Eh, I'm willing to buy they were looking to push a more hardline document as fait accompli before the community got up in arms, but I don't think they're planning to invest the kind of man-hours it would take to constantly monitor all 3PP's in some non-sensical attempt at going all Big Brother on the franchise, particularly after the community has made it pretty clear they're ready to take them to court and/or walk away if WotC pushes too far.
Eh, I'm willing to buy they were looking to push a more hardline document as fait accompli before the community got up in arms, but I don't think they're planning to invest the kind of man-hours it would take to constantly monitor all 3PP's in some non-sensical attempt at going all Big Brother on the franchise, particularly after the community has made it pretty clear they're ready to take them to court and/or walk away if WotC pushes too far.
If you license under 1.2 you waive your right to sue. If WotC decides you are out you are out (including having to destroy your stuff printed). But they would never do that? Why is it in the license then? One doesn't even just trust whole societies (therefore laws), but some are willing to trust corporations that have obligations to their investors to abuse you if it is legal and makes money. I will never understand how that works for people in the U.S.
Once again, this is not some new and unprecedented provision. Whatever site you posted your nude goblin pic on? They'll have a clause just like that in their terms, which you almost certainly scrolled right past before marking the "I accept the terms" box so you could make your account. YouTube, Twitch, any art hosting site; all of these places have similar provisions that they have the right to personally moderate what content is published under their banner. This is a completely boilerplate "don't use our name as a platform for your hate speech" line.
Completely fine if you don't care about unilateral decisions that cannot be revised by any means, meaning any 3rd party/ creator using the license would be at the whims of WotC who could always shut them down claiming there was some harm caused by your work, which in a narrow sense is true for every non trivial piece of literature -- it will always offend someone and therefore harm the IP in a very narrow way, that if there is unilateral decision and no revision enough -- leaving aside that without revision it would not matter in the first place.
I will never understand how people can be so hell bent on free speech (usually more than law actually gives you in the U.S. where of course not all speech is protected), but are fine with corporations doing unilateral unchecked censorship to the extend of in this context destroying economic existences.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
Gee, if only it were possible for the D&D community to make their feelings known if D&D started making those kind of decisions, or even just walk away to an alternative. Oh, wait, we can and we've clearly demonstrated we will. Look, if you really cannot bear to bring yourself to believe WotC has anything but active bad intentions in mind, it's time for you to just walk away from D&D. If they wield the clause as a bludgeon, they'll just destroy their own business. An appeals process largely exists for forums where users can report content and get it pulled automatically; it's a check on report trolling. You're still appealing to the company, who has the final say on what content is acceptable. In this case, as WotC is the one who would be initiating the process, so such an appeal would be redundant.
And, regarding the free speech point, they are not saying you cannot say or do whatever it is you said or did, they're saying they don't want their product/brand associated with it. Free speech protections only exist in relation to the government checking your right to speech.
More than 1500 publishers are trying to make the ORC license work. They are all wrong, WotC had to blow up 23 years of peaceful cooperation and 1.2, 2.0 or whatever will be pax romana once there is only WotC. Hail Cynthia Williams.
Goblins are a part of mythology dating back a very, very long time. That Internet Lawyer is a fraud.
Worse case scenario: Matt has his license revoked...his career is not over. He just switches to a new system. Problem solved.
I know what goblins are. You also ignored the thrust of my argument to try and dunk on me. You missed.
Your dismissive tone did not actually address the issues or my concern.
Switches to a new system? You mean, has to pay his suppliers for the inventory he must now destroy, while completely redesigning his product and retooling. All because someone thinks he was naughty. You tried to make it sound simple but it isn’t. Switching systems incurs costs and wait times. One persons smut is another’s meh. The lack of redress is the issue. Quip on that.
You are being flippant to try and ignore the actual problem.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
In the 'Case of the Nude Goblin', WotC does not have control over 'goblins'.
So, as long as that nude goblin does not have a WotC logo or badge, and is not tied to them in any way, they will not care. At. All.
Unless wizards decides the act of posting it constitutes lewd conduct. Remember 6f includes conduct, not just content. If Matt Colville starts an Onlyfans, wizards could decide to pull his license. And Matt could not appeal it. Ever. His career is over.
Also, WOTC may be positioned to claim goblins based on something I saw from one of those internet lawyers. Seems far fetched and completely ridiculous, but there is probably an argument for specific expression and usage.
They don't care about his Onlyfans page. Heck, they might support it. They care if he pulls a Kanye. That dude didn't put any of his nonsense on the clothes he was designing for/with Balenciaga, but it was still a good business move to cut ties. WotC wants to be able to do that.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
None, I am from Germany. We joke about U.S. "morality" all the time. And that is just fine with 1.0a, but not anymore if one would use 1.2.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
One Friday night and a bottle of tequila should be enough to figure it out.
I am sorry, I just really felt the need to make that joke.
Your point is a good one, and I am sure you are more than tired of the west coast granola stereotypes.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
None, I am from Germany. We joke about U.S. "morality" all the time. And that is just fine with 1.0a, but not anymore if one would use 1.2.
Ok. Come to Seattle for pride and then maybe decide what happens here.
In the 'Case of the Nude Goblin', WotC does not have control over 'goblins'.
So, as long as that nude goblin does not have a WotC logo or badge, and is not tied to them in any way, they will not care. At. All.
Unless wizards decides the act of posting it constitutes lewd conduct. Remember 6f includes conduct, not just content. If Matt Colville starts an Onlyfans, wizards could decide to pull his license. And Matt could not appeal it. Ever. His career is over.
Also, WOTC may be positioned to claim goblins based on something I saw from one of those internet lawyers. Seems far fetched and completely ridiculous, but there is probably an argument for specific expression and usage.
They don't care about his Onlyfans page. Heck, they might support it. They care if he pulls a Kanye. That dude didn't put any of his nonsense on the clothes he was designing for/with Balenciaga, but it was still a good business move to cut ties. WotC wants to be able to do that.
How do you know that though? Can you be sure that won’t change?
This forum has an appeals process. 6f should too.
Wizards seek to block anyone’s ability to gain injunctive relief while exercising it unilaterally without recourse for whatever reason they decide. Not ok.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
None, I am from Germany. We joke about U.S. "morality" all the time. And that is just fine with 1.0a, but not anymore if one would use 1.2.
Ok. Come to Seattle for pride and then maybe decide what happens here.
Yeah. That is what I mean. Look for Berlin. We are okay with full nudity at the parade as part as our version of body positivity. I mean full, both sexes, no patches and nothing. No non-consesual touching though. And that is Berlin main street. Morality rules for a global game are a very bad idea, really. google berlin csd nude
I would contest that there is usually a redress function in moderation though. An appeals process. In this case there is no appeals process, and that is what I do not like at all.
A non-legal appeals process could be reasonable to try to explain things and talk to Wizards. But it would be unreasonable to expect Wizards to spend money and time legally fighting every proponent of hate speech in court... no company will be okay with being forced to do that in a license that they don't even have to give to you in the first place.
I hate that 1.0a diehards have unilaterally decided that literally any amount of protection is too much, and only by leaving the door wide open to everything hateful, repulsive, and deplorable can DMs be allowed to keep their God-given right to beat "Other" people to death with a DMG if they want to. It's not like literally everyone who otherwise supports the overall process didn't come right out and say "Yeah, 6f is overtuned and needs to be redone" within, like...an hour of the document dropping or anything. Nah. We just get the same blowhards as always trotting out the same shitty arguments as always that Fantasy without explicit above-the-table exclusionism, discrimination, and hate just isn't Fantasy and if someone wants to beat an "Other" to death with a DMG who the hell is Wizards to stop him?
I would contest that there is usually a redress function in moderation though. An appeals process. In this case there is no appeals process, and that is what I do not like at all.
A non-legal appeals process could be reasonable to try to explain things and talk to Wizards. But it would be unreasonable to expect Wizards to spend money and time legally fighting every proponent of hate speech in court... no company will be okay with being forced to do that in a license that they don't even have to give to you in the first place.
As if this was the big problem. I am aware of a pandemic, but it is not D&D hate speech (that would not even be under trademark). If WotC would invent a new IP today it would be okay for them to have it all, and us not playing it. But they let the community including the creators grow the IP for 23 years under the expectation that was either shared or malisciously cultivated by WotC to have this freedom forever. Now WotC attacks the status quo without any need to do so because they think they can make more money.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
lots. Apparently having sex with animals is pretty ok. I use to live in the dry shitties. and people been caught having sex with a almost dead beaver. and one guy died from having sex with a horse. So washington is pretty morally open to being ******** too.
Everyone brings up that horse guy! Was there some global news bulletin?
I would contest that there is usually a redress function in moderation though. An appeals process. In this case there is no appeals process, and that is what I do not like at all.
A non-legal appeals process could be reasonable to try to explain things and talk to Wizards. But it would be unreasonable to expect Wizards to spend money and time legally fighting every proponent of hate speech in court... no company will be okay with being forced to do that in a license that they don't even have to give to you in the first place.
As if this was the big problem. I am aware of a pandemic, but it is not D&D hate speech (that would not even be under trademark). If WotC would invent a new IP today it would be okay for them to have it all, and us not playing it. But they let the community including the creators grow the IP for 23 years under the expectation that was either shared or malisciously cultivated by WotC to have this freedom forever. Now WotC attacks the status quo without any need to do so because they think they can make more money.
Hate to break it to you friend, but the world has changed quite a bit since the original OGL was drafted 23 years ago. I mean... The original U.S. constitution said nothing about banning slavery. But I guess shame on the U.S. for changing the status quo and getting rid of that evil? Wizards needs to future proof the protection of their business, brand, and IP. It's some serious tin-foil hat thinking to suddenly believe Wizards has decided to just start banning everyone's content. If that were true, they would not be trying to create a new license in the first place. They'd just deauthorize the OGL 1.0a and not create and new one and tell you to eff off.
Plus there is a lot of content I want to see but is pretty certainly obscene by Washington State standards. But that would never even be tested with there not being any way to have WotC arbitrary decisions reviewed.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
None, I am from Germany. We joke about U.S. "morality" all the time. And that is just fine with 1.0a, but not anymore if one would use 1.2.
Ok. Come to Seattle for pride and then maybe decide what happens here.
Yeah. That is what I mean. Look for Berlin. We are okay with full nudity at the parade as part as our version of body positivity. I mean full, both sexes, no patches and nothing. No non-consesual touching though. And that is Berlin main street. Morality rules for a global game are a very bad idea, really. google berlin csd nude
Yup. And we have a naked bike ride every year on the summer solstice, not even for pride, just a parade. I get that the US is generally more uptight, but we are far from monolithic. Maybe check facts before you talk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Eh, I'm willing to buy they were looking to push a more hardline document as fait accompli before the community got up in arms, but I don't think they're planning to invest the kind of man-hours it would take to constantly monitor all 3PP's in some non-sensical attempt at going all Big Brother on the franchise, particularly after the community has made it pretty clear they're ready to take them to court and/or walk away if WotC pushes too far.
Goblins are a part of mythology dating back a very, very long time. That Internet Lawyer is a fraud.
Worse case scenario: Matt has his license revoked...his career is not over. He just switches to a new system. Problem solved.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
If you license under 1.2 you waive your right to sue. If WotC decides you are out you are out (including having to destroy your stuff printed). But they would never do that? Why is it in the license then? One doesn't even just trust whole societies (therefore laws), but some are willing to trust corporations that have obligations to their investors to abuse you if it is legal and makes money. I will never understand how that works for people in the U.S.
And they were wrong...because times change. Society and technology evolves, which mandated a change.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
This. Well said.
Check us out on Twitch, YouTube and the DISCORD!
More than 1500 publishers are trying to make the ORC license work. They are all wrong, WotC had to blow up 23 years of peaceful cooperation and 1.2, 2.0 or whatever will be pax romana once there is only WotC. Hail Cynthia Williams.
I know what goblins are. You also ignored the thrust of my argument to try and dunk on me. You missed.
Your dismissive tone did not actually address the issues or my concern.
Switches to a new system? You mean, has to pay his suppliers for the inventory he must now destroy, while completely redesigning his product and retooling. All because someone thinks he was naughty. You tried to make it sound simple but it isn’t. Switching systems incurs costs and wait times. One persons smut is another’s meh. The lack of redress is the issue. Quip on that.
You are being flippant to try and ignore the actual problem.
How much time have you spent in Washington State that you're so familiar with what we consider obscene?
They don't care about his Onlyfans page. Heck, they might support it. They care if he pulls a Kanye. That dude didn't put any of his nonsense on the clothes he was designing for/with Balenciaga, but it was still a good business move to cut ties. WotC wants to be able to do that.
None, I am from Germany. We joke about U.S. "morality" all the time. And that is just fine with 1.0a, but not anymore if one would use 1.2.
One Friday night and a bottle of tequila should be enough to figure it out.
I am sorry, I just really felt the need to make that joke.
Your point is a good one, and I am sure you are more than tired of the west coast granola stereotypes.
Ok. Come to Seattle for pride and then maybe decide what happens here.
How do you know that though? Can you be sure that won’t change?
This forum has an appeals process. 6f should too.
Wizards seek to block anyone’s ability to gain injunctive relief while exercising it unilaterally without recourse for whatever reason they decide. Not ok.
Yeah. That is what I mean. Look for Berlin. We are okay with full nudity at the parade as part as our version of body positivity. I mean full, both sexes, no patches and nothing. No non-consesual touching though. And that is Berlin main street. Morality rules for a global game are a very bad idea, really. google berlin csd nude
A non-legal appeals process could be reasonable to try to explain things and talk to Wizards. But it would be unreasonable to expect Wizards to spend money and time legally fighting every proponent of hate speech in court... no company will be okay with being forced to do that in a license that they don't even have to give to you in the first place.
I hate that 1.0a diehards have unilaterally decided that literally any amount of protection is too much, and only by leaving the door wide open to everything hateful, repulsive, and deplorable can DMs be allowed to keep their God-given right to beat "Other" people to death with a DMG if they want to. It's not like literally everyone who otherwise supports the overall process didn't come right out and say "Yeah, 6f is overtuned and needs to be redone" within, like...an hour of the document dropping or anything. Nah. We just get the same blowhards as always trotting out the same shitty arguments as always that Fantasy without explicit above-the-table exclusionism, discrimination, and hate just isn't Fantasy and if someone wants to beat an "Other" to death with a DMG who the hell is Wizards to stop him?
Please do not contact or message me.
As if this was the big problem. I am aware of a pandemic, but it is not D&D hate speech (that would not even be under trademark). If WotC would invent a new IP today it would be okay for them to have it all, and us not playing it. But they let the community including the creators grow the IP for 23 years under the expectation that was either shared or malisciously cultivated by WotC to have this freedom forever. Now WotC attacks the status quo without any need to do so because they think they can make more money.
Everyone brings up that horse guy! Was there some global news bulletin?
Hate to break it to you friend, but the world has changed quite a bit since the original OGL was drafted 23 years ago. I mean... The original U.S. constitution said nothing about banning slavery. But I guess shame on the U.S. for changing the status quo and getting rid of that evil? Wizards needs to future proof the protection of their business, brand, and IP. It's some serious tin-foil hat thinking to suddenly believe Wizards has decided to just start banning everyone's content. If that were true, they would not be trying to create a new license in the first place. They'd just deauthorize the OGL 1.0a and not create and new one and tell you to eff off.
The world is not out to get you.
Yup.
And we have a naked bike ride every year on the summer solstice, not even for pride, just a parade.
I get that the US is generally more uptight, but we are far from monolithic. Maybe check facts before you talk.