Jump to content

Talk:Open gaming/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

October Open Gaming License

I recently had to revert deletion of a complete section of this article on the OOGL. User BBlackmoor's offensive and unrelenting tone and inability to discuss this topic rationally prevent discussion so I shall be ignoring his remarks, which usually are insults directed at myself. It is worth noting that BBlackmoor is author of said license and so maybe strongly biased to deleting all mentions of it. I am more than happy to discuss this topic with others, should they so wish to.

I would like to mention that the OOGL was a notable license in the history of the open gaming movement. Reference to the OGF mailing list archives shall reveal it was much talked about. The OOGL was used to license more than one work (see article) and, as it is so very closely based upon the GNU FDL, it is non-revocable those works are still licensed under its terms even if they are licensed differently. It was also a word-for-word copy of the FDL, hence Stallman's email to BBlackmoor asking for it to be removed from the RPG Library site.

I shall endeavour to add further licenses to this work and detail the open gaming movement and it's history. --Axon 10:16, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Axon, the license was universally ignored, and isn't even online anymore. It was used a grand total of ONE TIME by a third party. No one, including the license's authors, have used it for years. You obviously have some kind of axe to grind, and I can sympathize with that, but Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for it. If you really feel the need to indulge some pointless grudge from years ago, I suggest you get a blog, like everybody else. Let's just keep this Wikipedia article factual and relevant, okay? Loading it up with allegations that were successfully refuted years ago concerning a license which never caught on and isn't even around anymore doesn't add to the article's factuality nor relevancy -- and it certainly does not help the cause of open gaming.

A long, long time ago, a tree fell in the forest. No one heard it, and the entire forest has since been made into tract houses and firewood. Try to put aside your grudge about whose property that tree fell on aside, for the benefit of Wikipedia and for other people who actually think open gaming might be a good idea, and might want to learn more about it. -- Bblackmoor 19:11, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute resolution -- request for comments

Based on past experience, I do not think Axon is going to let this go. Rather than simply throwing up my hands or getting into a pointless edit war, I suggest we follow the dispute resolution policy. To that end, I am going to request community comment. If a consensus does not result from this, I'll take the further step of conducting an opinion survey following the Wikipedia:Survey guidelines. In the meantime, I suggest that we agree to a Wikipedia:Truce, so that others may fairly consider the issue without the confusion of ongoing edits. To that end, I will unilaterally agree to leave unmodified any of Axon's edits which are factually accurate, leaving it to the community to determine if such are also relevant to the topic of this article. -- Bblackmoor 20:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Summary of dispute

What is agreed upon

Several years ago, RPG Library created an open source style license (called "October Open Game License", or "OOGL") for the creation of pen and paper role-playing games. Like all legal documents, the license was based on the text of prevous legal documents, particularly the GNU Free Documentation License. Richard Stallman protested this license, and asked it to be taken offline, making threats of legal action if the authors of the OOGL did not comply with the request. The authors of the OOGL told Mr. Stallman that his protest had no legal basis, and that they were refusing Mr. Stallman's request, but that if he would like to suggest a revision of the OOGL to avoid any possible confusion between the GNU FDL and the OOGL, that the authors of the OOGL would be happy to consider such revisions. Mr. Stallman never contacted the OOGL license authors again; his threats of legal action never came to pass. -- Bblackmoor 20:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A few years later, it was determined by the OOGL authors that the OOGL was neither needed (the OOGL authors themselves having since switched to recommending the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License), nor was it in common use (having been used by exactly one third party for exactly one game in the entire time the OOGL had been online). As such, the October Open Game License was deprecated, taken offline, and the single game which once used it was re-released under a Creative Commons license. -- Bblackmoor 20:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is in dispute

Axon thinks that the article on Open_gaming needs to mention this license, and needs to state categorically that its legality was in dispute and that the authors were terrible people for daring to defy Richard Stallman. -- Bblackmoor 20:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

BBlackmoor thinks that the whole section on the October Open Game License is, at best, an irrelevant waste of space, and is more probably the evidence of some old grudge that Axon simply won't let go. BBlackmoor thinks the factuality and the relevance if the Open gaming article would be improved by deleting the entire section on the October Open Game License, or perhaps by simply listing it alphabetically among the innumerable never-used and quickly-forgotten licenses which were created shortly after the Open Gaming License was created. BBlackmoor sees no need or benefit in chronicling Mr. Stallman's successfully refuted protest or his empty threats of legal action. -- Bblackmoor 20:01, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Responses to dispute

I'm coming here from the Requests for Comment page. I don't really see anything POV-ish about the "October Open Gaming License" section of the article, and in fact I think it's an interesting factoid about Richard Stallman. I don't see any problem with allowing it to stay - though if it really was only ever used by a single person, the article should probably mention that as well. - Brian Kendig 17:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't really see anything POV-ish about the "October Open Gaming License" section of the article That's because I keep stripping that stuff out, leaving only the facts, regardless of their relevance (per my unilateral WikiTruce with Axon). I have every expectation that Axon will put his POV back in. I think it's an interesting factoid about Richard Stallman If this were an article about Richard Stallman, that might be relevant. Do you think that a third of this article should be devoted to an exhaustive account of one bit of useless and largely irrelevant trivia? -- Bblackmoor 19:37, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It's factual, it's on-topic, and I find it interesting. I honestly think it's fine as it is right now. If someone slants it to a particular POV, then that's a different issue to address, but I honestly see no need to remove this section. And that's my two cents as an uninvolved observer. - Brian Kendig 22:26, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hmm. Re-reading it as it is right now, and trying to put out of my mind the stuff that Axon keeps sticking in, I would have to agree. I'm just so used to the POV-that-won't-go-away that it takes some effort to read it objectively. I could live with it as it is now. Thanks for your two cents. :) -- Bblackmoor 23:13, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Axon has deleted the full facts and restored his POV. I can't say I didn't warn you. I'll put it back the way the community agreed it should be. Axon, this is not your private blog. Please abide by the community's wishes in this matter. -- Bblackmoor 02:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello, I too came here from the Requests for Comment page. I think there is imbalanced attention given to a minor license only ever used for one game. It's over three times the amount written for the Open Gaming License. I suggest that the entire OOGL section be deleted, except for a mention under the "Other licenses" section as follows:
modify the sentence,

Similarly, the popularity of the OGL also inspired others to create their own, specific open content licenses. Virtually none of these gained acceptance beyond the works of the licenses' own authors, and many have been abandoned even by their authors.

to read,

Similarly, the popularity of the OGL also inspired others to create their own, specific open content licenses, for example, the October Open Gaming Licence (OOGL), a copyleft license published by Brandon Blackmoor of the RPG Library. Virtually none of these gained acceptance beyond the works of the licenses' own authors, and many, like the OOGL, have been abandoned even by their authors.

That's more than enough mention. The rest is really irrelevant and bogs down the article. --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:25, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion survey

Purpose of survey: dispute resolution. Survey starts: 2005-01-25. Survey ends: 2005-02-08.

Axon has refused to participate in the community discussion of the article, has not honored the Wikipedia:Truce, and has persisted in removing facts from the article and replacing them with his opinion (phrasing them as the opinions of "many critics"). Rather than taking more drastic measures, I am hoping that a survey of the community will be enough to convince him to stop using the article as his personal soapbox. Survey responses are below. I have tried very hard to phrase Axon's position in as neutral a tone as possible, but it is very difficult. -- Bblackmoor 02:42, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Survey responses

Please sign your name using three tildes (~~~) under the position you support, possibly adding brief comments afterwards. If you are happy with more than one possibility, you may wish to sign your name to more than one place. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Survey discussion".

How should the section on the October Open Game License be handled?

  • Remove the October Open Game License (OOGL) section
    • Bblackmoor (but I'd live with option #3, if need be)
    • --MPerel( talk | contrib) 05:26, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC) (see my comment above about a brief mention in the "Other licenses" section).
  • Keep the OOGL section, including what Richard Stallman said about it. Do not include the responses to Stallman's objections, or Stallman's response to that. Include Axon's opinion of the OOGL (under the guise of the opinion of "many critics"), including his opinion of its legality and what he thinks about any games which once used it.
  • Keep the OOGL section. Include a factual accounting of Stallman's object, the response to that objection, and Stallman's response to that response. Include factual statements about the games which were once licensed under the OOGL, and what has become of them since.
  • Keep the OOGL section: it is notable in the context of the early open gaming movement [1] [2] (and obscure subject itself) and was used to license at least two rolelpaying games[3] [4] (I have copies of both licensed under the OOGL). For completeness, I am including mine own vote here. --Axon 11:25, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Survey discussion

Discussion resulting from the survey would go here. If there were a significant amount, it might be moved to a talk page instead.

Deletion of refuted allegations and other irrelevant stuff

Deleted the stuff about the October Open Game License, which was deprecated a long, long time ago. It was used briefly by exactly one person (other than the people who wrote it) for exactly one game; that game was released under the Creative Common Attributon-ShareAlike years ago. There's no point in taking up a third of this article with something so completely irrelevant. If you want to talk about the history of open gaming, spend more time talking about FUDGE. -- Bblackmoor 07:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Order of comments

I would like to note that User:Bblackmoor, in keeping with his un-civil, aggressive, and unilateral attitude on this topic (i.e. the OOGL), has taken it upon himself to ordering the comments on this page so that my comments, which are civil but detract from his edits and comments, are at the bottom of the page, despite the fact that they were placed on the talk page first.

It is my understanding that a) discussion pages on Wikipedia are normally ordered by the date they were created descending, unless otherwise agreed by all commentators and b) messing with people's comments is considered a breach of Wikipedia etiquette.

It is for these reasons that I will continue revert the order of the comments. --Axon 12:34, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Anyone who examines the history of this page can see quite clearly that the only person shuffling sections around is you. The only thing I have done with regard to ordering of comments is to undo your shuffling: I have put people's comments back where they put them when they entered them, before you re-arranged it. -- Bblackmoor 16:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it is. Please stop doing it. -- Bblackmoor 15:35, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Axon, you've chosen to ignore the dispute resolution process, so unfortunately, the next step is mediation. I think it's really silly that we can't come to a reasonable solution to this. Maybe a third party can help. -- Bblackmoor 15:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: Anyone who wishes to examine the original ordering of the comments[5] can quite clearly see that my remarks on his edits to the OOGL section quite clearly appeared at the start. I am putting my remarks on the OOGL and BBlackmoor's edits at the head of the page, above the later stuff about dispute resolution. BBlackmoor's attempts to censor even my comments on a Talk don't really make me put any faith in his ability to resolve any dispute. I have also reverted the insertion of his comments into mine own: I consider this to be further interference with my remarks to as to diminish their impact. --Axon 11:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION

I won't be editing this article anymore until the Arbitration committee decides what, if anything, to do about Axon. He continues to add POV to the article, he continues to re-arrange or delete other people's comments on the Talk page, he has ignored requests for discussion, he has ignored the survey, and he has ignored the request for mediation. Arbitration seems the only recourse left. Until that process is resolved, I see no point in editing this article or contributing to this talk page, not even to correct or revert Axon's edits. I am tagging the article with a {{bias}} notice. I will remove it when this problem with Axon is resolved (if no one else removes it before then). -- Bblackmoor 06:10, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Once again, User:BBlackmoor has given precedence to the ordering of his comments on this page at the expense of mine own. His inability to allow an opposing opinion, even on a Wikipedia talk page, to gain any from precedence over his own once agains destroys any good faith in his ability to resolve a dispute. I will continue to ignore him until such time as I feel he is genuinely willing to cooperate in a civil manner. --Axon 12:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the voting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, it seems unlikely that this matter will be accepted for arbitration. It is suggested there that a Wikipedia:Requests for comment might be productive by bringing in some more experienced feedback. My own brief eyeballing of the matter gives this impression: Writing about matters that you yourself have been involved in is difficult and often embarrassing, even when considered in the negative sense encountered here. I find the material in dispute quite interesting, but of limited general interest. In general it is a convention that material is added to talk pages at the bottom, but it is not a strict rule; likewise talk pages may be carefully and considerately edited, but in general material should remain where a poster put it and not be moved around. Fred Bauder 16:05, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
A Request for comments has been attempted already, with no significant effect. Do you have a suggestion which has not altready been tried? -- Bblackmoor 16:18, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
With regard to editing subjects on which I was involved, there are two issues. One is relevance. Is the detailed history of a license with was used, briefly, by one independent game (Four Colors Al Fresco), and which no longer is in use, relevant to this article? I agree with MPerel [6]: I do not think it is relevant. However, I will of course bow to the community consensus (although there appears to be no consensus at this time, it would be nice if there was one, whether or not I agreed with it). The second issue is that of factuality. Axon has persistently loaded the article with his POV, grinding the axe of some grudge he harbors for the gods only know what reason. Additionally, he removes any facts which he dislikes [7], which would make the article POV-heavy even without his snarky editorial asides. This is not a matter for consensus: this is a matter of Wikipedia policy. Factuality and NPOV are Wikipedia policy, plain and simple. While I remain active on Wikipedia, I will continue to work to keep the article factual (although I am not editing it right now, pending the outcome of the Request For Arbitration). -- Bblackmoor 17:04, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Axon's Response to Fred

(I added this sub heading in response to Fred's reponse to my own comments here to preserve ordering of comments for the sake of peace and to ensure that my response is not hijacked by BBlackmoor) --Axon 17:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have never hijacked anyone's comments, Axon. You, and only you, have taken upon yourself to scramble up other people's comments. See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Axon/Evidence. -- Bblackmoor 17:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Fred,

I agree, there are no hard and fast rules with regard to ordering of comments on a talk page. My objection here is not that this was done at all. After all, there are many good reasons why someone might want to re-arrange things for clarity. My only objection that it appears it was done only to put my comments at the bottom of page during dispute resolution, effectively excluding my comments from the discussion from the start.

I have to admit to having some personal interest in this matter - but then of everyone refrained from editing on subjects they are personally interested in on Wikipedia I fear not much would get done - and I have to admit it probably would've been more appropriate that someone else edit on this subject. The problem is that the subject of open gaming is itself pretty narrow - a sub-culture of a sub-culture of a sub-culture. Few others else would edit on this subject and, whilst it is obscure and esoteric, I feel the OOGL, and other open gaming topics, should be covered in some detail.

If you feel a further request for comments is neccesary than I assent provided that BBlackmoor makes some gestures towards toning things down (for example, not answering comments addressed to me before I've had a chance to respond myself). --Axon 17:15, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Can you support this with an example, please? It does not appear to be supported by any facts I have available. -- Bblackmoor 17:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: *sigh* once again, BBlackmoor has found another tactic to put his remarks at the fore of this talk page, and relegate mine to the bottom by moving the old chat (still all quite relevant) to the archive. --Axon 17:24, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:How_to_archive_a_talk_page, Axon: those pesky rules that you keep ignoring. -- Bblackmoor 17:29, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comments now hijacked by Bblackmoor. --Axon 18:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Request withdrawn

I have withdrawn the request for arbitration. Axon refuses to particpate in or even acknowledge any kind of discussion (other than to scramble comments and replies so that the discussion becomes imposible to follow), it is clear that the Arbcom has no interest in forcing Axon to participate in any kind of discussion, and I do not have the time or patience for an edit war. So I surrender. Axon, Wikipedia in general... this has been an enormous waste of time. I'm done. -- Bblackmoor 17:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No-one could ever force me, or anyone else, to participate in any discussion, but I'm voluntarily willing to come to some sort of agreement on this, BBlackmoor. --Axon 17:45, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OOGL Self-Post

I have reverted repeated attempts to add a link to [8] as this is now a redirect to the personal blog of user BBLackmoor. It would appear BBlackmoor is attempting to add this link in as himself[9], anonymously[10], and as what appears to be a sock puppet[11][12]. I will continue to revert addition of this link as a primary source. --Axon 11:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rpglibrary.org/oogl/oogl.htm is the only official link to the current status of the OOGL. I am not going to try and fight the lunatic fringe on the content of this article: that has proven fruitless, and two months is more than I should have spent tilting at that windmill. But I do intend to maintain a link to the correct status of the October Open Game License. That's the least I can do. As for Axon's accusations, they are, like most of what he posts on this subject, nothing more than the product of his imagination. I did forget to log in from IP 137.246.197.234, but Bblackmoor is my only Wikipedia login. -- Bblackmoor 16:08, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I cannot prove that the new user's are sock puppets although they do fall under the 100-edits rule and reproduce your own edits. The link you continue to add is a self-post to your own blog - editors are not allowed to post to their own sites under the rules of Wikipedia. This is also a breach of the POV policy. I have offered to come to some sort of mediation on this, BBlackmoor, but you continue ignore this, be uncivil towards me and ignore the advice of the ArbCom team. --Axon 18:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"I have offered to come to some sort of mediation on this..." (Axon) Like most of what you have posted on this subject, that is not true. I tried for two months to engage Axon in a discussion, including surveys and repeated requests for mediation: I will not waste any more time on it. As for the link Axon objects to, there is one and only one official link to the status of the October Open Game License, and if someone persists in including incorrect information in this article pertaining to the OOGL, I will make sure there is at least a link to the correct information. It would be better for open gaming and for Wikipedia if the incorrect and irrelevant information were removed from this article entirely, but that is not a fight on which I will waste any further time. If others wish to do so, of course, they have my blessing. Instructions for doing so are posted here: http://www.blackgate.net/blog/index.php?p=15. In fact, even posting this comment and the one above was an unwelcome waste of my time. I don't plan on repeating the mistake. Two months is enough. -- Bblackmoor 18:48, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I don't understand: you say you will not waste any further time on this article but continue to edit it. You continue to refer to me as a liar and a lunatic and be thoroughly uncivil. Amazingly, you've even started a blog article to discredit me with advice on how to vandalise Wikipedia with reverts - I never knew I could loom so large in your own mind you would start some sort of Internet campaign against me. I have made a genuine offer to come to some sort of agreement but you continue to ignore it: do you really want to discuss this or are you going to continue this? --Axon 19:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...you say you will not waste any further time on this article but continue to edit it." This might be the first worthwhile thing you have said. Several of my friends have also said that I should just write Wikipedia off and not think about it another moment. It's difficult. But I am going to try. If my willpower holds out, this will be the last line I ever type on Wikipedia. -- Bblackmoor 03:01, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

As an aside, it is against Wikipedia rules to post links to your own site and your tactic of adding the link to the old OOGL site which now redirects to your personal blog is very much against Wikipedia rules. For the sake of peace I have added it as a reference to this part of the essay to back up the evidence that the OOGL has been decommisioned. --Axon 19:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BBlackmoor, you have now broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for this article. For the sake of peace please desist and take into consideration ArbCOm advice. --Axon 19:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Apologies, BBlackmoor has not broken the three revert rule. --Axon 19:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts... --Axon 13:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here?

It's come to the attention of the administrators that there is some sort of dispute under way, and that through frustration (whatever), certain parties are willing to bypass dispute resolution procedures (see [13]). This is a warning to those involved: anyone who follows a method of bypassing normal consensus based editing and tries to game the system will quickly either: a) find themselves blocked, or b) find this page locked until we work out what the root problem is.

You know, I don't like having to say stuff like this. But honestly, if people aren't willing to work together then we're going to have to take steps to try to sort this out! *sigh* - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Well, it's still going on. Perhaps the guys involved would like to list point by point what their contentions are, and invite others (through the requests for comment page) to mediate between them? If one of you will put your list down here, I'm willing to read it, and the contrary opinions, and at least you'll have one nonpartisan opinion to use in your discussions. Drop me a note on my talkpage if you're interested in trying to resolve the issue rather than just battle it out in perpetuity. Grace Note 04:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly been asking the anonymous user to discuss his edits, but he/she has point-blank refused to discuss anything until I am banned apparently[14]. Otherwise, I don't really understand why he/she repeatedly deletes the content in question without discussion. Once again, would the anonymous user like to raise his contentions here? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ground rules

Anyone who adds anything should please cite a credible source, which should not consist of a blog, a post to a discussion forum or Usenet, and if it's a personal website, it should only be used as a source if the edit is about the website's owner. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anything that is deleted should be brought to talk for discussion. If everyone sticks to the policies, there should be no need to re-protect it, but I will if the reverting starts again. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
How many blogs need to talk about something before the cumulative evidence means that it probably does indeed exist? Because User:24.148.0.83 has now twice reverted the addition of the "Dark Dungeons" game to the list of retroclones demanding a citation for its existence. A Google search shows multiple relevant (to the "retroclone" and "old-school-renaissance" community) blogs discussing the game, and multiple discussion board threads discussing it. Such a search also shows up the print-on-demand publisher's page where the book can be bought on its first page. Given the blog-and-board nature of the retroclone community, what further evidence of the game's existence needs to be cited for it to remain as an entry on a list (a list, I note, on which most other entries are also completely uncited)? 64.90.224.68 (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
I wish to make note of the following, identified in the above link:

Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

1.the material is not unduly self-serving;

2.it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);

3.it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

4.there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;

5.the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Each identified acceptable measure when applied to http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/ is as follows:

1. The Dark Dungeons website identifies when, how, and why the publication is created. Other than 2 links directing the reader to the P-o-D publisher and a single link directing to a PDF of the document, there is no manner of self-directed advertisement. Additionaly, the content of the article simply identifies the game's existence and identification as a "retro-clone" and in no way tries to infer that the game is in any way better or worse than any of the other identified games.

2. Neiter the article (as was previously edited) nor the website make any third-party claims.

3. The existence and categorization of the game is directly related to the game.

4. The website has no contradictory detail which would give anyone reason to doubt the authenticity of the material presented--additionally multiple additional blogs of varying degrees of popularity within the RPG-oriented community point to this site as the originating source for Dark Dungeons.

5. The article uses this source for a grand total of two out of 108 lines--certainly not the primary source of the article.

Based on the Wikipedia standards of identifying "reliable sources", the webiste (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/) qualifies as a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia under EVERY SINGLE EXCEPTION CRITERIA! Can DD now be placed back into the article? Thank you.

Gawain VIII (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Dominion Rules

Imho, Dominion Rules 2.0 use an open game license not just an open supplement license. I also added it to the Open game list. 81.209.224.202 19:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing: Organization

I would like to suggest that we re-organize this article slightly. The article currently has this organizations, which is a bit meandering: 

   1 Overview
   2 Open Gaming Licenses
       2.1 Open Supplement Licenses
   3 Open Games
   4 History
       4.1 Open Gaming License
           4.1.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       4.2 Other licenses
           4.2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
           4.2.2 October Open Gaming License
   5 References

I think the subject (and the article's current content) lends itself to being organized like so: 

   1 Overview
   2 History
       2.1 The Fudge Legal Notice
       2.2 Open Gaming License
           2.2.1 Open Gaming Foundation
       2.3 Reactions to the OGL
           2.3.1 October Open Gaming License
   5 References
       5.1 Open gaming licenses
       5.2 Open games
       5.3 External links

What do folks think of that? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take silence as approval, I guess. I'll work on the reorganization tomorrow. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 06:41:30 Z

I've reorganized the article along the lines of my suggestion above. While I was at it, I added a few more examples and external links, and rewrote a few sections for clarity. You know, I think this is a damned good article now. I'm not sure what else I would want to change. I'm certainly open to suggestions, though. Thoughts, anyone? -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2005-10-27 T 23:03:08 Z

Introductory section

EVERY section should be present in the table of contents (that's technical writing 101), and in order for that to happen, the first section MUST have a section header. If there is more than one section, and if any of those sections have headings, then every section, including the first one, should have a heading. But since Wikipedia policy apparently contradicts proper technical writing practice, and since "Bluemoose" seems intent on enforing this misguided policy, I have revised the introduction. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-1 T 16:40 Z

Wow, take a look at every other article in Wikipedia, take a look at the guidlines. As I always say to people like you; do you honestly think everybody else is wrong and you right? or do you think it is possible that maybe you are wrong? Martin 20:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
I did take a look at the guidelines. Up to a year ago, they specifically stated that the first section should have a header named "Overview". And yes, most people are wrong. Not everyone, but most people. That's one of the reasons why editng a factual document (like an encyclopedia) by "consensus" is doomed to failure. -- BBlackmoor (talk), 2006-02-3 T 21:15 Z
If most people are wrong, how do you explain yourself? In general, I mean. As in, what if you agree with "most people" on something? Are you suddenly automatically wrong because you agree with the majority? Do you suddenly become "right" if you disagree with the majority - on ANYTHING? Such as, for instance, murder being wrong? The majority may not always be right about absolutely everything, but they are inherently not going to be wrong about absolutely everything either, simple statistics should tell you that much. Don't make generalizations. Especially not generalizations that basically say "I'm always right, everyone else is wrong, wrong, WRONG because they don't do things like I say they should, even though what I'm saying they should do is something trivial and based completely off of a subjective standard" (whether or not to include a first section called "Overview" is indeed subjective, as many articles may well suffice just fine with having the "overview" in the introduction, if the concept is simple enough) See 'cause those? Make you sound kind of like an asshole. I say this even as someone who in the case of this specific article (you're not even arguing specifics though, you're arguing generalizations, and articles on Wikipedia can by no means all fit the same exact, identical format nor should they), would agree that there should be an Overview section given that the concept needs more of an in-depth overview to give the reader a good grasp of it, since there's really somewhat too much general information to really fit into the intro. That said, WTF man? You say "That's technical writing 101". This isn't a technical manual! This is a general reference encyclopedia! Why on Earth are you applying the specific standards of one style/format of writing to another? That very little sense. In any case, if you really feel the whole project is "doomed to failure", well, leave. Criticism is one thing, but anal-retentive idiocy is another entirely. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Glad to see you haven't posted in months, if that's the way you feel about the project. Still boggles my mind how many people bother to post when all they want to say is "Wah! Wikipedia sucks! The whole idea of Wikipedia sucks! Everything about this site sucks! Why are you all wasting your bloody time here?" . I mean, isn't it a far bigger waste of time to bother to post on a site JUST to complain about how others are wasting their time by using the site? Given that it's not even a commercial site? 4.235.51.190
Nice rant, anonymous user. As for most people being wrong, you say, "Glad to see you haven't posted in months..." Thank you for proving my point so succinctly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) • 2007-06-04 19:36Z

"May Apply"

The phrasing about license definitions and specifications that "may apply" to open gaming licenses was unfortunate, in that it was not clear what was intended by the text. It "may apply" in that it applies to some licenses, and not to others -- not in that it may not apply ever, anywhere. As such, I've replaced that phrasing with what I think is improved phrasing to the more explicit effect that it applies to some licenses. If you give the list of licenses following that paragraph a look, you will surely see that every single one of those definitions and specifications (open content, free content, copyleft, and copyfree) is represented by at least one of the articles in the list. I am dismayed by the fact that the first reaction many people have to phrasing they find difficult or suboptimal is to delete, rather than improve; the edit of mine to eliminate the ambiguous "may" in favor of clearer phrasing is an attempt to improve the quality of the article rather than merely delete things that are not perfect. - Apotheon (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I also notice that the person who deleted the passage (after initially adding useful information to it) failed to abide by the guidelines at the top of this talk page, where we are directed to add a note to this page when something is deleted from the article. - Apotheon (talk) 01:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The deletion note is from 2005, and cover a different context. Not sure it applies, but it "may" :). The reason I deleted the list, and still think its a bad idea to have a list, is that neither open content, free content, copyleft, or copyfree makes an claim that they define what "open gaming license" is. Now we can always try to start define "open gaming license" ourself by looking on what licenses they use and then add one or many of the above labels to them, but is it the correct thing to do? Is it verifiable? It also mean we need to make sure the list has every possible label that match one of the used licenses so to not make anyone feel left out (example: share-alike). So yes, my first reaction (rather, second but that's beyond the point) is to delete the problem and work with information that can directly be verified by linked sources. If someone still think its a good idea to keep the list, please make a short case here on the talk page for each label you think should be added, and which license can be said to be under that label. That should help somewhat to limit the size of the list that need to be maintained. Belorn (talk) 04:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think that one necessarily needs to state that a definition covers a specific case (gaming) when it is a pretty clear superset (e.g., "open content"), or when it is about as clearly a subset (e.g. "share-alike" or "copyleft"). As for the idea of "share-alike" being left out, I think one of two conditions applies here: either it is effectively synonymous with copyleft, or it should simply replace copyleft here as a non-software reference to the same basic concept (depending on whether you differentiate between the two by the inclusion of the "source" distribution requirement of copyleft licensing). I also think this reasoning, apart from being pretty self-evidently applicable, provides a clear guideline to determining whether a given license-type definition or specification qualifies. - Apotheon (talk) 11:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
What is important is that every claim we make in the article is wp:verifiable, that is all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material. Currently very little in the article is sourced at all, so when ever we add something it really do need to be sourced. The current statement is that the term "open gaming license" is older than Open Gaming Foundation. If that is true, there should be a source to that fact, and then we have something to actually say on the definition of the term. We need to backup the claim that "any license that permits re-use, modification, and redistribution of content can be considered an open gaming license". Failing that, we should fall back on what can be verified and that is Open Gaming Foundation, so far.Belorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
By contrast, I think that things don't get much more "verifiable" than being self-evident -- and that, if we toss out that qualification for verifiability, we have no basis on which to build even one article for Wikipedia. It's like saying we can't use a word without first having a definition of the word (in terms of other words) in place -- which effectively disallows the use of language. I do agree that we should find and use sources as much as we reasonably can, but I do not agree that we should delete every sentence (or even clause) that does not have a reference mark beside it. As for the statement about the age of the term "open gaming" (not license, per se; I have no source for that), Ryan Dancey's "most dangerous column" actually refers generally to the term in a manner that establishes it as predating the foundation at the same time that he talks about the formation of the foundation. - Apotheon (talk) 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Okey, did a little research. While the current text state that there is no definition on "open gaming license", the Open Gaming Foundation do claim to have one[1], and thus limiting the type of licenses to copyleft. What other sourced claims are there on the definition of open gaming license? It would be best to simply write the different peoples claims, and then let the reader decide on the conclusions.Belorn (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The Open Gaming Foundation's definition does not, in fact, require an open gaming license to be copyleft. The simple application of a license that (like the copyfree MIT/X11 License) requires itself to be included with all future copies achieves the effect of "ensur[ing] that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future." All that requirement means is that a license like the WTFPL -- which actually allows itself to be removed from a work -- would not qualify according to that definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talk • contribs) 11:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I can slightly understand how one can read the text in that way, its quite obvious by the statements made around OGL and the organization that created Open Gaming Foundation, that they talk about copyleft. ref1, ref2, ref3 all talk about copyleft being the concept that Wizards of the Coast modeled after. In that light, a prohibition against "action taken on behalf of a 3rd party" that takes away the rights provided by the license is hard to be read in any other way than a copyleft concept. If you have any source that speaks to the contrary, please provide them, otherwise I will reword the current text to reflect those sourcesBelorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Regarding ref1, it's worth noting that Ryan Dancey appears to have a fairly superficial acquaintance with the precise definitions of terms like "open source" and "copyleft" as members of the free and open source software communit(y|ies) use these terms, so his use of the term "copyleft" should be taken with a grain of salt and not assumed to be rigorous. If anything, the uses of "copyleft" in ref2 (and of "open source", to a lesser degree) are even less accurate or applicable, as in the case of claiming that open source software as a whole relies on copyleft, or that copyleft "prevents anyone from directly profiting from the work of another person" (a patently false claim for rigorous uses of the term "copyleft", as demonstrated by actual events). It is further worth noting that, if one accepts that the Open Game License is an open gaming license, the one use of the term "copyleft" directly contradicts the effect of the OGL in practice, which contains language that provides substantial wiggle room for publishers of derived works to not only fail to provide secondary derivations under the terms of an open license, but also to restrict modifications of the original (see the expansive "product identity" clauses in the text of the OGL and how it is applied in many products, such as pretty much everything d20-system related that was published by Privateer Press). The long and the short of it is that it seems that most references to the term "copyleft" in the context of open gaming come from Ryan Dancey having heard something about the use of the term, misinterpreting it, and applying it liberally, plus other people reading what he had to say and running with it to even less accurate results. As such, I'm of the considered opinion that we should not define "open gaming" as requiring "copyleft" because we should try to adhere to the actual generally accepted definitions of the term by people who deal in works licensed under such terms on a daily basis, and the definitions employed in Wikipedia articles themselves. - Apotheon (talk) 13:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I've rewritten the relevant paragraph about definitions to present the OGF definition in context. Hopefully that adds clarity to the matter that simply deleting it would not. - Apotheon (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
While I agree with what you have written there (as definitions outside of OGF's) as substantially correct, it smacks to me of original research. Unfortunately, it would probably be hard to substantiate with a reference. Though this has been a topic of discussion on various fora, it's not something that gets covered much in reliable sources. Maybe there is something in interviews with figures like Ryan Dancey or the like that may support this? - Sangrolu (talk) 12:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
"the term is used more expansively without notable comment". Interesting conclusion, but lacks source. From where did you get that impression, and can it be sourced?Belorn (talk) 13:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
As a term primarily used by 1) a small number of notable figures in a relatively small publishing industry and 2) a relatively large and growing grass-roots movement, it is exceedingly difficult to establish citations according to Wikipedia's policy requirements for reliable sources. Despite this, there is quite heavy use of the term across the industry and in community discussions that sets an expectation and a common practice "standard" of sorts. My impression, then, comes from my involvement in the gaming community over a period of decades across a wide range of venues both online and offline, and from the statements of some of the aforementioned notable figures (e.g. Ryan Dancey and Monte Cook). I wouldn't call that "original research", but it definitely qualifies as an "observation" that is not well documented. - Apotheon (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

History need sources

This section lacks any sources which makes improving the quality of the text or clarify vague sentences guesswork. Had hoped that System Reference Document could help here, but it too lack any sources. Is there any data source that talks about the history of open gaming beside Wikipedia?Belorn (talk) 05:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There's the Ryan Dancey reference, and the Monte Cook piece The Open Game License as I See It, Part II is also relevant. Given the fact that Monte Cook was one of the core developers of the first game to be released under the Open Game License itself (D&D 3.5), and is now a contributor to probably the most popular and successful "open game" in current active development (Pathfinder Roleplaying Game), I think we should be able to uncontroversially reference him as an expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apotheon (talk • contribs) 11:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Agree. This is not the time to be picky about sources. Will read them through later today and add what I can see.Belorn (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
There are additional sources I hesitate to recommend because I wrote them myself, and I am at this time probably not even remotely "notable" in the RPG industry and community (unless I woefully underestimate the strength of some influence I have had without noticing). Unfortunately, the relatively small size of the RPG industry even after decades of its existence makes the discovery of "reliable" sources on its history difficult to find, especially with regard to more recent developments (such as the appearance of an open gaming movement in the last decade or so). Given the fact that the movement and its community appear to still be growing -- and that they are certainly consolidating to some extent, working their way into much of the commercial RPG industry, and showing no sign of going away or losing their relevance -- I am inclined to believe that efforts should be made to provide more information about the subject rather than less where questions of verifiability and notability arise. - Apotheon (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2012 edits

Hey folks,

I did a sweep through and tried to improve the article. I'll hopefully come back to it in a few days and see what else I can add—in the meantime, please let me know if you've got any suggestions. --Sanglorian (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks! :) 129.33.19.254 (talk) 14:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

circe vs. 1w6

You keep circe from worldforge but remove 1w6, why?

Note: I ask of my own accord: I am the author of 1w6, which has been published under GPLv3 for several years - and has been printed in the booklet of the karlsruher roleplaying days 2010 and now has 3 distinct releases. I saw this article due to people visiting 1w6 from here, and frankly I am quite pissed to see it deleted again. Essentially the only free copyleft works you left in the article are OGL ones (no real copyleft), dominion (under a non-standard license) and circe under GPL. And that is far from representative of open gaming. Draketo (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Note: That I am the author of 1w6 is what keeps me from adding it again. I’d add it without link to itself, but with a reference to the text describing the background and effects of choosing the GPLv3: [2] Draketo (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html
  2. ^ http://1w6.org/deutsch/anhang/das-ein-w-rfel-system-jetzt-unter-der-gplv3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Open_gaming/Archive_1&oldid=1161135628"