Dancey resigns as GAMA Treasurer

DaveMage said:
I think "damaged" is more appropriate a word than "ruined" since certainly many of the current d20/OGL companies may not even be in existance if it wasn't for Ryan's professional accomplishments. (And yes, GAMA is much greater than just the OGL/d20 industry, but there are certainly those who have benefited from Ryan's ability.)

This mistake doesn't destroy all of Ryan's past accomplishments.
People are bailing out of his open gaming mailing lists pretty quickly (according to the rpg.net thread, I'm not at my normal email to read those lists). Damaged may not be strong enough whether you think ruined is too strong.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

jmucchiello said:
People are bailing out of his open gaming mailing lists pretty quickly (according to the rpg.net thread, I'm not at my normal email to read those lists). Damaged may not be strong enough whether you think ruined is too strong.

I would wait a month or two to see the true impact of this episode on Ryan's credibility. It was definitely unethical, but I hesitate to estimate damage based on the shockwaves of the first few days.

I wonder if he'll be releasing any sort of statement regarding the incident itself (whys and wherefores)?
 

Over on gaming report, one poster has indicated that what Ryan did does, in fact, break the law. He cited (IIRC) the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (title 18), however that post and a number of others (apparently those a bit more antagonistic against Ryan) have dissappeared.
 

IF the members of GAMA wanted to take legal action against Ryan, I am fairly certain they could find enough legal grounds to do so. However, the larger question becomes is it worth the high cost both financially and from a public relations standpoint? Given the incestous relationships that have existed within the organization in the past, I'm not certain the answer to those questions is 'yes' unless all are willing to brush the dust off of buried secrets and expose themselves to intense public scrutiny.
 


Apparently there've been more resignations. The board is disintegrating, and now there is a check to see if Dancey violated Federal Law or not. If Dancey wanted to render GAMA impotent, even destroyed, then this would do just that.
 

OK, as a non-publisher, regular John Q. Gamer, what does this mean to me?

I'm not being waggish here. I'm serious. What impact on the industry will this have, and how will the impact be felt at my gaming table?
 

Another one of GAMA's employees has left the organization and rumor has it there has been at least one additional resignation.

The fact of the matter is that Dancey's actions were probably unethical and may be illegal as well. It also means that the current board is essentially without a mandate, since it appears that Dancey's intrusion of the board list was prior to the election and thus, there is the suspicion of this influencing the process. To salvage things, the board must hold another election.

It is highly unlikely that people will be thrilled to do business with someone who is suspected of a felony related to the industry, no matter how unwarranted or warranted it may be.

What does it mean to the average gamer? GAMA runs Origins and the GAMA Trade Show. These are influential conventions. Games are sold based on interest from hobby distributors, and if the opportunities to present products for a distribution slate is undermined, it means that you just won't get to hear about certain products. Your game store will not order them because they won't appear on catalogues. Independent distribution is difficult and is only viable for very large or small scale companies (the large ones have the book trade and name recognition and the small ones can do fine with direct sales alone).

In wider affairs, it means that there will probably be a review of everything Dancey has touched to determine whether any company doing business with him risks any sort of liability. Given how many things in the industry are determined by ad hoc, informal agreements (such as "gentlemen's agreement" surrounding the products that people like to talk about around here), this may have an effect -- ot it may not.
 

Rasyr said:
Over on gaming report, one poster has indicated that what Ryan did does, in fact, break the law. He cited (IIRC) the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (title 18), however that post and a number of others (apparently those a bit more antagonistic against Ryan) have dissappeared.

Actually, Gaming Report has a rating system similar to Slashdot. If articles end up getting rated below your threshold, you won't see them. It's possible that they're not being seen because they're below your threshold value.

I don't know for sure that no deletions have taken place (I just found out about the rating system myself). I'm just suggesting that may be the reason for articles "disappearing" rather than maliciousness.
 

francisca said:
OK, as a non-publisher, regular John Q. Gamer, what does this mean to me?

I'm not being waggish here. I'm serious. What impact on the industry will this have, and how will the impact be felt at my gaming table?

None. There is no impact whatsoever. This event is important to only a handful of people.
 

Remove ads

Top