> Also very few words on the stuff well outside it.
Precisely right.
> > Speaking from personal experience, the delay is
> > not due to Greg or Stephen. :-(
>
> Do you happen to know what it is due to?
Er, lame amateur efforts like mine? :-(
> And why their estimates of
> dates are still so badly out?
The unpredictability of lame amateurs like me? :-(
> 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'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.
> That "never ascribe to malice that which can be
> adequately explained by incompetence" thing?
Well said.
> 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? Great, brilliant, inspired, informal, disorganized.
> 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? There are always two sides of every story. And I think even Nick, who seems to feel very hard done by, seems to think it was simply gross incompetence. (If I am putting the wrong words in Nick's mouth, I'm sure he can correct me.)
> > It is not normal English. It is a legal document.
>
> But it's being addressed to people who read in
> English.
Not so much, no. I still think this fan policy is about protecting Issaries from commercial entities taking over its role in Glorantha. As such, it is mainly directed at other lawyers.
> Which is why it so badly needs to come
> with a warning!
Or an explanatory guide. 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.
> > 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.
> 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.
> > 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.
> > 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.
> > 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?
> > 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?
Chris Lemens
(Not an ad: If you have a little extra money to donate to a good cause, check out http://www.modestneeds.org/.)
Powered by hypermail