I'm curious - what exactly is your stake in this "bad deal"?
I don't need a "stake" to have my own opinion, even one that runs counter to that of other people on a message board.
Of course. Forgive me for asking. This appears to be going in circles. I disagree with just a few of your statements, and I do also recognize a keen mind and sharp wit at work. That being said, it's not clear what your intent is, here. People are free to have whatever opinions, but an opinion is not an argument. But if you treat it like one, the onus falls to you to justify it, with valid logic and/or true facts. As you know, in a debate an opinion is merely a guess; a personal attack is irrelevant (at best); and, clever metaphor is worth nothing (beyond a good chuckle, maybe?). This is the impasse: On the one hand you appear to be offering debate, but on the other, the request to explain your statements ends in I'm entitled to my (unpopular) opinion. Certainly true, all well and good...but also trivial. Where is the debate? What makes your statements regarding OGL 1.0a valid and true? Don't keep us in suspense. We're dying for you to teach us something valuable. (Well, at least I am). Or, failing that, you could instead teach us (me) about you. I invite you to say something about yourself that motivates the hopeless tenacity and derision toward the OGL. Do you have OCD (that I can definitely relate to)? Is this a new meme? Did the old OGL ruin your life? Those are far more interesting than opinions, possibly even the whole debate.
Putting aside all the weird "tell me about yourself and show me on the doll where 1.0a touched you" language above - I'm against it because it's poorly written and doesn't offer WotC enough ability to protect its intellectual property. That's the long and short of it.
If you want more detail on why it is a badly written document, I recommend you read posts by Caerwyn_Glyndwr, such as this one. And for why it is inadequate protection, Kyle Brink explains that perfectly adequately in the most recent press release. Let me know if those help.
Imagine wanting to sell your own property, what a concept.
Never understood how anyone who was going to buy an NFT could not at least be marginally aware of what the term "non-fungible" means. We literally have the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips now....
I'm not aware that the first OGL had a clause against hate and harassment. If it did, could you please quote the language? Please forgive my not finding it. The 1.2 clause needs some work: there needs to be some kind of neutral arbiter, rather than Wizards itself making arbitrary decisions. However, protecting both the brand and the players from association with hateful content is in principle a necessary step.
There is a neutral arbiter already. It's called adulthood. As adults, we get to decide what we want for ourselves. If a person finds something hateful and/or offensive, they can criticize it and/or ignore it. They do not have to buy, read, listen to, or watch it. Censorship gives one party or point of view a monopoly on what image/language/behaviour is correct, what image/language/behaviour is abhorrent, this treats everyone else as intellectual, moral, and emotional infants. Censorship also assumes that moral principles themselves are a stable and universal constant rather than what they actually are: a shifting mosaic of cultural agreements subject to time, space, and other context. Censorship has never before made the world a better place, and thus pretty likely not make the world a better place in the future. Players don't need protection, they need to be adults and take responsibility for what they can control. Those that are kids need to be protected by parents. I am not a kid. People absolutely don't deserve hate. I absolutely can't stand hate. But trying to stamp out hate speech (etc.)with censorship and is exactly the same as a war on terror.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it.
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
And for those limits there are laws. No need to give a company unlimited unilateral censorship powers. One day I will understand why some trust corporations more than democratic state and rule of law. Or more likely I will not.
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it.
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
Hopefully you're re-subbing with the understanding that Hasbruh/WoTC have tried once. And they will try again. Constant vigilance is the key in this age of constant and increased levels of greed in business.
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it.
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
The OGL fight doesn't impact me directly either. However, the insight about their goals to push out competition and extract more money out of my pocket, not by exciting me with better and more awesome product, but by controlling my options and access and putting their energy into finding ways to charge me more money through manipulative strategies - that does affect me. I joined the "OGL" fight because it's part of a bigger strategy from Hasbro/WoTC to create a relationship with their customers that is more exploitative - reminds me of Games Workshop.
There is a neutral arbiter already. It's called adulthood. As adults, we get to decide what we want for ourselves. If a person finds something hateful and/or offensive, they can criticize it and/or ignore it. They do not have to buy, read, listen to, or watch it. Censorship gives one party or point of view a monopoly on what image/language/behaviour is correct, what image/language/behaviour is abhorrent, this treats everyone else as intellectual, moral, and emotional infants. Censorship also assumes that moral principles themselves are a stable and universal constant rather than what they actually are: a shifting mosaic of cultural agreements subject to time, space, and other context. Censorship has never before made the world a better place, and thus pretty likely not make the world a better place in the future. Players don't need protection, they need to be adults and take responsibility for what they can control. Those that are kids need to be protected by parents. I am not a kid. People absolutely don't deserve hate. I absolutely can't stand hate. But trying to stamp out hate speech (etc.)with censorship and is exactly the same as a war on terror.
But that assumes that everyone actually grows up and acts like an actual adult. It also assumes that words have no power. If words have no power, why are we using them to communicate here? Words may not have power in and of themselves, but they can and do convince others to action. And those actions are no longer merely words. And if those who did the inciting are never blamed, since they just used words, after all, then they are free to incite others to action, always effectively putting other necks on the line rather than their own.
Free speech is still around, especially in the US, where the 1st amendment is often absurdly powerful, but there are limits, even to the 1st amendment. As there need to be.
I assumed no such thing. You are correct, words do have power - to both incite and convince. My assumption is something else entirely, that when it comes to our own self (i.e. our beliefs and actions), you and I have a greater power than words. We are adults, and as such we can actually choose whether or not to be incited or convinced by words. That is the precise foundational assumption of adulthood, liberal rights, Western criminal justice, etc: whatever outside influence, I am always the final arbiter of its power over me, and my actions that follow are my own. This is called agency.
People are obviously not perfect. We all fail - both you and I. Yet, regardless these failures, we must continue to make the assumption and treat each others as adults (i.e. agents) who sometimes fail but are always responsible for those failures and to strive to do better. To do otherwise, is to deny not only their responsibility, but their agency - their power.
Censorship, on the other hand, is justified by that very denial, which makes the exact opposite assumption. It assumes that words are more powerful than self-control, and thus words are responsible for our actions. This centres agency not in us, but in the words (images, etc.) themselves, and (though a glaring contradiction) on only those that have produce them (i.e. only they have any responsibility).
Obviously, parents deny agency and power all the time - with their children. If you've had a child that has grown into adulthood, you've (hopefully?) learned that when you stop treating them like children and affirm their agency, that start to act like adults. If you fail to do that, they will never believe in their own power, so they will never grow up and they will always be dependent on you. Censoring authorities see themselves in the same role, as parents, and all others as powerless children, in perpetuity.
This scenario is nothing new. It's been done over and over throughout human history. It has never once has it led to utopian paradise in which all people love and respect each other, and treat one another with kindness. Unchecked, it has only ever led to authoritarianism and misery.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I cancelled my Master-level sub in protest of the sneaky way they were doing things, but there was no impact to me from the changes. (If you weren't publishing, OGL doesn't mean diddly. This actually impacted hardly any players.)
Now they're doing proper consultation, monetization is gone, license-back is gone, core rules will be creative commons... that's a lot of concessions. What little impact 1.1 would have had, 1.2 has none at all.
Now, after those changes, we're seeing the disingenuous actors who were actually just in this to hurl mud at WotC for being too woke, or wanted people to try their pet game, or were publishing their own content and didn't want royalties cutting into the bottom line. I never thought they'd drop revenue sharing completely or put rules into Creative Commons to put creator's minds at rest.
Anyone who wants to make something can just use the Creative Commons stuff and avoid the OGL if they want: "But CC doesn't cover everything in the SRD?!" So? I thought you were making valuable new content for 5e? What kind of low-rent, Wish version of 5e are you making if it falls apart because you can't reprint what a 5e elf is? Make your own freaking classes, monsters and spells.
Look... I'll do one for you: Bear-owl. Bam. Nailed it.
As far as I'm concerned 1.2 is a total win. And now that's happened I have zero issue going back to a service I love
Win, my ass. There is no OGL 1.2. There is a draft. Wizards is hoping we all think it's over now, and start giving them "their money" again. Never mind that the proposed OGL 1.2 still contains quite a lot of bullshit and overreach, until they actual publish the final OGL, this is not over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I'm curious - what exactly is your stake in this "bad deal"?
I don't need a "stake" to have my own opinion, even one that runs counter to that of other people on a message board.
Of course. Forgive me for asking. This appears to be going in circles. I disagree with just a few of your statements, and I do also recognize a keen mind and sharp wit at work. That being said, it's not clear what your intent is, here. People are free to have whatever opinions, but an opinion is not an argument. But if you treat it like one, the onus falls to you to justify it, with valid logic and/or true facts. As you know, in a debate an opinion is merely a guess; a personal attack is irrelevant (at best); and, clever metaphor is worth nothing (beyond a good chuckle, maybe?). This is the impasse: On the one hand you appear to be offering debate, but on the other, the request to explain your statements ends in I'm entitled to my (unpopular) opinion. Certainly true, all well and good...but also trivial. Where is the debate? What makes your statements regarding OGL 1.0a valid and true? Don't keep us in suspense. We're dying for you to teach us something valuable. (Well, at least I am). Or, failing that, you could instead teach us (me) about you. I invite you to say something about yourself that motivates the hopeless tenacity and derision toward the OGL. Do you have OCD (that I can definitely relate to)? Is this a new meme? Did the old OGL ruin your life? Those are far more interesting than opinions, possibly even the whole debate.
Putting aside all the weird "tell me about yourself and show me on the doll where 1.0a touched you" language above - I'm against it because it's poorly written and doesn't offer WotC enough ability to protect its intellectual property. That's the long and short of it.
If you want more detail on why it is a badly written document, I recommend you read posts by Caerwyn_Glyndwr, such as this one. And for why it is inadequate protection, Kyle Brink explains that perfectly adequately in the most recent press release. Let me know if those help.
Done, and here is my reply. I can't actually have a conversation with Kyle Brink. Perhaps you can "perfectly adequately" explain in your own words?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
This scenario is nothing new. It's been done over and over throughout human history. It has never once has it led to utopian paradise in which all people love and respect each other, and treat one another with kindness. Unchecked, it has only ever led to authoritarianism and misery.
A utopian paradise is a false goal. Such being impossible does not equate to doing nothing being better. Mitigation has value and does not need absolute success to have said value.
Let's start smaller. Do you agree that DM's should be able to censor the players at their tables within the game session?
I don't play games with red herrings.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I'm curious - what exactly is your stake in this "bad deal"?
I don't need a "stake" to have my own opinion, even one that runs counter to that of other people on a message board.
Of course. Forgive me for asking. This appears to be going in circles. I disagree with just a few of your statements, and I do also recognize a keen mind and sharp wit at work. That being said, it's not clear what your intent is, here. People are free to have whatever opinions, but an opinion is not an argument. But if you treat it like one, the onus falls to you to justify it, with valid logic and/or true facts. As you know, in a debate an opinion is merely a guess; a personal attack is irrelevant (at best); and, clever metaphor is worth nothing (beyond a good chuckle, maybe?). This is the impasse: On the one hand you appear to be offering debate, but on the other, the request to explain your statements ends in I'm entitled to my (unpopular) opinion. Certainly true, all well and good...but also trivial. Where is the debate? What makes your statements regarding OGL 1.0a valid and true? Don't keep us in suspense. We're dying for you to teach us something valuable. (Well, at least I am). Or, failing that, you could instead teach us (me) about you. I invite you to say something about yourself that motivates the hopeless tenacity and derision toward the OGL. Do you have OCD (that I can definitely relate to)? Is this a new meme? Did the old OGL ruin your life? Those are far more interesting than opinions, possibly even the whole debate.
Putting aside all the weird "tell me about yourself and show me on the doll where 1.0a touched you" language above - I'm against it because it's poorly written and doesn't offer WotC enough ability to protect its intellectual property. That's the long and short of it.
If you want more detail on why it is a badly written document, I recommend you read posts by Caerwyn_Glyndwr, such as this one. And for why it is inadequate protection, Kyle Brink explains that perfectly adequately in the most recent press release. Let me know if those help.
Done, and here is my reply. I can't actually have a conversation with Kyle Brink. Perhaps you can "perfectly adequately" explain in your own words?
"We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a."
I'm not sure what's possibly difficult to understand about this.
You are criticising Gygax for writing: “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others”.
People are just looking for something to latch onto for their vitriol. They also clearly don't grasp that in Star Frontiers humans are 1 race, Yazirians (aka Hadozee) are another and so on. I mean, anyone that's not completely bereft of basic biological science should be able to rationally conclude, for example, that a Yazirian (with its patagia) probably is better at gliding than a regular human being...
You are criticising Gagax for writing: “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others”.
But some species in D&D are better at certain things than others:
Merfolks are better at swimming than haltings.
Homunculuses can fly, while elves do not.
And some species are superior to others:
Stirge is rather inferior to Black Dragon (which is smarter, bigger, stronger, lives longer and so on...)
That is not racist. This is normal for fantasy settings. We meet many fantastical creatures, some are more powerful/advanced/magical than others. If you make everyone the same, then who will want to play game with only one species, who is also the only monster type. Unification kills fantasy. And it actually destroys diversity.
A dark-skinned subrace literally called [REDACTED] with a lower maximum intelligence is not racist to you? Or any of the other awful things in that book that I won't even repeat here?
I'm curious - what exactly is your stake in this "bad deal"?
I don't need a "stake" to have my own opinion, even one that runs counter to that of other people on a message board.
Of course. Forgive me for asking. This appears to be going in circles. I disagree with just a few of your statements, and I do also recognize a keen mind and sharp wit at work. That being said, it's not clear what your intent is, here. People are free to have whatever opinions, but an opinion is not an argument. But if you treat it like one, the onus falls to you to justify it, with valid logic and/or true facts. As you know, in a debate an opinion is merely a guess; a personal attack is irrelevant (at best); and, clever metaphor is worth nothing (beyond a good chuckle, maybe?). This is the impasse: On the one hand you appear to be offering debate, but on the other, the request to explain your statements ends in I'm entitled to my (unpopular) opinion. Certainly true, all well and good...but also trivial. Where is the debate? What makes your statements regarding OGL 1.0a valid and true? Don't keep us in suspense. We're dying for you to teach us something valuable. (Well, at least I am). Or, failing that, you could instead teach us (me) about you. I invite you to say something about yourself that motivates the hopeless tenacity and derision toward the OGL. Do you have OCD (that I can definitely relate to)? Is this a new meme? Did the old OGL ruin your life? Those are far more interesting than opinions, possibly even the whole debate.
Putting aside all the weird "tell me about yourself and show me on the doll where 1.0a touched you" language above - I'm against it because it's poorly written and doesn't offer WotC enough ability to protect its intellectual property. That's the long and short of it.
If you want more detail on why it is a badly written document, I recommend you read posts by Caerwyn_Glyndwr, such as this one. And for why it is inadequate protection, Kyle Brink explains that perfectly adequately in the most recent press release. Let me know if those help.
Done, and here is my reply. I can't actually have a conversation with Kyle Brink. Perhaps you can "perfectly adequately" explain in your own words?
"We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a."
I'm not sure what's possibly difficult to understand about this.
Responded to the other thread.
I don't buy that argument for a second. Wizards has never been liable for any so-called "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal" content. If this is instead about their "brand" as you've posited before, no one has demonstrated a single instance in which Wizards' reputation was harmed by anything published under the current license. Wizards has also quite predictably done immense (and ikely irreparable) harm to its "brand" by trying to repeal 1.0a and replace it with something that gives them more control.
So on the one hand, they clearly they haven't needed and don't need to censor 3rd party content. On tthe other, they have blown up the very thing they imply they are trying to defend, and seriously offended the very community they claim responsibility to protect from nebulous bad actors.
It's obvious then that this whole episode is about neither of those things. Conveniently, what they've stuck to proposing throughout the controversy is that they ought to have power over what 3rd party content gets published, and that they would be completely shielded from any lawsuit that might result.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Virtue signalling is a marketing tool to big Corpo. I can think of only one case in recent times of a company that constantly displays it as a part of their core credo (Bungie). In the case of WoTC/Hasbruh: To be touting it as part of an OGL is just a deflection/marketing tool.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
I did not read his book. I am writing about the truthfulness of the sole sentence quoted here. Where I am wrong? You did not point anything in my post that is wrong.
Then maybe you should know what the book contains before spouting off about how it isn't racist.
What you choose to "buy" is neither my problem nor theirs. You asked for an explanation, I gave it - take it or leave it, I couldn't care less which.
Oops, you missed something:
...Wizards has never been liable for any so-called "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal" content. If this is instead about their "brand" as you've posited before, no one has demonstrated a single instance in which Wizards' reputation was harmed by anything published under the current license. Wizards has also quite predictably done immense (and ikely irreparable) harm to its "brand" by trying to repeal 1.0a and replace it with something that gives them more control.
So on the one hand, they clearly they haven't needed and don't need to censor 3rd party content. On tthe other, they have blown up the very thing they imply they are trying to defend, and seriously offended the very community they claim responsibility to protect from nebulous bad actors.
It's obvious then that this whole episode is about neither of those things. Conveniently, what they've stuck to proposing throughout the controversy is that they ought to have power over what 3rd party content gets published, and that they would be completely shielded from any lawsuit that might result.
Need I connect any more dots?
Unless you didn't have any response? I guess maybe that was it...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You are criticising Gagax for writing: “Races in SFNG [Star Frontiers: New Genesis] are not unlike races in the real world. Some are better at certain things than others, and some races are superior than others”.
But some species in D&D are better at certain things than others:
<Snip>
And some species are superior to others:
<Snip>
That is not racist.
You are missing a number of important details. The first and most important is that you ignore the way the word "race" is being used here.
In D&D, you are correct that certain species are better at certain things than others. That being said, they are all relatively equal in over all power level, and you are comparing creatures from the Monster Manual to various species, while ignoring the fact that those two things are not treated as the same in game.
However, Ernest Gygax explicitly said that "Some races are superior than others" in real life. The fifth edition of D&D as well as a number of other role-playing games use the term "race" to incorrectly describe a species, such as a Faerie or Minotaur. That being said, there aren't any species like that in real life. Due to this, it is clear what Ernest meant when he talked about races in the real world. He was clearly spreading racist, white supremacy based beliefs.
You are also ignoring a number of incredibly problematic aspects in the game. Some of the things in this version of Star Frontiers are so horrible that I would probably get banned just for repeating them, so I will pass on doing so. However, this quote is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how problematic that game is. You are focusing on one detail and ignoring numerous other important ones, and I would advise that you actually attempt to do research on the subject before you form any opinions.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
I did not read his book. I am writing about the truthfulness of the sole sentence quoted here. Where I am wrong? You did not point anything in my post that is wrong.
Then maybe you should know what the book contains before spouting off about how it isn't racist.
I don't think it is a great idea to promote that book here.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Putting aside all the weird "tell me about yourself and show me on the doll where 1.0a touched you" language above - I'm against it because it's poorly written and doesn't offer WotC enough ability to protect its intellectual property. That's the long and short of it.
If you want more detail on why it is a badly written document, I recommend you read posts by Caerwyn_Glyndwr, such as this one. And for why it is inadequate protection, Kyle Brink explains that perfectly adequately in the most recent press release. Let me know if those help.
Imagine wanting to sell your own property, what a concept.
Never understood how anyone who was going to buy an NFT could not at least be marginally aware of what the term "non-fungible" means. We literally have the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips now....
There is a neutral arbiter already. It's called adulthood. As adults, we get to decide what we want for ourselves. If a person finds something hateful and/or offensive, they can criticize it and/or ignore it. They do not have to buy, read, listen to, or watch it. Censorship gives one party or point of view a monopoly on what image/language/behaviour is correct, what image/language/behaviour is abhorrent, this treats everyone else as intellectual, moral, and emotional infants. Censorship also assumes that moral principles themselves are a stable and universal constant rather than what they actually are: a shifting mosaic of cultural agreements subject to time, space, and other context. Censorship has never before made the world a better place, and thus pretty likely not make the world a better place in the future. Players don't need protection, they need to be adults and take responsibility for what they can control. Those that are kids need to be protected by parents. I am not a kid. People absolutely don't deserve hate. I absolutely can't stand hate. But trying to stamp out hate speech (etc.)with censorship and is exactly the same as a war on terror.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieI Cancelled my Master Tier Subscription January 12th 2023 because of "OGL" 1.1 - Resubscribed 28th of Jan, now the SRD is in CC-BY-4.0
And for those limits there are laws. No need to give a company unlimited unilateral censorship powers. One day I will understand why some trust corporations more than democratic state and rule of law. Or more likely I will not.
Hopefully you're re-subbing with the understanding that Hasbruh/WoTC have tried once. And they will try again.
Constant vigilance is the key in this age of constant and increased levels of greed in business.
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
The OGL fight doesn't impact me directly either. However, the insight about their goals to push out competition and extract more money out of my pocket, not by exciting me with better and more awesome product, but by controlling my options and access and putting their energy into finding ways to charge me more money through manipulative strategies - that does affect me. I joined the "OGL" fight because it's part of a bigger strategy from Hasbro/WoTC to create a relationship with their customers that is more exploitative - reminds me of Games Workshop.
I assumed no such thing. You are correct, words do have power - to both incite and convince. My assumption is something else entirely, that when it comes to our own self (i.e. our beliefs and actions), you and I have a greater power than words. We are adults, and as such we can actually choose whether or not to be incited or convinced by words. That is the precise foundational assumption of adulthood, liberal rights, Western criminal justice, etc: whatever outside influence, I am always the final arbiter of its power over me, and my actions that follow are my own. This is called agency.
People are obviously not perfect. We all fail - both you and I. Yet, regardless these failures, we must continue to make the assumption and treat each others as adults (i.e. agents) who sometimes fail but are always responsible for those failures and to strive to do better. To do otherwise, is to deny not only their responsibility, but their agency - their power.
Censorship, on the other hand, is justified by that very denial, which makes the exact opposite assumption. It assumes that words are more powerful than self-control, and thus words are responsible for our actions. This centres agency not in us, but in the words (images, etc.) themselves, and (though a glaring contradiction) on only those that have produce them (i.e. only they have any responsibility).
Obviously, parents deny agency and power all the time - with their children. If you've had a child that has grown into adulthood, you've (hopefully?) learned that when you stop treating them like children and affirm their agency, that start to act like adults. If you fail to do that, they will never believe in their own power, so they will never grow up and they will always be dependent on you. Censoring authorities see themselves in the same role, as parents, and all others as powerless children, in perpetuity.
This scenario is nothing new. It's been done over and over throughout human history. It has never once has it led to utopian paradise in which all people love and respect each other, and treat one another with kindness. Unchecked, it has only ever led to authoritarianism and misery.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieWin, my ass. There is no OGL 1.2. There is a draft. Wizards is hoping we all think it's over now, and start giving them "their money" again. Never mind that the proposed OGL 1.2 still contains quite a lot of bullshit and overreach, until they actual publish the final OGL, this is not over.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieDone, and here is my reply. I can't actually have a conversation with Kyle Brink. Perhaps you can "perfectly adequately" explain in your own words?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieI don't play games with red herrings.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie"We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a."
I'm not sure what's possibly difficult to understand about this.
Responded to the other thread.
People are just looking for something to latch onto for their vitriol. They also clearly don't grasp that in Star Frontiers humans are 1 race, Yazirians (aka Hadozee) are another and so on. I mean, anyone that's not completely bereft of basic biological science should be able to rationally conclude, for example, that a Yazirian (with its patagia) probably is better at gliding than a regular human being...
A dark-skinned subrace literally called [REDACTED] with a lower maximum intelligence is not racist to you? Or any of the other awful things in that book that I won't even repeat here?
Sorry, no, you're just wrong.
I don't buy that argument for a second. Wizards has never been liable for any so-called "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal" content. If this is instead about their "brand" as you've posited before, no one has demonstrated a single instance in which Wizards' reputation was harmed by anything published under the current license. Wizards has also quite predictably done immense (and ikely irreparable) harm to its "brand" by trying to repeal 1.0a and replace it with something that gives them more control.
So on the one hand, they clearly they haven't needed and don't need to censor 3rd party content. On tthe other, they have blown up the very thing they imply they are trying to defend, and seriously offended the very community they claim responsibility to protect from nebulous bad actors.
It's obvious then that this whole episode is about neither of those things. Conveniently, what they've stuck to proposing throughout the controversy is that they ought to have power over what 3rd party content gets published, and that they would be completely shielded from any lawsuit that might result.
Need I connect any more dots?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieVirtue signalling is a marketing tool to big Corpo.
I can think of only one case in recent times of a company that constantly displays it as a part of their core credo (Bungie).
In the case of WoTC/Hasbruh: To be touting it as part of an OGL is just a deflection/marketing tool.
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
Then maybe you should know what the book contains before spouting off about how it isn't racist.
What you choose to "buy" is neither my problem nor theirs. You asked for an explanation, I gave it - take it or leave it, I couldn't care less which.
Oops, you missed something:
Unless you didn't have any response? I guess maybe that was it...
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieYou are missing a number of important details. The first and most important is that you ignore the way the word "race" is being used here.
In D&D, you are correct that certain species are better at certain things than others. That being said, they are all relatively equal in over all power level, and you are comparing creatures from the Monster Manual to various species, while ignoring the fact that those two things are not treated as the same in game.
However, Ernest Gygax explicitly said that "Some races are superior than others" in real life. The fifth edition of D&D as well as a number of other role-playing games use the term "race" to incorrectly describe a species, such as a Faerie or Minotaur. That being said, there aren't any species like that in real life. Due to this, it is clear what Ernest meant when he talked about races in the real world. He was clearly spreading racist, white supremacy based beliefs.
You are also ignoring a number of incredibly problematic aspects in the game. Some of the things in this version of Star Frontiers are so horrible that I would probably get banned just for repeating them, so I will pass on doing so. However, this quote is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of how problematic that game is. You are focusing on one detail and ignoring numerous other important ones, and I would advise that you actually attempt to do research on the subject before you form any opinions.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I don't think it is a great idea to promote that book here.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.