This seems like a good time to explain some things.
To begin with, this is a
good situation. It exemplifies OSS being a project, not a group. Though Doc (
@vlainz) insists on making 'parties' for some reason, which I don't see the point of; eg. although there are jokes about this version being done by two people, the TL was only done once. And that's the value of OSS. All the pieces are (
should be)
publicly available, so anybody can pick them up and redo any piece, to create a better version.
I will briefly comment on the quality of these two: In my opinion, they both have some good and bad. When I was present for the PR as it was going on, I was advocating for including all of the ability text, as it appears in the other version; while I prefer the fonts and sfx of this version. And some other things I forgot to comment on.
Now,
sniping and OSS.
OSS has a policy on sniping that boils down to "we don't care about it". Really, it doesn't even need it, since that can be derived from the principles and vision of the project, which are
technically publicly available; in that all you need is to view it is a Discord account*. In my opinion, that's insufficiently publicly available, and probably I'll dedicate a piece of my website to that stuff once it's finalised. By which I mean "I actually get thumbs-up from the people that are currently active"; because they'll all be subject to change if the active members decide they need to.
The policy, in a bit more detail, is as such: If another group want to release something that OSS is working on first, go ahead. That's perfectly fine. If anybody still wants to finish the OSS version and release it after that, that's their choice. If OSS releases something before another group that's working on it... Well, that's weird. That shouldn't happen. OSS, on the whole, should be slower than cohesive groups. But if it does happen, maybe go send a recruitment notice to everyone listed on the credits page. That seems like the best solution.
But a footnote on sniping: While it's true that this is a case where two groups of people who could - and probably should - have collaborated instead chose to compete, I'd argue... They're not really. Or, they don't have to be.
This is a personal view that OSS kinda inherits by definition: I don't see a problem with two releases for everything. One quick 'n' dirty, so the people who want things fast get it, one slow and sweet, for people who pick it up later. Or even more than that, if you want. Some things may be objectively better or worse than others, and ok, at that point it's wasted effort, but where there are reasons for both to exist... Why not let them?
*Technically not true? Discord supports using the service without a registered account, but I'm not sure if the OSS server permits it - apparently yes - and it's something of a weird edge case that, whenever I tinker with the Discord API, I prefer to not have to encounter. (I say tinker because
I write shitposts not
bots.)
Oh, and I'll comment on the "PPT in OSS" thing: As much as I rag on Doc for using Microsoft software, one of the principles of OSS is that people should be free to pick their own tools for work, if they so desire. If somebody provides the redraw in, idk, .tiff format, they're welcome to do that. Maybe nobody else will want to use it, so it'll stall until somebody provides in a different format. This is perfectly fine.
