Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="covaithe" data-source="post: 4596755" data-attributes="member: 46559">Free 3rd party content, I don't think there's any necessary reason to exclude, although I would expect judges to be more conservative in checking balance issues on it.&nbsp; 3rd party content that you have to pay for, well, that's a bit more difficult.&nbsp; If the judges don't have access to the content, how can they evaluate it?&nbsp; I'll tell you right now that I'm not buying every random 3rd party book that someone proposes.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; I suppose the same issue applies to WotC content, but there it's more likely that the judges will own (or be able to borrow) the sources in question.It's possible that providing the judges access to a PDF for the purposes of evaluation might be a reasonable alternative, if legally questionable.&nbsp; (Is it fair use?&nbsp; I would argue so, but a publisher might argue not.)&nbsp; I think we'll probably just have to be pragmatic about it and say that if not enough judges can read your proposed source, then it can't pass.&nbsp; Obviously judges should avoid voting YES on sources they haven't read.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="covaithe, post: 4596755, member: 46559"] Free 3rd party content, I don't think there's any necessary reason to exclude, although I would expect judges to be more conservative in checking balance issues on it. 3rd party content that you have to pay for, well, that's a bit more difficult. If the judges don't have access to the content, how can they evaluate it? I'll tell you right now that I'm not buying every random 3rd party book that someone proposes. :) I suppose the same issue applies to WotC content, but there it's more likely that the judges will own (or be able to borrow) the sources in question. It's possible that providing the judges access to a PDF for the purposes of evaluation might be a reasonable alternative, if legally questionable. (Is it fair use? I would argue so, but a publisher might argue not.) I think we'll probably just have to be pragmatic about it and say that if not enough judges can read your proposed source, then it can't pass. Obviously judges should avoid voting YES on sources they haven't read. [/QUOTE]

Verification