RE: [ImmoderateHeroQuest] Re: Why...

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_exlu6MPzBlkk4vFhTC1aS11EREcXmPmTmevtn-maxXlDTkF4hqoQ03x_1TDah>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2005 07:09:41 +0100


> > > Speaking from personal experience, the delay is not due
> to Greg or
> > > Stephen. :-(
> >
> > Do you happen to know what it is due to?

Chris:
> Er, lame amateur efforts like mine? :-(

????

If you say so....

> > And why their estimates of dates are still so badly out?
>
> The unpredictability of lame amateurs like me? :-(

They still haven't learnt to take any estimate, double, then increase the unit size? So 1 day becomes 2 weeks?

> > But why's that a problem? It's what we've got now, and it works.
>
> If it works so well, why do so many (including you implicitly
> above) gripe that Issaries puts out too little, too
> unpredictably? I don't think it works all that well.

I assume the reason that's what they produce is that that's what they've got the capacity to produce. Given a shortage of person-power.

> > I'd say we're better off with *someone* putting out
> thriving Glorantha
> > stuff. I have no preference as to who, nor any idea why I
> should have.
>
> Nor do I in particular, but the law certainly gives Greg some
> priority.

It does, but that's nothing to do with the preferences of me-as-person-buying-books.

> > That "never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately
> explained
> > by incompetence" thing?
>
> Well said.

But of course not by me :)

> > I do try to. But some levels of incompetence, in someone we
> know to be
> > intelligent, are quite hard to believe.
>
> You've met Greg, right?

Twice, I think. Not for long on either occasion.

> Great, brilliant, inspired, informal, disorganized.

As a rough impression, maybe. If someone asked me if Greg was the above, I'd have to say I didn't know.

> > Where my own experiences have been generally OK, but stories from
> > others more closely involved have often been anything but.
>
> So, why assume the worst?

Because I'm over five years old, and life is like that.

> > Which is why it so badly needs to come with a warning!
>
> Or an explanatory guide.

Yes, better yet.

> I also have to say that it is not
> the best drafted document I have ever seen.
> But it is far, far from the worst.

True.

> > > How many people say "shall" that often in a day?
> >
> > If I'm writing a programming spec, you'd be surprised! "Shall",
> > "should", and "will", with very important graduations of meaning :)
>
> Ah, but my handy guide to plain English says that shall is
> ambiguous, so should be avoided. It can mean will, should,
> agree to, or may, depending on context and intent.

Exactly - why when I'm writing plain English (addressed to a normal customer) I treat all the above as identical in meaning, and only expect them to know the technical difference if I'm trying to screw them. (Which I haven't had to do for years, thank the gods. It's a very unpleasant experience.)

And even as I type...

> Cf. http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2119.html

Yes, nice explanation, if not as detailed as writing specs for the MOD used to require. Now *those* were nightmare documents.

> > Important, that is, if the person I'm addressing is someone
> I'm trying
> > to nail to the wall in terms of what they get and don't
> get. If it's
> > being addressed to someone I'm trying to help, I write so they can
> > understand it.
>
> Agreed, but see above on my point of view about to whom it is
> really addressed.

It's all about fan publications. So failing a "to" section at the top (a unlikely addition), by default it's addressed to people who produce fan publications. Most of whom are not lawyers.

> > > Fiddle-de-dee. What possible motive would he have to target the
> > > fans?
> >
> > There's been plenty suggested, I'm not going to bother
> repeating them again.
> > Control-freakism being the most obvious.
>
> LOL. Greg the control freak? Not what I think of in a
> type-A personality.

I wouldn't know. Having once had him as a GM, and having witnessed his attitude to letting players determine the course and result of a scenario, I'd say that yes, he's a control freak. Quite possibly you do have to be one to recognise one, and yes, guilty as charged - but at least I can recognise it and let go. Usually.

> > > Now compare that to what possible motive he might have to prevent
> > > future legal problems?
> >
> > When in PUBLIC knowledge there have never been any legal
> problems, or
> > even the hint of possible legal problems?
>
> Er. The whole Avalon Hill vs. Chaosium thing springs to
> mind, as does the Traveller thing.

So where's the PUBLIC description of either of those? I've heard rumours, but no more. Along with some rumours that some fans did something nasty - maybe.

> > > Fair enough. Just don't forget that they are trying to
> make this a
> > > business.
> >
> > Which I still think is a fundamental mistake in itself :(
>
> May I suggest that your feeling on this may be driving much
> of your reaction to the fan policy?

Quite possibly, and why not?

> > > Hm. I don't see this in the fan policy.
> >
> > That's because, like I said, it's in the Licence.
>
> Ah, well. That would be different. Are you allowed to post
> it in full?

Nothing's been said either way that I know of. I was told that the last one, the one I signed (draft 4, I think) was going to be used as the standard from now on, so presumably there's no problem. But that's a common-sense point of view. Who knows what legal ramifications there may be? I'll check.... It's probably Issaries copyright, and I hadn't put it on any website at the time I signed it, so it's not covered by my licence... Though since Greg hadn't actually bothered to *check* over half the web sites I control, I could get away with it very easily... Na. I'm not a lawyer. I'll play fair.            

Powered by hypermail