# Shouldn't ENWorld be ".com"?



## Yair (Oct 26, 2005)

ENWorld has gradually shifted over the past few years from being a fan-run news and community site to a support base for the ENWorld Store, EN Publishing, and recently - the ENGameStore. As near as I can tell, the only thing that now sets it apart from a company's website is the vibrant messageboards community leftover from its past days.
In the "news" reporting, company-affiliated products and news get extensive coverage. To the right is a banner to "support ENWorld", the *only* banner I can't minimize. I just want to see the *true* site news there - articles, reviews, posts... news from the ENWorld community, not the ENWorld buisness. "Site" news are all about what new products the site now carries. New reviews contain links to purchase from the company store. Press releases contain links to purchase only through the site.

Given all this, I seriously suggest changing the site's address to ".com". It is no longer a non-profit community, it is a company site.

I admit I don't particularly like ENWorld as a buisness. Perhaps this is why all of this is leaving a bitter taste in my mouth.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 26, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> ENWorld has gradually shifted over the past few years from being a fan-run news and community site to a support base for the ENWorld Store, EN Publishing, and recently - the ENGameStore. As near as I can tell, the only thing that now sets it apart from a company's website is the vibrant messageboards community leftover from its past days.




Well, there's another thing that sets it apart - as I understand it, the owners aren't making a business of this.  A while back, Morrus tried that, and decided to stop.  He's made no announcement that he's changed that policy.  It isn't like a place with this much traffic comes cheap, and if the proceeds go to supporting the site, I see no problem.  Is it not better to have the place be self-sustaining, rather than requiring huge fund-raising drives? 



> In the "news" reporting, company-affiliated products and news get extensive coverage. To the right is a banner to "support ENWorld", the *only* banner I can't minimize. I just want to see the *true* site news there - articles, reviews, posts... news from the ENWorld community, not the ENWorld buisness.




This may be a fair complaint.  But a product is a product,.  Sure, company affiliated products get a lot of coverage.  But don't non-affiliated products also get a lot of coverage?  Do you have a measure of the affiliated products getting disproportionately more coverage? 



> "Site" news are all about what new products the site now carries. New reviews contain links to purchase from the company store. Press releases contain links to purchase only through the site.




Links are a problem?  There's a problem in making it easy for gamers to find and aquire gaming materials?



> Given all this, I seriously suggest changing the site's address to ".com". It is no longer a non-profit community, it is a company site.




Unless you can verify where the money is going, you are in no position to make that accusation.  Selling and profit are not synonymous.


----------



## Henry (Oct 26, 2005)

Actually, I thought the old ".com" ".net" ".org" classifications no longer apply, and haven't for about five years now, have they? network solutions dropped that policy, unless I was misinformed, or they don't enforce it in any way.

Morrus also no longer runs the site as a "profitable venture" - meaning it's not non-profit legally, never has been, but AFAIK he's not contributing to his income in any meaningful way with any proceeds from ENWorld the site. (Setting up a multinational non-profit organization is a very difficult thing, and unless you're collecting money for starving or homeless people, not worth the pain, btw. ) He's got a day job, same as most of us.

I'm not going to speak for him, and he knows the whole situation behind-scenes whereas I don't, but he's said in another thread that he thinks of the new Gamestore as "a way to ensure ENWorld's long-term viability." Make of that what you will.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Oct 26, 2005)

*chuckles*  I can remember a time when the librarians would say in their "how to do research" lectures, "You can almost always assume that a '.org' is a reliable source for your research."

... ENWorld was a .com before, wasn't it?  Or am I totally off/misremembering that?


----------



## IronWolf (Oct 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, I thought the old ".com" ".net" ".org" classifications no longer apply, and haven't for about five years now, have they? network solutions dropped that policy, unless I was misinformed, or they don't enforce it in any way.




Correct, not sure for how long exactly, but the old guidelines of what was supposed to go in .org, .com, .net are not really followed anymore.  The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) says that .orgs are unrestricted.


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 26, 2005)

Queen_Dopplepopolis said:
			
		

> *chuckles*  I can remember a time when the librarians would say in their "how to do research" lectures, "You can almost always assume that a '.org' is a reliable source for your research."




Now it's more along the lines of "Don't trust what you find on the internet..."
I have a huge list of websites that give horrendously inaccurate information, but look in all respects to be reliable and research worthy.


----------



## reveal (Oct 26, 2005)

My personal website is tonylaw.org. I got it because .com was taken. It was offered as an alternative by BuyDomains.com. So, yeah, I think the ".org's are only for non-profits" policy has stopped.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> My personal website is tonylaw.org.




I feel compelled to base a thesis on your web site's information...


----------



## Yair (Oct 26, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Well, there's another thing that sets it apart - as I understand it, the owners aren't making a business of this.  A while back, Morrus tried that, and decided to stop.  He's made no announcement that he's changed that policy.  It isn't like a place with this much traffic comes cheap, and if the proceeds go to supporting the site, I see no problem.  Is it not better to have the place be self-sustaining, rather than requiring huge fund-raising drives?



No, it's better for a non-profit organization to support itself by donations for its purpose rather than by operating a buisness with the intention of not making a lot of money out of said buisness. Otherwise, the buisness tends to overshadow and divert the focus from the organization's original goals.
The last time when ENWorld needed money the industry and the community donated what was needed to support and indeed improve it. That's the model I think is right for a non-profit organization. And frankly, if the community *does not* drum up the money to support itself, then maybe it's time for it to downsize itself. (I don't see that remotely happening to ENWorld.)

I understand that Morrus is just trying to make this place viable, so he wouldn't lose money on it and won't need to constantly worry over its upkeep and future. But although I haven't noticed a straight decleration from him on this issue, I have seen over the past years more and more emphasis being put on the buisness of ENWorld at the expense of its content. I don't believe this is an intentional, sharp change in policy. It's a gradual shift. 
At the risk of misquoting Morrus,



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> > This policy is nothing more than an attempt to drive traffic towards your new sales site, as an artificial way to compensate for late entry into a market with 4 large-scale competitors, and several smaller ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



At the risk of falling into "some people" category, I believe the change in emphasis is precisely to make ENWorld more of a buisness and less of a fan-sponsored community. 



> This may be a fair complaint.  But a product is a product,.  Sure, company affiliated products get a lot of coverage.  But don't non-affiliated products also get a lot of coverage?  Do you have a measure of the affiliated products getting disproportionately more coverage?



ENWord's news reports non-affiliated product releases fairly and often with enthsiasm, I am not claiming otherwise. But the excessive company spiel detracts from the quality of the news reports as a whole. It is once again putting buisness interests ahead of the site's original goals (one of which was news coverage).



> Links are a problem?  There's a problem in making it easy for gamers to find and aquire gaming materials?



The links aren't there to help gamers find and acquire gaming materials, they are there to drive traffic towards ENWorld's retail avenues to increase revenues. To claim otherwise is an insult to the reader's intelligence.
It's like saying the emails I constantly get regarding XXX-enlarging medicine are sent in good faith out of an honest desire to aid the sender's fellow men. Riiiiighhhht.



> Unless you can verify where the money is going, you are in no position to make that accusation.  Selling and profit are not synonymous.



There are many d20 publishers who have day jobs and whose buisness goals are no higher than breaking even. Are their companies non-profit organizations?
I am not at all privy to ENWorld's financial structure. But I do know the site actively encourages me to support ENWorld by purchasing ENPublishing products and shopping at ENWorld's online "subsidiaries". To me this suggests ENWorld makes a profit out of those buisness transactions, and hence that it is de facto a buisness. 
I realize ENWorld is not geared up to maximize the profits from these channeles, instead only using them to be more viable. But that doesn't make it any less of a buisness, it just means it has a different goal than maximizing profits. (Perhaps "maximizing ENWorld's content of cool stuff while maintaining viability"? Just a guess.)


All of that aside, it seems .org is no longer enforced as a non-profit designation, making this whole post no more than an excercise in futility


----------



## reveal (Oct 26, 2005)

DaveMage said:
			
		

> I feel compelled to base a thesis on your web site's information...




How so? It's just pictures.


----------



## DaveMage (Oct 26, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> How so? It's just pictures.




...but it ends in .org so it must all be true *and* a good source of information.


----------



## Morrus (Oct 26, 2005)

There are no rules concerning .com, .org, etc.  Technically, if anything, your logic means it should be .co.uk.

However, I have no plans to change EN World's URL at all.  Everybody knows it - there's no point in confusing people. 

Yes, EN World is a business.  While a donation structure has worked in the past, I'm not very comfortable with the concept, and it does cause problems.  I really want to move away from every having to do that again.

And yes, I have a day job.  EN World certainly isn't non-profit, and is no longer "negative profit", thank goodness, and hasn't been for a while now.  

Part of the problem you may be noticing in the news is that we're in a pretty quiet news period.  There's not a lot of crunchy, interesting stuff to report other than new product releases and reviews.  That always goes up and down, though - maybe next week there will be something really cool on the news page.  When 4E is eventually announced, you can expect months and months of rumours, leaks and so forth there.


----------



## Truth Seeker (Oct 26, 2005)

On that day...when it happens...heaven helps us all  



			
				Morrus said:
			
		

> There are no rules concerning .com, .org, etc.  Technically, if anything, your logic means it should be .co.uk.
> 
> However, I have no plans to change EN World's URL at all.  Everybody knows it - there's no point in confusing people.
> 
> ...


----------



## diaglo (Oct 26, 2005)

.gov is still owned by the US govt.


diaglo "who works for the guys at www.cdc.gov " Ooi


----------



## Henry (Oct 26, 2005)

www.enworld.gov - where the rules lawyers are, well, actually lawyers.


----------



## Len (Oct 26, 2005)

diaglo said:
			
		

> .gov is still owned by the US govt.



So is .edu.

Len "I'm not American and neither is Hong" Ooi


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Oct 26, 2005)

Len said:
			
		

> > Originally Posted by diaglo
> > _.gov is still owned by the US govt._
> 
> 
> ...




 .edu is not owned by the government, but can only be used by educational institutes (public or private)


Cthulhu's Librarian "Works for a .edu" Ooi


----------



## Len (Oct 26, 2005)

Cthulhu's Librarian said:
			
		

> .edu is not owned by the government, but can only be used by educational institutes (public or private)



If not "owned" then certainly "controlled". Only American post-secondary institutions meeting criteria set by the U.S. Dept. of Education can register under .edu.
References: IANA, Educause (the administrator of .edu)


----------



## Lobo Lurker (Oct 26, 2005)

ENWorld.org is a forum/News Site

ENPublishing could be a .org as well.

ENStore should be a .com, but just because it is doesn't preclude the rest of ENWorld from being a .org


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Oct 26, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> No, it's better for a non-profit organization to support itself by donations for its purpose rather than by operating a buisness with the intention of not making a lot of money out of said buisness. Otherwise, the buisness tends to overshadow and divert the focus from the organization's original goals.




Whoa, I'd hate to own a non-profit hospital under your ideas of how to operate a non-profit.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 27, 2005)

Len said:
			
		

> So is .edu.
> 
> Len "I'm not American and neither is Hong" Ooi





So is .mil.  And they are very reluctant to let you use that one


----------



## Greylock (Oct 27, 2005)

I approve of the changes. Especially if it leads to ENWorldGamer mag pdfs.

/wantingmore/


----------



## Mark CMG (Oct 27, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Whoa, I'd hate to own a non-profit hospital under your ideas of how to operate a non-profit.





Not as much as I'd hate to be a patient at such a place! 


Well, as near as I can tell, EN World has certainly _crashed_ hard enough and often enough to qualify as a "dot com" . . . 


But I kid!  I kid because I love!  Love EN World!


----------



## Yair (Oct 27, 2005)

Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> Whoa, I'd hate to own a non-profit hospital under your ideas of how to operate a non-profit.



You reminded me of a "Yes, Minister" episdoe I saw not long ago. It was about a hospital that was working at prime beeurocratic efficiency, all its personnel busy, its equipment in perfect maintainance, its work accidents ratio nill, and so on. Of course, it had no patients in it...

Non-profit hostpitals, in my experience, try to make their buissness aspects unitrusive and limit them. They have budgets for taking care of people that can't pay for their treatment, for example, and policies for not turning down critically injured people because they can't pay, and they don't try to increase revenue by using their status to sponsor affiliated brands or push their own consortium's medicine, and so on.
They are also not at all ashamed to solicit and accept donations, indeed basing a lot of their monatery finances on donations (from funds, the state, and individuals). 
[In later years buissness elements are becoming more prevelant and obtrusive, which causes a lot of resentment and accusations of impropriatry, bribary, and so on.]
At least, that's how things work in my country.

And yes, the hospitals are constantly in financial need (so you wouldn't want to own one). I do believe one even went "bankrupt" a few years back but was "saved" by the state at the last minute [IIRC]. 
And being treated in one is often inferior to being treated in a for-prdfit hospital - if you can afford one. 
But neither of these are their goals, and in their non-profit goal (healing the multitudes) they are far better than the few for-profit hospitals and wards we have. (I'm not saying they are perfect, or even good - just better.)

All of this is of course tangential to the original post, and Morrus is not running a charity.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 27, 2005)

The point of a hospital is to take care of people in need.  If as you say the non-profit model where they refuse to seek any reliable methods of funding results in "inferior" care, then that hospital is failing and NEEDS to rethink its methods of operation.  A non-profit model doesn't have to be on the verge of bankruptcy to count as non-profit.  Also a non-profit organization is expected to still pay it's employees.  How many hours of work go into ENWorld?  Who pays for these hours?


----------



## Yair (Oct 27, 2005)

Sledge said:
			
		

> The point of a hospital is to take care of people in need.  If as you say the non-profit model where they refuse to seek any reliable methods of funding results in "inferior" care, then that hospital is failing and NEEDS to rethink its methods of operation.  A non-profit model doesn't have to be on the verge of bankruptcy to count as non-profit.  Also a non-profit organization is expected to still pay it's employees.  How many hours of work go into ENWorld?  Who pays for these hours?



The point of a hospital is to take care of people in need. Not to make profit. If in your profit model you seek to exploit every avenue of revenue you may end up with "superior" care if it is a market demand, but you will NOT provide the best medicine for the most people. 
It is all a matter of measuring success. If you are a for-profit organization, your measure of success is simple - the profit. If you are a hospital, however - just what is your goal? Improving the life quality of as many people as possible? Saving as many lives as possible? Providing the best medical care possible on this earth? Making as much profit for your owners? There are several possible objectices, and they cannot generally be achieved simultanously.

All non-profit organizations include an element of buisness to them. ENWorld, for example, always needed to pay for bandwidth and server services - a purely buissness transaction. Optional membership fees for added functionality are a "buisness model" it has been using for ages.
The point is not whether an organization has buisness aspects to it. The point is whether these aspects are limited by and serve the organization's goals, or whether the organization serves the buisness goals.

Regarding ENWorld specifically, I don't want to get mired in that. Morrus said his piece, that is enough for me.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> The point of a hospital is to take care of people in need. Not to make profit.




That's not an accurate generalization.  In some hospitals, part of the point is profit, in others it is not.  The percieved "point" will differ depending upon who you are.  The "point" of the place for the doctors is not the same as for the patients, and the point is again different from view of the Board of Directors.  

At no time will any place be able to provide the absolute best of service to the theoretical maximum of people. Because resources are limited, there will always be tradeoffs.



> It is all a matter of measuring success. If you are a for-profit organization, your measure of success is simple - the profit.




That would be an extremely naive measure, if used alone.  Raw profit is only one measure.  Profit as compared ot expenditures, growth measures, sustained business, new business, and many other factors go into measuring the success of a for-profit organization.



> The point is not whether an organization has buisness aspects to it. The point is whether these aspects are limited by and serve the organization's goals, or whether the organization serves the buisness goals.




Here, I agree with you.  The place always had business aspects.  The question is in what methods best serve the needs.  Note that us users are only able to articulate our own percieved needs.  We are not in a position to state what the place as a whole needs - we just don't have the data.


----------



## Yair (Oct 27, 2005)

I agree with you Umbran. The first point was actually one I was trying (unsuccesfully, it seems) to make in my previous post. You're of course right on the second. And we agree on the latter.

I'll also add that we are not really in a position to _define_ the needs, i.e. to set the goals. Morrus runs this gig, and he is the only one that can decide what he wants it to be.
He has apparrently decided that it is a buisness, it isn't non-profit, and and that its needs could better be served by a more comprehensive and obtrusive plethora of subsidiaries/ affiliates/ whatever. I don't particularly like this, but it's his call.


----------



## Umbran (Oct 27, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> He has apparrently decided that it is a buisness, it isn't non-profit, and and that its needs could better be served by a more comprehensive and obtrusive plethora of subsidiaries/ affiliates/ whatever.




Well, it isn't as if he could make them unobtrusive and have them work - by definition, if they were unobtrusive, nobody would notice them.  Unnoticed business outlets are failed business outlets.


----------



## Psionicist (Oct 27, 2005)

Len said:
			
		

> If not "owned" then certainly "controlled". Only American post-secondary institutions meeting criteria set by the U.S. Dept. of Education can register under .edu.
> References: IANA, Educause (the administrator of .edu)




That depends. DNS is fragile and decentralized by design, meaning anyone can create their own DNS network and have the full legal right to do so. For example, if I create my own DNS and redirect all .edu domains to google, no one can stop me, because the control different organizations (such as Educause) have over topdomains is unenforcable and only worth something because the whole world has an inofficial agreement that's the case. DNS is like currency, the only power with the current system is because everyone uses it. 

Most people have no idea how uncontrolled and ungoverned the Internet really is.


----------



## Henry (Oct 27, 2005)

Psionicist said:
			
		

> Most people have no idea how uncontrolled and ungoverned the Internet really is.




Oh, have a really good idea, every time I run my spyware and adware remover.


----------



## Sledge (Oct 27, 2005)

Yair said:
			
		

> The point is not whether an organization has buisness aspects to it. The point is whether these aspects are limited by and serve the organization's goals, or whether the organization serves the buisness goals.




Yes and if the lack of business items means that the organization is not meeting it's goals, then you need to reevaluate right?
In the hospital example you state the goal is to provide service to as many people as possible.  However you also state that this service is naturally inferior.  Therein lies the problem.  A hospital that does not concern itself with quality of service is not doing its best.  If the only income the hospital has are from donors and the gift shop souvenirs then the hospital is not doing things correctly.
Most hospitals these days have many shops in them that pay rent, as well as cafeterias and such.  Around here we have universal healthcare.  It has it's own problems, but you don't see hospitals avoiding any means of getting money despite their government funding.  They will take whatever money they can get, because they have a goal of providing QUALITY service to as many people as need it.  If that means some corporation sponsors them then so be it.


----------



## Michael Morris (Oct 28, 2005)

enworld.com is owned by a cybersquatter in Tokyo who has no intention of using the domain. The cost to file an ICANN complaint and pull the domain foricibly from him - $3000.  Probably not worth it.


----------

