On Thu, 3 May 2001, Marc Tassin, Ilium Software wrote:
> What bothers me are comments which condemn any one of these
> practices. Comments regarding the advantages or disadvantages of one
> approach or another are very valuable. Seeing a point that you hadn't
> considered is great. Being told that something is plain wrong (in the
> moralistic sense) or making comments that suggest a person has done
> something against the "spirit" of Open Gaming by not opening something
> another person thought they should have is very frustrating.
What I found very frustrating is some people taking discussion
that belongs on this type of forum way too personally. In some
recent threads, I think the list has gained some insight into
the interpretation of 1d-OGL and the usage of acronyms to denote
the core books. But it started with a lot of flaming. It's
like pulling teeth to have any kind of discussion about the
OGL or some approach, much less the "spirit" of open gaming.
> The result for me personally is my unfortunate response to Mike's email
> (although there were other real world factors as I noted). There is no
> criticism voiced against people who follow the truly "open" route and I
> hope we can maintain the same level of support for those who choose to
> utilize the license in a different manner.
While some posters might be too negative or some producers
too sensitive, I think criticizing "openness" is appropriate
for this forum. If one of the fully open route guys ever
made a mistake and opened something questionable, you can be
sure there'll be lots of criticism that way. Instead of
clamping down on discussion that makes you uncomfortable,
try to keep in mind some discussion is going to be critical.
_______________________________________________
Ogf-l mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/ogf-l
