Do you think WoTC should be sued?

[TheYeti1775]

Here ya go, I'll bite the Trollbait.

Danny, You'll love this one.

This is for all who say there was no damages.

---------------------------------------------
I'm constantly riducled as grognard ever since the travesty of 4E hit the shelves.
Friends I had made through a great product of D&D3.5, have turned their back on me and have shunned me from their 4E groups.
My social network has collapsed because their D&D Encounters only caters to the 4E crowd.

Even car dealerships know to take care of their previous model year customers.
Wizards of the Coast has ignored my pleas for support of their product. I've been a loyal consumer of Wizards of the Coast Products in their Dungeons & Dragons line. But now they have throughly collapsed my game worlds with the introduction of 4E. The Spellplague of the Forgotten Realms setting is one of the worst events as it has rewritten history of the Forgotten Realms I was using. They provided no alternate method of use for those DM's whose worlds had advanced past that point in time already.
They had done this in the past, namely the use of their novels as Canon, in the Avatar Trilogy. While the removal of Dieties and rising of Mortals to Dieties caused some upheavel, they provided rules for using the 'dead gods' and alternatives to their actual removal. There was no option in the 4E version of the Forgotten Realms.

------------------------------
How's that for a start?

 

[billd91]

When someone hands you a cup of coffee through the window it shouldn't matter if its 100 degrees or 1000 degress, I just need to respect the fact that it's HOT COFFEE and treat it accordingly.

Except that this is food service. If I accept anything consumable through the window, I should be able to expect that I could, you know, start consuming it. Coffee at 180 degrees? Not so much.

McDonalds was hit with a large punitive judgement, in not small part, because of their attitude and continued refusal to take corrective measures despite years of other settlements over too-hot coffee. Let's face it, how else are you going to punish a large corporation for its behavior? The main recourse is to hit them in the pocket book hard enough to hurt.

 

[Umbran]

When someone hands you a cup of coffee through the window it shouldn't matter if its 100 degrees or 1000 degress, I just need to respect the fact that it's HOT COFFEE and treat it accordingly.

Actually, it darn well should matter. 100 degree coffee is either boiling or just above body temperature, depending which of the to most common scales you are talking. The difference is not negligible.

1000 degree coffee should, in either scale, flash into steam in your face, and possibly ignite the paper cup as it goes. The difference between this behavior and that of 100 degree coffee is not negligible, and it should matter which you're given.

You hereby prove the point that serving it at (or at least near) some known reasonable temperature is not so much micro-managing as it is having a lick of sense. There's hot, and there's HOT, and you do actually need to know which you're getting.

 

[Keefe the Thief]

Zimmerman actually means carpenter.



... what? It's all i got.

 

[OnyxPharaoh]

McDonalds was hit with a large punitive judgement, in not small part, because of their attitude and continued refusal to take corrective measures despite years of other settlements over too-hot coffee. Let's face it, how else are you going to punish a large corporation for its behavior? The main recourse is to hit them in the pocket book hard enough to hurt.

Who says we have the right to punish someone because of their attitude?

And it's simple, you punish a large corporation by not buying their products.

You sue them when you are a stupid greedy whore who just wants to get rich quick on the basis of your own ignorance.

But then again, I don't believe in eating fast food either so I'd never technically have this problem.

I think it was summed up best when it was said, "Unless you're seagull don't eat anything fed to you through a window."

 

[OnyxPharaoh]

Actually, it darn well should matter. 100 degree coffee is either boiling or just above body temperature, depending which of the to most common scales you are talking. The difference is not negligible.

First, I threw those numbers out there as farcical examples. I certainly hope no one is serving 1000 degree coffee outside of hell.

Second, you have to boil water to even make coffee. So a logical person would assume that this coffee is going to be served to me at near boiling temperatures. So why you would hold it in your crocth and no put it in the cupholer while you are attempting to open the container is just stupid. Especially at her age when fine motor skills begin fading.

Fourth.....are you stalking me? =D

 

[shadzar]

Except that this is food service. If I accept anything consumable through the window, I should be able to expect that I could, you know, start consuming it.

Why? The drive-thru is to get your purchase without having to park and stand in line, but you intend to eat the food after leaving. Not to consume WHILE driving.

How long does it take for this coffee too cool, how much time does it take to get to your destination to begin drinking it, how long does it take you to dirnk it. Hotter coffee will remain hotter longer for people to travel and sip the coffee once they start, rather than guzzle it or drink while driving.

I really have no sympathy for anyone endangering the lives of other drivers or pedestrians because of their foolishness wanting to drink/eat/text/use the phone or computer/etc while driving.

Had she not been in a vehicle, MAYBE. But even carrying in your lap when window cup-holders have been around for most of her life...no sympathy at all. She could have asked for a drink tray and set it in the passenger floorboard.

As far as I am concerned the food should not have been eaten in the car, and her reckless driving and endangering other motorists and pedestrians were the cause, as had she drove responsibly then she wouldnt have gotten burned.

The food passed through the window should remain hot/"fresh" long enough to get to your destination. Not cool enough to eat while driving.

Hell I would call it responsible of McDs for promoting people to wait until they are not driving to make the food hotter than it should be consumed at for the safety of EVERYONE near places where people drive, be they in vehicles or out of them.

 

[Maggan]

You could have a case on the grounds that what is currently being sold as the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game is by no reasonable gamer's standards a Roleplaying Game, much less D&D.

Out of curiosity, how would a court go about to determine what a "reasonable gamer" is? And how would it determine what any "standards" are when it comes to RPGs?

Of particular interest to this claim would be ESS Entertainment v. Rockstar, Galoob v. Nintendo (which establishes a customers right to modify a product they have bought, something which WotC took away from you with the GSL) and any of the many suits filed by Palladium, which do define a roleplaying game in a legal sense.

So, if I'm reading you correctly, there exists a legal definition of what a roleplaying game is, and that has been upheld in court? And according to your reading of the situatione, D&D4e does not meet that legal definition of a roleplaying game?

Also, with the removal of the d20STL and it being replaced by the GSL, in a legal sense WotC removed all rights to modify a product bought from them? Even home brewing?

It's a really difficult subject to grapple with. There are those like KenzerCo who claims not to need a license to produce D&D-compatible material, and there are those who accept the GSL to produce compatible material, and there are tons of home brewers who would be affected if WotC were able to make their acitivities of modifying the rules of D&D4 illegal.

This is extremely interesting stuff! Please share more about the precedents. Enquiring minds who are not as well versed in law as lawyers or law students want to know! Or at least, I want to know!

Cheers!

/M

 

[dagger]

Let's say a veteran D&D user (who played/DM'd OD&D, AD&D 1st & 2nd, 3e, and 3.5) filed a lawsuit against WoTC for what they have been doing with 4e and other stuff lately. Do you think that would be justified or frivolous? I'm rather mixed on that because it may make Wizards realize what they've been doing to those who been passionate about the game and at the same time feel it may be going a bit overboard. What do you guys think?

This is also known as a First World problem.

 

[billd91]

Who says we have the right to punish someone because of their attitude?

Ahem... "and continued refusal to take corrective measures despite years of other settlements over too-hot coffee" most likely caused by that attitude.

And it's simple, you punish a large corporation by not buying their products.

You sue them when you are a stupid greedy whore who just wants to get rich quick on the basis of your own ignorance.

So when someone's hurt by a defective product, they're greedy if they try to get their medical bills and lost income covered? And are we to assume everyone has perfect knowledge about defective products on the market and that corporations don't deliberately hide that information? Man, what world do you live in? Apparently it's a world in which GM never hid the heightened risk of side-saddle gas tanks, Ford never hid the information about truck's slipping out of park and into reverse, and Bridgestone/Firestone didn't hide information about tire treads separating behind secrecy orders for 8 years.

Corporations hide critical information routinely under guise of trade secrets. The discovery phase of lawsuits can be every bit as valuable as the actual judgments because they can cause information to be released to the public. Assuming that some injured citizen has the ability to pay for pursuing the lawsuit against a multi-billion dollar corporation in the first place...