Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 7795459" data-attributes="member: 6804070">This brings to mind a recent discussion I had on legislative processes. The interesting thing that was presented in that discussion is that lawyers approach a problem/issue very differently than how a scientist (engineer, etc) does. And this has significant impact on our judicial system.For instance, a scientist uses the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method" target="_blank">Scientific Method</a> which (roughly) has them make observations, develop a theory, and then test that theory with experimentation. It strives for a repeatable solution independent of undocumented factors.Law doesn't work like that. (And hopefully someone with expertise in this fields can correct and expand upon this; [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER]  ?) Instead law is a system based (I think) <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentation_theory" target="_blank">Argumentation Theory</a>. This is where one person/side/party makes a premise, and then finds support for that. And "fairness" or "justice" is obtained by having each side represented by legal experts and the side with the stronger legal argument (is supposed to) win. (Not that I have a better system, but evidence of the flaws in such a system are abundant.)What this means is that one side has a view or opinion, something they want to be true, and then they find evidence to support what a scientist would consider a conclusion. Rather than starting with an open mind or an observed issue and then trying to determine what the results should be, the answer is pre-supposed.I think this should be kept in mind. Assuming Frylock is a lawyer, he has been trained to think in a certain manner and to solve problems in a certain manner. And that is simply to take something he wants (i.e. 'I want to publish my own more useful version of the D&D stat blocks') and then builds a justification for being able to do so.Perhaps his opposition to WotC, the OGL, etc pre-dates his desire to publish his own version of the stat blocks, but in the end, he wants to do something and is trying to justify it. I doubt he comes from an altruistic origin where instead he saw a wrong (i.e. 'the OGL hurts the RPG community') and has taken to righting it.</blockquote>

Verification