Drafts do not come with contracts attached?

[darjr]

No, they have been very clear that they wanted to kill the OGL 1.0a, even in Kyle's interviews. He said their point of view at the time required killing the OGL. They no loner have that point of view, but they did at the time. He has not tried to hide that fact by saying the 1.1 was a draft. That would be silly, because the 1.2 draft also included killing the OGL 1.0(a).

So to me, it is not beside the point at all that these were drafts. Yes, they wanted to kill the OGL, but there was a lot of room to negotiate (as we saw with the 1.2). The death of the OGL wasn't the only thing in 1.1. The royalties were a big part.

There was no room about killing the OGL until it was CRYSTAL CLEAR it was a gigantic mistake AFTER the survey.

And then it took Kyle to step in and take over the whole endeavor.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And I think among its many faults, the Smug Apology was a bit disingenuous when it suggested they were just getting "input from the community."

This is the part folks have found fault with from the very beginning.

The point just got diverted into an argument over the semantics of the word 'draft'.

 

[dave2008]

Not a lie, but yes it was deceptive. They're implying that it wasn't what they wanted to happen, because it was only a "draft." I mean, I get why they said it that way, but it doesn't change that it was an attempt to make the public view of the company more positive through deception.

It depends. If WotC is assuming their audience is reasonably familiar with contracts or understands what a draft is in this context, then it is not deceptive. It is only deceptive if you assume people don't know what you mean.

 

[dave2008]

There was no room about killing the OGL until it was CRYSTAL CLEAR it was a gigantic mistake AFTER the survey.

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence, particularly the bold part, so I can't respond.

 

[dave2008]

How would you describe their characterization of the status of the document from WotC's perspective?

Honest? And if not honest, then what?

Edit: Put another way..

If my wife accuses me of sleeping with another person and I deny it on the basis that technically no sleeping occured, is it fair to call me a 'liar'?

What should the have called it? What is the term that you would like them to use?

 

[darjr]

I'm sorry, I don't understand this sentence, particularly the bold part, so I can't respond.

Until the survey every communication from them including ending the OGL. Only after they stopped the whole feedback survey process after it was certain which way things were going was the OGL preserved.

 

[dave2008]

Until the survey every communication from them including ending the OGL. Only after they stopped the whole feedback survey process after it was certain which way things were going was the OGL preserved.

OK, I know this. Everyone knows this. What is your point in the context of this thread?

 

[Gammadoodler]

It depends. If WotC is assuming their audience is reasonably familiar with contracts or understands what a draft is in this context, then it is not deceptive. It is only deceptive if you assume people don't know what you mean.

Do you believe the general public is adequately familiar with this context?

Do you think that WotC believed that the general public has this familiarity?

 

[darjr]

OK, I know this. Everyone knows this. What is your point in the context of this thread?

“A lot of room to negotiate” means nothing if the essential issue is entirely off the table. And it was.

 

[Gammadoodler]

What should the have called it? What is the term that you would like them to use?

Maybe something along the lines of..

"contract terms that we thought were reasonable at the time"

 

[dave2008]

Do you believe the general public is adequately familiar with this context?

Do you think that WotC believed that the general public has this familiarity?

Does it matter what I believe? I just thought it was an interesting perspective.

 

[Enrahim2]

What should the have called it? What is the term that you would like them to use?

Document. Just document. The 1.1 document that was leaked.

 

[dave2008]

“A lot of room to negotiate” means nothing if the essential issue is entirely off the table. And it was.

I disagree. As I have said several times I would be fine with replacing the OGL with a better legal document. I don't think that was the only thing that mattered. To me there were a lot of things that could be negotiated while conceding the OGL 1.0a.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Does it matter what I believe? I just thought it was an interesting perspective.

If your counterpoint is..

"its only deceptive if xyz is true"..

and you don't think that xyz is true..

..then why bring it up?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There are two different kinds of drafts when it comes to contracts. There are the internal drafts where the WotC lawyers wrote the contract, reviewed it, made revisions, reviewed them again, perhaps sent them to someone else in the firm for review and further revision, and so on. Then they had the final version of what WotC wanted to see happen. That's what was sent to the 3PP. So while it wasn't a final signed contract, all the bad stuff in it is what WotC finalized internally and tried to make happen. It's not really relevant to the issue that there was the potential for the 3pp to try and negotiate some terms(if WotC was open to any negotiation at all).

Edit: When WotC came out and was like, "But it was only a draft!" they were being deceptive via that technicality. They were trying to pass it off as something it wasn't. It was a contract that they wanted to happen as written.

I'm not in law like you are, but to me this sounds a lot like "Hey they asked for 2 million dollars, that's nuts, so I told them I would pay more then a quarter of a mil..."
of course the first thing sent out was everything they wanted

edit: this reminds me of the worst salesman I ever met... he would negotiate with himself all the time (Not that I would do better but I know not to be in sales). I would hear him say "We want this, this and this, and I know you want that that and that, so lets just meet in the middle with these..." and then after an hour or so have just given in on almost everything...

 

[Incenjucar]

A draft that is terrible still indicates terrible intent.

 

[dave2008]

If your counterpoint is..

"its only deceptive if xyz is true"..

and you don't think that xyz is true..

..then why bring it up?

I said why - you quoted it:

"I just thought it was an interesting perspective."

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not in law like you are, but to me this sounds a lot like "Hey they asked for 2 million dollars, that's nuts, so I told them I would pay more then a quarter of a mil..."
of course the first thing sent out was everything they wanted

So you're saying the document they sent out reflects everything they wanted..no mistakes, no takebacks.

Cool.

That's the part people were angry about. And the part they tried to address by saying "it's a draft".

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not in law like you are, but to me this sounds a lot like "Hey they asked for 2 million dollars, that's nuts, so I told them I would pay more then a quarter of a mil..."
of course the first thing sent out was everything they wanted

One thing I've learned over the years is that there are a lot of people who don't think they can negotiate or don't really know how, so they sign what they are given. WotC isn't absolved of putting out and wanting a horrible, horrible contract just because people don't negotiate it down to better terms. Especially when they are the 800 pound gorilla and really don't have to negotiate at all.

"Take this deal or pay more later. Up to you!"

 

[dave2008]

A draft that is terrible still indicates terrible intent.

A terrible draft only indicated it was terrible. When some is construct over two years by many people, it is easy for intent to be lost. Because where they ended up was terrible, doesn't mean the intended it to be, it just was.