Controversial posts made by Balerion

@Alzie I think what you mean is that we've sent cease and desists on other occasions not related to BoD? Which is true. We have never sent a cease and desist regarding our game or any other ASoIaF game, but yes, we have sent DMCAs regarding copyrighted content that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with BoD.

That is a legal right one has. Exercising a legal right is neither saintly nor sinful.

@il-volpe We'd very happily cross-promote other games based on GRRM's intellectual property, provided they were authorized by GRRM to do so, of course. We'd suggest games seeking that approval avoid having administrators who participate in forums dedicated to trolling and mocking GRRM, though, as it would probably prejudice him against approval.

@icanbeyourmuse I can't comment on your specific situation as I don't know who you were applying for and what the issues were. However, strictly speaking, there are not multiple applications; there's an application and a CharGen process. After requesting a character, players are asked to email an application. Precisely what that entails depends on the the character, but for many it is this one. Perhaps it is a bit of a misnomer to even call this an application as it is extremely rare for anyone to be denied at this stage unless their concept is completely unthematic. Once approved, the player starts the CharGen, and it is absolutely true that its an involved process, in part because the idea is to create a character that can remain on the roster and easily be picked up by someone else if the original player vacates the role. That is why we also provide pre-CGed characters, because we do recognise that the effort involved is beyond what many players are comfortable with.

@il-volpe Feel free to be annoyed, just as we feel free to consider it disrespectful to someone we regard as a friend to go against his wishes. As for banning players, I do not believe we have had to do that. But yes, our policy is that it is a bannable offence to discuss, link or in any other way promote fan-fiction or unapproved games, if one persists in doing so after being informed of our policy on the matter.

I am not sure why you have the impression that we somehow endorse other types of fan-created games. We do not allow play-by-post games on the forum and while we use Second Life ourselves, we do not roleplay there, nor do we in any way promote any of the ASoIaF/GoT roleplay sims.

Finally, for the record, to suggest that I am solely responsible for all or even the majority of the work on Westeros.org, the World of Ice and Fire or anything else that we're involved in is a very mistaken position to hold.

@jeshin Just to clarify, before someone reads too much into what you wrote, we have never suggested that we have the authority to send cease and desists to any other game (and we have never attempted to do so.)

@Rook Those rules are part of our agreement with GRRM and one of the reasons we were able to obtain his approval. There are limitations to playing with someone else's IP when you try to respect their wishes.

@Miss-Demeanor To begin with, I am not sure whether you are allowed to use that particular TT in that way. My understanding is that some (many?) TT companies prohibit their rules to be encoded into an on-line platform as it allows for a larger number of players to use the game without needing to own their books. Furthermore, when he sold the license to a table-top company, I strongly suspect that GRRM imagined the usual sort of usage of a TT, which involves a more limited audience and not a permanent on-line presence. That is why he has made a distinction between MU*s and TTs.

As for your other comment, see my response to Rook. We do not claim ownership for our own sake, we claim that it belongs to the game which ultimately belongs to GRRM as an authorized derivative work of his IP. I should also add that since all our characters are drawn from the family trees that we created, they are all our characters from start to finish.

@Miss-Demeanor said:

TLDR; Saying 'man this bugs me/creeps me out/is annoying' is NOT the same as saying 'why are these people doing this, they need to stop right now, I never gave my permission for this'.

No, it isn't the same. But what you are refusing to acknowledge is our right to not want to endorse something that a friend of ours is uncomfortable with. It is more than enough for us that GRRM has expressed discomfort with unauthorized use of his IP.

As to "proof", we don't make a habit of recording conversations with anyone, much less a friend. There are emails, yes, some of which we have been able to share, but it is quite clear that people will continue to interpret those as they please. As far as we are concerned, they fully support my above statement regarding GRRM's discomfort and disapproval of unauthorized games, and we feel that anyone who is a reasonable person would agree on this interpretation of his position.

Again, nothing has been said by us about shutting down any unauthorized games, what we have discussed is the fact that we disallow the promotion of such games on our website and our game. Those are two very different things which somehow are treated as one and the same here.

@il-volpe said:

@Balerion said:

But the gaming stuff? It arouses ire because it's hostile to the gaming community. BoD appears to use it to attempt to force players who are interested in the world to have no choice but to play BoD, or be shamed, told they're disrespecting a beloved author if they play elsewhere.

Regardless of your feelings on the matter, GRRM did make it plain that he does not like people running on-line, fan-run games (such as MU*s) without his permission. Trying to argue that he must have changed his mind since then feels quite self-serving to me, a way of avoiding feeling as if you are doing something of which he disapproves.

Indeed. But the idea that he approves table-top games, but for MUSHes it's a case-by-case basis is weird. Sure, being consulted is nice when you have the time for it, but saying he condemns those he has not been consulted about, well, it once again implies either idiocy or a failure to understand that a MUSH is a role-playing game, like any other.

How is that weird? He sold the table-top rights to a specific company. Any issues with how the table-top game is being used would fall to the table-top company to deal with. Since he has not sold the MUSH rights, it is not strange that his approval would remain a case-by-case matter when it comes to such games.

It may be a game like any other, but he has sold several different licenses for different types of games, so it is not as if all game licenses are just treated as a single entity.

As for yours, it fails to answer the real question: Does he recognize that a MUSH is fundamentally similar to the table-top games which he does approve, and that, consequently, the player-GM relationship is fundamental to the game being worth playing, and if so does he really want to force all MU* gamers to play with you guys or not at all?

I am quite sure he recognises that it is similar. However, it is not a matter of him wanting to force anyone to do anything, it is a matter of what he is comfortable with and respecting that. We had to provide quite a lot of reassurances regarding how we would treat his property before he gave his approval. From our interactions with him in this matter, he would like to know who it is who runs a game based on his IP and how they are doing it. Indeed, since you bring up the game licenses he has sold, he initially took a lot of interest in making sure the material stayed as true as possible to his setting. These days, he does not have the time for it, but he has knowledgeable assistants that handle this for him.

Yep. Some of that clearly had to do with him not being entirely clear on what a MUSH really is. Though at the time, it was also far more relevant -- issues of rights exclusivity were still in play. Now, not at all.

I am not sure how this comment is relevant all? Rights exclusivity have not been discussed in any way in regards to MU*s, only in regards to other types of games, and again, each type of game is different as far as licenses are concerned.

The issue being discussed is approval and the fact that, yes, GRRM wants people to obtain approval for him before running a game (that does not fall under any of the licenses he has sold; those games can of course be used in whatever way their licenses allow). Again, trying to pretend otherwise just to not have to feel bad about going against his wishes is self-serving and nothing else.

As it stands, we are the only authorized MU*, and we feel that is very relevant information to provide for those who care about such things.

@Rook The desc (as with most of ours) is posted on our personal website: http://www.hippoiathanatoi.com/Virtually/Characters/Entry/Angharad

@il-volpe said:

But I wish they'd stop pretending that GRRM forbids all MUSHes but theirs.

Our position is and has always been that, based on GRRM's statements to us and others, he is opposed to games being run without permission from him. One example of such a statement can be found in this chat log from Otherspace, where he stated this when informed about a Windhaven MUD:

"George says, "Hmmpf... I wish they had asked permission, at least, the way Elio and Linda did before beginning their Seven Kingdoms MUSH."

If someone asks him and obtains permission, then all is well. If they do not, our policy is the same as it is on fan-fiction: we feel it is disrespectful to GRRM's wishes and under no circumstances do we allow it to be discussed or referenced anywhere on Westeros.org.

As far as we are aware, we remain the only MU* with GRRM's permission. Our FAQ quotes the relevant emails, including one where he notes that when others asked him for permission, he'd direct them to our game as the only authorized one. For those who feel like we do about respecting an author's wishes, we feel it is important information to give when we advertise the game.