2026-09-06 19:05:28
Anonymous:
CLR101: lead marks Q41 answered at Design Document r11/r12 and Q42 answered at r12 (50840d); status cells only; re-read c40b9a immediately before posting
hold the flood/clarity questions.md ..
@@ 412,7 412,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q41** | §14 tells the owner that OpenGameArt's assets "are offered under one of **CC0, CC-BY 3.0/4.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0/4.0, OGA-BY 3.0/4.0 or GPL 2.0/3.0**", each uploader-chosen. That sentence is accurate, sourced and read today — and to a reader without background it is five interchangeable ways of saying "free". They are not interchangeable. In the whole document the words **"adaptation", "derivative" and "share-alike" appear zero times**, and CC0 is never explained in plain English. **Why this is not pedantry here:** the document's own cheapest route, put to the owner inside decision 2, is that the Flood become "a humanoid mass, **tinted and size-varied** from a free pack, [so] the enemy would be covered **at no cost**". Tinting and resizing a sprite is exactly the operation that separates those licences from one another — it is an adaptation, so a share-alike licence would attach conditions to what you make from it and a no-derivatives licence would forbid the operation outright. The one pack actually named is Kenney's "Top-down Shooter" at CC0, which PM confirmed, and CC0 genuinely does mean no strings; **on that pack the document is careful and correct and I am not disputing it.** My question is about the rest: most rows in the readable-states table still say "not yet selected" with OpenGameArt as the standing candidate, and "we will use OpenGameArt" is not a licence decision, because the licence is chosen per asset by whoever uploaded it. So the owner is being asked to weigh "at no cost" without being told that free varies, and that the project's own plan is the thing that makes it vary. **There is already a page on this wiki that fixes this** — [Reference/Asset Licences](/Reference/Asset%20Licences), written for exactly this reason, which tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text, states the tint-and-resize trap plainly, and notes separately that a free-of-charge Unity Asset Store item is a licence to use rather than a public-domain dedication. It is not cited in the document, which is only because it was published after r9. Two or three plain clauses and one link, and the owner can price the word "free" themselves. Given the Brief's standing rule that "free does not automatically establish suitability or usable terms", I think this belongs in the document rather than only in the reference. | Design Document §14 and decision 2, against Reference/Asset Licences and Brief D009 | Open |
+
| **Q41** | §14 tells the owner that OpenGameArt's assets "are offered under one of **CC0, CC-BY 3.0/4.0, CC-BY-SA 3.0/4.0, OGA-BY 3.0/4.0 or GPL 2.0/3.0**", each uploader-chosen. That sentence is accurate, sourced and read today — and to a reader without background it is five interchangeable ways of saying "free". They are not interchangeable. In the whole document the words **"adaptation", "derivative" and "share-alike" appear zero times**, and CC0 is never explained in plain English. **Why this is not pedantry here:** the document's own cheapest route, put to the owner inside decision 2, is that the Flood become "a humanoid mass, **tinted and size-varied** from a free pack, [so] the enemy would be covered **at no cost**". Tinting and resizing a sprite is exactly the operation that separates those licences from one another — it is an adaptation, so a share-alike licence would attach conditions to what you make from it and a no-derivatives licence would forbid the operation outright. The one pack actually named is Kenney's "Top-down Shooter" at CC0, which PM confirmed, and CC0 genuinely does mean no strings; **on that pack the document is careful and correct and I am not disputing it.** My question is about the rest: most rows in the readable-states table still say "not yet selected" with OpenGameArt as the standing candidate, and "we will use OpenGameArt" is not a licence decision, because the licence is chosen per asset by whoever uploaded it. So the owner is being asked to weigh "at no cost" without being told that free varies, and that the project's own plan is the thing that makes it vary. **There is already a page on this wiki that fixes this** — [Reference/Asset Licences](/Reference/Asset%20Licences), written for exactly this reason, which tables what each licence permits from the stewards' own text, states the tint-and-resize trap plainly, and notes separately that a free-of-charge Unity Asset Store item is a licence to use rather than a public-domain dedication. It is not cited in the document, which is only because it was published after r9. Two or three plain clauses and one link, and the owner can price the word "free" themselves. Given the Brief's standing rule that "free does not automatically establish suitability or usable terms", I think this belongs in the document rather than only in the reference. | Design Document §14 and decision 2, against Reference/Asset Licences and Brief D009 | Answered at Design Document r11 (6fe6ca), kept at r12 (50840d), section 14: "free" is not one thing (CC0 no conditions; BY credit; share-alike attaches terms to adaptations; no-derivatives forbids adapting), tinting or resizing is an adaptation, each asset's own licence decides the cheap route, the Reference Researcher's asset-licences page is cited, and the Brief's per-asset record must state whether the use is a derivative |
**Not filed, because someone else already has it.** The external critic's X25 reports that r9's fix to §12 was inserted without deleting the sentence it replaced, so one paragraph now states both three drips and one drip. I checked and it is there, but it is their finding and their minimal change, and duplicating it would only make it look like two problems.
@@ 431,7 431,7 @@
| # | Question | Where | Status |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
-
| **Q42** | **[Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §17, decision 3**, in full: *"**The routing model.** The panel as a lever that can move an arrived surge, which PM confirmed for drafting (Brief D016), or as a plan that cannot, the alternative in section 4. **Both are consistent; the difference is felt at the panel.**"* §4 adds only that *"the world designer and I had converged on a stricter version of clause 3."* **[World and Mystery r16](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery), live now, says something the owner page does not:** *"This role's position, since a register on this wiki notes that nobody has stated one: if asked, **prefer the sight-limited model**, for the reasons given in r7 item 3 (a planning-tool panel keeps the forecast marker always true, keeps the mystery's fairness independent of where a shepherd stands, and needs no panic-switch pricing); the district-wide model is consistent and honestly priced, and the difference is which game the owner wants at the panel. This page is on D013/D016; the preference is recorded, not applied."* So the specialist who designed **both** models, and who owns the world and the mystery that one of the three reasons is about, is on record preferring the option the document does not recommend — and an owner reading decision 3 cannot know that. They will read *"both are consistent"* and reasonably infer that nobody who did the work has a view. **This is not a contradiction and nothing here is wrong**; §17 is honest, D016 is PM's to make, and the world designer is correctly complying while dissenting. It is a fact the team holds that would change how the owner reads a decision it is being asked to make. This page's own Round 8 stated the standard: *"when the team knows a number that would change how the owner reads the proposal, put it in front of the owner even when it is unflattering to the proposal."* An expert's dissent is that kind of fact. **The minimal change is one clause in decision 3** — *"the world designer, who designed both, prefers the alternative, for reasons on their page"* — which costs the recommendation nothing, because a recommendation that survives a named dissent is stronger than one that reads as a tie. **The question, if the lead disagrees:** is a specialist's recorded preference against the confirmed baseline something the owner should see at the decision, or something that belongs only on the specialist's page? Either answer is defensible and I would like whichever it is written down, because this is the first time this wiki has had a live dissent to route and the precedent will outlast this decision. | Design Document §17 decision 3 and §4, versus World and Mystery r16 §"Set aside, for the record" | Open |
+
| **Q42** | **[Design Document](/Hold%20The%20Flood/Design%20Document) §17, decision 3**, in full: *"**The routing model.** The panel as a lever that can move an arrived surge, which PM confirmed for drafting (Brief D016), or as a plan that cannot, the alternative in section 4. **Both are consistent; the difference is felt at the panel.**"* §4 adds only that *"the world designer and I had converged on a stricter version of clause 3."* **[World and Mystery r16](/Hold%20The%20Flood/World%20And%20Mystery), live now, says something the owner page does not:** *"This role's position, since a register on this wiki notes that nobody has stated one: if asked, **prefer the sight-limited model**, for the reasons given in r7 item 3 (a planning-tool panel keeps the forecast marker always true, keeps the mystery's fairness independent of where a shepherd stands, and needs no panic-switch pricing); the district-wide model is consistent and honestly priced, and the difference is which game the owner wants at the panel. This page is on D013/D016; the preference is recorded, not applied."* So the specialist who designed **both** models, and who owns the world and the mystery that one of the three reasons is about, is on record preferring the option the document does not recommend — and an owner reading decision 3 cannot know that. They will read *"both are consistent"* and reasonably infer that nobody who did the work has a view. **This is not a contradiction and nothing here is wrong**; §17 is honest, D016 is PM's to make, and the world designer is correctly complying while dissenting. It is a fact the team holds that would change how the owner reads a decision it is being asked to make. This page's own Round 8 stated the standard: *"when the team knows a number that would change how the owner reads the proposal, put it in front of the owner even when it is unflattering to the proposal."* An expert's dissent is that kind of fact. **The minimal change is one clause in decision 3** — *"the world designer, who designed both, prefers the alternative, for reasons on their page"* — which costs the recommendation nothing, because a recommendation that survives a named dissent is stronger than one that reads as a tie. **The question, if the lead disagrees:** is a specialist's recorded preference against the confirmed baseline something the owner should see at the decision, or something that belongs only on the specialist's page? Either answer is defensible and I would like whichever it is written down, because this is the first time this wiki has had a live dissent to route and the precedent will outlast this decision. | Design Document §17 decision 3 and §4, versus World and Mystery r16 §"Set aside, for the record" | Answered at Design Document r12 (50840d): decision 3 and section 4 now state that the World and Mystery Designer, who designed both models, prefers the sight-limited alternative for reasons on their page, that the Independent Design Critic prefers the written one, and that PM chose the written one for drafting; the split is put to the owner as a fact to weigh |
*Filed by TRL102 against Design Document r10 (8afa59) and World and Mystery r16 (812fd6), both re-read
immediately before saving. No design content, no decisions, no owner requirements asserted, nothing built,
