Re: [pcgen] Re: [BoD Report]
- On Monday, December 1, 2003, at 12:40 PM, Steven Gilroy wrote:
> ... To the skeptics it "appears" that PCGen's BoD isPardon me, but "handled in a better way" compared to what? A publisher
> not doing stuff like AU so that CMP can make money by doing so. I
> this is not the case, but if stuff like this isn't handled in a better
> way we are going to end up with another explosion on this board like
> what happened several months ago and again 2 weeks ago.
> I'm not bringing this up to start trouble, I'm bringing it up so that
> can be considered and discussed to prevent future trouble.
released their material (at least some of it) under a public license.
The PCGen community began work on making it available as a free data
set. Then the publisher evidently had second thoughts (either changed
their mind, or clarified their original position). The publisher said
"Please don't distribute that material freely, but you may distribute
it for a fee". PCGen said "Ok, we won't distribute it any more" and
pulled the data sets from distribution. CMP said "Ok, we'll distribute
the fee-based material for you." The material was still available, just
under a different arrangement than was originally expected. The BoD
explained this to the PCGen community. Again. And again. And again.
Yet, no number of explanations seem sufficient to satisfy "the
So... how could this have been "handled in a better way"? I'm seriously
curious. If a better way can be found than what was done, by all means
lets do things differently in the future.
With all due respect to you and others (on both sides of the issue) who
have tried to discuss this in a civil manner, the die-hard skeptics in
any such discussion seldom seem to be interested in the facts. They
usually seem only to be interested in how things "appear" to *them*,
from their very narrow and skewed point of view. They have their
suspicions and doubts that they cling to (in lieu of facts), and no
amount of logic or reason will *ever* sway them. They keep raising the
same objections over and over again, apparently not listening at all to
any attempt to answer their concerns.
At a certain point, those who offer logic and reason recognize that
they are fighting an impossible battle, and either loose their temper
or yield the field. (Losing your temper is pretty pointless, especially
via email, so that only leaves the option to give up the argument.) You
cannot win a debate if your opponent will not, under any circumstances,
concede that you might be right.
I know that Bryan, et al, are still trying very hard to reach out to
everyone and satisfy everyone's concerns. To say that I admire their
patience and perseverance is a vast understatement. But I sometimes
wonder if it's worth all the hassle just to try to please a couple of
people whose minds are made up, who aren't listening any more (if they
ever were), and who will seemingly *never* be pleased, no matter what.
In any case... *sigh* I see that I've been sucked into this quagmire
again. I apologize to the list, and make a pre-New Year's resolution to
not rise to the bait again. I ask as strongly yet politely as I know
how, that *anyone* who has such concerns, *please* address them to
Bryan or the BoD *off list*. I think that the community has had quite
enough of a beating on this subject. Can we just get back to discussing
the PCGen software and data on this list, and leave paranoia and
politics out of it?
- On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 02:48:13PM -0500, Charbeneau, Chuck wrote:
>I dunno. It sounds like you've got a dihydrogen monoxide
> I can stop drinking (alcohol, Caffeine, whatever...) anytime I want.
(http://www.dhmo.org) dependency; that could be a challenge.
Keith Davies "Your ability to bang your head against
keith.davies@... reality in the hope that reality will
crack first is impressive, but futile"
-- Geoffrey Brent, rec.games.frp.dnd