Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 3682635" data-attributes="member: 2067">This is all very likely the situation they want, but it has a very chilling effect on the community. A lot of fans don't give two shakes if WotC uses something they did, in fact, they'd be happy for it. Most probably feel this way. But this kind of thing turns me from neutral toward Gleemax to "mildly hostile." Which is fine, but they're driving away some potential fans, and I certainly have a right to say that I think they're being horribly mercenary about it, and could do it in a different way that wouldn't drive at least me away.Yes, but that does limit the community's power where it doesn't need to be limited, and it still means that WotC is kind of taking advantage of the fans in this light, milking them for their creative juices without giving back to them. Smart, definitely. But much more like the Evil Corporate Entity that WotC really isn't. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />From the TOS, which says that the information you post to Gleemax is free for WotC to use in their books.From the OP:What part about that is ambiguous? Or, even more to the point, what part about that suggests that the reason for this is so that they can avoid legal trouble? It seems pretty expressly designed to harvest other's creations.Wikinomics goes into this, and it's something that a lot of forward-thinking companies like WotC are experimenting with. I think WotC is going about it in a bad way. Just because I have a slight problem with WotC bottom-feeding off of the fan design without giving back doesn't mean I want to profit off of Gleemax in any way. You read the OP, right?Where it says that one of the purposes of the new ToS is that if you post an awesome D&D feat, that WotC can use it?</blockquote>

Verification