Moderator's Reminder: Keep things civil [EDIT: UPDATED BY MORRUS - FINAL WARNING]

[Mark CMG]

I think you have to give them the opportunity and allow them to make of it what they will. Besides, this site exists because of their game. It's not like this website can afford to alienate a publisher that large, let alone the one who produces the game on which the site is based.

Mark --> I most definately should of used " implication " instead of " statement " , but beyond that, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I was not trying to impinge on your character or anything, I was merely disagreeing.

To clarify, it is my contention that WotC publishes D&D and legally owns the rights to do so, along with all that implies and allows. This site, EN World, exists because of that game. Eric Noah created the site to track the previews and leaks surrounding the impending release of D&D 3E. I don't think you actually disagree with that. Further, I think that, as such, they deserve the opportunity to speak on the issues surrounding their latest business move without being pre-condemned for their actions. I think it is worth hearing them out and I hope that emotions cool swiftly enough that they will discuss particulars soon.

Now, as to disagreeing with what you contend I implied? Fair enough, I guess, but I think you can put forth an assertion that will stand on its own without having to attribute an impetus to something you believe I meant when I said something else. I think what you have to say is important and I feel that it is an area that deserves greater discussion.

Moving on, though, the idea that a "stakeholder" has power in shaping the strategies and plans of a business, whether they are an employee, stockholder, customer, or merely a concerned third party is certainly viable, to a degree, but are you looking at this dispassionately enough at present to know just how much influence you might be able to bring to bear?

 

[Kaodi]

When you originally posted that, since you were replying to Teflon Billy's questions about the people working for WotC, I had believed that when you said " them " and " they " you were speaking of the employees, not the company. Since it now seems that that was not the case, and that you were speaking of the company, my whole reason for bringing up stakeholders is gone. That being said...

There was an old article by Ryan Dancey that was linked in another thread recently in which he told how he discovered that TSR failed because it didn't listen to its customers. However, this is certainly an unpredictable kind of power, for it can only be measured well in hindsight. I'm not screaming " Boycott! " or anything, but because of this whole needless PR bungling, I think it is rather likely I will be much less eager to buy any of the non-Eberron supplements I was planning on buying (most of the Environments series, for instance, for I only have Frostburn as of yet). As a stakeholder, it would almost be irresponsible for me not to punish WotC somehow, because otherwise there would be no incentive for them to manage their annoucements better next time, and certainly we all want that. So, yes, I do think I am dispassionate enough on this issue, if you would like to continue a line of discussion on stakeholder influence.

 

[Mark CMG]

Keep an eye on (the new*) CMG site for my drawn out thoughts on this whole situation. We have probably derailed this thread of chastisement far enough already. Easy enough to reply over there, I suppose, where I'll be sure not to miss it as I might in the monster-sized threads round these parts.



*It looks similar to the old site but has a whole new underlayment. Be sure to sign up anew if you had an old account or even if you just want to make use of the crazy, cool features like commenting back on my decidedly biased views or giving me the occasional attaboy!

 

[Mistwell]

Ahh, here we go. Now the misquotation attributed to me is being quoted and debated further. Gotta love the Internet.

Mark, regarding your comment about how much you hate puppies and want to see them all die, how can you be so cruel?

 

[Vigilance]

Two things, among many I could address:

Mark --> I must disagree with your statement that the game belongs to " them " . We are all stakeholders in Dungeons & Dragons. As employees, designers and developers, they merely hold larger stakes.

No, it belongs to them.

Reading Time magazine and owning time magazine are not the same thing, no matter how long you have read or how much you loved it.

As a matter of fact, WRITING FOR Time magazine is not the same thing as owning it.

Owning it is the same as owning it.

That's why Peter Adkisson laid it on the line and ponied up a very large sum of money to own D&D. So he could be the decider.

If you want to own D&D, draw up a business plan and get a loan. THEN you can make the big calls, because then you will have laid out substantial capital for the brand.

I suspect that would change the way you viewed it considerably.

So either start buying Hasbro stock, take out a BIG loan, or stop pretending you should have more say than you should.

 

[Olaf the Stout]

OK, guys, please take note.

I've had emails from multiple WotC employees who have said thay want to post here about the current situaiton, but given the current climate they don't feel like being fed to the wolves. I'm sure you'll all agree that we'd love to hear what they have to say.

In addition, the civility-meter has exploded due to the general rudeness people are exhibiting towards each other. The reported posts list looks more like a tidal wave than the usual 3-4 per day trickle.

Clearly, we need to put our [collective] foot down. This means the following: in instances where we would normally post a warning, we will, for the time being, issue an immediate 3-day ban. Where we would normally issue a 3-day ban, we'll issue a month ban. In addition, we will not take the time to email you about this: you'll find out when you try to post. We don't have the time to deal with every transgressor individually when, frankly, we're looking at dozens of you.

You are welcome to express your opinion. But you will do so in a civil manner. You have created a situation where the designers of the very game you profess to love are reluctant to talk to you.

Please consider this a final warning. And if you don't see this post because you choose not to read moderator warnings, then, hey, it sucks to be you!

After reading some of the mods comments in various threads I thought that they were being unnecessarily harsh on people. However, if what you say regarding the current WotC employees is true (and I have no reason to believe that you would make something like that up) I think you are being fair.

I think a lot of people are angry because the decision has seemingly come out of nowhere and WotC have been almost silent on the matter. Some more information from people in the know would be greatly appreciated. If it takes multiple bannings to get that to happen then so be it.

Olaf the Stout

 

[Agamon]

Exactly, we are certainly not shareholders in WotC, we're customers. And a company can exist without shareholders...

 

[Odhanan]

I think that the board's staff has a mission: keeps things orderly and polite. Welcoming. They're doing a great job given the present mayhem.

I can only say that I am surprised at my own emotional reaction to this event. I am genuinely heartbroken by the way things have unfolded, and by the loss of those two milestones of our hobby. I feel the anger is completely and utterly justified, but I will strive to keep it civil and polite. You have my word.

 

[Agamon]

After reading some of the mods comments in various threads I thought that they were being unnecessarily harsh on people. However, if what you say regarding the current WotC employees is true (and I have no reason to believe that you would make something like that up) I think you are being fair.

I think a lot of people are angry because the decision has seemingly come out of nowhere and WotC have been almost silent on the matter. Some more information from people in the know would be greatly appreciated. If it takes multiple bannings to get that to happen then so be it.

I don't disagree at all. It's one thing to rant, it's another to be insulting. I know a couple or so of my posts on Thursday were a bit vitriol-infused, but not towards any person in particular, more the very idea of what happened. I have nothing against people that think all this is silly (Hi Misty! ), or any individual employee of WotC (I guess because I'm not certain who's decision this was).

If people are going to spaz, they can do it somewhere else. Good on ya, Morrus.

 

[Maggan]

Wha? EN World brand?

As for the (IMO well-earned and well-deserved) outburst of WotC-hate "hurting" EN World, I'd like you to recall a particular open letter published several years ago by Morrus himself, right here, in which he pretty much said "screw you, WotC." And no, he never apologized for it. If THAT didn't hurt EN World, I fail to see how this could.

Because the site has changed. The community has changed. Everything changes.

And Morrus being mad is a different thing, in a different time. That probably hurt the relationship with WotC more than it hurt the EN World brand. But then again, we haven't seen much of WotC in the Ennies after that have we? Or for that matter, not much official presence here from WotC. It is entirely possible that EN World could have had a stronger relationship with WotC, and thus a stronger brand, if not for that incident.

It is also possible that the incident you refer to didn't change a thing, but I myself doubt that.

The recent outburst has, IMO of course, hurt EN World a lot. Now we are suddenly, on other boards I have visited over the days and in comments I have heard, described as a place where lunatics go bananas over two magazines being canceled.

That might not be the truth, but it is certainly something that will cling to the name of EN World for a long time unless we do something about it.

Our behaviour here influences what people think of EN World as a whole, and as a brand. It may feel as if it's a situation of "I'm just speaking for myself so it doesn't rub off on EN World", but unfortunately it really does.

I've seen it happen on other sites as well, where highly aggressive posters very strongly declare that they are speaking only for themselves, and that they don't really understand why anyone could think that the forums are affected by their opinions, and then wonder why the forums are being abandoned.

EN World is not in any great danger of being abandoned by its readership. But it is IMO important to remember that what we do here today shapes what EN World is tomorrow, and what people think of EN World the day after tomorrow.

/M