Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jester47" data-source="post: 101997" data-attributes="member: 2238">Not deadly clear, rewrite the document.I see it like this:  If I am writing an adventure to sell or publish on the web, I have to use either (1) a monster from the current SRD or (2) somthing of my own design.  And I have to put all this open gaming stuff in the document I create.  If I am offering (which because of the nature of the net is publishing) conversion notes on an old out of date adventure or monster that has not seen conversion to 3E yet, there seems to be wiggle room according to the badly written document known as the "Conversion Policy 1.0."  If the monster is in the SRD there is no need to convert it.  If the monster is in a published item by WotC again there is no need to convert it.  I simply have to say:Stinger, Monster Compendium: Monsters of Faerun pp. 80-81 hp: 30I am giving credit where credit is due and I do not have to reference the SRD.  What they are saying I can't do is go and dig up the old 1E info on say a Splanxty and write out the conversion on it without refernceing the SRD.  When they release the 3E stats for this monster, mine becomes moot.  Now about the document.  The document is badly written.  It looks to me in my professional opinion that the document was not in its final stages when it was released.  Things that it lacks that need to be clarified before it can even be considered effective operating policy are the following:First, it needs to define its vocabulary.   It does not do this and so things become unclear.  Second, it needs to look at how people make conversions.  It does not address this.  There is an obvious confusion between Jim Butler's ESD program and his ideas on making conversions.  The author of the document is not making clear to us that he understands the separation of these concepts, if he is making this understanding at all.  A document as important as this should UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE EVER REQUIRED ANTHONY VALTERRA TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION.  This thing makes me angry every time I read it not because of the policy it states but rather how badly it states it.  I wonder if they have any technical communicators on staff at that company at all.  If they do this document slipped by them.  As a technical writer (albeit unemployed)  these are the questions I would ask:  Q= Question U= My understanding as someone paid to follow the industry and know what is going on and to keep your documents from making you look like a fool.Q:How recently have these requests been made?U:I saw this on the web sites about a year ago, you need to remove the word "recently"  if it is the conversion notes you are refering to.Q:Would you consider a year recent?  U:I would not.  Lets just say the question has been asked and we are late in response.Q:Are you sure these materials are not being bough in used print form? U:I know they are, you need to separate your ideas from the ESD program because while this is related, it does not go hand in hand.Q:Are these requests to publish the whole work or just notes on converting a  few things?U:This should be researched anf stated in this document.Q:Are you sure that the OGL states this? U:No, it is not.  Q:Is all you want a simple acknowledgement of ownership of materials?U:This is what you seem to be asking.  However your argument really need clarification before you send this out.Q:Can people reference Wizards of the Coast material in the conversions, but not actually reprint it?U:Citation is not publication.  Thus a document that only cites is free from the license restrictions.  This needs to be worked on and made clear before you release this document.WotC: Rewrite your document, If you dont have a Tech writer there, go find one of your lawyers, and talk to HR about hireing a legal/technical writer.  Heck, have one of your R&D guys write it up for you as making written things deadly clear is thier job.AaronEdited to add signature.</blockquote>

Verification