What is the most scathing feedback you left?(+)

[MoonSong]

For example, to the question "Do you feel comfortable creating content with the OGL 1.2?" I answered something along the lines of:

No, the personal risk is too big, and the balance of power is too unequal. Losing the right to publish my content is unacceptable, and as it is happening once already I cannot trust you to this not happening again in the future. And lacking access to existing OGC makes it even less worth it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

My group is rewriting so we can coordinate now but the two we plan on hitting the most (and as often as we can) is:

There needs to be a open/transparent way to appeal any use of the morality clause when/if it needs to be used, and I suggest having a known 3rd party arbiter.

and

Something needs to be done about all the open content that WAS released by others under your OGL and now is in a grey zone where we have content that was realsed into the open content and now is both 'been opened' and has been 'deauthorized' by a third party (you)

 

[Lanefan]

In the final summary I put something like "Through corporate greed you've almost killed the golden goose that was Magic, now you risk doing the same to D&D. There's still time to salvage this - don't blow it."

 

[mamba]

My replies in the first and last box

"Monte Cook said it best when he said "Say person A pointed a gun at person B and pulled the trigger, but the gun jammed. Person A then gave a half-hearted apology. Should person B trust person A ever again?"

This is what you did, yet here you are asking us to trust you again. Trust is not given, it is earned, it is deserved. All trust you accumulated the last 20 years you squandered with your reckless, hostile act of the OGL 1.1 release. If you want us to trust you, you need to earn it again.

A good first step would be to release an OGL 1.0b which is identical with 1.0a except for the following changes

- you add that the license is fully irrevocable
- you clarify that an authorized license is any license released by WotC that does not clearly state that it is a draft, and that an authorized version cannot be revoked or withdrawn

This would go a long way towards establishing some level of trust again."

and

"All my comments are in 2. already. I think you screwed this up majorly and none of this was necessary. D&D thrived with the OGL 1.0a and would have continued to do so, this is just pure greed and abuse of power."

 

[Lord Mhoram]

In the last comment I said something to the effect of "I do not think that this move will give you the results you are looking for. If not, D&D has survived one company losing profits because it did know what gamers wanted. People played the older edition until a new company came in that truly understood gamers and made a game people wanted. If need be we can do that again"

 

[Yaarel]

Probably the most scathing feedback in the survey is:

The "Content Creator Badge" is how I will know who to boycott.

 

[Haplo781]

Regarding the notice of deauthorization:

You're going to get sued, and I hope you lose.

 

[Scribe]

Probably the most scathing feedback in the survey is:

The "Content Creator Badge" is how I will know who to boycott.

I wish I had seen that earlier.

 

[Voadam]

I think I said that creating the OGL and providing the SRDs was a huge mutual benefit for D&D players, 3rd party publishers, and WotC that generated great good will towards WotC and confidence in the future of D&D. Attempting to de-authorize the OGL is a blow against all of that. As a customer of WotC and OGL material I feel betrayed by WotC, I am livid at WotC over this. I hope WotC drops this attempt. If not I hope it is litigated in court and WotC loses.

 

[Azzy]

For the most part, I simply took the "disappointed parent" tone in my replies. I also informed them that they have betrayed the trust of 3PPs and the rest of the D&D community and questioned how can they ask us to trust them to honor any future license when they can't even honor the license the created 23 years ago.