Question for Scott Rouse re: Retroclones

[Bumbles]

Hey, ya gotta try man.

Not really, sometimes it can even be counter-productive to try. Discretion, y'know?

 

[joethelawyer]

I think you are mistaken as to Scott Rouse's job. His job isn't to say "how high?" whenever joethelawyer says "jump"! It isn't to make binding legal statements on the internet in response to random posters who just yesterday were crowing how karmic it was that their products get pirated.

You aren't "offering" them anything. If they choose to make any policy statements, they will do so according to their own procedures. They won't do so on a thread on the internet, and nor should they.

Yes, Joe. That's clear. We all gathered that.

IF it "deserves" an answer (which is a premise I don't agree with in the first place - they don't owe you an answer), you aren't the person who deserves that answer. Any legal relationship betwene a company and WotC is a private relationship; you aren't privy to that and, again, nor should you be.

If you produce an OSRIC-like system, then contact WotC directly. A third party callng them out on a random thread on teh intrawebs? Not so much.

The thing is, you know this, Joe. You say you're a lawyer, right? Does your company make legal policy on random messageboards when someone on the internet posts a thread demanding that they do so? No, of course not.

If I remember right, Scott came on here in response to questions as to whether or not the d20 license was revoked, as the WOTC boards and web page didn't give a clear answer. There were a few threads on it. In other words, there was no clear official policy statement, there were questions as to WOTC's legal position on a matter, and Scott came here to answer those legal questions on behalf of WOTC. So there is sort of a precedent to my asking these sorts of questions here. Of course, it was a while ago, and my memory could be off.


I think even Vic Wertz was not absolutely clear on it, as quoted here:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/rpg-le...tl-been-officially-revoked-3.html#post4624415

I think in there it is referenced by peeps that the only real word we got that the d20 license was going to be revoked, and when and how it was to be revoked, was in an interview on another web page with Scott. So 3pp's treated that as notice of a revoked license. Because of an interview on a webpage.

As to what he thinks of me---that's not really as important as the fact that since I posted the thread a day ago 1500 people read it. Surely a good chunk of those people (some of which are their customers, presumably) are interested in an answer to the question. So while he may think I'm the world's largest $!#@#$, the question is still valid, and I and many people think it deserves and answer. That's what these boards are for, right?

 

[Piratecat]

since I posted the thread a day ago 1500 people read it.

(Don't confuse page views with viewers; every time anyone visits a page that's a page view. Reading the whole thread once will generate 4+ page views, as will hitting refresh or the reload after posting. Repeat visitors generate multiple page views. For a thread this size with today's traffic, it's probably around 200-300 people, some returning to keep reading updates.)

 

[joethelawyer]

(Don't confuse page views with viewers; every time anyone visits a page that's a page view. Reading the whole thread once will generate 4+ page views, as will hitting refresh or the reload after posting. Repeat visitors generate multiple page views. For a thread this size with today's traffic, it's probably around 200-300 people, some returning to keep reading updates.)

So I'm not famous yet?

Interesting though, I didn't realize that. Though the numbers change, the general point remains.

 

[xechnao]

The thing is, you know this, Joe. You say you're a lawyer, right? Does your company make legal policy on random messageboards when someone on the internet posts a thread demanding that they do so? No, of course not.

Wotc is an entertainment company and it mostly lives and dies by its fan base. I doubt they are that big into casual market penetration so that message boards are irrelevant. If most fans on message boards get upset with Wotc, Wotc will be in trouble. This is difficult to happen on such a scale but it can happen and it does happen on some measure (see Pathfinder). Why it is difficult to happen? Because a large part of the fan base considers itself invested in the game. Not just from a consumer's point of view but from an investor's point of view. M:tG cards being the clearest example. This does not mean though that Scott's job is not to struggle to entertain opinions on the message boards.

 

[Odhanan]

IF it "deserves" an answer (which is a premise I don't agree with in the first place - they don't owe you an answer)

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

 

[MichaelSomething]

I think you are mistaken as to Scott Rouse's job. His job isn't to say "how high?" whenever joethelawyer says "jump"! It isn't to make binding legal statements on the internet in response to random posters who just yesterday were crowing how karmic it was that their products get pirated.

Also, It's not part of Scott's job description to hang around Enworld answering questions. I believe he does so in his free time. The quote and its link is my source...

I am a salary man so I don't get no stinkin' time sheet but when I post at home there is beer in the fridge

To the OP, did you consider posting this question on the WOTC boards? You know, the offical company board? That might help...

 

[Oni]

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

I pity the company that is beleaguered by customers, or worse yet non-customers, who believe they are owed something beyond the product they bought or didn't buy, due to some twisted sense of entitlement born of being a fan. Fandom has a disturbing darkside that has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it when things don't go their way. Frankly not all questions deserve a response, or even acknowledgment, it only encourages bad behavior. Fans start to think that acting like possessive jerks gets results.

 

[Atlatl Jones]

Also, It's not part of Scott's job description to hang around Enworld answering questions. I believe he does so in his free time. The quote and its link is my source...

It's also not Scott's job to make legal decisions for Wizards, let alone decide whether the company is going to litigate. If you recall, Scott could only give answers about the GSL after the legal department set the policy. He could advocate for certain positions internally, but the final decision was not his.

If WotC's legal legal department gets involved, they will have only answer about the retroclones: "No. Cease and desist immediately." The best you're going to get is the company intentionally ignoring the issue because it's not worth it to go after something so minor.

 

[jdrakeh]

I pity the company which believes its customers do not deserve answers to their questions, no matter how (il)legitimate these end up being. This, I believe, certainly would constitute corporate arrogance at its finest. This is not a stab at WotC's decision to answer or not joe's question. It is, however, a stab at the biased logic behind your argument, Morrus.

Morrus's logic is perfectly sound. Just because a question is asked does not mean that it deserves an answer. A consumer who believes that he is entitled to have every question that he asks of a company answered, regardless of how reasonable (or unreasonable) those questions are, has a completely distorted (and scary) sense of self-importance.

Not responding to unreasonable questions or outrageous demands isn't "corporate arrogance," it's how most businesses are run. It's why they make those signs that say "Owner retains the right to refuse service." It's why, if you start a fight in a bar, you'll be thrown out. It's why attempting to return stolen merchendise to a department store will gert you arrested.

The bottome line is that the customer is not always right and, frankly, when a customer makes unreasonable demands or acts in an inappropriate manner, they shouldn't be surprised when the world reacts as if they've acted unreasonably — of course, they almost always are, as their perception is enitirely self-centered, rather than grounded in reality.

Rewarding socially unacceptable behavior isn't the answer. If people ask an unreasonable question, they shouldn't expect an answer.