Moderator's Reminder: Keep things civil [EDIT: UPDATED BY MORRUS - FINAL WARNING]

[Kaodi]

Two things, among many I could address:

Mark --> I must disagree with your statement that the game belongs to " them " . We are all stakeholders in Dungeons & Dragons. As employees, designers and developers, they merely hold larger stakes. Even in the sense which you speak of, it does not belong to " them " . In that sense, it is still Gary's game, yet when was the last time we used that particular angle? Legally speaking, the game belongs to WotC, which belongs to Hasbro. Neither of those companies would exist without external customers.

On the other point, consider this: The " community " backlash against this move has been enormous, yet some would rightly point out that the online community represents only a tiny fraction of the customer base. Yet, in making that point, they seem to forget that if WotC alienates the online community, they are alienating the most likely people to buy into an online delivery scheme. So, it would be a serious mistake to think that it is not entirely possible that the Digital Initiative is already completely doomed to failure.

 

[Mark CMG]

I think you have to give them the opportunity and allow them to make of it what they will. Besides, this site exists because of their game. It's not like this website can afford to alienate a publisher that large, let alone the one who produces the game on which the site is based.

Mark --> I must disagree with your statement that the game belongs to " them " .

Then you disagree with something I did not post. Please, be careful not to misquote me and then debate the merits of your misquotation.

 

[Dimwhit]

We are all stakeholders in Dungeons & Dragons.

No, we really aren't. WotC is a business whose product is a game. It puts out the version of the product that they think will work best. We aren't stakeholders, nor do we have any say. If we don't like their product, we don't buy it. But WotC has no duty to cater to us. Which would, in fact, be impossible, since the gaming community can't agree on anything.

If a significant portion of the gaming community can't take the Alltel cellphone commercial for the humor it was intended to be, I DO NOT want WotC taking their advice on the direction D&D should take.

 

[Mark CMG]

Ahh, here we go. Now the misquotation attributed to me is being quoted and debated further. Gotta love the Internet.

 

[Dimwhit]

Ahh, here we go. Now the misquotation attributed to me is being quoted and debated further. Gotta love the Internet.

Yeah, but your misquoted quote isn't the one being taken to task, so it's all good.

Edit: There, took out the reference to you, since it wasn't important to my point.

 

[Mark CMG]

Yeah, but your misquoted quote isn't the one being taken to task, so it's all good.

Edit: There, took out the reference to you, since it wasn't important to my point.

You the man.

 

[Sammael]

Now Morrus has made perfectly clear what flies and what doesn't fly, which is a good thing for the EN World community and the EN World brand.

Wha? EN World brand?

As for the (IMO well-earned and well-deserved) outburst of WotC-hate "hurting" EN World, I'd like you to recall a particular open letter published several years ago by Morrus himself, right here, in which he pretty much said "screw you, WotC." And no, he never apologized for it. If THAT didn't hurt EN World, I fail to see how this could.

EDIT: Just to make clear, I fully support Morrus' decision to tighten the moderation a bit right now and perhaps allow the WotC employees to post without fear of being verbally torn to shreds. Not that I think they will be able to do much, since they pretty much have to defend their employer's decisions even if they disagree with them personally.

 

[Infernal Teddy]

Wha? EN World brand?

As for the (IMO well-earned and well-deserved) outburst of WotC-hate "hurting" EN World, I'd like you to recall a particular open letter published several years ago by Morrus himself, right here, in which he pretty much said "screw you, WotC." And no, he never apologized for it. If THAT didn't hurt EN World, I fail to see how this could.

Link?

 

[Sammael]

It's buried somewhere in the depths of the site, and, unfortunately, I don't have the search privileges. It was in 2004, IIRC.

 

[Kaodi]

Mark --> I most definately should of used " implication " instead of " statement " , but beyond that, I am sorry if I misinterpreted what you were trying to say. I was not trying to impinge on your character or anything, I was merely disagreeing.

Dimwhit --> I would think twice before you declare you are raking someone over the coals. It seems to me that you do not understand the difference between a stakeholder and a shareholder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakeholder_(corporate)