Talk:Mechanical Aptitude - Revision history

Gonzoron at 18:54, 15 April 2010

2010-04-15T18:54:12Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:54, 15 April 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	You might want to (or might not want to) add a link to the Ravenloft Feat pdf from the FoS site.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		You might want to (or might not want to) add a link to the Ravenloft Feat pdf from the FoS site.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

	I think I'll leave it without it for now. That ~~pdf~~ includes the prerequisite rules for the feats, which IMHO may be too much info to publish. Yes, I realize that publishing in one part of the site is not really any different than another part of the site, but I'd rather point the Mistipedia user to the appropriate legal source (the book), not an illegal or questionable one (even if it's on our site). Will I expunge the pre-reqs from the Feat document? Dunno, I'll talk to Joel about it someday. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)		I think I'll leave it without it for now. That doc includes the prerequisite rules for the feats, which IMHO may be too much info to publish. Yes, I realize that publishing in one part of the site is not really any different than another part of the site, but I'd rather point the Mistipedia user to the appropriate legal source (the book), not an illegal or questionable one (even if it's on our site). Will I expunge the pre-reqs from the Feat document? Dunno, I'll talk to Joel about it someday. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 18:53, 15 April 2010

2010-04-15T18:53:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:53, 15 April 2010
Line 8:		Line 8:

	You might want to (or might not want to) add a link to the Ravenloft Feat pdf from the FoS site.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		You might want to (or might not want to) add a link to the Ravenloft Feat pdf from the FoS site.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			I think I'll leave it without it for now. That pdf includes the prerequisite rules for the feats, which IMHO may be too much info to publish. Yes, I realize that publishing in one part of the site is not really any different than another part of the site, but I'd rather point the Mistipedia user to the appropriate legal source (the book), not an illegal or questionable one (even if it's on our site). Will I expunge the pre-reqs from the Feat document? Dunno, I'll talk to Joel about it someday. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 18:53, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 19:07, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T19:07:10Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:07, 8 April 2010
Line 6:		Line 6:

	<nowiki>:)</nowiki> I dunno... I'm thinking it may be best to leave out the specifics entirely and just describe the feat in non-game terms. I recognize the utility in being able to find that info here, but it's treading into dangerous territory. (There's got to be a line somewhere. Obviously in a lawyer-free world, the most useful resource for the users of Mistipedia would be a full annotated online copy of all the source material, but we obviously can't do that. Splitting the material onto different pages for each feat doesn't change that, neither does scrambling the order of the sentence.) I'm going to give a try for an edit myself. This is about as much detail as I'm willing to host. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		<nowiki>:)</nowiki> I dunno... I'm thinking it may be best to leave out the specifics entirely and just describe the feat in non-game terms. I recognize the utility in being able to find that info here, but it's treading into dangerous territory. (There's got to be a line somewhere. Obviously in a lawyer-free world, the most useful resource for the users of Mistipedia would be a full annotated online copy of all the source material, but we obviously can't do that. Splitting the material onto different pages for each feat doesn't change that, neither does scrambling the order of the sentence.) I'm going to give a try for an edit myself. This is about as much detail as I'm willing to host. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			You might want to (or might not want to) add a link to the Ravenloft Feat pdf from the FoS site.[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 14:35, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T14:35:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:35, 8 April 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	Sufficiently muddled, quoted and referenced now?[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		Sufficiently muddled, quoted and referenced now?[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			<nowiki>:)</nowiki> I dunno... I'm thinking it may be best to leave out the specifics entirely and just describe the feat in non-game terms. I recognize the utility in being able to find that info here, but it's treading into dangerous territory. (There's got to be a line somewhere. Obviously in a lawyer-free world, the most useful resource for the users of Mistipedia would be a full annotated online copy of all the source material, but we obviously can't do that. Splitting the material onto different pages for each feat doesn't change that, neither does scrambling the order of the sentence.) I'm going to give a try for an edit myself. This is about as much detail as I'm willing to host. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 14:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cure at 04:00, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T04:00:47Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:00, 7 April 2010
Line 2:		Line 2:

	I agree. We don't want to reproduce directly any copyrighted content, especially rules. While I appreciate the utility of having this here, I worry about the legality. I'd prefer a more vague description of the feat and a pointer to where one can find it. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		I agree. We don't want to reproduce directly any copyrighted content, especially rules. While I appreciate the utility of having this here, I worry about the legality. I'd prefer a more vague description of the feat and a pointer to where one can find it. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			Sufficiently muddled, quoted and referenced now?[[User:Cure\|Cure]] 04:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gonzoron at 03:13, 8 April 2010

2010-04-08T03:13:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:13, 7 April 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Doesn't this violate the rules as far as game content? [[User:DeepShadow\|DeepShadow]] 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)		Doesn't this violate the rules as far as game content? [[User:DeepShadow\|DeepShadow]] 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

			I agree. We don't want to reproduce directly any copyrighted content, especially rules. While I appreciate the utility of having this here, I worry about the legality. I'd prefer a more vague description of the feat and a pointer to where one can find it. -- [[User:Gonzoron\|Gonzoron]] 03:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

DeepShadow: Created page with 'Doesn't this violate the rules as far as game content? ~~~~'

2010-04-08T00:36:30Z

Created page with 'Doesn't this violate the rules as far as game content? ~~~~'

New page

Doesn't this violate the rules as far as game content? [[User:DeepShadow|DeepShadow]] 00:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)