From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Infinite
Possibilities
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2000 7:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Open_Gaming] "Open" Debate
<< If they always take, but never contribute, to the community, than I would
expect
nothing less. Also note that a person generally isn't going to be branded
until
quite a few products come out. >>
Some on this list are branding at the mere suggestion of a single
hypothetical example. At the same time, they refuse to see any other form of
value to the community.
<< Then it is obvious they are doing nothing more
than raping the community for everything it is worth.
I know it may sound a little harsh, but i have no sympathy for people that
are
willing to use other peoples work without contributing anything back to the
community. >>
Very harsh. Too harsh. Change your tone now, damn it, or civil discussion is
impossible.
I know it may sound a little harsh, but I have no sympathy for people who
are willing to use insult and invective and inflammatory language to force
their views upon others.
(Seriously, Darren: hostile word choice provokes hostile reactions, and
everyone loses.)
<< No one is saying it has to be every product. However, I also don't think
it is
unreasonable to ask everyone to contribute either. >>
Asking is ALWAYS appropriate. Demanding and labelling crosses the line and
damages the community.
<< What would
you call someone who has put out 50 adventures based on the work that the
community has done, possibly your own work in some cases, but yet has not
contributed a single thing to the community, to you? >>
A savvy designer who is leveraging the existing content base to provide a
lot of value to the gaming community (in the persons of his customers) for
very little extraneous effort. Also, very, very smart.
<< That has been the definition of 'leech' in the open source community for
a long
time. It really isn't my opinion. It is what the word means in this context.
Of
course you probably won't find that definition in Websters, but there are
probably a couple of online dictionaries we could look up if you really
wanted
to play semantics. :-) >>
This is more than semantics. It is connotations, and hostile intent. Those
in the open source community adopted this definition because they wanted a
term to express their negative views of the parties concerned. They were
being hostile in their word choice. Just because they were being hostile is
no reason you have to follow their lead.
<< No, but that is the only way the community can grow and expand. If you
don't
contribute, then you are hurting the community. Since i happen to be part of
the
community, I take it fairly personal. >>
Then as part of the gaming community, you need to broaden your horizons and
recognize the many forms that contribution can take. Otherwise, you'll get
offended when you should be pleasantly pleased.
<< If they contribute, they are helping. If they are not,
but yet using the work the community has created, then they are hurting the
community as less people feel a desire to contribute. >>
No. I'm sorry, but no. They can contribute in a wide range of ways besides
contributing open content. They do NOT hurt the community in this fashion,
they help it.
<< They not only hold back
there own ideas, but we also loose the ideas that others might have had, but
no
longer contribute because of these people. >>
And let us not forget the ideas of creators who decide they want no part of
a community where they will be labelled and bullied and scorned. And let us
not forget the gaming pleasure lost to folks who might have been customers
of these ideas. Help and hurt is such a many-dimensional space, and we can't
just look at our "preferred" dimensions and pretend the others do not exist.
Martin
-------------
For more information, please link to www.opengamingfoundation.org
