Ginny edits this one down to a more watchable format at just over 30 minutes.
I definitely like her line: "It's because I believe it, not because they told me so". We're at the point where there aren't going to be too many new questions or new answers, just a lot of repeats. There is no one grand gesture WotC can do that will rebuild trust in one shot. It comes down to whether you take their word or not and if you are willing to go forward with your own personal choice.
"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning." ~Ginny Di, on "WAS 1.1 A DRAFT OR NOT?!"
Ginny, you beautiful cosplay nerd, thank you. I'm so relieved to see that said by someone with more voice than a forum yaybo. Until and unless new information becomes available, that point has been dogged to death and beyond.
Right around the 15 minute mark, Kyle Brink says that OneD&D SRD is going to be put into Creative Commons.
With that commitment, I'm very much inclined to re-subscribe to DnDBeyond. But if that gets walked back, I'm definitely not going to be interested in OneD&D.
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a very common usage of a word doesn't make that usage "dishonest"
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)
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
Umm, you do realize how the term “theory” works in science, right? To quote: “A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space”. These terms do, within the respective contexts used here, have a different and distinct definition from the casual everyday use.
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
Umm, you do realize how the term “theory” works in science, right? To quote: “A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space”. These terms do, within the respective contexts used here, have a different and distinct definition from the casual everyday use.
It's actually not a bad example, though. In both cases, there's a word that has a technical meaning that's subtly different from casual usage, and you can be deceptive by using the word in one way while permitting or hoping observers will view it in the other way. I think Wizards was trying to do that initially, but then painted themselves into a corner because once the statement is out there there's no good way to walk it back.
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
Umm, you do realize how the term “theory” works in science, right? To quote: “A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space”. These terms do, within the respective contexts used here, have a different and distinct definition from the casual everyday use.
It's actually not a bad example, though. In both cases, there's a word that has a technical meaning that's subtly different from casual usage, and you can be deceptive by using the word in one way while permitting or hoping observers will view it in the other way. I think Wizards was trying to do that initially, but then painted themselves into a corner because once the statement is out there there's no good way to walk it back.
There was no deception, even inadvertent. There just wasn't. There's no reason to keep giving bad-faith actors the benefit of the doubt on this
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)
(4:15) In general, what were WotC’s goals with updating the OGL?
(4:58) Has there been a history of hateful content made under the OGL so far, or is this something you were concerned would happen in the future?
(5:26) It sounds like you were concerned mostly about people being scammed (via NFTs) rather than the existence of NFTs in general.
(7:03) Is there a specific place, department or area that the push to update the OGL originated from, that you know of?
(7:54) Can you tell me what exactly does your role as executive produce of D&D entail?
(8:22) What part, if any, did you play in all of the proposed updates to the OGL?
(9:35) It’s interesting that you say that this has been in process for such a long time because I wanted to ask about why there was such a communication disconnect between the WotC team and the D&D Community - particularly the week of silence between the 1.1 leak and the first official response - which, for a lot of us, felt like it stretched on forever.
(11:29) Unfortunately I have to ask about this draft thing - WotC keeps using the word “draft” to refer to this leaked OGL 1.1 and that you were soliciting community feedback, but we’ve also heard these documents were being sent to creators to be signed as a legally binding contract. From the outside it looks as though Wizards is lying by calling it a draft, can you explain the discrepancy there?
(13:19) Do you mind telling me how the decision came about to put the SRD 5.1 into Creative Commons?
(14:11) Since obviously a lot of trust and loyalty has been lost throughout this process, I’m curious what other material plans you have to rebuild that.
(15:33) Wizards has previously stated there will be an updated SRD for OneD&D. Can you confirm whether or not Wizards is committed to providing an Open Gaming License for OneD&D?
(16:06) A lot of people are asking about whether or not other things will be put into the Creative Commons, like previous editions of the SRD, any plans for that?
(17:13) So a lot of people enjoy playing D&D with analog systems, like pencil & paper, printed books, stuff like that - do you think those players have a place in D&D’s future, or do you think there’s a shift to digital that’s happening?
(17:47) So I know there are a lot of concerns just in general based on the world we live in about a shift to digital with a lot of microtransactions and things like that, is that a valid concern to have over DnDBeyond or the (Wizards) VTT?
(18:20) Can you tell me about Wizards of the Coast’s goals with regards to third-party VTTs?
(18:47) I think most people assume you see 3PVTTs as competitors due to the future of your own virtual tabletop being in competition with them.
(19:08) How much support do you think is planned for homebrew and third-party content?
"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning." ~Ginny Di, on "WAS 1.1 A DRAFT OR NOT?!"
Ginny, you beautiful cosplay nerd, thank you. I'm so relieved to see that said by someone with more voice than a forum yaybo. Until and unless new information becomes available, that point has been dogged to death and beyond.
Easily my favorite part of her interview (12:47 for those who want to jump to that portion).
Right around the 15 minute mark, Kyle Brink says that OneD&D SRD is going to be put into Creative Commons.
With that commitment, I'm very much inclined to re-subscribe to DnDBeyond. But if that gets walked back, I'm definitely not going to be interested in OneD&D.
I agree that this definitive confirmation was good to have. I'm still of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered either way, since you could just make OneD&D content under 5.1, but getting all SRDs into CC going forward is the best option to kill the OGL debate for good.
"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning." ~Ginny Di, on "WAS 1.1 A DRAFT OR NOT?!"
Ginny, you beautiful cosplay nerd, thank you. I'm so relieved to see that said by someone with more voice than a forum yaybo. Until and unless new information becomes available, that point has been dogged to death and beyond.
The legal sense is a much less common usage than the 'normal' usage and wizards is the bad faith actor here by continuing to use that phrase when they could acknowledge that it's a draft in the legal sense not the colloquial sense and apologize to us for the deceit.
And at this point, it's intentional as it has been brought up enough that they know that we know.
The legal sense is a much less common usage than the 'normal' usage and wizards is the bad faith actor here by continuing to use that phrase when they could acknowledge that it's a draft in the legal sense not the colloquial sense and apologize to us for the deceit.
And at this point, it's intentional as it has been brought up enough that they know that we know.
I will say this as I have on a dozen or so other threads - no one would misunderstand what the “legal sense” of the word Draft means, unless they are actively trying to turn off their basic understanding of English and squint really hard to try and see duplicity where none exists. Draft, in contracts, refers to a contract that is not final yet. Draft, in basic English, refers to a document that is not final yet. There isn’t some big secret issue with the legalese - it’s just the plain language with the (fairly obvious) application that a contract is not final until it is entered into by the parties.
That is it. No duplicity - except perhaps on the part of some social media folks who were able to convince people to turn off their common sense and read a pretty simple word as if it were hiding something.
One thing I disagreed with Ginny on - "What are you doing to rebuild our trust?" "Well, we're working on a content policy that has no legal teeth to it, and relying on the community's help to enforce it." "That's kinda weak."
Well... yeah Ginny, no **** it's weak, that's why they were originally trying to do something stronger. Not sure what else you were expecting. (Granted, the next response would have fit this question even better, i.e. their commitment to put all the future SRDs in CC going forward and kill the OGL debate for all time.)
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
It seems to be more like Schrodingers OGL until someone lets the cat out of the bag for real...
Let's assume you're both right, and there is a smoking gun here in terms of the "draft." So all the people who currently don't trust Wizards will go "aha!" and... not trust them even more? What's the endgame here?
But there IS.a difference. A legal draft is much more 'final version' than the colloquial version of it which is taken to mean far from final form and not ready for external people to view
But there IS.a difference. A legal draft is much more 'final version' than the colloquial version of it which is taken to mean far from final form and not ready for external people to view
And? What's the endgame? What would you do with that information that you're not doing now?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8-2yiFT2PU
Ginny edits this one down to a more watchable format at just over 30 minutes.
I definitely like her line: "It's because I believe it, not because they told me so". We're at the point where there aren't going to be too many new questions or new answers, just a lot of repeats. There is no one grand gesture WotC can do that will rebuild trust in one shot. It comes down to whether you take their word or not and if you are willing to go forward with your own personal choice.
"I honestly don't know how much more we can do with this line of questioning."
~Ginny Di, on "WAS 1.1 A DRAFT OR NOT?!"
Ginny, you beautiful cosplay nerd, thank you. I'm so relieved to see that said by someone with more voice than a forum yaybo. Until and unless new information becomes available, that point has been dogged to death and beyond.
Please do not contact or message me.
Right around the 15 minute mark, Kyle Brink says that OneD&D SRD is going to be put into Creative Commons.
With that commitment, I'm very much inclined to re-subscribe to DnDBeyond. But if that gets walked back, I'm definitely not going to be interested in OneD&D.
Calling 1.1 a 'draft' still is dishonest for the same reason saying that Evolution is just a 'Theory'.
Generally liked this video. I think it's worth emphasizing that 'can we trust Wizards of the Coast' is the wrong question.
The value to placing the SRD under CC isn't that it makes Wizards more trustworthy. It's that it means we don't need to trust them.
The fact that you refuse to acknowledge a very common usage of a word doesn't make that usage "dishonest"
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)
Umm, you do realize how the term “theory” works in science, right? To quote: “A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space”. These terms do, within the respective contexts used here, have a different and distinct definition from the casual everyday use.
I think this is the best video so far and matches my over all feelings and opinion on the topic.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's actually not a bad example, though. In both cases, there's a word that has a technical meaning that's subtly different from casual usage, and you can be deceptive by using the word in one way while permitting or hoping observers will view it in the other way. I think Wizards was trying to do that initially, but then painted themselves into a corner because once the statement is out there there's no good way to walk it back.
There was no deception, even inadvertent. There just wasn't. There's no reason to keep giving bad-faith actors the benefit of the doubt on this
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)
Yay, a short video!
Easily my favorite part of her interview (12:47 for those who want to jump to that portion).
I agree that this definitive confirmation was good to have. I'm still of the opinion that it wouldn't have mattered either way, since you could just make OneD&D content under 5.1, but getting all SRDs into CC going forward is the best option to kill the OGL debate for good.
This, this, this, and this again.
"Generally liked this video. I think it's worth emphasizing that 'can we trust Wizards of the Coast' is the wrong question."
Yeah, that's kind of a shitty enough question that at that point it's just an attack the longer you think of the logical outcomes of that question.
It lacks any value. Air is cheap, but that wasn't worth it.
It seems to be more like Schrodingers OGL until someone lets the cat out of the bag for real...
The legal sense is a much less common usage than the 'normal' usage and wizards is the bad faith actor here by continuing to use that phrase when they could acknowledge that it's a draft in the legal sense not the colloquial sense and apologize to us for the deceit.
And at this point, it's intentional as it has been brought up enough that they know that we know.
I will say this as I have on a dozen or so other threads - no one would misunderstand what the “legal sense” of the word Draft means, unless they are actively trying to turn off their basic understanding of English and squint really hard to try and see duplicity where none exists. Draft, in contracts, refers to a contract that is not final yet. Draft, in basic English, refers to a document that is not final yet. There isn’t some big secret issue with the legalese - it’s just the plain language with the (fairly obvious) application that a contract is not final until it is entered into by the parties.
That is it. No duplicity - except perhaps on the part of some social media folks who were able to convince people to turn off their common sense and read a pretty simple word as if it were hiding something.
Let's assume you're both right, and there is a smoking gun here in terms of the "draft." So all the people who currently don't trust Wizards will go "aha!" and... not trust them even more? What's the endgame here?
But there IS.a difference. A legal draft is much more 'final version' than the colloquial version of it which is taken to mean far from final form and not ready for external people to view
And? What's the endgame? What would you do with that information that you're not doing now?