Drafts do not come with contracts attached?

[darjr]

No, they have been very clear that they wanted to kill the OGL 1.0a, even in Kyle's interviews. He said their point of view at the time required killing the OGL. They no loner have that point of view, but they did at the time. He has not tried to hide that fact by saying the 1.1 was a draft. That would be silly, because the 1.2 draft also included killing the OGL 1.0(a).

So to me, it is not beside the point at all that these were drafts. Yes, they wanted to kill the OGL, but there was a lot of room to negotiate (as we saw with the 1.2). The death of the OGL wasn't the only thing in 1.1. The royalties were a big part.

There was no room about killing the OGL until it was CRYSTAL CLEAR it was a gigantic mistake AFTER the survey.

And then it took Kyle to step in and take over the whole endeavor.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And I think among its many faults, the Smug Apology was a bit disingenuous when it suggested they were just getting "input from the community."

This is the part folks have found fault with from the very beginning.

The point just got diverted into an argument over the semantics of the word 'draft'.

 

[dave2008]

Not a lie, but yes it was deceptive. They're implying that it wasn't what they wanted to happen, because it was only a "draft." I mean, I get why they said it that way, but it doesn't change that it was an attempt to make the public view of the company more positive through deception.

It depends. If WotC is assuming their audience is reasonably familiar with contracts or understands what a draft is in this context, then it is not deceptive. It is only deceptive if you assume people don't know what you mean.

 

[dave2008]

There was no room about killing the OGL until it was CRYSTAL CLEAR it was a gigantic mistake AFTER the survey.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence, particularly the bold part, so I can't respond.

 

[dave2008]

How would you describe their characterization of the status of the document from WotC's perspective?

Honest? And if not honest, then what?

Edit: Put another way..

If my wife accuses me of sleeping with another person and I deny it on the basis that technically no sleeping occured, is it fair to call me a 'liar'?

What should the have called it? What is the term that you would like them to use?

 

[darjr]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence, particularly the bold part, so I can't respond.

Until the survey every communication from them including ending the OGL. Only after they stopped the whole feedback survey process after it was certain which way things were going was the OGL preserved.

 

[dave2008]

Until the survey every communication from them including ending the OGL. Only after they stopped the whole feedback survey process after it was certain which way things were going was the OGL preserved.

OK, I know this. Everyone knows this. What is your point in the context of this thread?

 

[Gammadoodler]

It depends. If WotC is assuming their audience is reasonably familiar with contracts or understands what a draft is in this context, then it is not deceptive. It is only deceptive if you assume people don't know what you mean.

Do you believe the general public is adequately familiar with this context?

Do you think that WotC believed that the general public has this familiarity?

 

[darjr]

OK, I know this. Everyone knows this. What is your point in the context of this thread?

“A lot of room to negotiate” means nothing if the essential issue is entirely off the table. And it was.

 

[Gammadoodler]

What should the have called it? What is the term that you would like them to use?

Maybe something along the lines of..

"contract terms that we thought were reasonable at the time"