John,
I can see where you and Nick are coming from with your concerns.
What this really all seems to boil down to is:
- whether Issaries has learned from its mistakes and will
become much better at crediting people.
- Whether Issaries has the capacity, desire, and skills to
work with authors to make the approval process relatively
quick, painless, and successful.
It is safe to say that Issaries has felt the lumps from
past problems. They take a direct economic hit from inefficiency.
As to whether the drought of publications is solely the fault
of the "looming" publication policy is not easily provable.
There have been similar or even larger droughts of published
material in the past. We all take breaks from getting things
done, myself included.
The only ways forward that I see for each of us are to either
make the best of the situation and start with a clean slate,
walk away and retire, or fight back.
I have repeatedly stressed to Issaries that the only way
this policy is going to work is if Issaries does everything
that it needs to to hold up its obligations under the policy.
So far, the only proof I have of them doing that is the
streamlined web license process they are undertaking.
Issaries is trying to get websites licensed quickly and
painlessly. So far, I haven't seen that approach fail yet,
but I have seen it succeed. Other types of publishing efforts
via the new policy will only have their success or failure
known as they work their way through the process.
One thing I am convinced of thus far: Greg does not want
to hold up other people's efforts to publish, provided that
they go through the process laid out in the policy. I have
helped Issaries create an official FAQ that will be out very
soon, and it is loaded with numerous explanations that support
their desire to let people get on with writing. Granted, the
process is not as simple as it was before, but such is life.
Rick
- In ImmoderateHeroQuest_at_yahoogroups.com, John Hughes
<john.hughes_at_a...> wrote:
>
> >Jeff:
>
> >Shouldn't that have done the trick or am I missing something? Or
> >was the errata too little and too late? And should I be cranky
with
> >all the House of Malan stuff that ended up in the various Sartar
> >publications?
> >
>
> Yes, a lot of our material has appeared in various forms in various
> publications in uncredited form. Sometimes quite extensive,
original and
> time-consuming work, and the example of Nick's corpus is one of the
clearest.
>
> Contrast this with the rather obsessive (and unintentionally
hilarious)
> 'pencil shading' credits in HeroQuest.
>
> Whether or not you are 'cranky' with any publication or publisher
that
> intentionally or unintentionally abuses your moral rights and
recognition
> as an author is really up to you. Whether you think an errata
posted to a
> website makes up for it is also up to you. (For me admittedly, it
*would*
> be if I thought the mistake was unintentional or due to time
pressures.
> Heck, I fuck up with deadlines too. But circumstances and
experiences vary.)
>
> However, you must have noticed that those who have been voicing
objections
> to the new fan policy and its implementation are among those who
have the
> most experience in dealing with II as fan publishers and authors.
While the
> policy will make almost no difference to 98% of the Gloranthan
community -
> apart of course from the possible drying up of game support
materials of
> both 'fannish' and *exceptional* quality - it does mean rather more
to
> those who regularly write and publish.
>
> Or who attempt to write a freeform for a convention.
>
> Look at the last 12 months since the publishing veto came in to
effect. Is
> is simply coincidence that for the first time ever there was
no 'Best of
> Glorantha' awards for 2004?
>
> There is a general understanding and acceptance that II has to
protect its
> intellectual rights. Whether the best strategy in protecting your
own
> rights is to seek to completely extinguish the rights of your
supporters is
> another question entirely.
>
> As is the question as to whether the best way to overcome
administrative
> shortcomings is with an implied legal blowtorch. Just how difficult
is it
> to acknowledge major authors contributions? Are they somehow less
important
> than the pencil shaders?
>
> No one is painting II as evil or intent on deliberately abusing its
> supporters. However, we all know that the company's administrative
and
> organisational skills are, well, somewhat variable, as is their
response
> time on projects and queries. There may well be good reasons for
this - I'm
> not seeking to judge the process or motivations, just the outcomes.
A lot
> of projects die mysteriously now, some for good reason, some for
reasons
> less clear. My biggest (admittedly subjective) fear is that with
the new
> world order even more projects will just hang around in the in-tray
until
> they die.
>
> Heck, even a school tuckshop puts out a press release when things
change.
> The questions and uncertainties surrounding the new policy have
been known
> to II for **months**, and have been raised by multiple people
multiple
> times. Undertakings were given about the policy and about
presenting
> examples. Nothing has happened. Its hardly a good sign for the
start of an
> era of greater monitoring and bureaucratic process.
>
> >I mean, at the end of the day, these are credits sources for a
> >frickin' fantasy roleplaying game - this isn't like failing to
> >credit me for inventing calculus.
>
> This cuts both ways. Think about it. RP is after all about sharing,
about
> creativity, about playing with genre, which is mixing and matching
a common
> and limited pool of ideas, and to a large extent about doing it
yourself
> and sharing your work around, even if it is 'fannish'
and 'unprofessional'.
> (Though I note that in Glorantha's case it has consistently been
the fan
> publications that have led the way in terms of professionalism and
> presentation, not to mention spell checking.) Excessive legalisms,
> especially as a default base line and as a seeming blanket
protection for
> organisational inefficiencies, might well be strangling the entire
process.
> If its just a 'fricking fantasy roleplaying game', then why
initiate such a
> laborous process in the first place? I understand why II had to do
> *something*, and fully support that. But the *something* didn't
have to be
> *this thing*.
>
> Having said that, I'm grateful that you're helping out with
explanatory
> materials, and am looking forward to them. I also sincerely hope
that the
> new policy will help keep Glorantha strong.
>
> I'm an editor by profession. In my job I feel I have a duty to
protect my
> authors and do the best for them. Academia is of course very
different to
> commercial game publishing. I appreciate that. Perhaps I'm just a
> fuzzy-headed nay-sayer. In fact, this is UHQ - I am **by
definition** a
> fuzzy-headed nay-sayer, and a lot worse besides. By definition.
However,
> there's been no rush to answer the questions I've raised.
>
> I am working with this in as constructive way as I can, and in very
> applied, practical, and deadline looming ways. I hope it will be
for the
> best. But I still have doubts.
>
>
> Cheers
>
> John