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
I have used the word “draft” when talking to my clients regarding contracts for years. Never once did one of them not understand what I was talking about - and I have had my fair share of clients who are not exactly brain surgeons. If they could understand what the legal meaning of draft is, so too could the average D&D player.
There are only two possible explanations for this “but the legalese is so confusing, clearly it was used to mislead us!” argument: (1) A few bad actors keep promulgating the myth that legal “draft” is some kind of complex term that it really isn’t, because they know when you accuse folks of using “legalese” laypeople get suspicions; or (2) somehow D&D is infested with people dumber than my dumbest clients.
Maybe my faith in humanity is a bit optimistic - but I know those clients pretty well, and I don’t think it is possible for there to be this many people dumber than they are. So, at the risk of overestimating the D&D community—a risk I think is fairly small—that leaves option one as the most likely reason.
We understand what the legal term is.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft languagewas provided to content creators and publishers so their feedbackcould be considered before anything was finalized...Our plan was always to solicit the input of our communitybefore any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.
^^^^^
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
If I did what you were doing on a forum topic about racism or trans-biggotry, the mods would be flying at me with a ban hammer. This is straight up misrepresentation of my/our position for the purpose of inflaming/trolling. It's not a complexity argument, it's a that's not what they saidargument. Feel free to "adequately address" my actual point, if you have something to say on that topic. Stop pretending that I'm too stupid to understand your crap.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized...Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.
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 operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it,your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.
Kyle Brink 2/8/2023 3HFL interview : "I can see how conversations of that type might have been seen as offering sweetheart deals, but I wasn't present." "It seems to me like a weird thing to get hung up on, but then I'm in the book business so I see drafts all the time, so maybe that's why I see it that way." Kyle Brink 2/9/2023 MD interview : "The fact that we were taking feedback wasn't clear to them, it obviously wasn't clear to them or why would they have bothered to go outside, if you feel you're being listened to, you don't do that."
P.S. Sorry if this "draft" signature is a little long. I'm soliciting community feedback to help me improve it.
Ironically, these interviews have made me trust Hasbro less not because I think Brink is lying but because I think he's telling the truth.
What, specifically, are you trusting them about? I trust them to behave like a for-profit corporation, so the main shocking thing about this whole incident is just how incompetent they were.
Sadly, this incident has shown that my naivete that Wizards was somehow different because it owned D&D and MTG was quite misguided.
Deciding that a company is different because they make a product you like is a pretty sure path to heartbreak. You shouldn't trust Wizards to be different, but you also shouldn't trust any of the companies currently white-knighting the situation either. They're not doing it because they're good people, they're doing it because they see the option to profit.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
Sigh.
OTL
Diplomacy. Please.
There's no benefit to this.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
Does it convince the people who hate, despise, mistrust, and villify Wizards to do so less, even just slightly? No. It causes them to do those things more.
Does it convince people who want to continue playing D&D that they should stop playing D&D because Wizards lied to people? No. If those people were willing to play D&D before the OGL situation was resolved, they're willing to play it now.
Does it convince a statistically insignificant handful of remaining fence-sitters that they should stop playing D&D? Maybe - but those people were never going to change anything anyways, their involvement or lack thereof is purely for their own purposes.
Does it cause harm, heartache, strife, and tear open wounds that have only just because to close? Does it cause the community to go at each other's throats again? Does it cause haters and doubters to scourge anyone who still wants to play D&D as being hypocritical corpo shills with no spine and make everything worse for no benefit? Yes. Most indubitably, most inarguably, most inevitably yes.
People are asking, pleading, begging that this subject be put to bed not because they believe Wizards was or was not lying about the intent behind 1.1, but because it does not matter anymore. Either the ACTIONS Wizards has taken - relinquishing any chance of updating the OGL, releasing the SRD to Creative Commons, the numerous public apologies and interviews - are enough to begin the process of mending the bridge, or the DAMAGE Wizards did - the uncertainty and hysteria, the misery inflicted on creators, the prolonged and needless festering silence from WotC - was too great and there's no point in ever playing D&D again. That's a call each individual player is going to have to make for themselves, and frankly the amount of lying Wizards has done is the next best thing to irrelevant to that call. Whether they lied, are lying, or not? A huge chunk of the community doesn't believe them anyways.
They cannot tell you the truth anymore, Diplomacy. There are no words they could say to you that you would consider to be truth. Wizards of the Coast could release a statement claiming that the sun is hot and water is wet, and their detractors would find ways to dispute those claims and accuse them of lying, gaslighting, and misconduct. They could release the statement all the detractors claim to want, that active admission of malice, and those detractors would still claim the company was lying all along, is still lying even when making statements that actively harm themselves and the community to absolutely no conceivable benefit, and should never be trusted again.
You have made your decision. You've made your call. I don't begrudge you your call - it's yours to make. You have my blessing to make whatever call you desire. Can we please not turn every last single thread in GD into a horrible screeching fracas about how Wizards is Lying Forever, or Wizards is Racist Forever, or The Community is Horrible for Not Abandoning D&D?
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
That post was not addressed to WotC (it's actually a draft signature I was working on until I found out about the character limit). It was not a call for them to come clean and say anything. You're right, I've made up my mind on the topic, and while I'd appreciate them not continuing to play the draft/draft game that's not really something I'm looking for, per se.
That post was addressed to the angry mob that swarms around WotC every time 1.1 gets brought up to call anyone who disagrees with the party line names. The ones who make snide comments about how anyone who disagrees is a TROLL or a RACIST or an IDIOT who is TOO STUPID to understand what a technical draft is. Frankly, it's about the one-sided moderation that I've experienced first hand over the past 3 weeks where these kinds of comments are tolerated. On this very thread, even.
I'm entitled to my opinion, you're entitled to yours. You can respond to me with respect, but the hate festering on this site is not a good look.
They cannot tell you the truth anymore, Diplomacy. There are no words they could say to you that you would consider to be truth.Wizards of the Coast could release a statement claiming that the sun is hot and water is wet, and their detractors would find ways to dispute those claims and accuse them of lying, gaslighting, and misconduct. They could release the statement all the detractors claim to want, that active admission of malice, and those detractors would still claim the company was lying all along, is still lying even when making statements that actively harm themselves and the community to absolutely no conceivable benefit, and should never be trusted again.
There it is again. You're dismissing my opinion as irrational. My position, as stated above, is a perfectly reasonable position to have. I have NEVER said that I hate WotC, that I will NEVER believe anything they say, that they are all <anything,> and yet, you are going out of your way to dismiss my opinion as disingenuous. That it is "infathomable" or "inconcievable" or "incomprehensible" that I might actually believe that wizards was trying to distance themselves from 1.1 by using softer, poorly worded and or dismissive language. That's another thing I see on these forums all the time.
And yet, have I ever refused to engage with you or anyone else in a respectful debate? Do you have any evidence to support my supposed intransigence beyond my not agreeing with you on this one, specific topic? As many people as WotC scared away from D&D beyond, I have no doubt that the toxic community on these forums scared away just as many.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
That post was not addressed to WotC. It was not a call for them to come clean and say anything. You're right, I've made up my mind on the topic, and while I'd appreciate them not continuing to play the draft/draft game that's not really something I'm looking for, per se.
That post was addressed to the angry mob that swarms around WotC every time 1.1 gets brought up to call anyone who disagrees with the party line names. The ones who make snide comments about how anyone who disagrees is a TROLL or a RACIST or an IDIOT who is TOO STUPID to understand what a technical draft is. Frankly, it's about the one-sided moderation that I've experienced first hand over the past 3 weeks where these kinds of comments are tolerated. On this very thread, even.
Weird how a business might not want people stirring up trouble on their property.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
That post was not addressed to WotC. It was not a call for them to come clean and say anything. You're right, I've made up my mind on the topic, and while I'd appreciate them not continuing to play the draft/draft game that's not really something I'm looking for, per se.
That post was addressed to the angry mob that swarms around WotC every time 1.1 gets brought up to call anyone who disagrees with the party line names. The ones who make snide comments about how anyone who disagrees is a TROLL or a RACIST or an IDIOT who is TOO STUPID to understand what a technical draft is. Frankly, it's about the one-sided moderation that I've experienced first hand over the past 3 weeks where these kinds of comments are tolerated. On this very thread, even.
Weird how a business might not want people stirring up trouble on their property.
I agree. So the fact that the gaslighting, name calling and nonconstructive behavior has been allowed to continue for weeks is rather baffling, then.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
That post was not addressed to WotC. It was not a call for them to come clean and say anything. You're right, I've made up my mind on the topic, and while I'd appreciate them not continuing to play the draft/draft game that's not really something I'm looking for, per se.
That post was addressed to the angry mob that swarms around WotC every time 1.1 gets brought up to call anyone who disagrees with the party line names. The ones who make snide comments about how anyone who disagrees is a TROLL or a RACIST or an IDIOT who is TOO STUPID to understand what a technical draft is. Frankly, it's about the one-sided moderation that I've experienced first hand over the past 3 weeks where these kinds of comments are tolerated. On this very thread, even.
Weird how a business might not want people stirring up trouble on their property.
I agree. So the fact that the gaslighting, name calling and nonconstructive behavior is allowed to continue is rather baffling, then.
I agree. I think the best thing to do is to start by kicking out the non paying customers.
Ironically, these interviews have made me trust Hasbro less not because I think Brink is lying but because I think he's telling the truth.
What, specifically, are you trusting them about? I trust them to behave like a for-profit corporation, so the main shocking thing about this whole incident is just how incompetent they were.
Sadly, this incident has shown that my naivete that Wizards was somehow different because it owned D&D and MTG was quite misguided.
Deciding that a company is different because they make a product you like is a pretty sure path to heartbreak. You shouldn't trust Wizards to be different, but you also shouldn't trust any of the companies currently white-knighting the situation either. They're not doing it because they're good people, they're doing it because they see the option to profit.
I made a few annoyed posts that I deleted on further reflection. Judging by this thread it's clear that the responses withan opinion that go against the grain of this community, an opinion that I probably share, have not been terribly well thought out or expressed. So I have to assume a lot of people who have been criticizing Wizards' decisions and championing Paizo's decisions have been of the belief that Paizo is a non-profit charity and that, up until now, Wizards was too. While I assure you I never thought that I'm also puzzled how you would think I beieved any of that as I didn't mention Paizo or any other 3PP at all.
I also assure you that if you understood my post (and if you didn't it was probably my fault for not making it clear enough) you would know that I don't trust Wizards to keep any of the honestly good sounding changes Brink stated for the long term. This is because as a cog in the larger Hasbro machine, D&D is destined to go through everything Brink talked about again at some point in the future. Such is the ouroboric nature of huge publically traded companies and crises. Expect something like this to happen again and again unless Hasbro spins off D&D entirely or gives it a huge amount of operational indpendence and both are unlikely.
tl;dr I understand Wizards is a for profit company. I didn' mention Paizo or other 3PPs in my post. The big problem is this is all gonna happen again.
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me/us personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time. If you feel they're pointless, don't engage. Dropping in to tell someone else that their conversation is pointless, however, is a violation of the forum rules.
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time.
So you're denying that the community rejected the terms of 1.1 and WotC withdrew them?
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time.
So you're denying that the community rejected the terms of 1.1 and WotC withdrew them?
Deliberately misrepresenting what I said to inflame or incite the conversation is also against the rules.
Please point to where I said what you claim I said or kindly stop trolling.
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time.
So you're denying that the community rejected the terms of 1.1 and WotC withdrew them?
Deliberately misrepresenting what I said to inflame or incite the conversation is also against the rules.
Please point to where I said what you claim I said or kindly stop trolling.
I'm not misinterpreting anything, I asked a clarifying question.
Here's another - what do you want from WotC at this point?
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time.
So you're denying that the community rejected the terms of 1.1 and WotC withdrew them?
Deliberately misrepresenting what I said to inflame or incite the conversation is also against the rules.
Please point to where I said what you claim I said or kindly stop trolling.
I'm not misinterpreting anything, I asked a clarifying question.
Here's another - what do you want from WotC at this point?
Well, at the moment, I'd like the ability to link actual physical books with my D&D beyond account and gain permanent access to their content through the website.
Let's say I believe that you weren't trolling and were "asking a clarifying question." Has that question been answered to your satisfaction? Or are you still curious about whether I secretly believe something absurd that I clearly didn't say? Shall I be explicit? Be warned, if you say yes, I will expect a CONSTRUCTIVE, DIRECT reply to the actual post that you responded to originally. I didn't dig up this horse, but it's thoroughly dug at this point. Can't hide behind that anymore. Either let it drop or say something worth responding to.
We understand what the legal term is.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized...Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.
^^^^^
This statement was not published to illicit a legal or technical mindset. The LEGAL definition is not the definition they are using and it is straight up offensive that you would pretend otherwise. This is not Wizards of the coast referring to a contract as a draft, this is wizards of the coast claiming that BECAUSE the document was a draft, we should ignore the terms that were presented because it was early in a process that was ongoing and potentially intended to last for months or years longer.
If I did what you were doing on a forum topic about racism or trans-biggotry, the mods would be flying at me with a ban hammer. This is straight up misrepresentation of my/our position for the purpose of inflaming/trolling. It's not a complexity argument, it's a that's not what they said argument. Feel free to "adequately address" my actual point, if you have something to say on that topic. Stop pretending that I'm too stupid to understand your crap.
Gaslighting and abusive behavior is AT LEAST as wrong as overt racism, un-inclusion, disrespect and/or using racist tropes in a fantasy setting. For those of you who care about the latter, please don't do ME the discourtesy of pretending that I'M in the wrong for reading words on the page in the manner intended. While the OGL 1.1 was a draft, it arrived under the cloak of NDA with zero request, or time for community feedback. That was not it's intent. Suggesting otherwise is a LIE. It was accompanied by a FAQ that says "if you don't like it, go pound eggs." And so-called sweetheart "deals" that expired when the new OGL was to go into effect. These are strong-arm, gun-to-the-head business tactics. The way certain members of the Dungeons and Dragons team have attempted to whitewash the OGL 1.1 as some kind of a community survey or an early draft that was potentially months or years away from being finalized is wrong. Suggesting that anyone who deals with contracts would have the experience to understand that the draft OGL contained a 'placeholder' date that was less than 7 business days to going live "wouldn't blink at it" is wrong. LAWYERS and experienced publishers were among the most vocal people saying that this was not right.
I won't participate in racism on these boards, please do not participate in Wizards of the Coast abusive, dishonest, willful and more importantly ONGOING misconduct in return. Please don't suggest that my refusal to "let this drop" is somehow about my ego or my desire "to be angry" or that I'm secretly pro-racism because I'm standing AGAINST hateful content and abuse. Thank you.
That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized...Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that.
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 operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.
Kyle Brink 2/8/2023 3HFL interview : "I can see how conversations of that type might have been seen as offering sweetheart deals, but I wasn't present." "It seems to me like a weird thing to get hung up on, but then I'm in the book business so I see drafts all the time, so maybe that's why I see it that way."
Kyle Brink 2/9/2023 MD interview : "The fact that we were taking feedback wasn't clear to them, it obviously wasn't clear to them or why would they have bothered to go outside, if you feel you're being listened to, you don't do that."
P.S. Sorry if this "draft" signature is a little long. I'm soliciting community feedback to help me improve it.
What, specifically, are you trusting them about? I trust them to behave like a for-profit corporation, so the main shocking thing about this whole incident is just how incompetent they were.
Deciding that a company is different because they make a product you like is a pretty sure path to heartbreak. You shouldn't trust Wizards to be different, but you also shouldn't trust any of the companies currently white-knighting the situation either. They're not doing it because they're good people, they're doing it because they see the option to profit.
Sigh.
OTL
Diplomacy. Please.
There's no benefit to this.
Let's assume you're 100% correct. Let's then assume that Wizards gives you what you want - an active admission of overt malice. What does this do for the community?
Does it convince the people who hate, despise, mistrust, and villify Wizards to do so less, even just slightly? No. It causes them to do those things more.
Does it convince people who want to continue playing D&D that they should stop playing D&D because Wizards lied to people? No. If those people were willing to play D&D before the OGL situation was resolved, they're willing to play it now.
Does it convince a statistically insignificant handful of remaining fence-sitters that they should stop playing D&D? Maybe - but those people were never going to change anything anyways, their involvement or lack thereof is purely for their own purposes.
Does it cause harm, heartache, strife, and tear open wounds that have only just because to close? Does it cause the community to go at each other's throats again? Does it cause haters and doubters to scourge anyone who still wants to play D&D as being hypocritical corpo shills with no spine and make everything worse for no benefit? Yes. Most indubitably, most inarguably, most inevitably yes.
People are asking, pleading, begging that this subject be put to bed not because they believe Wizards was or was not lying about the intent behind 1.1, but because it does not matter anymore. Either the ACTIONS Wizards has taken - relinquishing any chance of updating the OGL, releasing the SRD to Creative Commons, the numerous public apologies and interviews - are enough to begin the process of mending the bridge, or the DAMAGE Wizards did - the uncertainty and hysteria, the misery inflicted on creators, the prolonged and needless festering silence from WotC - was too great and there's no point in ever playing D&D again. That's a call each individual player is going to have to make for themselves, and frankly the amount of lying Wizards has done is the next best thing to irrelevant to that call. Whether they lied, are lying, or not? A huge chunk of the community doesn't believe them anyways.
They cannot tell you the truth anymore, Diplomacy. There are no words they could say to you that you would consider to be truth. Wizards of the Coast could release a statement claiming that the sun is hot and water is wet, and their detractors would find ways to dispute those claims and accuse them of lying, gaslighting, and misconduct. They could release the statement all the detractors claim to want, that active admission of malice, and those detractors would still claim the company was lying all along, is still lying even when making statements that actively harm themselves and the community to absolutely no conceivable benefit, and should never be trusted again.
You have made your decision. You've made your call. I don't begrudge you your call - it's yours to make. You have my blessing to make whatever call you desire. Can we please not turn every last single thread in GD into a horrible screeching fracas about how Wizards is Lying Forever, or Wizards is Racist Forever, or The Community is Horrible for Not Abandoning D&D?
Please do not contact or message me.
That post was not addressed to WotC (it's actually a draft signature I was working on until I found out about the character limit). It was not a call for them to come clean and say anything. You're right, I've made up my mind on the topic, and while I'd appreciate them not continuing to play the draft/draft game that's not really something I'm looking for, per se.
That post was addressed to the angry mob that swarms around WotC every time 1.1 gets brought up to call anyone who disagrees with the party line names. The ones who make snide comments about how anyone who disagrees is a TROLL or a RACIST or an IDIOT who is TOO STUPID to understand what a technical draft is. Frankly, it's about the one-sided moderation that I've experienced first hand over the past 3 weeks where these kinds of comments are tolerated. On this very thread, even.
I'm entitled to my opinion, you're entitled to yours. You can respond to me with respect, but the hate festering on this site is not a good look.
There it is again. You're dismissing my opinion as irrational. My position, as stated above, is a perfectly reasonable position to have. I have NEVER said that I hate WotC, that I will NEVER believe anything they say, that they are all <anything,> and yet, you are going out of your way to dismiss my opinion as disingenuous. That it is "infathomable" or "inconcievable" or "incomprehensible" that I might actually believe that wizards was trying to distance themselves from 1.1 by using softer, poorly worded and or dismissive language. That's another thing I see on these forums all the time.
And yet, have I ever refused to engage with you or anyone else in a respectful debate? Do you have any evidence to support my supposed intransigence beyond my not agreeing with you on this one, specific topic? As many people as WotC scared away from D&D beyond, I have no doubt that the toxic community on these forums scared away just as many.
Weird how a business might not want people stirring up trouble on their property.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I agree. So the fact that the gaslighting, name calling and nonconstructive behavior has been allowed to continue for weeks is rather baffling, then.
I agree. I think the best thing to do is to start by kicking out the non paying customers.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I made a few annoyed posts that I deleted on further reflection. Judging by this thread it's clear that the responses withan opinion that go against the grain of this community, an opinion that I probably share, have not been terribly well thought out or expressed. So I have to assume a lot of people who have been criticizing Wizards' decisions and championing Paizo's decisions have been of the belief that Paizo is a non-profit charity and that, up until now, Wizards was too. While I assure you I never thought that I'm also puzzled how you would think I beieved any of that as I didn't mention Paizo or any other 3PP at all.
I also assure you that if you understood my post (and if you didn't it was probably my fault for not making it clear enough) you would know that I don't trust Wizards to keep any of the honestly good sounding changes Brink stated for the long term. This is because as a cog in the larger Hasbro machine, D&D is destined to go through everything Brink talked about again at some point in the future. Such is the ouroboric nature of huge publically traded companies and crises. Expect something like this to happen again and again unless Hasbro spins off D&D entirely or gives it a huge amount of operational indpendence and both are unlikely.
tl;dr I understand Wizards is a for profit company. I didn' mention Paizo or other 3PPs in my post. The big problem is this is all gonna happen again.
No one is telling you to "ignore the terms." They were considered - and rejected. Those terms are dead. What we're telling you is that digging up their moldering corpse forever and ever is pointless.
You want feedback on the "draft"? Delete it and move on with your life. There is no draft OGL to sig about.
This statement was not published to <---- specific statement. Read statement. Respond in context to said statement (or don't). Again, trying to shift the conversation away from the actual point of contention and making ME the subject.
I didn't "dig up" anything. I am responding to the actual thread of a conversation that includes a dozen people. You, on the other hand, are trying to smother that conversation by making it about me/us personally. Feel free to respond to the POINT that you highlighted in your response, or don't. I ignore conversations that don't interest me all the time. If you feel they're pointless, don't engage. Dropping in to tell someone else that their conversation is pointless, however, is a violation of the forum rules.
So you're denying that the community rejected the terms of 1.1 and WotC withdrew them?
Deliberately misrepresenting what I said to inflame or incite the conversation is also against the rules.
Please point to where I said what you claim I said or kindly stop trolling.
I'm not misinterpreting anything, I asked a clarifying question.
Here's another - what do you want from WotC at this point?
Well, at the moment, I'd like the ability to link actual physical books with my D&D beyond account and gain permanent access to their content through the website.
Let's say I believe that you weren't trolling and were "asking a clarifying question." Has that question been answered to your satisfaction? Or are you still curious about whether I secretly believe something absurd that I clearly didn't say? Shall I be explicit? Be warned, if you say yes, I will expect a CONSTRUCTIVE, DIRECT reply to the actual post that you responded to originally. I didn't dig up this horse, but it's thoroughly dug at this point. Can't hide behind that anymore. Either let it drop or say something worth responding to.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorGiven the rampant off-topic posting, mudslinging, trolling, etc in this thread. The thread will be closed.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources