PKC seeks to attack the V:EKN

johannes wrote:

You seem to forget that you were not the only ones working from August 2011 to December 2011 on that. You readily claimed original ideas from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (among others) as yours.

And this is what annoys me so much: The fact that Jeff, Eric and Carl pretend that their "work" were based solely on their ideas. That simply isn't true. Even on this forum we talked about so many card ideas coming from many different people. Of course those creative brainstorms influenced the new cards.

Take "Taking Out The Cornerstone" as an example. How long players debated in this forum about a card for the Sabbat which could send a ready Vampire to Torpor. Then there come the three guys and write it down and claim it as their idea? That is ridiculous at best. They invent a new title and make a card which gives the titled vampire +1 intercept or +1 stealth? Wow, that really deserves a copyright.

Never before in history of VtES I observed such a childish move. It could be amusing to look at those people and their further actions. But sadly it threatens the existence of our beloved game.

From what little I know of both sets, it seems like the library cards aren't the issue (with one or two possible exceptions). And it's unclear what PKC wants in regards to their crypt cards, and unclear what VEKN wants to do with their Crypt cards. Isn't it worth a half hour conversation to find out these specifics and then let both sides part with the reassurances they desire? Assurances that PKC will halt any interference with Danse Macabre and the Inner Circle, and assurances that VEKN isn't interested in using the cards from Guardians, or will credit the designers for any card they want to use. Isn't that what both sides want? Johannes? PKC? Has ignoring each other or letting the public tear you both apart in these forums worked thus far? Are either of you happy with the results? If not, maybe its time to change tactics. One reasonable conversation among adults might end this hear and now.

@Brett:

Johannes has already given public guarantees that the VEKN is taking steps to ensure that anything the VEKN does not believe is the work of VEKN is being removed.

PCK has not outlined what they claim to own. PCK has not outlined what will be a satisfactory resolution to the situation. PCK has, AFAIK, issued statements saying that their work must be taken in its entirety without modification (which no doubt has been rejected by VEKN since a number of those cards are basically identical to those that were rejected in playtesting).

It seems like one side picking fights, and the other side get flustered over nothing.

Joscha wrote:

Take "Taking Out The Cornerstone" as an example. How long players debated in this forum about a card for the Sabbat which could send a ready Vampire to Torpor.

Carl asked me to search for the thread in which players debated about a political action to send a vampire to torpor. As it took me some time to find it again I thought I could spare others some work .

Discussion about Parity Shift equivalent

There has been some other interesting card ideas which I think inspired the guys in their work:

Another Sabbat vote

For Inquisitor-based cards:

First idea to do a card for Inquisitors

More cards for Inquisitors

Of course I don't know for sure if they used those discussions as a basis to work with. But I think creative work is always inspired by things you even don't know exactly. I wouldn't mind at all if they used those suggestions for their expansion. But none of the above mentioned posters demanded the copyright for their ideas. They also shouldn't.

Joscha wrote:

Joscha wrote:

Take "Taking Out The Cornerstone" as an example. How long players debated in this forum about a card for the Sabbat which could send a ready Vampire to Torpor.

Of course I don't know for sure if they used those discussions as a basis to work with. But I think creative work is always inspired by things you even don't know exactly. I wouldn't mind at all if they used those suggestions for their expansion. But none of the above mentioned posters demanded the copyright for their ideas. They also shouldn't.

I looked through some of the old design team notes and there were contributions made to Taking Out The Cornerstone thread made by Johannes, Pascal, Ira and Ben as well as from the playtesters of the V:EKN set. Yes, the original suggestion was Carl's but it seemed like a full Design Team and V:EKN Community effort behind the creation of the card. Seems hard to nail down the idea of ownership when cards are created in forums and there are 60+ replies contributing to the collaboration.

Interestingly, I gave LSJ many hundreds of card submissions over the years and I was happy that he used a great many of them. However, there are plenty of printed cards where I don't even know if they are mine or not since they are based on canon and very similar to what anyone would have created. In those instances I don't know if he created his own card with the same name or if he just made significant changes to my submitted card text.

-Robert

johannes wrote:

People were willing to talk. There was simply the problem that after a couple of weeks (nevertheless!) the talks were going in circles because one or the other side wasn´t willing to give in on this or that point. At that point they (one-sided) took the decision to take the discussion public at which point I basically fired them from the design team (long story put short).

Johannes, must I remind you that Carl and I resigned from the Design Team? Our resignation letter was publicly posted on the V:EKN forums:

vekn.net/index.php/forum/5-generic-vtes-discussion/28248-stepping-down-from-the-design-team

You didn’t fire us from the Design Team. We resigned on our own volition.

To restate yet again, we resigned and asked that our cards not be used without our explicit permission. I can’t stress that part enough. To date, you have never been in direct contact with us about using cards we designed. You just let it linger for 5 months and hoped we would, conveniently for you, relinquish our rights. The Inner Circle's avoidance of this outstanding issue, I have to point out, is not a move that is in the best interest of the game. We clearly left open the opportunity to enter into a dialogue. The possibility of reaching an understanding has always been there.

johannes wrote:

I think your assessment is incorrect. Since the whole drama started publicly I have made every communication between them and us that followed public. The only thing that remained private is the hundreds of pages the preceded those events. This is not out of manipulative considerations, this is because of practical reasons (it would take hours to post) and because generally the assumption back then was it was private and I am not going to breach it.

We had several communications with the Inner Circle when we submitted our set for possible sanctioning in August 2012. You have not made those communications public. So no, you have not “made every communication between them and us that followed public.”

johannes wrote:

dude_PL wrote:

The fact that you decided to drag the community in it isn't. As Extrala mentioned before, this letter shouldn't even be posted. This whole discussion shouldn't even be here in the first place.

The problem is that I just speculate they will take it public at some point, because that has been their repetitive pattern of behaviour. I can then react to that and look bad because people will think the VEKN was trying to hide something. But I prefer to learn from past mistakes and make it clear from the beginning what is happening.

Johannes, on multiple occasions you have claimed privacy as a reason to keep things secret or taken umbrage when private messages were shared without the original sender’s consent.

I personally think that your public posting of the cease and desist letter hurt the V:TES community but other than that, I don’t really mind that you posted it except for the underlying principle. Your excuse for making it public is that you thought that we’d eventually make it public anyway, which doesn’t come across as a particularly justifiable reason. It seems hypocritical for you to claim privacy when it suits you, but to then readily ignore other’s privacy when it is to your benefit. You can’t have it both ways.

johannes wrote:

You seem to forget that you were not the only ones working from August 2011 to December 2011 on that. You readily claimed original ideas from Ben, Mike, Ira and Pascal (among others) as yours.

That is an interesting list of names Johannes. Did you just officially and publicly "out" a member of the Design Team? Is this a lapse of judgment or another case of selective secrecy?