Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4386766" data-attributes="member: 18280">Accepting evidence on the basis of authority ("you've been told repeatedly...") depends upon one trusting the validity of that authority in the case in question.As said, I'll examine the links kenmarable has provided, but I have a tendency to accept that Clark was correct in his understanding of what WotC was saying to him.  Even kenmarable suggests that WotC might have offered to accept the money first and provide the OGL/GSL later, but at no point did WotC actually grant the ability to look at the OGL/GSL prior to paying money to anyone, until the GSL saw wide release.I agree with you that very likely "they were refining stuff to the very end", but I again point you to kenmarable's perhaps-wrong, fuzzy NDA memory that If we examine what might have happened (NDA memories being hazy and all that) without ascribing motive, there may have been an offhand offer to take the $5,000, give the publishers the rules, and let them see the GSL later, which the publishers declined since they we were waiting for the license before they paid.This jibes quite well with what Clark said, IMHO, and which WotC never contradicted.  It also jibes with the WotC press release (although not with the Q&A telephone conference reported thereafter...which is not, however, a WotC statement AFAICT).  So, from my viewpoint, the jury is still very much out.  But I will examine the threads ken provided, as I said, and perhaps that examination will change my mind.  Or perhaps it will not.  Either way, repeatedly stating your opinion/interpretation as fact is not sufficient to change my mind, you are correct.  Any more than the repeated assertation that 4e wasn't coming soon was enough to sway my opinion that the evidence suggested that it was, or the repeated assertation that 4e would be published under the OGL was sufficient to sway me from the evidence that it would not be.RC</blockquote>

Verification