Unearthed Arcana - the Rationale behind the OGC

[diaglo]

Nothing stopping one of us from typing it up and posting it for all the world to see...

yeah, but who would want to clutter their website with that junk.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Because nobody liked their characters to be killed before they begin play. If you like having your character killed during the character CREATION phase, by all means add it in your own ... uh .... pre-game?

I've killed several 3.x D&D characters durring character generation since my first idea rarely makes it to the final stage. All those poor characters died before they could be played.

 

[jessemock]

All I'm saying it's kinda poor form to drink the chai and then say the chai guy probably stole it.

No; it isn't. Of course it isn't: how does an exchange of money for a service entail obligations of etiquette?

By this rationale, politesse would forbid everybody from complaining about being ripped off, ever.

I'm not claiming that UA ripped anyone off.

Nor am I claiming that Diaglo claimed same.

I'm claiming that the suggestion that one just doesn't discuss these things in polite society is absurd.

If I taste that chai, and it seems to me that the dude stole the recipe, how could the fact that I paid for it possibly preclude my voicing my opinion as such?

I mean: how else would I have tasted it in the first place?

And where else could it possibly make more sense to discuss frankly and openly an OGC issue relating to UA, than in this thread on the OGC of UA?

 

[JPL]

No; it isn't. Of course it isn't: how does an exchange of money for a service entail obligations of etiquette?

By this rationale, politesse would forbid everybody from complaining about being ripped off, ever.

I'm not claiming that UA ripped anyone off.

Nor am I claiming that Diaglo claimed same.

I'm claiming that the suggestion that one just doesn't discuss these things in polite society is absurd.

If I taste that chai, and it seems to me that the dude stole the recipe, how could the fact that I paid for it possibly preclude my voicing my opinion as such?

I mean: how else would I have tasted it in the first place?

And where else could it possibly make more sense to discuss frankly and openly an OGC issue relating to UA, than in this thread on the OGC of UA?

Setting aside the tea analogy for a moment, let me attempt to restate my point:

Diaglo stated that he suspected WotC and/or the purported authors of UA "wrote the UA as OGL content b/c most of it wasn't their ideas. but things they harvested from the open call for new campaigns."

I think that accusing someone of plagarizing/IP theft/stealing some poor game nerds ideas is perfectly acceptable behavior if you have some sort of reasonable factual basis for that belief.

In the absence of such basis, making those sort of statements is not nice. Whether it is a criminal act [libel/slander] or merely rude depends upon the circumstances.

Suggesting that Andy Collins et al actually just swiped ideas from the setting search without being able to back it up is inappropriate behavior, just as calling a tea merchant a criminal without evidence is inappropriate behavior.

I think it is especially inappropriate when WotC releases a huge chunk of OGC like this. This is free tea, man. This is the tea guy saying that ANYONE can have the recipe and use it and make money off of it.

Under these circumstances, saying, "You're probably just giving it away because you stole it in the first place" sounds especially bad to me...because I think Andy Collins actually deserves a pat on the back for a job well done [both the content itself and pushing to make it OGL.]

["How does an exchange of money for a service entail obligations of etiquette," you ask? I personally feel that a basic level of civility should accompany even a routine business transaction --- say please, say thank you, don't call the other guy a thief without good cause, little stuff like that --- you may feel differently. Good way to get them to spit in your chai, though...]

 

[buzz]

but one of the requirements for the submissions for the contest was that the submissions hadn't been in print already... therefore it was OGL in that it was unpublished data.

This in no way whatsoever makes the content of the submissions OGC.

 

[Ranger REG]

yeah, but who would want to clutter their website with that junk.

For some of us, we don't mind the clutter. After all, we've been able to tolerate all your messages in this web site's messageboards.

As for your accusation that has come to attention, diaglo, you're gonna have to back that up with solid evidence. AFAIC, they used their own licenses properly when the re-use other OGC from third-party sources (who in turn uses Wizards' SRD to create their d20/OGL products).

If you cannot, then your credibility may go down one notch, almost equivalent of the boy who cried wolf.