1 should it be released. I'm not asking you to revisit this statement, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with what you seem to think I said.
2) Nope. I don't think Paizo or any of these other people <anything> My understanding is that 20 people were approached (+/-) and that they were the biggest people in the industry. To my knowledge, and what I've said previously, ON THIS THREAD EVEN was that they were approached with a sign this before the 13th or deal with the same restrictions as everybody else "gun to the head" ultimatum. I claim no knowledge about these behind closed doors "conversations" beyond the terms were varied by partner. Here:
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
You didn't have to sign. There was no signature required. 1.1 deauthorizes 1.0a on Jan 13th and says everyone is subject to the new terms, like them or not. I think you're referring to the rumored SIGN THIS NOW "partner" deals that offer alternate terms like royalties "as low as 15%" or a 12 month waiver that were allegedly sent out along with a "draft 1.1" and were essentially a gun to the head strongarm tactic being aggressively misrepresented by WotC as a "survey of interest and request for feedback" or whatever. Those deals offered individually tailored/negotiated terms that aren't really public but are confirmed to exist by multiple sources. I would be surprised if anyone signed as the deadline was a week out and why rush? I also don't really think whether anyone signed is the important question in the draft/draft controversy. A better question might be: if 1.1 was under active development and you were already leaning towards replacing it with 1.2 and you were just collecting feedback... why is the word draft plastered ALL OVER 1.2 in giant neon read it from space lettering while does not? Why is there a 2 page FAQ section attached to 1.1?
From the leak "What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operateunder the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if youwant to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to theOGL: Commercial."
#early draft still under development guys. We totally want feedback. Really.
It seems a pretty petty point of contention. And I don't really see the point to arguing over such points of conjecture about who was or who was not a recipient of a letter from Wizards or who was or who was not in consultation with them any more than I do arguing over why Wizards ought to have gone ahead with their plans provided they did not.
You think? You don't see any reason why information PROVING that 1.1 was absolutely intended to rollout on January 13th might be newsworthy? You didn't hear kyle, just today, waffling on about how it was a draft and no big deal and the dates were placeholders which is a common practice that nobody with his experience would even blink at?
You see no connection between learning of a large scale, community wide, top to bottom push to make everyone aware of the jan 13th deadline and securing agreements throughout the community might be important evidence or mean something different than "they sent out 20 contracts to a selection of highly valued (*cough*) partners (*ehem*) under NDA with the intention to bring them onboard before announcing at a later date? Not that I believe that to be the case, mind you, but I was responding to a specific claim at the time.
I am sincerely asking because the only mention of that give or take 20 publishers was in a statement made about how many publishers would be impacted, no? I don't remember it saying anything about that give or take 20 publishers having been approached, but do point me in the right direction if this has been confirmed. I'd like to see if a list of them. Not from you. Just out of curiosity.
Oh, brain fart. Details are a little iffy on the whole thing and I just crossed a wire or something. I defer to you, if that's what it was.
It's relevant because Brink made the point about wanting Wizards to be a more diverse company that reflected the diversity of the playerbase.
I don't think anyone would argue against the basic premise of that. But when it means reducing a candidate for a job to the color of his or her skin when that someone might only be ostensibly 'white'? No. That is racist. In fact, in my country, it is a major violation of Section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act. Something put in place to protect the human dignity of those of us of aboriginality who might not look it.
Yea - but ... so if the job posting states that 'we want these qualifications - also we try to build a diverse workplace' ... then me and some other applicant who both fit the qualifications are literally only differentiated by whether or not we fit the diversity thing.
If they disregard qualifications and simply hire on diversity alone, that's different. But I have to say I find that highly unlikely. Businesses are primarily businesses, and diversity in and of itself doesn't do much work. If you need a python code person, but you hire someone on diversity instead, you're not getting any python done.
Edit: And we should propably stop derailing the thread. Even if someone said, it's still tangential =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
What would you call it were I interviewed for a job at Wizards and by virtue of their assuming I was 'white'—I'm not—and their wanting a more diverse workforce they did not give me the job?
Let me give you a clue: It would be racist.
This is propably a discussion to be avoided - but not every action that arises from X is X-ist.
I spoke with a business owner recently. He was looking for a sales executive of around 35-40 years. That's illegal in this country, because it's age-ist, and we'll have no part of that.
The guy in question was 60, and he was planing to go into retirement at 62. So, he had a senior sales guy, who was on track to become the new boss, and he needed a junior sales guy to fill the senior sales guy's position at that point.
That's strikingly similar to discrimination, but it's just good, sound logic. So, in order to avoid discrimination, the business owner would have to set aside good, sound logic. Unsurprisingly, he wasn't about to.
You can substitute age for anything, of course. And I don't think it's bad to want to work for diversity in the workplace. Even if I'm guy who doesn't get the job, because someone equally qualified but from some minority did.
Edit: I'm unsure how this is relevant to the Interview discussion. It seems rather tangential =)
Actually, logic says hire a 22 year old and tell him that he can be the boss in 2 years if he outsells the guy who's been working the same job for 20. Tell them both to hit the trade shows and make a BIG new contract by the end of the year and offer them both a bonus.
I'm not sure what favoring the guy you know and have a relationship with and who has worked hard for you for 20 years waiting for you to retire like a good soldier is. I'm sure Ayn rand would eviscerate you for it, though.
Individuals are attempt to derail, inflame, and troll this thread with misinformation, false claims, and other such disruptive behaviour. This will not be tolerated as it is a violation of site rules. Those who choose to engage in this behaviour will find themselves on the receiving end of infractions, also detailed in the site rules & guidelines.
Not necessarily. People can get lucky for one or two years in sales (or creative works and be a one hit wonder) then faceplant. Maybe you're looking for someone that has demonstrated an ability to produce over a long period to take the more senior position that would be focused on mentoring others in the field.
Not necessarily. People can get lucky for one or two years in sales (or creative works and be a one hit wonder) then faceplant. Maybe you're looking for someone that has demonstrated an ability to produce over a long period to take the more senior position that would be focused on mentoring others in the field.
It's a joke. Ayn rand sucks. John Stewart Mill all the way.
Not necessarily. People can get lucky for one or two years in sales (or creative works and be a one hit wonder) then faceplant. Maybe you're looking for someone that has demonstrated an ability to produce over a long period to take the more senior position that would be focused on mentoring others in the field.
It's a joke. Ayn rand sucks. John Stewart Mill all the way.
Ahh hah. Didn't catch that one.
It does kind of relate to the issue companies have expanding diversity though in that that expansion at the senior level is a lagging indicator. It may take 10-20 years to reach that goal of having a big pool of diverse and experienced talent to draw from for your senior positions, but if they really are building up that bench of talent they're on their way. It seems like that was what was being said in the interview, but it was stated inelegantly so some are seizing on the phrasing to twist it into a purposeful slight instead of an accidental one.
I just watched the interview from the first post. Statements like the one in 49:25 are in my view inappropriate and frankly offend me. Especially that they come from company's CEO. Is there any WotC e-mail address of costumer support or something like that to file a complain?
What has NOT been said is that there were allegedly NDA's attached to the "draft" OGL in question. If true, that means that we will never know who got the "one week deadline offer" because all those people/businesses are under non-disclosure agreements. The actual "draft but you have to sign right now OGL" document has now been leaked (NOT released, but leaked). Anybody can read it, and anybody who does will see how draconian it was. So again, if Kyle wanted to end this, he could publicly announce that all NDA's involving the "draft" OGL have been terminated. He could announce that any signed agreements have been revoked and terminated. But we only hear crickets from Kyle on those issues. It is my firm belief that there were small fish who got hauled in with that net. For example, I really love Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder, but I don't think that they are in the Fortune 500.
I think it is great that Kyle is granting these interviews with content creators. It is definitely a step in the right direction down the long road that WotC must tread if they want to regain the community's trust. Perhaps the truth will finally come out along the way. But if WotC wants to really come clean, they need to grant an interview to a professional journalist. Linda Codega is the obvious choice. Actually, Linda Codega is the ONLY choice capable of putting this issue (and several other issues) to rest.
What has NOT been said is that there were allegedly NDA's attached to the "draft" OGL in question. If true, that means that we will never know who got the "one week deadline offer" because all those people/businesses are under non-disclosure agreements. The actual "draft but you have to sign right now OGL" document has now been leaked (NOT released, but leaked). Anybody can read it, and anybody who does will see how draconian it was. So again, if Kyle wanted to end this, he could publicly announce that all NDA's involving the "draft" OGL have been terminated. He could announce that any signed agreements have been revoked and terminated. But we only hear crickets from Kyle on those issues. It is my firm belief that there were small fish who got hauled in with that net. For example, I really love Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder, but I don't think that they are in the Fortune 500.
I think it is great that Kyle is granting these interviews with content creators. It is definitely a step in the right direction down the long road that WotC must tread if they want to regain the community's trust. Perhaps the truth will finally come out along the way. But if WotC wants to really come clean, they need to grant an interview to a professional journalist. Linda Codega is the obvious choice. Actually, Linda Codega is the ONLY choice capable of putting this issue (and several other issues) to rest.
You can use all the scare quotes you want. It doesn't make the document in question any less of a draft
All you're doing by repeating this nonsense ad nauseam is making it clear you don't know what you're talking about
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)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1.1 is the general release OGL 1.0a replacement. It does not refer to any side deals that wizards
may haveoffered any partners in exchange for other concessions... but you're right, aside from the fact that 1.1 requires you to register your product with WotC and waive ANY claim you have over that IP, it's a victimless contract that mostly only targeted well established and successful companies, and my understanding is that NO mom and pop publishers were consulted about it ever.Edit: I haven't heard of part time pay-what-you-want publishers over at DM's guild getting the 1.1 runaround, and if they did, all the more reason why claiming this was not intended as an ACTUAL rollout of the new 1.1 is total BS, so if that's actually true, Salguod, I'd like to know. Anyone specific you know of?
OGL 1.2 was revoked. We all read the announcement. I never saw anywhere that OGL 1.1 has been revoked. (twirling mustache)
Bottom line, WotC has to come clean if they want to regain the respect of the community. Denying that WotC applied pressure tactics on much smaller businesses is not becoming. No, it was NOT just Critical Role, Paizo, Kobold Press and the big boys who got that letter. Small businesses also received the high pressure sales pitch for OGL 1.1. A little honesty and a blunt confession would go far to restore faith in WotC's integrity.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
As I said, the times they probed further on a given answer made sense to me - but it's a moot point anyway, the interview is what it is and I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
As for why there were two of them... I mean, that's the show (it's actually usually more than two) and I have no doubt WotC knew that going in when they picked them to interview Kyle in the first place. Clearly Kyle was fine with it and he handled himself well. And regarding their professionalism... I mean, again, WotC willingly picked them and I doubt they rolled a d100 to do so.
I for one hope you get no other answer or insight regarding 1.1 beyond what was said here, it's a dead document that will never be relevant to anything ever again. Time to move on.
I came up with 8, but i'm not really paying attention. Paizo, CR, Roll 20, Goodman Games, Kobold Press, DM's guild, MDCM <--some configuration of letters and Fantasy Grounds.
That being said, my being able to name or not name 20 does not mean that there are fewer than 20, nor does it imply that the other 12 sweetheart deals went to baby fish for the sake of inclusivity or whatever. If we're still talking about the 20 biggest names in RPG publishing, then I'd argue that calling them 'defenseless mom and pop creators' is a disingenuous approach to this conversation. Especially when we're looking for "honesty and blunt confession."
If true, I want to know. If it's "technically true" in the sense that the draft OGL was "technically" a draft, I then... you can finish my thought. Suffice to say, I'm not impressed.
So are you saying that an organization can do what they want, demanding responses in a week, if the other side has potential defenses?
Sure they had defenses and they chose to leak the ready-to-sign documents to an associated journalist. However, organizations, whether they have defenses or not, shouldn't have to work like this, and nor should a mom or pop.
"You hit-hassled me with a 9,000-word, short turnaround response legal document! Why did you do that?" "Well, you had defenses!"
That's great for them. Doesn't mean they did, or did not get a letter, just means that if they did, I don't need to demand satisfaction by dueling someone on their behalf. Otherwise, my hands would be tied, and murder charges are so tedious these days.
It's a very important distinction to make. Wizards actively peddling 1.1 in the broader community would be huge news imo and would utterly kill the draft/draft controversy in it's sleep.
Oh, that's riiiight! They totally signed something, didn't they? They announced it and everything.
Edit: nope, nope, they didn't. All crowdfunding under 1.1 is subject to 20%, not just them. Weird that WotC would single them out like that.
Citation needed. Don't lump me in with crazy people.
What I said was:
1) anyone who WAS 'harmed' by rumors about something wizards of the coast was planning on doing, no matter how heinous, jumped the gun and should have waited to act until the dust settled (or they were put into a corner that absolutely forced them to move, like wizards officially revoking 1.0a)
2) I said they weren't CONSULTED and then I edited that response that says I don't think they were consulted and if anyone knows of someone small who GOT A LETTER i'd love to hear about it. I think that would be newsworthy.
Edit: My comment about KS was not intended to be snide. I genuinely forgot that there was a special carve-out for Kickstarter and the OP, the original post we are all responding to, was asking about people who signed on the dotted line. It occurred to me when you said this "oh hey, I wonder if they signed something?"
1) yes, but you're claiming I said something other than these two things. Something involving small buisness owners not caring, or not being harmed by the TEXT of 1.1 should it be released. I'm not asking you to revisit this statement, just pointing out that it has nothing to do with what you seem to think I said.
2) Nope. I don't think Paizo or any of these other people <anything> My understanding is that 20 people were approached (+/-) and that they were the biggest people in the industry. To my knowledge, and what I've said previously, ON THIS THREAD EVEN was that they were approached with a sign this before the 13th or deal with the same restrictions as everybody else "gun to the head" ultimatum. I claim no knowledge about these behind closed doors "conversations" beyond the terms were varied by partner. Here:
Edit vvvvv _________________ vvvvv____________________vvvvvv
You think?
You don't see any reason why information PROVING that 1.1 was absolutely intended to rollout on January 13th might be newsworthy? You didn't hear kyle, just today, waffling on about how it was a draft and no big deal and the dates were placeholders which is a common practice that nobody with his experience would even blink at?
You see no connection between learning of a large scale, community wide, top to bottom push to make everyone aware of the jan 13th deadline and securing agreements throughout the community might be important evidence or mean something different than "they sent out 20 contracts to a selection of highly valued (*cough*) partners (*ehem*) under NDA with the intention to bring them onboard before announcing at a later date? Not that I believe that to be the case, mind you, but I was responding to a specific claim at the time.
Sorry. I have a cold. Been coughing a lot.
Oh, brain fart. Details are a little iffy on the whole thing and I just crossed a wire or something. I defer to you, if that's what it was.
NBD.
P.S. Edit above.
Yea - but ... so if the job posting states that 'we want these qualifications - also we try to build a diverse workplace' ... then me and some other applicant who both fit the qualifications are literally only differentiated by whether or not we fit the diversity thing.
If they disregard qualifications and simply hire on diversity alone, that's different. But I have to say I find that highly unlikely. Businesses are primarily businesses, and diversity in and of itself doesn't do much work. If you need a python code person, but you hire someone on diversity instead, you're not getting any python done.
Edit: And we should propably stop derailing the thread. Even if someone said, it's still tangential =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Actually, logic says hire a 22 year old and tell him that he can be the boss in 2 years if he outsells the guy who's been working the same job for 20. Tell them both to hit the trade shows and make a BIG new contract by the end of the year and offer them both a bonus.
I'm not sure what favoring the guy you know and have a relationship with and who has worked hard for you for 20 years waiting for you to retire like a good soldier is. I'm sure Ayn rand would eviscerate you for it, though.
Individuals are attempt to derail, inflame, and troll this thread with misinformation, false claims, and other such disruptive behaviour. This will not be tolerated as it is a violation of site rules. Those who choose to engage in this behaviour will find themselves on the receiving end of infractions, also detailed in the site rules & guidelines.
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
Thanks for posting Golaryn! Watching both the video, and how discussion on this thread has unfolded has been very insightful.
Not necessarily. People can get lucky for one or two years in sales (or creative works and be a one hit wonder) then faceplant. Maybe you're looking for someone that has demonstrated an ability to produce over a long period to take the more senior position that would be focused on mentoring others in the field.
It's a joke. Ayn rand sucks. John Stewart Mill all the way.
Ahh hah. Didn't catch that one.
It does kind of relate to the issue companies have expanding diversity though in that that expansion at the senior level is a lagging indicator. It may take 10-20 years to reach that goal of having a big pool of diverse and experienced talent to draw from for your senior positions, but if they really are building up that bench of talent they're on their way. It seems like that was what was being said in the interview, but it was stated inelegantly so some are seizing on the phrasing to twist it into a purposeful slight instead of an accidental one.
Never mind
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
1) Kyle Brink is not the CEO of anything.
2) The support portal is found at https://support.wizards.com/
3) If you are offended by his statements there is a very high chance you misinterpreted what he said.
What has NOT been said is that there were allegedly NDA's attached to the "draft" OGL in question. If true, that means that we will never know who got the "one week deadline offer" because all those people/businesses are under non-disclosure agreements. The actual "draft but you have to sign right now OGL" document has now been leaked (NOT released, but leaked). Anybody can read it, and anybody who does will see how draconian it was. So again, if Kyle wanted to end this, he could publicly announce that all NDA's involving the "draft" OGL have been terminated. He could announce that any signed agreements have been revoked and terminated. But we only hear crickets from Kyle on those issues. It is my firm belief that there were small fish who got hauled in with that net. For example, I really love Dungeon Dudes and Bob the Builder, but I don't think that they are in the Fortune 500.
I think it is great that Kyle is granting these interviews with content creators. It is definitely a step in the right direction down the long road that WotC must tread if they want to regain the community's trust. Perhaps the truth will finally come out along the way. But if WotC wants to really come clean, they need to grant an interview to a professional journalist. Linda Codega is the obvious choice. Actually, Linda Codega is the ONLY choice capable of putting this issue (and several other issues) to rest.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
You can use all the scare quotes you want. It doesn't make the document in question any less of a draft
All you're doing by repeating this nonsense ad nauseam is making it clear you don't know what you're talking about
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)