D&D General Frylock on the ‘Ineffectual OGL’

[S'mon]

Didn't that patent get overturned later? I know there was a challenge against it, and somehow I remember the challenge succeeding...

No idea - I just remember the patent was granted by the USPTO. Most patents don't withstand a court challenge, at least here in UK.

 

[S'mon]

eh, his arguments are not new. They were all around when WOTC released 3.0.
Only difference is that it seems he is willing to challenge WOTC on it.

The OGL basically boils down to a gentlemen's agreement that WOTC won't sue you if you abide by these rules.

There has always been the option of not using the OGL and risk getting sued. He is presenting himself as fighting the good fight. Whatever... He will most likely be sued and waste tons of his time in court. If he wins or loses I don't see any great effect on the gaming community.

Well the 'old argument' is that you don't need the OGL to create D&D-compatible material. Plenty of publishers have published such material and not been sued. You just need to know what you're doing. But the OGL offers a safe harbour, especially with its rectification clause, so there are good reasons to use it too.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shardstone]

A person states that they are a doctor; as they are describing how a retrovirus works, they mention that certain things can upset the bodily humors.

A person states that they are a mechanic, and say that the first thing you should check when looking at your 2016 car is the carburetor.

...at a certain point, you begin to get skeptical that the person in question has the claimed full amount of expertise in the subject matter.

Exaggeration, false equivalency, and hyperbole are no more intellectually sound then what I quoted.

 

[Shardstone]

Sure it is. You read a sample to see if the whole document is worth reading. If the sample contains errors it's reasonable to assume the rest of the document is flawed.

But when it comes to a legal argument, the whole thing is like a pyramid. It is built up on a series of base arguments. And if even one of the arguments at the base of the pyramid is flawed the whole structure collapses.

But I can accept this argument as me being wrong here.

 

[darjr]

Has @Mistwell chimed in?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shardstone]

Aw... did you just take Philosophy 101? Or did you learn that all by yourself on the internet? What, couldn't you bring yourself to at least use ad verecunidam? Too Latin?

But here's the thing; I'm guessing you are not well-versed in the law, right? Are you able to verify, for yourself, the various claims made by Frylock when he says (for example) that there is all this "precedent" that supports him? Did you read the (very few) cases that he refers to? Do you understand the jargon that he uses? Do you question why he is (mis)using Supreme Court precedent instead of using precedent that is factually analogous? Because there's a lot of cases out there!

If not, why are you accepting his argument? If you can't understand it on your own, then you are implicitly doing so because you are accepting his authority and expertise; on the other hand, if people notice that there are things that aren't quite right, and reject his authority, then the argument quickly falls apart.

To give you a simple, easy-to-understand analogy in the legal profession, if someone has a citation in a brief to a case and says that the case stands for X proposition, but I look at the case and it stands for Y, that person's credibility is shot as far as I am concerned; or, for that matter, if a person tries to use a case that has been withdrawn due to legal error (but remains on google scholar) - I've seen that happen as well. It's easy to assert something is the case; but you have to be able to back it up.

But sure, why don't you explain to us, like we are extremely dumb golden retrievers, the brilliant logical argument made by Frylock in his most recent post. You can start by explaining the relevance of his most recent OGL post to a possible lawsuit brought by WoTC for his infringement.

I'll wait!

I'm not going to respond to this post other than to say you're passive aggressiveness, flame, and overall meanness is completely unwarranted in this conversation. I know you like to go around the forum posting like this, but you really need to stop throwing personal attacks at people. Its needless in an otherwise civil conversation.

EDIT: Worth noting I already admitted I was wrong to another poster, who replied to me in a much more friendly, less condescending tone. Really, its like you were just looking for a chance to attack someone and couldn't help yourself from doing it. AND I'll even clarify I meant no insult by saying something was intellectually unsound, as I was talking about the post, not the person behind it.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Shardstone]

Yawn

Your appeal to pathos shall go unrecognized, as I do not think that the argumentum ad temperantiam is justified, and the tone policing and appeal to motive is a transparent attempt to poison the well.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night.

Its crazy that you can say whatever you want on this forum, and literally never get punished for it. Its also crazy how someone as smart as you is such an unbelievable naughty word, literally incapable of any kind of adult communication, since all you can do is insult people, speak down to them, and try to put yourself into a superior position.

But hey, whatever gets you through the night.