Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
I think creating a standing committee is less likely than an appeals board made up of volunteers similar to what Facebook came up with last year. Regardless leaving everything in the sole discretion of Wizards leaves things to be able to change with the wind.
There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
That's my point, and where you probably won't agree with me, the exertion of authority in and of itself is the abuse. Before you think I'm trying to defend hateful or bigoted content hear (or read) me out.
As I stated in another thread 6(f)'s primary purpose, from my point of view based on their behavior so far and statements they've made, is to better establish control. One way to establish control is to weed out those that won't fall in line early. If a 3PP feels that they can trust Wizards not to ever push the sword of 6(f) aimed at their throat, that is the kind of partner they want. If a 3PP doesn't trust Wizards whether through personal belief/philosophy, or their content includes things like horror, 'mature' themes involving the s-e-x word, LGBTQ content, or, yes, bigoted content then that's the kind of 3PP Wizards doesn't want. And this clause should be enough to scare those 3PP away. While I could give less of an owlbear dropping of the bigoted content, I don't want those 3PPs scared away (the whole baby vs the bathwater thing) but, as currenty written, that's exactly what this will do.
That's why I'm using my wallet now instead of later until they do the bare minimum to fix it. And this document does not contain the bare minimum.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
And it would be their right. I wouldn't like it, others wouldn't like it, and we would likely exercise our ability to speak with our dollars and leave at that time, or organize in a similar way as we have now to try and persuade them to change.
But, even when led by fairly conservative leadership, most corporations take policies that hew to the middle or to slightly left or right of center in how they act in respect to PR and the public, because that is the lowest common denominator for the market as a whole. Sure you have your companies led by extremists who cater to those edges, but most entertainment corps absolutely want to appeal to as many people as possible. Basically, market forces drive corporations to the middle; if (and its a pretty big if) WotC were to be taken over by the far right, they would be effectively killing themselves. The company I work for is based in a very conservative area and is run by fairly conservative people (not universally though), but they are also (mostly) smart enough to know to keep their personal beliefs out of the workplace and the company's image, because they employ, work with, and provide services to people of all sorts of opinions, political leanings, orientations, genders, etc.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
I mean, ironing out a strong, useful, and clear version of 6F would help safeguard against this, too. Maybe if the overseeing of it were put in the hands of a body established specifically for this. I don't know that there is a third party the industry could refer to for this, but at the very least a committee of the cultural consultants they already employ might be the way to go. Maybe even a DEI Division with a c-level head.
I think creating a standing committee is less likely than an appeals board made up of volunteers similar to what Facebook came up with last year. Regardless leaving everything in the sole discretion of Wizards leaves things to be able to change with the wind.
There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
Exactly this. It wasn't forum ragers who got WotC to reverse course. It was cancelled DDB subs. When it comes to Wall Street, you speak with your wallet, not your mouth.
But nobody has done any of that in the last 23 years since the OGL 1.0a started, why is that some urgent thing that requires starting over from scratch?
Same reason everybody keeps screaming and screeching and caterwauling that 6f needs to be stricken entirely. Just because Wizards never has stricken anybody's book outside of obvious abuse cases like the Book of Erotic Fantasy doesn't many any of you believe they never will. You all think they're going to maliciously use their power of veto over hateful content to strike down random stuff from random people for...honestly, no reason at all.
Why should Wizards believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are taking any platform they can get to spread their evil hateful messages, that people will not publish evil hateful content under OGL 1.0 just because Wizards has meekly asked them really nicely not to? Ernie G already tried, if in a particularly dumb manner that left him open to lawsuit. Not all evil hateful bigots are stupid though, and I guarantee you that if 1.0a remains, somebody WILL try and publish something reprehensible under Wizards; name with Wizards' game. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when", and a matter of whether we're allowed to do fuggoff anything about it when it happens.
Here's the flip side of this argument. What makes you believe, in an ever more polarized world where evil hateful bigots are gaining power in executive offices and legislatures and judiciaries as well as lobbying groups, that Wizards won't change their sights to nuke horror, 'dark' fantasy, and LGBTQ material and label it as 'hateful' in order to appease them and their lobbying group minions? With the current language they absolutely could.
And it would be their right. I wouldn't like it, others wouldn't like it, and we would likely exercise our ability to speak with our dollars and leave at that time, or organize in a similar way as we have now to try and persuade them to change.
But, even when led by fairly conservative leadership, most corporations take policies that hew to the middle or to slightly left or right of center in how they act in respect to PR and the public, because that is the lowest common denominator for the market as a whole. Sure you have your companies led by extremists who cater to those edges, but most entertainment corps absolutely want to appeal to as many people as possible. Basically, market forces drive corporations to the middle; if (and its a pretty big if) WotC were to be taken over by the far right, they would be effectively killing themselves. The company I work for is based in a very conservative area and is run by fairly conservative people (not universally though), but they are also (mostly) smart enough to know to keep their personal beliefs out of the workplace and the company's image, because they employ, work with, and provide services to people of all sorts of opinions, political leanings, orientations, genders, etc.
I made this point above but I'll repeat it here: It's not good enough to wait until Wizards decides to use their outsized authority. Anyone who finds the risk of signing over to Wizards moral judgement over their work and livelihood too great will not sign this. Which means this community will shrink and while it may lose bigots it will also lose a lot of 3PPs that work on material I, and judging by the surge of popularity of 3e poducts back in the day after 2000 not to mention with 5e now, many others enjoy not because it'll be nuked but because with 6(f) it will never be created in the first place. That's why I'm vehemently against this clause as written.
Quote from The_Ace_of_Rogues>>There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
That's my point, and where you probably won't agree with me, the exertion of authority in and of itself is the abuse. Before you think I'm trying to defend hateful or bigoted content hear (or read) me out.
As I stated in another thread 6(f)'s primary purpose, from my point of view based on their behavior so far and statements they've made, is to better establish control. One way to establish control is to weed out those that won't fall in line early. If a 3PP feels that they can trust Wizards not to ever push the sword of 6(f) aimed at their throat, that is the kind of partner they want. If a 3PP doesn't trust Wizards whether through personal belief/philosophy, or their content includes things like horror, 'mature' themes involving the s-e-x word, LGBTQ content, or, yes, bigoted content then that's the kind of 3PP Wizards doesn't want. And this clause should be enough to scare those 3PP away. While I could give less of an owlbear dropping of the bigoted content, I don't want those 3PPs scared away (the whole baby vs the bathwater thing) but, as currenty written, that's exactly what this will do.
That's why I'm using my wallet now instead of later until they do the bare minimum to fix it. And this document does not contain the bare minimum.
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
The “we want to be absolutely safe and inoffensive so we’ll water everything down with a firehose” creative content image is a strawman position. Most creative companies have been shifting to the left to one degree or another anymore with inclusion and representation being big talking points.
I've now had a chance to read the new document draft, and don't see anything that stands out as outright problematic. I do have a few nitpicks, however.
The first regards the right to revoke based on hate. While I honestly think this is intended in good faith, and would only be exercised in blatant examples, based on aggregate social awareness, I don't think it would be a common occurrence. It's understandable to include such a thing to protect themselves for being identified as a company who tolerates discrimination and prejudice. On the other hand, any time an authority is given, there is the chance for abuse. I would highly recommend adding a clause or condition to the terms that include such things as public discourse before action is taken, or make use of a community council. That way, corporate employees will have a better understanding of what is deemed offensive.
The second involves VTTs. The documents says that reproducing text for display is acceptable but rendering images (statically or as a token) isn't. I find this rather odd as they are both static elements. I would recommend allowing use of images as well. After all, if we can print them out and use them at home, why not on a VTT? However, I do agree on the exclusion of animations, such as the magic missile example. That's not something we see at the game table, and borders on video game territory, where other licensing fees may (or may not) apply.
Overall, the new document looks good, but could use a few tweaks before I sign off on it. I like where it's headed, though.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
The “we want to be absolutely safe and inoffensive so we’ll water everything down with a firehose” creative content image is a strawman position. Most creative companies have been shifting to the left to one degree or another anymore with inclusion and representation being big talking points.
I feel you're missing the forests from the trees from what I posted. Edited to add: If it makes you feel better strike that whole sentence with "If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route."
I've now had a chance to read the new document draft, and don't see anything that stands out as outright problematic. I do have a few nitpicks, however.
The first regards the right to revoke based on hate. While I honestly think this is intended in good faith, and would only be exercised in blatant examples, based on aggregate social awareness, I don't think it would be a common occurrence. It's understandable to include such a thing to protect themselves for being identified as a company who tolerates discrimination and prejudice. On the other hand, any time an authority is given, there is the chance for abuse. I would highly recommend adding a clause or condition to the terms that include such things as public discourse before action is taken, or make use of a community council. That way, corporate employees will have a better understanding of what is deemed offensive.
The second involves VTTs. The documents says that reproducing text for display is acceptable but rendering images (statically or as a token) isn't. I find this rather odd as they are both static elements. I would recommend allowing use of images as well. After all, if we can print them out and use them at home, why not on a VTT? However, I do agree on the exclusion of animations, such as the magic missile example. That's not something we see at the game table, and borders on video game territory, where other licensing fees may (or may not) apply.
Overall, the new document looks good, but could use a few tweaks before I sign off on it. I like where it's headed, though.
Regarding the tokens, all it says is you can’t copy images from their books. That’s standard IP protection as those are proprietary images. Like it says, you can use a picture of an owlbear, just not their picture of one.
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
The “we want to be absolutely safe and inoffensive so we’ll water everything down with a firehose” creative content image is a strawman position. Most creative companies have been shifting to the left to one degree or another anymore with inclusion and representation being big talking points.
I feel you're missing the forests from the trees from what I posted. Edited to add: If it makes you feel better strike that whole sentence with "If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route."
Which is still a strawman position; no creative company believes they can have an entirely risk free product, so a “what if” placing them in that position is a non-starter
I've now had a chance to read the new document draft, and don't see anything that stands out as outright problematic. I do have a few nitpicks, however.
The first regards the right to revoke based on hate. While I honestly think this is intended in good faith, and would only be exercised in blatant examples, based on aggregate social awareness, I don't think it would be a common occurrence. It's understandable to include such a thing to protect themselves for being identified as a company who tolerates discrimination and prejudice. On the other hand, any time an authority is given, there is the chance for abuse. I would highly recommend adding a clause or condition to the terms that include such things as public discourse before action is taken, or make use of a community council. That way, corporate employees will have a better understanding of what is deemed offensive.
The second involves VTTs. The documents says that reproducing text for display is acceptable but rendering images (statically or as a token) isn't. I find this rather odd as they are both static elements. I would recommend allowing use of images as well. After all, if we can print them out and use them at home, why not on a VTT? However, I do agree on the exclusion of animations, such as the magic missile example. That's not something we see at the game table, and borders on video game territory, where other licensing fees may (or may not) apply.
Overall, the new document looks good, but could use a few tweaks before I sign off on it. I like where it's headed, though.
Regarding the tokens, all it says is you can’t copy images from their books. That’s standard IP protection as those are proprietary images. Like it says, you can use a picture of an owlbear, just not their picture of one.
Yes, but what if my idea of an owlbear happens to match theirs? The idea is rather ambiguous. It's not like reusing the FORD logo on another brand of car. It's an owlbear. However, if it's to protect the artist's interest, I could understand.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
There’s no functional difference between leaving it up to WotC vs creating a committee; either way it’s a group of people making a subjective call. A committee sounds better in theory, but how is the execution going to work? Honestly I think this is a point we simply need to accept we cannot preemptively control; if WotC attempts to abuse the authority, we vote with our wallets and leave.
I'm not sure I agree that there's no point in trying to workshop 6F, we only just got the first real draft. I think having the process for 6F violations be transparent and run by a specific body would do a lot to mollify the people who are complaining about the possible morality clause abuse as well as still achieving the stated purpose of protecting the brand and the player base from hate and bigotry. Now what kind of group it would be? I think that is workshoppable. Ideas I think would range from some sort of independent 3rd party not beholden to WOTC or Hasbro to their own cultural consultants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
Yes, but what if my idea of an owlbear happens to match theirs? The idea is rather ambiguous. It's not like reusing the FORD logo on another brand of car. It's an owlbear. However, if it's to protect the artist's interest, I could understand.
It is the specific artistic expression they don’t want you copying. Effectively it says “Draw a picture of an owlbear if you want - it even can look like ours under this license. Just don’t copy the picture on page 147 of the Basic Rules, since that’s ours and we are not licensing that image.”
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
The “we want to be absolutely safe and inoffensive so we’ll water everything down with a firehose” creative content image is a strawman position. Most creative companies have been shifting to the left to one degree or another anymore with inclusion and representation being big talking points.
I feel you're missing the forests from the trees from what I posted. Edited to add: If it makes you feel better strike that whole sentence with "If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest with as small of a risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route."
Which is still a strawman position; no creative company believes they can have an entirely risk free product, so a “what if” placing them in that position is a non-starter
Emphasis added to my original sentence and more adjustements based on your argument. Still haven't seen you address the fact that 6(f) without even an appeals process poses a large enough risk to 3PP beyond that of bigoted content that will make them far less likely to agree to 1.2. I mean you can say you don't believe that it does which is fine but it's not a 'strawman' to point that out.
If WotC does take someone to court because of objectionable content with THEIR tradmarks and Logos on it then WotC has a huge chance for publicity. A huge chance to show the community exactly what they are protecting them from and exactly how far they are willing to go to protect.
And that does not require ANY OGL at all.There are already laws doing just this.
I've now had a chance to read the new document draft, and don't see anything that stands out as outright problematic. I do have a few nitpicks, however.
The first regards the right to revoke based on hate. While I honestly think this is intended in good faith, and would only be exercised in blatant examples, based on aggregate social awareness, I don't think it would be a common occurrence. It's understandable to include such a thing to protect themselves for being identified as a company who tolerates discrimination and prejudice. On the other hand, any time an authority is given, there is the chance for abuse. I would highly recommend adding a clause or condition to the terms that include such things as public discourse before action is taken, or make use of a community council. That way, corporate employees will have a better understanding of what is deemed offensive.
The second involves VTTs. The documents says that reproducing text for display is acceptable but rendering images (statically or as a token) isn't. I find this rather odd as they are both static elements. I would recommend allowing use of images as well. After all, if we can print them out and use them at home, why not on a VTT? However, I do agree on the exclusion of animations, such as the magic missile example. That's not something we see at the game table, and borders on video game territory, where other licensing fees may (or may not) apply.
Overall, the new document looks good, but could use a few tweaks before I sign off on it. I like where it's headed, though.
Regarding the tokens, all it says is you can’t copy images from their books. That’s standard IP protection as those are proprietary images. Like it says, you can use a picture of an owlbear, just not their picture of one.
Yes, but what if my idea of an owlbear happens to match theirs? The idea is rather ambiguous. It's not like reusing the FORD logo on another brand of car. It's an owlbear. However, if it's to protect the artist's interest, I could understand.
It is the specific artistic expression they don’t want you copying. Effectively it says “Draw a picture of an owlbear if you want - it even can look like ours under this license. Just don’t copy the picture on page 147 of the Basic Rules, since that’s ours and we are not licensing that image.”
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm down with this.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
If WotC does take someone to court because of objectionable content with THEIR tradmarks and Logos on it then WotC has a huge chance for publicity. A huge chance to show the community exactly what they are protecting them from and exactly how far they are willing to go to protect.
And that does not require ANY OGL at all.There are already laws doing just this.
While correct that there are already laws on the books for protecting your own IP, you’re forgetting a little tiny thing—there is an OGL right now, and that document basically gives an unlimited license to do what you want with Wizards property. Follow the rules and you have a shield - “oh, I might be a racist, but Wizards said I could use their property as long as I did certain disclosures. Nothing said I couldn’t use their property for racism!”
So, yes, if we lived in a world without an OGL, then Wizards would have recourse. But the very existence of OGL 1.0 is putting a ball and chain around Wizards’ ankle when it comes to trying to litigate what can’t be done with the property they licensed out in such a cavalier manner.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That's my point, and where you probably won't agree with me, the exertion of authority in and of itself is the abuse. Before you think I'm trying to defend hateful or bigoted content hear (or read) me out.
As I stated in another thread 6(f)'s primary purpose, from my point of view based on their behavior so far and statements they've made, is to better establish control. One way to establish control is to weed out those that won't fall in line early. If a 3PP feels that they can trust Wizards not to ever push the sword of 6(f) aimed at their throat, that is the kind of partner they want. If a 3PP doesn't trust Wizards whether through personal belief/philosophy, or their content includes things like horror, 'mature' themes involving the s-e-x word, LGBTQ content, or, yes, bigoted content then that's the kind of 3PP Wizards doesn't want. And this clause should be enough to scare those 3PP away. While I could give less of an owlbear dropping of the bigoted content, I don't want those 3PPs scared away (the whole baby vs the bathwater thing) but, as currenty written, that's exactly what this will do.
That's why I'm using my wallet now instead of later until they do the bare minimum to fix it. And this document does not contain the bare minimum.
And it would be their right. I wouldn't like it, others wouldn't like it, and we would likely exercise our ability to speak with our dollars and leave at that time, or organize in a similar way as we have now to try and persuade them to change.
But, even when led by fairly conservative leadership, most corporations take policies that hew to the middle or to slightly left or right of center in how they act in respect to PR and the public, because that is the lowest common denominator for the market as a whole. Sure you have your companies led by extremists who cater to those edges, but most entertainment corps absolutely want to appeal to as many people as possible. Basically, market forces drive corporations to the middle; if (and its a pretty big if) WotC were to be taken over by the far right, they would be effectively killing themselves. The company I work for is based in a very conservative area and is run by fairly conservative people (not universally though), but they are also (mostly) smart enough to know to keep their personal beliefs out of the workplace and the company's image, because they employ, work with, and provide services to people of all sorts of opinions, political leanings, orientations, genders, etc.
Exactly this. It wasn't forum ragers who got WotC to reverse course. It was cancelled DDB subs. When it comes to Wall Street, you speak with your wallet, not your mouth.
I made this point above but I'll repeat it here: It's not good enough to wait until Wizards decides to use their outsized authority. Anyone who finds the risk of signing over to Wizards moral judgement over their work and livelihood too great will not sign this. Which means this community will shrink and while it may lose bigots it will also lose a lot of 3PPs that work on material I, and judging by the surge of popularity of 3e poducts back in the day after 2000 not to mention with 5e now, many others enjoy not because it'll be nuked but because with 6(f) it will never be created in the first place. That's why I'm vehemently against this clause as written.
That’s what making your voice heard via the survey is for, but I wouldn’t count on them drawing any hard lines; as people have said, that just invites bad actors to create an even bigger circus as they play “I’m not touching you” with the letter of the license. I don’t believe WotC is going to make frequent use of this option to suppress anything they don’t like, as that’s just going to alienate the community. But they want an option to quickly divorce themselves from actual hate content. I’m not saying the other uses are impossible, but I believe the past few weeks have ably demonstrated that such actions would go poorly for them
Again a matter of perspective. If Hasbro wants a clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoast product without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route. Because any bigots won't bother but neither will more legit fringe 3PPs including (as far as I can tell) LGBTQ material. The mere act of making an appeals process will make only the racist trolls with the largest warchests bother and even then they'd probably lose their appeals anyway. This is a company that made over $5,000,000,000 in revenue in 2021 I think they can afford to cough up an appeals process for folks and add some clearer language. I would also hope that this appeals process, with sufficient independence and proper staffing, could help ensure that no matter what happens with WOTC leadership 6(f) will only apply to what they claim they intend to apply to it.
The question for me isn't what will they do in the future. The question is what this will do to 3PPs now and it's not good.
The “we want to be absolutely safe and inoffensive so we’ll water everything down with a firehose” creative content image is a strawman position. Most creative companies have been shifting to the left to one degree or another anymore with inclusion and representation being big talking points.
I've now had a chance to read the new document draft, and don't see anything that stands out as outright problematic. I do have a few nitpicks, however.
The first regards the right to revoke based on hate. While I honestly think this is intended in good faith, and would only be exercised in blatant examples, based on aggregate social awareness, I don't think it would be a common occurrence. It's understandable to include such a thing to protect themselves for being identified as a company who tolerates discrimination and prejudice. On the other hand, any time an authority is given, there is the chance for abuse. I would highly recommend adding a clause or condition to the terms that include such things as public discourse before action is taken, or make use of a community council. That way, corporate employees will have a better understanding of what is deemed offensive.
The second involves VTTs. The documents says that reproducing text for display is acceptable but rendering images (statically or as a token) isn't. I find this rather odd as they are both static elements. I would recommend allowing use of images as well. After all, if we can print them out and use them at home, why not on a VTT? However, I do agree on the exclusion of animations, such as the magic missile example. That's not something we see at the game table, and borders on video game territory, where other licensing fees may (or may not) apply.
Overall, the new document looks good, but could use a few tweaks before I sign off on it. I like where it's headed, though.
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
I feel you're missing the forests from the trees from what I posted. Edited to add: If it makes you feel better strike that whole sentence with "If Hasbro wants a
clean cut, family friendly (as much as possible), more milquetoastproduct without even the slightest risk of any single thing blowing back on them whatsoever no matter what it does to fringe 3PPs then this is absolutely the safest route."Regarding the tokens, all it says is you can’t copy images from their books. That’s standard IP protection as those are proprietary images. Like it says, you can use a picture of an owlbear, just not their picture of one.
Which is still a strawman position; no creative company believes they can have an entirely risk free product, so a “what if” placing them in that position is a non-starter
Yes, but what if my idea of an owlbear happens to match theirs? The idea is rather ambiguous. It's not like reusing the FORD logo on another brand of car. It's an owlbear. However, if it's to protect the artist's interest, I could understand.
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
It literally just means you cannot clip the picture from an official sourcebook to use
I'm not sure I agree that there's no point in trying to workshop 6F, we only just got the first real draft. I think having the process for 6F violations be transparent and run by a specific body would do a lot to mollify the people who are complaining about the possible morality clause abuse as well as still achieving the stated purpose of protecting the brand and the player base from hate and bigotry. Now what kind of group it would be? I think that is workshoppable. Ideas I think would range from some sort of independent 3rd party not beholden to WOTC or Hasbro to their own cultural consultants.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
It is the specific artistic expression they don’t want you copying. Effectively it says “Draw a picture of an owlbear if you want - it even can look like ours under this license. Just don’t copy the picture on page 147 of the Basic Rules, since that’s ours and we are not licensing that image.”
Emphasis added to my original sentence and more adjustements based on your argument. Still haven't seen you address the fact that 6(f) without even an appeals process poses a large enough risk to 3PP beyond that of bigoted content that will make them far less likely to agree to 1.2. I mean you can say you don't believe that it does which is fine but it's not a 'strawman' to point that out.
Thank you for taking this survey. Your feedback is crucial to our stewardship of the D&D game.
The results of this survey will be made available by February 17, 2023.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I just thought of something......
If WotC does take someone to court because of objectionable content with THEIR tradmarks and Logos on it then WotC has a huge chance for publicity. A huge chance to show the community exactly what they are protecting them from and exactly how far they are willing to go to protect.
And that does not require ANY OGL at all.There are already laws doing just this.
Thanks for clearing that up. I'm down with this.
I am an experienced player (approximately 40 years) who is always looking for a group.
While correct that there are already laws on the books for protecting your own IP, you’re forgetting a little tiny thing—there is an OGL right now, and that document basically gives an unlimited license to do what you want with Wizards property. Follow the rules and you have a shield - “oh, I might be a racist, but Wizards said I could use their property as long as I did certain disclosures. Nothing said I couldn’t use their property for racism!”
So, yes, if we lived in a world without an OGL, then Wizards would have recourse. But the very existence of OGL 1.0 is putting a ball and chain around Wizards’ ankle when it comes to trying to litigate what can’t be done with the property they licensed out in such a cavalier manner.