Talk:Open gaming

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)

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

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)
• 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.

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)