Drafts do not come with contracts attached?

[Maxperson]

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.

Their audience is a bunch of laymen(player pool) who for the most part really don't know the difference.

 

[dave2008]

WotC isn't absolved of putting out and wanting a horrible, horrible contract ...

I know you were not responding to me; but I wanted to say I agree, and hope my comments have not made anyone think I thought otherwise.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

yup... I have known people who got upset when I say I almost never take the first offer for a job I ALWAYS ask for more money and did so even at 16.

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.

oh make no mistake they would have been happy with everyone saying "OKAY" but that doesn't mean it wasn't negotiable.

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

now THAT sounds like every salesman pushing the extended warranty on everything

 

[dave2008]

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

To continue on my previous post, before the release to CC, I was hoping we (the community) would negotiate 1.2 down to a document that could and should completely replace the OGL 1.0(a). That was indeed my hope. I thought we could do better now after 20+ years.

 

[Incenjucar]

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.

WotC is not staffed by children. The degree of incompetence needed to accidentally create a contract draft would be insulting to attribute.

Multiple elements are, in and of themselves, terrible, even bereft of the context of other elements.

Someone at some point wanted the 750K stick. That is not a whoopsie doodle inclusion.

 

[Maxperson]

yup... I have known people who got upset when I say I almost never take the first offer for a job I ALWAYS ask for more money and did so even at 16.

oh make no mistake they would have been happy with everyone saying "OKAY" but that doesn't mean it wasn't negotiable.

now THAT sounds like every salesman pushing the extended warranty on everything

Nah. Extended warranties are optional. WotC was setting it up so that you paid 25% or you took the "sweetheart deal" at a lower percentage with all the baggage that came with it. This was their livelihoods, not "do you want some extra protection in case an accident happens?". There's a pretty big difference.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I said why - you quoted it:

"I just thought it was an interesting perspective."

Person 1:That guy stole my wallet
...
Person 2: It isn't theft if he took it by mistake thinking it was his own
...
Person 3: Do the wallets look alike?
...
Person 2: It doesn't matter what I think, it's just an interesting perspective
‐------------------
If Person 2 does not believe the wallets look alike, what is Person 2 adding to the situation? How are they trying to help?

Edit: I ask, because, from the outside, it looks like Person 2 is presenting a cymical defense for the wallet thief, and I don't understand why.

 

[dave2008]

Person 1:That guy stole my wallet
...
Person 2: It isn't theft if he took it by mistake thinking it was his own
...
Person 3: Do the wallets look alike?
...
Person 2: It doesn't matter what I think, it's just an interesting perspective
‐------------------
If Person 2 does not believe the wallets look alike, what is Person 2 adding to the situation? How are they trying to help?

Just keeping the conversation going.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Just keeping the conversation going.

Fair enough.

 

[Maxperson]

Just keeping the conversation going.

Here. Let me try.

Gooniegoogoo!

 

[dave2008]

WotC is not staffed by children. The degree of incompetence needed to accidentally create a contract draft would be insulting to attribute.

Multiple elements are, in and of themselves, terrible, even bereft of the context of other elements.

Someone at some point wanted the 750K stick. That is not a whoopsie doodle inclusion.

I am just going to agree to disagree.

To be clear, I don't believe in good and evil, so I am less inclined to believe terrible intent (though I do believe it is possible).

 

[ECMO3]

I think this draft issue is resolved, the people still debating it don't want to change their mind IMO.

Linda Codega who broke the story said it was a draft and doubled down on that again when she was questioned. Treantmonk, citing Noah Downs, claims that the "contract" is not technically a contract at all, but rather Term Sheets which is also referenced in the Gizmodo article and has some sort of legal distinction from an actual contract.

Also important to this discussion - anything not published is technically a draft. For example, I am in the process of "drafting" policy for U.S. Dod Modeling and Simulation. This document was
completed and sent out to several organizations for comment last week after which it will be signed by the heads of those organizations. I don't think there are any changes we are going to make to the verbiage in the document between now and when it is signed, but it is still technically a "draft". It also states "draft" with a version number on the very first page for what it is worth.

A lot of people, including WOTC defenders, WOTC haters and WOTC themselves are going to spin this to support their individual agenda. To frame this properly for honest discussion and debate people should be precise in their wording as such the "draft OGL 1.1" was in fact a draft.

 

[Stalker0]

So here's what I don't understand about taht contract practice brought up in the OP.

A contract being a draft I can understand. But if there is literally 0 language that it is....and in this industry you can just say something is a draft....than how do you ever hold anything as a binding legal contract? If literally a signed contract can be a "draft", can't one of the parties just at any point go "whoa whoa whoa....that's just a draft sir".

That seems an incredibly murky water to be in, and if at that point you have to go to court and prove that there was a concrete "understanding" that this contract "is final....for realsies"....wouldn't it be just so much easier to have draft and final contracts to begin with?

 

[dave2008]

So here's what I don't understand about taht contract practice brought up in the OP.

A contract being a draft I can understand. But if there is literally 0 language that it is....and in this industry you can just say something is a draft....than how do you ever hold anything as a binding legal contract? If literally a signed contract can be a "draft", can't one of the parties just at any point go "whoa whoa whoa....that's just a draft sir".

That seems an incredibly murky water to be in, and if at that point you have to go to court and prove that there was a concrete "understanding" that this contract "is final....for realsies"....wouldn't it be just so much easier to have draft and final contracts to begin with?

Once both parties sign, it is no longer a draft. As I noted in the OP, and others agreed, my boss routinely signs a draft. We sign if we think it is acceptable. The other party can still make changes. They just send it back unsigned and with changes noted. The first document in the OP was signed by my boss (I redacted it, but you can still the bottom of his signature). It then came back with more revisions. Those revisions where made and the 3rd draft was signed by both parties to execute the document.

 

[Incenjucar]

I think people are running into a homophone problem here. Most folks are used to a draft in the sense of a "rough draft" you put together before you actually submit anything, like the kind you would pass around internally before presenting it to anyone for possible signature.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

To continue on my previous post, before the release to CC, I was hoping we (the community) would negotiate 1.2 down to a document that could and should completely replace the OGL 1.0(a). That was indeed my hope. I thought we could do better now after 20+ years.

The "best" part of OGL 1.0 a was the (presumed) non-revokability. That's the one thing that made it worthwhile to commit to it.

There was never a path from OGL 1.2 to something "better" than 1.0. The whole idea was a dud, that WotC wisely decided to completely abandon.

 

[dave2008]

The "best" part of OGL 1.0 a was the (presumed) non-revokability. That's the one thing that made it worthwhile to commit to it.

There was never a path from OGL 1.2 to something "better" than 1.0. The whole idea was a dud, that WotC wisely decided to completely abandon.

I disagree, but it is a moot point now.

 

[mamba]

A contract being a draft I can understand. But if there is literally 0 language that it is....and in this industry you can just say something is a draft....than how do you ever hold anything as a binding legal contract? If literally a signed contract can be a "draft", can't one of the parties just at any point go "whoa whoa whoa....that's just a draft sir".

a draft is not signed by both parties, once that happens it no longer is a draft but a binding contract / final version.

If one side signed it, it is still a draft, just one where that side indicates it is ok with it being the final version.

 

[mamba]

The "best" part of OGL 1.0 a was the (presumed) non-revokability. That's the one thing that made it worthwhile to commit to it.

There was never a path from OGL 1.2 to something "better" than 1.0. The whole idea was a dud, that WotC wisely decided to completely abandon.

As by then the non-revocability had been called into question, a new version that addressed those concerns and changed nothing else would have been a better version than 1.0a

 

[FrogReaver]

a draft is not signed by both parties, once that happens it no longer is a draft but a binding contract / final version.

If one side signed it, it is still a draft, just one where that side indicates it is ok with it being the final version.

Neither party has signed you. Like, that makes you a draft!