Re: Forwarded from Eric Mona

>From:    "Downer, Chris" <Chris.Downer@?????????.com>
>Why does WOTC have to ask this list about releasing a product?

Not the list (of course not). _Static_. The guy whose put so much
work into the 'Official' website.

>And what is the point of boycotting this product?
>Should you at least see if the product is to your liking before boycotting
>it.

It's not about like/dislike. It is about how they treat Static, and
the 'official' websites.

Those on the list when the Council idea was first floated will recall
i was _against_ the idea. I said look, we'll end up doing a ton of
work, and then it will be completely ignored. 'So what?' you might
say? See, here's the thing. WotC has turned their 'dead' game worlds
over to fans to run through 'official' websites. That _seems_ like
WotC being nice, because that is what fanatic fans of the setting (ie
us) want. But it is not altruistic. See, WotC keeps the setting
alive, and a spark of interest in it by doing this, a kernal of fan
support should they decide to reissue it. And what does it cost them
to maintain this min level of value for the intellectual property
(the setting)? Nothing, because the website costs and work are
handled on a _volunteer_ basis by the website owners.

Now, in theory, the webmasters like Static get something in return,
'Official' status. This is meaningless while the game system is dead,
but the understanding is that when the game is revived previous
'Official' material will be considered. In otherwords, those who
worked to keep the setting alive and valuable will have some say in
the reincarnation, some ability to shape it.This isn't directly
promised, it's vaguely implied. Vaguely implied because, as I
suspected all along, WotC has no intention of giving fans any say, no
matter how minor, in product design. That's why we've been so worried
about canon, because we thought it mattered. Clearly it doesn't.

See, Static has worked his butt off with the site, helped to keep SJ
alive, introduced new fans to the setting, basically, for free,
maintained the value of their intellectual commodity. Now WotC is
planning to cash in that commodity and they didn't have the
intellectual honesty to even email Static, the guy running the
official website.

They didn't have to offer it for his approval, or pay him, just
acknowledge he is there, acknowledge that someone had been keeping
that spark alive and might have something to contribute. And I could
understand them forgetting, an honest mistake. But not even a simple
apology? A simple 'We should have contacted him.'?

They screwed him. They _stole_ years of his life where he worked on
the site. I'm _tired_ of WotC screwing people. I'm _upset_ that
exactly what I said would happen, is what has happened.

I don't care if Spelljammer is revivied. I don't care if the article
is the best thing since Gary stole the Roleplaying idea from Arneson.
I do care about people. I do care about Static. I am not giving money
anymore to a company which continues to screw _people_.

I'd rather see SJ die then see WotC profit from stolen work. It's
just an imaginary universe in a make-believe game. Static lives,
breathes, and his been very nice to all of us.

He may not agree, but he deserves no less from the SJ fan community.


>I don't mean this as an insult but isn't this a bit on the exreme side.
>Besides Paul you don't play 3e so this should not really affect you (being a
>3e product and all.)

Of course it effects me. Anything Spelljammer affects all SJ fans. If
'3e' Spelljammer has nothing in common with SJ then the name, then SJ
resources like this list will become useless, as half of us will be
playing in one game world, and the othe rhalf in another.

>Well I'm going to at least look at it to see if it is something I can use
>just like I do with any product. I'm not one to boycott companies just
>because they did not ask me first before putting out a product.

Again, it's not about them not asking you, or me. It's about the
official site being ignored.



><<<<[head shake] Good lord. Can they not simply apologize for not
>contacting Static? The guys just about _bleeds_ for Spelljammer and
>they ignore the work they 'promised' would be 'the' official
>Spelljammer site. If they had just contacted Static ahead of time we
>would all be their most enthusiastic supporters, great sources of
>word of mouth. But no, respect for fans is apparently against their
>company creed.
>
>Then, they can't even be civil enough to apologize for the oversight.
>
>We just get more 'oh, it's cool cause I say it is' WotC hype.
>
>Please, don't buy it. Not because it will suck (who knows if it will
>or not?) but because they have shown again they have no respect for
>fans. Let's stop giving them our money. Let's make them regret _not_
>showing Static some respect.
>
>Please, don't buy this just because it says 'Spelljammer', they don't
>deserve it.>>>>
--
"We sleep safely in our beds, only because rough men stand guard in
the night, ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm."
H.G. Wells.

Paul Westermeyer,  westermeyer.3@???.edu
Phd Candidate, History, Ohio State University
Instructor, Humanities, Columbus State Community College