I was disappointed to find, on https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts, that links provided for several previous posts ("OGL 1.2: Where to Find the Latest Information, Plus FAQs"-Jan21, "A Working Conversation About the Open Game License (OGL)"-Jan18, and "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)"-Jan13), all link to the more recent http://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons of Jan 27.
Personally, I consider that among the best sources of information on the OGL debacle are gamer lawyers such as @RollOfLaw (Runkle of the Bailey but in his gaming guise) and @TheRulesLawyerRPG. None-the-less, I am bewildered as to why DnDBeyond would divert access from their previous pro-WotC posts.
The disclaimer reads: "Important Update: The OGL 1.0a will remain untouched and the entire SRD 5.1 will be available under a Creative Commons license. For the most current information on our approach, read our January 27 statement."
This would be the most honest and transparent way to go forward: just add a disclaimer to posts with outdated information, instead of deleting/hiding those posts. I understand the information there is outdated and contradictory, but moves like these don't help rebuild trust.
None-the-less, I am bewildered as to why DnDBeyond would divert access from their previous pro-WotC posts.
Because those discusions are now moot. OGL 1.2 was defeated, the working conversation was had, and the 13 jan update is no longer relevent. The Jan 27 post is relevent.
None-the-less, I am bewildered as to why DnDBeyond would divert access from their previous pro-WotC posts.
Because those discusions are now moot. OGL 1.2 was defeated, the working conversation was had, and the 13 jan update is no longer relevent. The Jan 27 post is relevent.
Right.
And if those links were up and leading to old pages, people would find their way to those pages, read outdated information and start the whole OGL outrage all over again (which most members of the forum community are sick of, in my estimation). No footnote is going to prevent that - the number of threads being resurrected years after they died because new posters can't be bothered to check the date that is stamped next each and every post (and I say that as someone who made that mistake). I'm quite happy for the forum to move and let the forum be about D&D rather than futile arguments about contract law.
Given the number of threads on here, YT videos, Reddits and articles that are clogging up the internet,.this isn't being swept under the carpet and there's more than enough sources and reminders about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Making sure the reader knows where to find the most recent information - especially when there has been any drastic update, isn’t duplicity - it is common sense. In fact, ensuring folks have the most current information is pretty much is the opposite of duplicity—it is actively trying to provide the reader the most current information. Pretty much every competent business, news entity, or website is going to do the same.
Quite frankly, it is so obvious why they would do this; so industry standard; so clearly about being informative rather than deceptive, that it boggles the mind to think anyone could see this as duplicity. Unless, of course, their goal was to manufacture outrage for outrage’s sake—accusing Wizards of lying, has, after all, been an effective tool of the manufactured outrage club, and that club kind of had the wind taken out of their sails when Wizards did a 360.
Making sure the reader knows where to find the most recent information - especially when there has been any drastic update, isn’t duplicity - it is common sense. In fact, ensuring folks have the most current information is pretty much is the opposite of duplicity—it is actively trying to provide the reader the most current information. Pretty much every competent business, news entity, or website is going to do the same.
Quite frankly, it is so obvious why they would do this; so industry standard; so clearly about being informative rather than deceptive, that it boggles the mind to think anyone could see this as duplicity. Unless, of course, their goal was to manufacture outrage for outrage’s sake—accusing Wizards of lying, has, after all, been an effective tool of the manufactured outrage club, and that club kind of had the wind taken out of their sails when Wizards did a 360.
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
Making sure the reader knows where to find the most recent information - especially when there has been any drastic update, isn’t duplicity - it is common sense. In fact, ensuring folks have the most current information is pretty much is the opposite of duplicity—it is actively trying to provide the reader the most current information. Pretty much every competent business, news entity, or website is going to do the same.
Quite frankly, it is so obvious why they would do this; so industry standard; so clearly about being informative rather than deceptive, that it boggles the mind to think anyone could see this as duplicity. Unless, of course, their goal was to manufacture outrage for outrage’s sake—accusing Wizards of lying, has, after all, been an effective tool of the manufactured outrage club, and that club kind of had the wind taken out of their sails when Wizards did a 360.
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
I think either option is fine, with removing parts of your website that are sorely out of date being a perfectly acceptable way to ensure folks are getting the most relevant information. As far as "removing actual evidence of that content's existence"--this is the internet and things do not ever really go away. You're welcome to use WaybackMachine if you want to find the old text--it's all there.
So, again, trying to drum up outrage over (a) something that really is not a problem and (b) if it ever became a problem there is a readily available and widely known tool that can completely eliminate the problem is, in fact, just drumming up outrage for outrage's sake. If you want to do that, you're going to have to find a real issue--this is such a non-issue that no one (except those who already are desperate to find a new whetstone for the axe they are trying to grind) would make it one.
Making sure the reader knows where to find the most recent information - especially when there has been any drastic update, isn’t duplicity - it is common sense. In fact, ensuring folks have the most current information is pretty much is the opposite of duplicity—it is actively trying to provide the reader the most current information. Pretty much every competent business, news entity, or website is going to do the same.
Quite frankly, it is so obvious why they would do this; so industry standard; so clearly about being informative rather than deceptive, that it boggles the mind to think anyone could see this as duplicity. Unless, of course, their goal was to manufacture outrage for outrage’s sake—accusing Wizards of lying, has, after all, been an effective tool of the manufactured outrage club, and that club kind of had the wind taken out of their sails when Wizards did a 360.
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
I think either option is fine, with removing parts of your website that are sorely out of date being a perfectly acceptable way to ensure folks are getting the most relevant information. As far as "removing actual evidence of that content's existence"--this is the internet and things do not ever really go away. You're welcome to use WaybackMachine if you want to find the old text--it's all there.
So, again, trying to drum up outrage over (a) something that really is not a problem and (b) if it ever became a problem there is a readily available and widely known tool that can completely eliminate the problem is, in fact, just drumming up outrage for outrage's sake. If you want to do that, you're going to have to find a real issue--this is such a non-issue that no one (except those who already are desperate to find a new whetstone for the axe they are trying to grind) would make it one.
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That is user error on your part, not an actual problem. You clearly clicked on one of the yellow links, which indicate there was an issue with the load, not one of the blue links. You can access all the old articles there fine, so long as you use the site correctly--in fact, I just did it and was able to find them all perfectly preserved, should anyone ever need to access them.
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That is user error on your part, not an actual problem. You clearly clicked on one of the yellow links, which indicate there was an issue with the load, not one of the blue links. You can access all the old articles there fine, so long as you use the site correctly--in fact, I just did it and was able to find them all perfectly preserved, should anyone ever need to access them.
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That is user error on your part, not an actual problem. You clearly clicked on one of the yellow links, which indicate there was an issue with the load, not one of the blue links. You can access all the old articles there fine, so long as you use the site correctly--in fact, I just did it and was able to find them all perfectly preserved, should anyone ever need to access them.
You clearly didn't follow the same process I did.
That was Caerwyn's point, your process was incorrect and resulted in a bad result. This is the first time I've that site so I can't comment on whether he's correct or what - but I used the site to access the first letter, so it's there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Some of you just want to stay mad and will find any reason to do so...this is pretty common, especially given how contradictory the preliminary information was to the final result. You might want those posts to remain as some sort of scarlet letter/badge of shame for WotC, but for someone who is not cognizant of the controversy, its development, or its history, its an easy way to fan flames of user anger again (for an example, see the hoax of the $30 tier master sub that resurfaced during the OGL stuff)
Regarding footnotes, people don't read them...or read in general. How many posts on Social Media do you see with people up in arms who never read past the title? Or how many threads have to exist explaining why you can't buy a physical book and get the same here for free?
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That is user error on your part, not an actual problem. You clearly clicked on one of the yellow links, which indicate there was an issue with the load, not one of the blue links. You can access all the old articles there fine, so long as you use the site correctly--in fact, I just did it and was able to find them all perfectly preserved, should anyone ever need to access them.
You clearly didn't follow the same process I did.
That was Caerwyn's point, your process was incorrect and resulted in a bad result. This is the first time I've that site so I can't comment on whether he's correct or what - but I used the site to access the first letter, so it's there.
My process was straightforward and correct: check the archive for the posts page, choose a date, click a blue link and choose a link in attempt to access specific post's page. Sure you can access some stuff, but not in some direct and straightforward ways. At least some direct attempts at entry result in dead ends. What was your method?
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
I don't see why they didn't just remove those old posts from the front page and the posts page, rather than keeping the old image and just changing the link.
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
Regardless, issuing a “correction” is not guaranteed to communicate to everyone the current status.
but that aside, give me a logical reason to have the old posts remain that doesn’t boil down to the aforementioned badge of shame
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
Regardless, issuing a “correction” is not guaranteed to communicate to everyone the current status.
but that aside, give me a logical reason to have the old posts remain that doesn’t boil down to the aforementioned badge of shame
You keep using words in moving the goalpost kind of ways.
The disclaimer reads: "Important Update: The OGL 1.0a will remain untouched and the entire SRD 5.1 will be available under a Creative Commons license. For the most current information on our approach, read our January 27 statement."
This would be the most honest and transparent way to go forward: just add a disclaimer to posts with outdated information, instead of deleting/hiding those posts. I understand the information there is outdated and contradictory, but moves like these don't help rebuild trust.
This to me is the duplicity, they use one approach in one place and another approach in another.
A clear hatnote reads:
Important Update: The OGL 1.0a will remain untouched and the entire SRD 5.1 will be available under a Creative Commons license. For the most current information on our approach, read our January 27 statement."
It's a really simple, glasnost-type approach and something I'd personally advocate. A clear admittance of "shame" would surely be found in the removal of any form of simple access to the material.
My dude, the posts you're complaining about literally have titles like "Where To Find the Latest Information" and "An Update on the OGL", and now they take you to the latest update on the subject
You are tying yourself into knots trying to find excuses to be outraged
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)
If they didn't redirect to the latest information, people who haven't been dialed into the course of the controversy would see the old articles, think they're current, freak out, and make hyperbolic forum posts. (Whoops on that last part.)
There has been more than enough misinformation about this subject already. Like, reams and reams of misinformation.
I honestly thought this was going to be something about physical shipping "by post." I'm still not sure what the problem is here other than that mistakes having been made some folks think the "proper" thing to do is to let the mistakes hang, but this is real consumer relations not internet archaeology. I do sense there's a group of folks we might as well call OGL truthers at this point. I just don't know what justice looks like for them, but I think it's locked into a very fixed position on the alignment grid.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I was disappointed to find, on https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts, that links provided for several previous posts ("OGL 1.2: Where to Find the Latest Information, Plus FAQs"-Jan21, "A Working Conversation About the Open Game License (OGL)"-Jan18, and "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)"-Jan13), all link to the more recent http://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons of Jan 27.
Personally, I consider that among the best sources of information on the OGL debacle are gamer lawyers such as @RollOfLaw (Runkle of the Bailey but in his gaming guise) and @TheRulesLawyerRPG. None-the-less, I am bewildered as to why DnDBeyond would divert access from their previous pro-WotC posts.
I found that they added a disclaimer to an older post from december: https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d
The disclaimer reads: "Important Update: The OGL 1.0a will remain untouched and the entire SRD 5.1 will be available under a Creative Commons license. For the most current information on our approach, read our January 27 statement."
This would be the most honest and transparent way to go forward: just add a disclaimer to posts with outdated information, instead of deleting/hiding those posts. I understand the information there is outdated and contradictory, but moves like these don't help rebuild trust.
Because those discusions are now moot. OGL 1.2 was defeated, the working conversation was had, and the 13 jan update is no longer relevent. The Jan 27 post is relevent.
Right.
And if those links were up and leading to old pages, people would find their way to those pages, read outdated information and start the whole OGL outrage all over again (which most members of the forum community are sick of, in my estimation). No footnote is going to prevent that - the number of threads being resurrected years after they died because new posters can't be bothered to check the date that is stamped next each and every post (and I say that as someone who made that mistake). I'm quite happy for the forum to move and let the forum be about D&D rather than futile arguments about contract law.
Given the number of threads on here, YT videos, Reddits and articles that are clogging up the internet,.this isn't being swept under the carpet and there's more than enough sources and reminders about it.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Making sure the reader knows where to find the most recent information - especially when there has been any drastic update, isn’t duplicity - it is common sense. In fact, ensuring folks have the most current information is pretty much is the opposite of duplicity—it is actively trying to provide the reader the most current information. Pretty much every competent business, news entity, or website is going to do the same.
Quite frankly, it is so obvious why they would do this; so industry standard; so clearly about being informative rather than deceptive, that it boggles the mind to think anyone could see this as duplicity. Unless, of course, their goal was to manufacture outrage for outrage’s sake—accusing Wizards of lying, has, after all, been an effective tool of the manufactured outrage club, and that club kind of had the wind taken out of their sails when Wizards did a 360.
Do you mean the kind of thing that's typically achieved by adding a hatnote to outdated content rather than just removing actual evidence of that content's existence?
I think either option is fine, with removing parts of your website that are sorely out of date being a perfectly acceptable way to ensure folks are getting the most relevant information. As far as "removing actual evidence of that content's existence"--this is the internet and things do not ever really go away. You're welcome to use WaybackMachine if you want to find the old text--it's all there.
So, again, trying to drum up outrage over (a) something that really is not a problem and (b) if it ever became a problem there is a readily available and widely known tool that can completely eliminate the problem is, in fact, just drumming up outrage for outrage's sake. If you want to do that, you're going to have to find a real issue--this is such a non-issue that no one (except those who already are desperate to find a new whetstone for the axe they are trying to grind) would make it one.
That was my first port of call. You go to, say, the Jan 27 posts' page archive and click on "An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)" and you get to a verify page that at least I can't directly get by.
That is user error on your part, not an actual problem. You clearly clicked on one of the yellow links, which indicate there was an issue with the load, not one of the blue links. You can access all the old articles there fine, so long as you use the site correctly--in fact, I just did it and was able to find them all perfectly preserved, should anyone ever need to access them.
You clearly didn't follow the same process I did.
That was Caerwyn's point, your process was incorrect and resulted in a bad result. This is the first time I've that site so I can't comment on whether he's correct or what - but I used the site to access the first letter, so it's there.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Some of you just want to stay mad and will find any reason to do so...this is pretty common, especially given how contradictory the preliminary information was to the final result. You might want those posts to remain as some sort of scarlet letter/badge of shame for WotC, but for someone who is not cognizant of the controversy, its development, or its history, its an easy way to fan flames of user anger again (for an example, see the hoax of the $30 tier master sub that resurfaced during the OGL stuff)
Regarding footnotes, people don't read them...or read in general. How many posts on Social Media do you see with people up in arms who never read past the title? Or how many threads have to exist explaining why you can't buy a physical book and get the same here for free?
My process was straightforward and correct: check the archive for the posts page, choose a date, click a blue link and choose a link in attempt to access specific post's page. Sure you can access some stuff, but not in some direct and straightforward ways. At least some direct attempts at entry result in dead ends. What was your method?
Some of us remain disenchanted with a company that has lied... to us.
I don't see why they didn't just remove those old posts from the front page and the posts page, rather than keeping the old image and just changing the link.
Regardless, issuing a “correction” is not guaranteed to communicate to everyone the current status.
but that aside, give me a logical reason to have the old posts remain that doesn’t boil down to the aforementioned badge of shame
You keep using words in moving the goalpost kind of ways.
As per this thread's 2nd post.
This to me is the duplicity, they use one approach in one place and another approach in another.
A clear hatnote reads:
It's a really simple, glasnost-type approach and something I'd personally advocate. A clear admittance of "shame" would surely be found in the removal of any form of simple access to the material.
My dude, the posts you're complaining about literally have titles like "Where To Find the Latest Information" and "An Update on the OGL", and now they take you to the latest update on the subject
You are tying yourself into knots trying to find excuses to be outraged
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)
If they didn't redirect to the latest information, people who haven't been dialed into the course of the controversy would see the old articles, think they're current, freak out, and make hyperbolic forum posts. (Whoops on that last part.)
There has been more than enough misinformation about this subject already. Like, reams and reams of misinformation.
Medium humanoid (human), lawful neutral
I honestly thought this was going to be something about physical shipping "by post." I'm still not sure what the problem is here other than that mistakes having been made some folks think the "proper" thing to do is to let the mistakes hang, but this is real consumer relations not internet archaeology. I do sense there's a group of folks we might as well call OGL truthers at this point. I just don't know what justice looks like for them, but I think it's locked into a very fixed position on the alignment grid.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.