OGL The Washington Post is reporting on the situation now

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member

Mod Note:
Not helpful.

If you aren't even going to explain what about it is false, and back it up with some evidence, nobody will learn anything, and you end up positioning yourself as a knee-jerk contrarian and antagonist. Being a knee-jerk antagonist gets you reported a lot. And I told you recently that wasn't going to go well for you.

So, really, engage constructively, or choose to not click "post reply".
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Whizbang Dustyboots

100% that gnome
Looks like this is their 2nd article on it! They did this one too:


Edit -- oh, it's the same article. They've changed the title of it!
Yeah, they're playing up the fantastic language in the story itself.

You have screwed up if you are getting stories of this caliber and length in the Washington Post.

There is no way the Hasbro board isn't reading this and having steam come out of their ears right now.
 

Solauren

Explorer
Between the Mainstream media going 'Bad idea, and our lawyers say you can't anyway', the players and publishering going 'oh Nine Hells no', and the 'break off company' (Paizo) going 'Well, if you're going to do that, we've got a surprise for you', I think Hasbro is probably looking at the people in charge of the D&D Brand at WOTC (if not all of WOTC themselves) and wondering if firing said people and paying their severance, and a public walkback of everything will save more money then the potiential legal fights, lost revenue, etc, will.

Hint - Severance packages are probably cheaper, but moving them out of the DND brand and putting them somewhere else is probably way cheaper. And there are areas of Hasbro this kind of shark-mentality would probably benefit from.
 


Care to elaborate? Did DnDShorts cite those same sources to spread the since discredited claim that WotC does not even read survey comments and that survey comments are just a PR ploy, or did he not?

You don't have to answer: he did. Then in this latest video he dropped that particular charge but continued to rely on those sources for other claims, which cannot be verified as they are basically gossip. It's shoddy reporting and smearing Cao or anyone else based on them is unfair. I don't know Cao, I don't know the situation inside WotC, and for all I know he is the root of the problem. But this is a real human being and attacking him based on hearsay from a very dubious source is deeply unfair.

No, now you are the one who is misrepresenting the situation.

Firstly, DnD does not cite the same sources: it was one source telling him about the feedback thing, and did attempt clarification with that. Not all his sources, and he has multiple. Acting like this is some sort of bad-faith gossip misses that he has gotten things right in the past: for example, the OGL 2.0 was something that I believe he was the first to report on and was also reported on by others. Similarly, this report has not been dismissed by those who know people and even has people like Stan Brown, who worked at West End Games and Wizards of the Coast, saying that it sounds like stuff he's heard :

link

Along with that, we haven't heard any denials like we did when he got it wrong. You can disbelieve him, but don't say that he's automatically discredited. That's just not true.
 

Clint_L

Hero
No, now you are the one who is misrepresenting the situation.

Firstly, DnD does not cite the same sources: it was one source telling him about the feedback thing, and did attempt clarification with that. Not all his sources, and he has multiple. Acting like this is some sort of bad-faith gossip misses that he has gotten things right in the past: for example, the OGL 2.0 was something that I believe he was the first to report on and was also reported on by others. Similarly, this report has not been dismissed by those who know people and even has people like Stan Brown, who worked at West End Games and Wizards of the Coast, saying that it sounds like stuff he's heard :

link

Along with that, we haven't heard any denials like we did when he got it wrong. You can disbelieve him, but don't say that he's automatically discredited. That's just not true.
I stated that his source is discredited, but for sure, DnDShorts is also discredited as a "journalist" for going back to those same sources and credulously accepting the rest of their claims. And yes, he did cite more than one source in the original video - I just went and checked. He said that he had one primary source for the discredited claim, but that others backed it up. Oh, and was it the same source who totally misrepresented the survey stuff who also said the most damaging things about Cao? We don't know, but there is a good chance, isn't there? So how can you possibly assert that he "does not cite the same sources"? He sure seems to.

And that was the one claim that could be easily independently verified. Any decent reporter (or their editor) would have immediately approached others at WotC to say, "hey, we are hearing that you don't even read survey responses. Care to comment?"

So now what are we left with? A bunch of claims that are more or less gossip. Someone else claims that "it sounds like stuff he'd heard" is not confirmation of anything.

The fact that DnDShorts may have been the first to report on OGL 2.0 (I have no idea whether this is true or not, but let's grant it) does not make up for other shoddy reporting. I'll reiterate my earlier point: we are talking about a real person, not a cartoon internet villain, and if you are going to assassinate their character, you should be doing it based on a lot more than gossip.
 

Clint_L

Hero
Follow up: everyone in these situations has an agenda. That doesn't mean they are bad people, but it does mean that they are biased. You cannot assume that your sources are giving you the Truth, especially in cases like this where there are a ton of moving parts and different perspectives. Why were these people talking to DnDShorts? Maybe they are good faith whistle blowers. But maybe they have their own agendas and axes to grind. Almost everyone does. And maybe they can still provide useful insight. But you have to check, check, check wherever possible.

You have to approach sources with proper skepticism, and if they have misled you once, you must assume they will do so again. DnDShorts already ran one incendiary story based on information from these sources and then had to retract. For him to then double down on the rest of the story based primarily on the same sources, but now on claims that are extremely difficult to fact check, speaks more to him trying to save face than to any sense of responsible journalism. He is trying to turn Cao into the villain of this debacle. What if he is wrong?
 

I stated that his source is discredited, but for sure, DnDShorts is also discredited as a "journalist" for going back to those same sources and credulously accepting the rest of their claims. And yes, he did cite more than one source in the original video - I just went and checked. He said that he had one primary source for the discredited claim, but that others backed it up. Oh, and was it the same source who totally misrepresented the survey stuff who also said the most damaging things about Cao? We don't know, but there is a good chance, isn't there? So how can you possibly assert that he "does not cite the same sources"? He sure seems to.

And that was the one claim that could be easily independently verified. Any decent reporter (or their editor) would have immediately approached others at WotC to say, "hey, we are hearing that you don't even read survey responses. Care to comment?"

So now what are we left with? A bunch of claims that are more or less gossip. Someone else claims that "it sounds like stuff he'd heard" is not confirmation of anything.

The fact that he may have been the first to report on OGL 2.0 (I have no idea whether this is true or not, but let's grant it) does not make up for other shoddy reporting. I'll reiterate my earlier point: we are talking about a real person, not a cartoon internet villain, and if you are going to assassinate their character, you should be doing it based on a lot more than gossip.

I'm sorry, people get things wrong. People get burned by sources. Good people write things that end up looking untrue all the time. I'm sure you read the Gizmodo article, right? From Linda Codega?

Oh, not the one you're thinking of, but this one.


Hey, that looks really bad in retrospect, right? Just like they didn't go to any sources, but simply did a press release for Wizards. Could have gone to a bunch of people and found out that the headline there was simply naughty word, right? So I guess we just can't believe they because, well, they just didn't live up to being an exemplary reporter this one time.

I get being careful. At the same time, I think you are far too dismissive. You could have dismissed the breaking Gizmodo article for the same exact reason. You talk about axes to grind, and you're right: it's fully possible. I do think we should have some skepticism. But beyond Cao, what is being talked about is stuff that has largely been going around for a while from a multitude of sources. If you want to say that people are heaping the blame on Cao unfairly, sure. But I when it comes to the strategy itself, that seems to be pretty accurate.
 
Last edited:

I'm sorry, people get things wrong. People get burned by sources. Good people write things that end up looking untrue all the time. I'm sure you read the Gizmodo article, right? From Linda Codega?

Oh, not the one you're thinking of, but this one.


Hey, that looks really bad in retrospect, right? Just like she didn't go to any sources, but simply did a press release for Wizards. Could have gone to a bunch of people and found out that the headline there was simply naughty word, right? So I guess we just can't believe her because, well, she just didn't live up to being an exemplary reporter this one time.

I get being careful. At the same time, I think you are far too dismissive. You could have dismissed the breaking Gizmodo article for the same exact reason. You talk about axes to grind, and you're right: it's fully possible. I do think we should have some skepticism. But beyond Cao, what is being talked about is stuff that has largely been going around for a while from a multitude of sources. If you want to say that people are heaping the blame on Cao unfairly, sure. But I when it comes to the strategy itself, that seems to be pretty accurate.
Just reiterating that Linda Codega uses they/them pronouns. It would be respectful to edit your post appropriately.
 




ThorinTeague

Explorer
But... All Things Considered airs at 4 PM Eastern.

NPR's morning news show is Morning Edition, and airs 5 AM to 9 AM Eastern.
Doh!

Codega is on All Things Considered tomorrow. I don't know NPR's program schedule. I thought "morning" was said in an interview with roll for combat earlier today, but I may be mistaken.
 





Its just been announced that WaPos Launcher, which is the source of this coverage, is shutting down.

Big, er, Toy must have gotten to them.
Or maybe it's that the feature was so poorly promoted that despite being a subscriber with an interest in its subject matter I wasn't aware it existed nor did I even quickly find it when I saw it's cancellation mentioned at the end of an article on WaPo downsizing.

But at the real heart of its problem I suspect that association with traditional media does not give a publication the imprimatur of authority on video games. WaPo game reviews just don't carry much weight with gamers. It is too bad, in as much as they are potentially much better than your typical gaming outlet at the investigative reporting side of gaming news.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top