Quote from: Zalman on February 05, 2024, 10:41:50 AM
And yeah, it's Justin's concept. It's Justin's "invention". It always has been. The fact that he tried to honor Jaquays as being a prime example of his own conception is apparently lost on some people.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic here or not.

I propose a test - which of his successfully published dungeons implemented this original concept before anyone else did?

Quote from: Grognard GM on February 05, 2024, 11:16:24 AM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 05, 2024, 11:14:08 AM
The Alexandrian is a self-avowed Transphobe who steals from the dead. Everyone should accuse him of that now, forever.

Could you share some of his Transphobic statements?

Sure. He's erasing the name of a Transgender person (Jacquays) for his own profit. That claim is much stronger than his claim that I'm a "self-avowed white supremacist" which is based on nothing but the fact that he claimed that anti-woke "OSR gatekeepers" are all White Supremacists and I said that was untrue.

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
Sure. He's erasing the name of a Transgender person (Jacquays) for his own profit. That claim is much stronger than his claim that I'm a "self-avowed white supremacist" which is based on nothing but the fact that he claimed that anti-woke "OSR gatekeepers" are all White Supremacists and I said that was untrue.

I gotta hand it to you, this is hilariously brilliant.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2024, 09:16:46 AM
He honored a person and was shit on for it.

Nah, he saw the chance to rename a term after himself, and he took it.  He could have changed the name to something having nothing to do with a person's name, and no one would have batted an eye (except the trans-crazies... but you should always ignore their fake eyelash waving).  He didn't.  He named it after himself and then erased any evidence of the previous usage.  That's shady.  Period.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 05, 2024, 08:33:38 PM
Nah, he saw the chance to rename a term after himself, and he took it.  He could have changed the name to something having nothing to do with a person's name, and no one would have batted an eye (except the trans-crazies... but you should always ignore their fake eyelash waving).  He didn't.  He named it after himself and then erased any evidence of the previous usage.  That's shady.  Period.

It does look shady. I'm curious if there's merit to the "legal question" he mentioned, or if it's bluster. The passive voice usage doesn't help ("it was determined..." determined by who?) And why not use a neutral term, as you suggest? Certainly that wouldn't have raised any legal issues. Why not a stronger statement, something like "On the advice of my lawyer, I changed it to 'xandering' for <insert legal reason>?"

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 05, 2024, 04:02:41 PM
That claim is much stronger than his claim that I'm a "self-avowed white supremacist"

Do they know what "self-avowed" means?  Like I don't even think Adolf Hitler was a self-avowed white supremacist, technically. Why even use that term? Why pick something that is superlative and wrong?

I did once get an account banned from some shit subreddit by pointing this out though (in that case Alexander Macris was the "self avowed white supremacist"), so maybe it's fine to call people "self avowed white supremacists" if you can just erase anyone pointing out that this is not at all true.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 05, 2024, 10:17:14 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 05, 2024, 08:33:38 PM
Nah, he saw the chance to rename a term after himself, and he took it.  He could have changed the name to something having nothing to do with a person's name, and no one would have batted an eye (except the trans-crazies... but you should always ignore their fake eyelash waving).  He didn't.  He named it after himself and then erased any evidence of the previous usage.  That's shady.  Period.

It does look shady. I'm curious if there's merit to the "legal question" he mentioned, or if it's bluster. The passive voice usage doesn't help ("it was determined..." determined by who?) And why not use a neutral term, as you suggest? Certainly that wouldn't have raised any legal issues. Why not a stronger statement, something like "On the advice of my lawyer, I changed it to 'xandering' for <insert legal reason>?"

It was pure deflection.  I discussed this a bit up-thread, but your questions basically answer themselves.

The legal issues have to fall along two lines, criminal and civil.  The former is absurd, so we must be focusing on the latter then.  Under the civil umbrella there are only a handful of risks imaginable, so let's think those through:

A) Libel.  Pretty clearly not the case here and this would be collosally difficult to demonstrate due to the praising voice used.

B) Breach of Contract.  Seems none existed.

C) Intellectual Property/Copyright.  Doesn't seem applicable.  Jaquays never published anything on the topic and tacitly agreed to the use of the original name pending adding the 's' back to the spelling.

D) Tort.  Again I don't see how.  What damages could the Jaquays estate show that wouldn't still apply under a new name?

Xanderpants is blowing smoke once again, IMO.

Quote from: mcbobbo on February 06, 2024, 12:18:59 AM

Quote from: Aglondir on February 05, 2024, 10:17:14 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 05, 2024, 08:33:38 PM
Nah, he saw the chance to rename a term after himself, and he took it.  He could have changed the name to something having nothing to do with a person's name, and no one would have batted an eye (except the trans-crazies... but you should always ignore their fake eyelash waving).  He didn't.  He named it after himself and then erased any evidence of the previous usage.  That's shady.  Period.

It does look shady. I'm curious if there's merit to the "legal question" he mentioned, or if it's bluster. The passive voice usage doesn't help ("it was determined..." determined by who?) And why not use a neutral term, as you suggest? Certainly that wouldn't have raised any legal issues. Why not a stronger statement, something like "On the advice of my lawyer, I changed it to 'xandering' for <insert legal reason>?"

It was pure deflection.  I discussed this a bit up-thread, but your questions basically answer themselves.

The legal issues have to fall along two lines, criminal and civil.  The former is absurd, so we must be focusing on the latter then.  Under the civil umbrella there are only a handful of risks imaginable, so let's think those through:

A) Libel.  Pretty clearly not the case here and this would be collosally difficult to demonstrate due to the praising voice used.

B) Breach of Contract.  Seems none existed.

C) Intellectual Property/Copyright.  Doesn't seem applicable.  Jaquays never published anything on the topic and tacitly agreed to the use of the original name pending adding the 's' back to the spelling.

D) Tort.  Again I don't see how.  What damages could the Jaquays estate show that wouldn't still apply under a new name?

Xanderpants is blowing smoke once again, IMO.

Thanks, great analysis. I must have missed it up-thread.

Quote from: mcbobbo on February 06, 2024, 12:18:59 AM
C) Intellectual Property/Copyright.  Doesn't seem applicable.  Jaquays never published anything on the topic and tacitly agreed to the use of the original name pending adding the 's' back to the spelling.

Trademark is quite possible. Jaquays is an uncommon name that is tied to certain types of products. The name arguably identifies a source of goods in this niche market.

Granting permission is best done in writing and with consideration, even the token $10 amount.

I'm not a lawyer but I've worked with IP lawyers.

During the editing process, things get flagged for all sorts of reasons, defamation, fact checking, IP, etc etc.

The guys's book is in mainstream stores. I saw several copies at an airport bookstore.

Jaquays could not have had much money given the GoFundMe. Medical bills are expensive.

So I'd wager that IP risk was in the top 2 reasons to change the name of it. 

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 06, 2024, 12:57:41 AM

Quote from: mcbobbo on February 06, 2024, 12:18:59 AM
C) Intellectual Property/Copyright.  Doesn't seem applicable.  Jaquays never published anything on the topic and tacitly agreed to the use of the original name pending adding the 's' back to the spelling.

Trademark is quite possible. Jaquays is an uncommon name that is tied to certain types of products. The name arguably identifies a source of goods in this niche market.

Good point.

Does a name need to be registered for protection?  I know Jaquays could always use it without documentation, but can they prevent others without registering and defending it as a mark?

Common law trademark exists. Use the mark in commerce and you start accruing rights. I think it varies state to state. Registration confers stronger rights I believe. No idea if any of it works posthumously. However, IP can be transferred to heirs.

I don't think registration is essential but it gets you more easily assertable rights.

I suspect the name was cut from the books to avoid future connections and protests and such that would effect sales.
However, naming it Xandering (instead of non-linear design) turned a probably wise move into a stupid one.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 06, 2024, 10:27:51 AM
I suspect the name was cut from the books to avoid future connections and protests and such that would effect sales.
However, naming it Xandering (instead of non-linear design) turned a probably wise move into a stupid one.

Agree.  Putting a non-person label on it and pointing to examples would have been the way to go.

Quote from: mcbobbo on February 06, 2024, 10:31:06 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 06, 2024, 10:27:51 AM
I suspect the name was cut from the books to avoid future connections and protests and such that would effect sales.
However, naming it Xandering (instead of non-linear design) turned a probably wise move into a stupid one.

Agree.  Putting a non-person label on it and pointing to examples would have been the way to go.

Yeah. The term "Xandering" is dumb and self-aggrandizing, and a non-person label would have been better.

On the other hand, using a dumb term isn't "theft" nor is it transphobic. Alexander didn't plagiarize anyone, and he correctly credited the dungeon designs that were inspiration for his essay. Lots of people (myself among them) had never known about Jaquays until Alexander promoted their designs through his posts.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2024, 02:46:45 PM

Quote from: mcbobbo on February 06, 2024, 10:31:06 AM

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 06, 2024, 10:27:51 AM
I suspect the name was cut from the books to avoid future connections and protests and such that would effect sales.
However, naming it Xandering (instead of non-linear design) turned a probably wise move into a stupid one.

Agree.  Putting a non-person label on it and pointing to examples would have been the way to go.

Yeah. The term "Xandering" is dumb and self-aggrandizing, and a non-person label would have been better.

On the other hand, using a dumb term isn't "theft" nor is it transphobic. Alexander didn't plagiarize anyone, and he correctly credited the dungeon designs that were inspiration for his essay. Lots of people (myself among them) had never known about Jaquays until Alexander promoted their designs through his posts.

Weren't you one of those who contemporaneously owned DMGR1 back in the day?  I thought we were fellow devotees...