dd.stevenson
Super KY
And I'm not personally really trying to "prove" anything to you. If you aren't concerned about this, it's no sweat off my back. If you are trying to persuade ME not to be concerned about this, it will take a lot more than "I think what the designers say is correct," because even if they never SAID to print off the character sheets, I can't realistically imagine that everyone play this game gathered around the computers they all downloaded the documents onto crowded into one room (not playing online). The terms of the agreement seem to prohibit very normal things that people do in the course of playtesting.
The thing I'm trying to persuade you of is bolded in the quote below.
Look, I don't like the playtest agreement--I think its dumb as a stump, considering the market that WotC is trying to recapture. I'll admit that I'm baffled by the prohibitions on online playtesting, and troubled by the ramifications of this attitude for the next OGL. But what you're doing is impugning the behavior of a talented, respected and helpful designer, founded on nothing more than flat-earth-society style legal research.
This isn't a moving goalpost issue. You're saying that two-kids-discussing-heart-surgery analysis is a "shred of evidence" that Mearls has encouraged us to break the license agreement. Whereas I disagree.
I'm not sure this disagreement can lead anywhere constructive unless new information is brought to bear. So I'm fine letting the matter drop knowing that my objection has been heard.