Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ryryguy" data-source="post: 4882810" data-attributes="member: 64945">Good points.&nbsp; But let's not look at it from the point of view of whether they are or are not jerks.&nbsp; From WotC's point of view, would it make sense to have a policy?Potential fan-site creators (who do not want to accept the new fan site kit and license) may be confused by and/or perceive risk in the lack of a stated policy.&nbsp; As a result they may be afraid to put too much work into their sites or perhaps even decide not to create them at all.&nbsp; Fewer, less developed fan sites aren't in WotC's interest.Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy?&nbsp; They might find it very difficult to create a good policy.&nbsp; And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the &quot;being jerks&quot; path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it. So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy...I'm just speculating, of course.&nbsp; What other costs and benefits are there to having a policy vs. having no policy?(I'm trying to consider it here in an idealized, rational domain... who knows, in reality there could be office politics, budget/resource issues, inertia that enter into the actual decision.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ryryguy, post: 4882810, member: 64945"] Good points. But let's not look at it from the point of view of whether they are or are not jerks. From WotC's point of view, would it make sense to have a policy? Potential fan-site creators (who do not want to accept the new fan site kit and license) may be confused by and/or perceive risk in the lack of a stated policy. As a result they may be afraid to put too much work into their sites or perhaps even decide not to create them at all. Fewer, less developed fan sites aren't in WotC's interest. Why then wouldn't WotC just go ahead and come up with a policy? They might find it very difficult to create a good policy. And if they did come up with something, once it was specified they'd risk going down the "being jerks" path unintentionally if there was an error or some unintended consequence in the policy, and they felt that they had to change it. So, it may be a tradeoff between the negative uncertainties of no policy vs. the potential negatives in a realized policy... I'm just speculating, of course. What other costs and benefits are there to having a policy vs. having no policy? (I'm trying to consider it here in an idealized, rational domain... who knows, in reality there could be office politics, budget/resource issues, inertia that enter into the actual decision.) [/QUOTE]

Verification