From here on in, let it be known:

If you post links to a site where a poster cannot view the content of the article or material you are linking to without being a member (ie. D&D Insider, Storygames, RPG.net Tangency, etc) you MUST cut-and-paste the material you are referring to, or give a DETAILED description of the article along with "fair use" quotes of the most relevant parts, if its copyrighted material.

Otherwise, if all you post is some kind of vague phrase or headline-grabbing statement plus the link, your thread WILL BE CLOSED.

RPGPundit

I dunno, can´t this get you into trouble?

Seems a bit over-the-top to me. Isn't the entire internet based on the idea of clicking on links to get information?

I agree with the RPGnut. I have no desire to register at Wotc.

I'm not going to keep a tally of what sites need to be logged into in order to view their content.  I pretty much register everywhere and check the "Remember Me" box so I don't usually remember if a site needs you to be registered to view its content.  If its an issue for someone they can either let me know in the thread and I'll oblige with the appropriate quotes, or they can register themselves, or they can stop getting banned from everywhere.

Is there no wizards bugmenot account or something?

Quote from: SettembriniI dunno, can´t this get you into trouble?

Its fair use.  I'm not suggesting people post the whole fucking board.

I'm saying don't do this:

QuoteTitle: D&D is going bankrupt!

Hey guys, what do you think about this: (insert link to register-only thing here)

Post a thread with absolutely NO description of what you're talking about, along with a link to a page you have to be a subscribed member of to read, along with some kind of tidbit of info on your title.

Both your recent thread and WArthurs were like that. Its deeply annoying to anyone who isn't signed up at Wizards, at least I'd imagine it would be; just like it'd be annoying to me if someone did something similar linking to Storygames where I'm not registered.

Be courteous enough to AT LEAST give some kind of an detailed explanation of what you're talking about.

RPGPundit

Why not just have it so that people who don't want to go through 45 seconds worth of effort are left in the dark? And people who have been banned elsewhere have to toil under the repercussions of their past actions?

You know, the way the internet has worked (successfully) ever since people first started making cross-forum posts.

45 seconds of effort- you mean like cutting and pasting?

Quote from: James McMurrayWhy not just have it so that people who don't want to go through 45 seconds worth of effort are left in the dark? And people who have been banned elsewhere have to toil under the repercussions of their past actions?

No, that's messed up.

I agree with Pundit in spirit, but it's burdensome to have to check beforehand to see if your link is to an open site or to a closed site, or a closed section of a mostly-open site. So if somebody posts a link I'd hope that they'd be given a chance to add a quote after someone else points out that it's not easily available. And I would include "having to register" as "not easily available".

QuoteYou know, the way the internet has worked (successfully) ever since people first started making cross-forum posts.

You can't depend on tradition and precedent. Everything used to be open, back in the day; closed forums do cause problems; it's not the job of one forum (theRPGsite) to be an appendage of some other forum. If you want to discuss something that's on a closed forum, either discuss it there or introduce it as a wholly separate discussion here.

EDIT: But why is this in Roleplaying games instead of Help Desk?

Be easier if a certain site just made Tangency "open" and viewable all the time.

 Got a friend who would LOVE to see the GenCon pictures thread - he can't....because its in Tangency.
 Which is massively stupid on their part.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Elliot WilenNo, that's messed up.

I agree with Pundit in spirit, but it's burdensome to have to check beforehand to see if your link is to an open site or to a closed site, or a closed section of a mostly-open site. So if somebody posts a link I'd hope that they'd be given a chance to add a quote after someone else points out that it's not easily available. And I would include "having to register" as "not easily available".

I'm not saying check beforehand. I'm saying, basically, "fuck 'em if they want to read about D&D but can't be troubled to sign up at the website that's being used for D&D news." Likewise, if they want to learn about some random new Story Games discussion, it makes sense that they would be best serevd by registering at Story Games. Why should a rule be put in place that forces posters to make up for the laziness of readers?

i'm with pundit and aos on this one.  i'm not registered at wizards, and don't plan on doing so.  if you want to share news about it, then just copy/paste it.  takes 2 seconds to do.

Weird, I could swear I never registered on the WOTC site for anything. I think I'm logged since the day of the 4E announcement, when they automatically logged you in for those Dungeon and Dragon sections.

Quote from: RPGPunditFrom here on in, let it be known:

If you post links to a site where a poster cannot view the content of the article or material you are linking to without being a member (ie. D&D Insider, Storygames, RPG.net Tangency, etc) you MUST cut-and-paste the material you are referring to, or give a DETAILED description of the article along with "fair use" quotes of the most relevant parts, if its copyrighted material.

Otherwise, if all you post is some kind of vague phrase or headline-grabbing statement plus the link, your thread WILL BE CLOSED.

Fair enough - I was guilty of that earlier today because I forgot that all the 4E preview material on wizards.com is registered people only.

For the benefit of people making similar threads: this page on ENWorld seems to be updated very regularly with details of pretty much every new thing Wizards puts out officially (and unofficially) relating to 4E. I would suggest that copy-pasting the relevant segment from that page relating to the topic under discussion would serve as a useful minimum when raising issues related to Wizards-based pages.