Clark Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"True. Unfortunatly for the author/publisher he has
sort of made himself into a "cautionary tale." A good
example for budding publishers of how NOT to do
things. Which, frankly, has value."I agree, to this extent, although I don't want to be responsible for starting a "bash the psionics guy" trainwreck. He's already in deep, as far as I can see. No need to pile on.
> The product is back up and running,
> apparently with some sort of WotC "approval" (and
> without knowing exactly what they said, I use
> quotation-marks deliberately).
"Can anyone confirm that this "approval" ever happened?"My understanding (as relayed through the ENWorld forum) is that WotC gave him some sort of list of things to change. He changed these things and RPGNow allowed the modified version to go live. I would not presume to guess how closely WotC looked at the product, or even if they looked at the actual revision to see if it made more problems in the course of solving previous ones.
I think that any reference to WotC approval should be accompanied by some sort of caveat.
"If so, who "approved"? Judging solely based on the
posted information (since I dont have the commercial
product) I cant imagine anyone with a clue approving
that PI designation."Apparently, the publisher has been dealing with "WOTC_Legal". Presumably that is a generic email addy on the Wizards site for questions to be routed to the legal team.
"Anyone have new info on this? I, like this poster, am
working off the preview. Does the commercial version
fix this problem?"I'll reiterate your question: Can someone tell us whether it is the same text in the preview and in the commercially available product? I don't really want to spend the money to purchase a product just for the Declaration of Open Content.
Cheers.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
