Since the other person continues to ignore me. Perhaps someone with a more level head might actually respond. If we are trying to protect people from bigotry etc etc in books that anyone can publish... why hasn't anyone before? You really think no one has tried before? It is already protected, you can not publish hateful content like they are promising to protect us from.
Why put fire suppression systems in buildings that have never burned down before? Why bother passwording your stuff if nobody's stolen your identity or cracked your computer before? Why bother putting on pants if you've never been arrested for indecent exposure before?
Why does someone have to break the system before a vulnerability gets patched? And why doesn't Ernie G and his bookful of hatespew count as an example of how close we can come to someone using D&D to peddle hate?
Since the other person continues to ignore me. Perhaps someone with a more level head might actually respond. If we are trying to protect people from bigotry etc etc in books that anyone can publish... why hasn't anyone before? You really think no one has tried before? It is already protected, you can not publish hateful content like they are promising to protect us from.
Why put fire suppression systems in buildings that have never burned down before? Why bother passwording your stuff if nobody's stolen your identity or cracked your computer before? Why bother putting on pants if you've never been arrested for indecent exposure before?
Why does someone have to break the system before a vulnerability gets patched? And why doesn't Ernie G and his bookful of hatespew count as an example of how close we can come to someone using D&D to peddle hate?
yeah, the point isn’t why not put protection in. The point is, not this kind of protection. Your pants thing doesn’t fit the analogy since wearing pants is the protection against the chatter. But, if we look at your pants thing, we might see an issue. Indecent exposure laws were a result of people exposing themselves. Put on the pants! No. Ok now is against law.
Some people see this as over reaching and a smoke signal to bog the real discussion. Sort of like when governments tack crazy amendments on to bills so no one votes for it. My education bill now includes a farm subsidy. Now we aren’t voting on education, we are voting to save the lives of hard working farmers.
If the ogl becomes about bigotry and giant mega corporation not wanting people hurt then those opposed must be bigots. Get ‘‘em guys, they’re bigots. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where a spy satellite falls from the sky, and everyone is shocked. Mark MacGwire says, hey, do you want to look in to this spying thing or watch me hit some dingers. Everyone wants the dingers.
6f is distracting from the bad actor here. Giant mega corp taking steps towards monopoly. And Yurie, you literally have cyberpunk as an identity. This is mega corp doing mega corp stuff.
Since the other person continues to ignore me. Perhaps someone with a more level head might actually respond. If we are trying to protect people from bigotry etc etc in books that anyone can publish... why hasn't anyone before? You really think no one has tried before? It is already protected, you can not publish hateful content like they are promising to protect us from.
Why put fire suppression systems in buildings that have never burned down before? Why bother passwording your stuff if nobody's stolen your identity or cracked your computer before? Why bother putting on pants if you've never been arrested for indecent exposure before?
Why does someone have to break the system before a vulnerability gets patched? And why doesn't Ernie G and his bookful of hatespew count as an example of how close we can come to someone using D&D to peddle hate?
And to build on the above analogy and answer the second part of the question - there is clearly a widespread belief that D&D has a working sprinkler system, and, historically, arsonists might have been disinclined to set things on fire, assuming Wizards could respond.
Except now everyone knows they don’t have a sprinkler system in place. Though the increased scrutiny on what OGL 1.0 says, or more accurately does not say, folks have now seen there is an open door on OGC house with a sign saying “come in, there’s no real safety systems here - use the house as you wish.”
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
Since the other person continues to ignore me. Perhaps someone with a more level head might actually respond. If we are trying to protect people from bigotry etc etc in books that anyone can publish... why hasn't anyone before? You really think no one has tried before? It is already protected, you can not publish hateful content like they are promising to protect us from.
Why put fire suppression systems in buildings that have never burned down before? Why bother passwording your stuff if nobody's stolen your identity or cracked your computer before? Why bother putting on pants if you've never been arrested for indecent exposure before?
Why does someone have to break the system before a vulnerability gets patched? And why doesn't Ernie G and his bookful of hatespew count as an example of how close we can come to someone using D&D to peddle hate?
And to build on the above analogy and answer the second part of the question - there is clearly a widespread belief that D&D has a working sprinkler system, and, historically, arsonists might have been disinclined to set things on fire, assuming Wizards could respond.
Except now everyone knows they don’t have a sprinkler system in place. Though the increased scrutiny on what OGL 1.0 says, or more accurately does not say, folks have now seen there is an open door on OGC house with a sign saying “come in, there’s no real safety systems here - use the house as you wish.”
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
I wonder if it is actually not because there was no security, but because no one wanted to.
I know people like avenger whatshisnuts and the rpgpundick are a thing. A small thing. A petty little thing. If I was Wizards, I would let them live so they can collect all the like minds in a bowl to keep an eye on them.
The people who are looking to exploit this to make hate speech will do it for the lulz. Their money won’t come from producing bad rpg supplements anyway.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
And your solution is (besides getting limitation to media, cutting down VTTs, getting trap clauses that allow WotC to do everything, rubbing salt into wounds by adding irrevocable but redifining what that means, taking it back) not to rely on public perception and attribution (like what can WotC for a 3rd party being a..holes) or law, but to trust the wisdom in all things ethics, and if they might not be perfect having no recurse? The moral stuff is a smoke screen, and it is amazing to me that it is the part that seems to work best. Guess Hadozee make WotC the gold standard.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
And your solution is (besides getting limitation to media, cutting down VTTs, getting trap clauses that allow WotC to do everything, rubbing salt into wounds by adding irrevocable but redifining what that means, taking it back) not to rely on public perception and attribution (like what can WotC for a 3rd party being a..holes) or law, but to trust the wisdom in all things ethics, and if they might not be perfect having no recurse? The moral stuff is a smoke screen, and it is amazing to me that it is the part that seems to work best. Guess Hadozee make WotC the gold standard.
Not to mention the additional fact that if content is really hateful, no printer will print it, no store will carry it, and no media will talk about it except to name and shame it and make sure everyone knows to avoid it.
The idea it could somehow blow back on WotC, despite said theoretical product being unable to actually associate itself with DnD, is silly - they would (or at least should) be on the front lines of the campaign to bury that stuff in the deepest, darkest internet hole anyone can find.
Which is no different than now, since bad actors clearly don't need 1.0a to do this sort of thing - 1.0a didn't prevent Star Frontier, 1.2 wouldn't either! Neither is related to that situation, and neither provides Wizards with the ability to avoid the exposure.
Ah I love how I ask for someone with a level head to finally answer and it is the white knights finally that do. Yeah continue confirming that you both work for Wizards, thanks.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
And your solution is (besides getting limitation to media, cutting down VTTs, getting trap clauses that allow WotC to do everything, rubbing salt into wounds by adding irrevocable but redifining what that means, taking it back) not to rely on public perception and attribution (like what can WotC for a 3rd party being a..holes) or law, but to trust the wisdom in all things ethics, and if they might not be perfect having no recurse? The moral stuff is a smoke screen, and it is amazing to me that it is the part that seems to work best. Guess Hadozee make WotC the gold standard.
My solution is to trust in the law - which I can’t trust right now because a judge could easily look at 1.0, look at the bigoted content, and say “Sorry Wizards - you didn’t say they couldn’t use this for bigotry and you gave them an open license. Your license doesn’t allow you to revoke it just because you don’t like the content.” That’s how most judges I know probably would rule - I know it is how I would, even though it would pain me to say it.
This is also one of the reasons why - as I have mentioned on other threads - I gave Wizards feedback telling them to remove the “you can’t challenge our decision in court” language. I don’t mind Wizards making the decision initially - but someone should be able to sue for breach of contract and have a judge decide if Wizards’ decision to strip the license constituted a breach or not.
That is actually putting faith in the law - taking away the legal shield racists have of “you didn’t say I couldn’t” and forcing both sides to actually defend their positions if the matter ever came before a judge.
Ah I love how I ask for someone with a level head to finally answer and it is the white knights finally that do. Yeah continue confirming that you both work for Wizards, thanks.
My solution is to trust in the law - which I can’t trust right now because a judge could easily look at 1.0, look at the bigoted content, and say “Sorry Wizards - you didn’t say they couldn’t use this for bigotry and you gave them an open license. Your license doesn’t allow you to revoke it just because you don’t like the content.” That’s how most judges I know probably would rule - I know it is how I would, even though it would pain me to say it.
[...]
That is actually putting faith in the law - taking away the legal shield racists have of “you didn’t say I couldn’t” and forcing both sides to actually defend their positions if the matter ever came before a judge.
1.2 gives absolute power to WotC. They can decide your work to be harmful and that is it. You are not allowed to test WotC's decision at court. You waived that right by contract of taking the 1.2 license. A moral clause is always a problem, but having no external instance to appeal to makes it a non-starter.
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
This. Ernie and his troll brigade being too dumb to use the OGL 1.0a as a shield doesn't mean WotC should count on trolls staying dumb in perpetuity.
And your solution is (besides getting limitation to media, cutting down VTTs, getting trap clauses that allow WotC to do everything, rubbing salt into wounds by adding irrevocable but redifining what that means, taking it back) not to rely on public perception and attribution (like what can WotC for a 3rd party being a..holes) or law, but to trust the wisdom in all things ethics, and if they might not be perfect having no recurse? The moral stuff is a smoke screen, and it is amazing to me that it is the part that seems to work best. Guess Hadozee make WotC the gold standard.
The "bUT hAdOZeE!!" argument ignores the most basic fact of that situation - that WotC, having been the ones to make the mistake, were able to correct it near-instantly. They didn't have issue any C&Ds, sue anyone, wrestle with the horribly vague 1.0a, or have the language floating out there any longer than it needed to. If something like Hadozee were printed under 1.0a, getting rid of it would be much harder.
My solution is to trust in the law - which I can’t trust right now because a judge could easily look at 1.0, look at the bigoted content, and say “Sorry Wizards - you didn’t say they couldn’t use this for bigotry and you gave them an open license. Your license doesn’t allow you to revoke it just because you don’t like the content.” That’s how most judges I know probably would rule - I know it is how I would, even though it would pain me to say it.
[...]
That is actually putting faith in the law - taking away the legal shield racists have of “you didn’t say I couldn’t” and forcing both sides to actually defend their positions if the matter ever came before a judge.
1.2 gives absolute power to WotC. They can decide your work to be harmful and that is it. You are not allowed to test WotC's decision at court. You waived that right by contract of taking the 1.2 license. A moral clause is always a problem, but having no external instance to appeal to makes it a non-starter.
And the guy you quoted is against WotC having absolute power in that situation. Did you even read what he wrote?
Is the evil described really an issue? We've had several decades worth of RPGs, including from WoTC themselves, that has whatever harmful content that can be imagined, such as what they saw in VGtM, MToF, CoS and SJ, and can simply be ignored in your own games or request it of others not to put in, as should always be done in zero session.
But even if it was truly harmful in a very real way, where somehow playing in a racist sexist system and setting physically summons a murderous demon in real life or some other crazy thing, how would the new OGL even solve that? Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and moving harmful content away from D&D doesn't just suddenly make it disappear. The publishers are still free to make and publish it as another system in the same way as a million other RPGs, or they could just continue to play extremely dark settings using D&D rules. That demon would still be summoned.
If WotC wishes to show all the literally harmful games made using the OGL 1.0a that somehow creates these very real problems, that for some reason need their OGL, I'm all ears. Otherwise I don't care if someone is playing and making SuperHitler 3000 using the OGL. Again, they'd simply make and publish Hitlerpunk 4000 without the OGL anyway. It solves nothing even if they were an actual threat.
Meanwhile, why should there be trust in the 'benevolent' overlord angels of WotC? For them to have total financial and legal control over some settings and systems by pulling the plug simply because the other party put in a few "harmful" (whatever that means) characters in it for contrast, or ironically to give some foes for the party to fight. And the other party can't fight it in court? Even if our overlords were actually benevolent and fair, who is to say it will stay that way? Do examples need to be listed of new corporate heads enacting abuse of the legal power they now have?
It sounds to me like the real evil is authoritarian corruption using the law and other issues as a shield and a justification for their potential abuses in the future. While I generally don't like showing similarities to much harsher examples, it does fit quite well to certain nations justifying invasions to fight racists.
But lets just say this goes through. The old OGL is defunct and the new OGL is in and it has everything wanted in moving said evil out of view. It has all the limitations and control to protect D&D from harmful elements. So what? Now the upcoming ORC, or just standard CC licenses out there, will function as the new haven for whatever evil was somehow conjured up specifically through the OGL 1.0a. Literally 1500+ 3rd party publishers signed it, who were apart of the community of D&D now leaving and making their own thing. Perhaps what it does give is a sense of pride and accomplishment for keeping a brand community, pure and purged of such taint. Just don't look out the window.
Otherwise I don't care if someone is playing and making SuperHitler 3000 using the OGL. Again, they'd simply make and publish Hitlerpunk 4000 without the OGL anyway.
Let them do the latter then. WotC doesn't have to enable them just to appease you.
The 1.0a is this communities treaty of 1815. If you have any knowledge of history, then you'll realize what happened over the next few decades! Let's just say that the term "indian giver" never reflected poorly on Native Americans. It was always about taking back what was "given" to the original peoples of this land, which was theirs.to begin with.
You want to talk about hateful conduct? Destabilizing the careers of thousands, taking food off the tables of their children by trying to steal back what they have already given is shameful, and hateful. I had one book cancelled for "hate content". I hit like on a Facebook post for 2nd Amendment rights. Considering I've twice had my life saved by firearms, it is a precious thing to me. Allowing a billion dollar corporation to determine what is ethical, is not a good idea. The next CEO might be a right winger and turn those tables against you.
I have scars from stepping stepping in to defend people against racists. I still recall crying because as I was getting Sweet Lou's autograph and the sheriff came to return his motel money, saying that he didn't have adequate staff to protect the Harlem Globetrotters, because several threats had been made by ignorant fools who didn't like the way their ladies were looking at them. The costume contest at the Con I used to host was named after a friend who was a member of the LGBT community that won the contest the first year and died later that year. So hate is not something I support. What I do support is freedom of expression. You can't create a more inclusive community by excluding people. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of two people of the same sex saying that they wanted to get married would have been called hurtful to society. Had the right to speak out when people thought that homosexuality was a threat to society been denied that community where would we be now? It is always the expression of the unpopular opinion that needs protecting.
I do support the badges! I do think that Wizards has every right to issue an expanded SRD and a new OGL that has these terms in it for their new content. As a matter of fact, I would recommend changing the term, so that products released under the new license are separated from those under the OGL, giving a further between of distance between creators not willing to follow these guidelines and Wizards of the Coast. I'll even go one step further and say that WotC could deny the use of the Dungeons and Dragons name requiring any future releases to have something along the lines compatible with OGL 1.0a and 3rd ed., 3.5, or 5e rather than actually saying Dungeons and Dragons.
I am currently anxiously awaiting the next UA so our community has something else to talk about, and tempers can cool.
Is the evil described really an issue? We've had several decades worth of RPGs, including from WoTC themselves, that has whatever harmful content that can be imagined, such as what they saw in VGtM, MToF, CoS and SJ, and can simply be ignored in your own games or request it of others not to put in, as should always be done in zero session.
But even if it was truly harmful in a very real way, where somehow playing in a racist sexist system and setting physically summons a murderous demon in real life or some other crazy thing, how would the new OGL even solve that? Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and moving harmful content away from D&D doesn't just suddenly make it disappear. The publishers are still free to make and publish it as another system in the same way as a million other RPGs, or they could just continue to play extremely dark settings using D&D rules. That demon would still be summoned.
If WotC wishes to show all the literally harmful games made using the OGL 1.0a that somehow creates these very real problems, that for some reason need their OGL, I'm all ears. Otherwise I don't care if someone is playing and making SuperHitler 3000 using the OGL. Again, they'd simply make and publish Hitlerpunk 4000 without the OGL anyway. It solves nothing even if they were an actual threat.
Meanwhile, why should there be trust in the 'benevolent' overlord angels of WotC? For them to have total financial and legal control over some settings and systems by pulling the plug simply because the other party put in a few "harmful" (whatever that means) characters in it for contrast, or ironically to give some foes for the party to fight. And the other party can't fight it in court? Even if our overlords were actually benevolent and fair, who is to say it will stay that way? Do examples need to be listed of new corporate heads enacting abuse of the legal power they now have?
It sounds to me like the real evil is authoritarian corruption using the law and other issues as a shield and a justification for their potential abuses in the future. While I generally don't like showing similarities to much harsher examples, it does fit quite well to certain nations justifying invasions to fight racists.
But lets just say this goes through. The old OGL is defunct and the new OGL is in and it has everything wanted in moving said evil out of view. It has all the limitations and control to protect D&D from harmful elements. So what? Now the upcoming ORC, or just standard CC licenses out there, will function as the new haven for whatever evil was somehow conjured up specifically through the OGL 1.0a. Literally 1500+ 3rd party publishers signed it, who were apart of the community of D&D now leaving and making their own thing. Perhaps what it does give is a sense of pride and accomplishment for keeping a brand community, pure and purged of such taint. Just don't look out the window.
Exactly. All this talk of OGL 1.0a being a "shield" is total nonsense. There is nothing that prevents people from publishing whatever they want regardless. Instead, the real intent is to make the new version a hammer. In exchange for making some fools think that Wizards will be making the world a better place, they will actually be using that hammer mainly to crush and control 3rd party creators and any VTT competition.
“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 don't know what kind of provisions or safeguards will be in ORC. It doesn't exist.
That's why I said "doing", in that they are in transition to switching. Given the whole point of it being made is openness and neutrality without fear of it being revoked or have to deal with court costs, and was started by all the companies' annoyances of the 1.0a drama, many inferences can be made. Not that publishers need ORC though, its just as an example of alternative licenses being used or worked on besides the upcoming OGL (which doesn't exist yet, just "drafts" as they legally say). Another is CC, which WotC is also, in part, switching to in some hybrid form.
You're allowed to have whatever opinions about censorship that you want. But when you use someone else's platform or property, they get a say in what you do with them. If you don't want to follow those rules, you can either use public property or your own instead.
Censorship is always bad, it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
It is a tool that is used for evil, often under the guise of "protecting good". Your example is no more relevant than saying one can ask another to leave one own's house (unless you live in California). The marketplace will determine what is acceptable or not. Using SUBJECTIVE ideals to determine the OBJECTIVE existence of art is a very slippery slope. It would put every publisher, including WotC in a catch 20 situation. Produce a product which has a "straight" character in it, could be deemed as "hateful, harmful, or discriminatory" as much as one which has a LGTBQ+ character by victim minded people. In fact if 6(f) remains in place, WotC will get sued on ANY content it produces, using its own language to support the basis for whatever victim minded portion of the populace who chooses to take offense and be "harmed" by words.
It's ok though, it worked for almost a decade for the National Socialist Workers Party before change came, it is always interesting to see people who are so concerned about having freedom are willing to do so at the cost of liberty for any they disagree with, or find "harmful".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Why put fire suppression systems in buildings that have never burned down before?
Why bother passwording your stuff if nobody's stolen your identity or cracked your computer before?
Why bother putting on pants if you've never been arrested for indecent exposure before?
Why does someone have to break the system before a vulnerability gets patched? And why doesn't Ernie G and his bookful of hatespew count as an example of how close we can come to someone using D&D to peddle hate?
Please do not contact or message me.
yeah, the point isn’t why not put protection in. The point is, not this kind of protection. Your pants thing doesn’t fit the analogy since wearing pants is the protection against the chatter.
But, if we look at your pants thing, we might see an issue. Indecent exposure laws were a result of people exposing themselves. Put on the pants! No. Ok now is against law.
Some people see this as over reaching and a smoke signal to bog the real discussion. Sort of like when governments tack crazy amendments on to bills so no one votes for it. My education bill now includes a farm subsidy. Now we aren’t voting on education, we are voting to save the lives of hard working farmers.
If the ogl becomes about bigotry and giant mega corporation not wanting people hurt then those opposed must be bigots. Get ‘‘em guys, they’re bigots. I am reminded of the Simpsons episode where a spy satellite falls from the sky, and everyone is shocked. Mark MacGwire says, hey, do you want to look in to this spying thing or watch me hit some dingers. Everyone wants the dingers.
6f is distracting from the bad actor here. Giant mega corp taking steps towards monopoly. And Yurie, you literally have cyberpunk as an identity. This is mega corp doing mega corp stuff.
And to build on the above analogy and answer the second part of the question - there is clearly a widespread belief that D&D has a working sprinkler system, and, historically, arsonists might have been disinclined to set things on fire, assuming Wizards could respond.
Except now everyone knows they don’t have a sprinkler system in place. Though the increased scrutiny on what OGL 1.0 says, or more accurately does not say, folks have now seen there is an open door on OGC house with a sign saying “come in, there’s no real safety systems here - use the house as you wish.”
Wizards has been lucky so far - they have been dealing with Ernie Gygax (who was so dumb as to blatantly take clearly protected content) and no one was really scrutinising OGL 1.0 to find vulnerabilities. But now those vulnerabilities are very public, and someone smarter than Ernie (if not Ernie himself trying to score his racist revenge on Wizards) would inevitably going to take advantage of the complete lack of content safeguards.
I wonder if it is actually not because there was no security, but because no one wanted to.
I know people like avenger whatshisnuts and the rpgpundick are a thing. A small thing. A petty little thing. If I was Wizards, I would let them live so they can collect all the like minds in a bowl to keep an eye on them.
The people who are looking to exploit this to make hate speech will do it for the lulz. Their money won’t come from producing bad rpg supplements anyway.
And your solution is (besides getting limitation to media, cutting down VTTs, getting trap clauses that allow WotC to do everything, rubbing salt into wounds by adding irrevocable but redifining what that means, taking it back) not to rely on public perception and attribution (like what can WotC for a 3rd party being a..holes) or law, but to trust the wisdom in all things ethics, and if they might not be perfect having no recurse? The moral stuff is a smoke screen, and it is amazing to me that it is the part that seems to work best. Guess Hadozee make WotC the gold standard.
Not to mention the additional fact that if content is really hateful, no printer will print it, no store will carry it, and no media will talk about it except to name and shame it and make sure everyone knows to avoid it.
The idea it could somehow blow back on WotC, despite said theoretical product being unable to actually associate itself with DnD, is silly - they would (or at least should) be on the front lines of the campaign to bury that stuff in the deepest, darkest internet hole anyone can find.
Which is no different than now, since bad actors clearly don't need 1.0a to do this sort of thing - 1.0a didn't prevent Star Frontier, 1.2 wouldn't either! Neither is related to that situation, and neither provides Wizards with the ability to avoid the exposure.
Ah I love how I ask for someone with a level head to finally answer and it is the white knights finally that do. Yeah continue confirming that you both work for Wizards, thanks.
My solution is to trust in the law - which I can’t trust right now because a judge could easily look at 1.0, look at the bigoted content, and say “Sorry Wizards - you didn’t say they couldn’t use this for bigotry and you gave them an open license. Your license doesn’t allow you to revoke it just because you don’t like the content.” That’s how most judges I know probably would rule - I know it is how I would, even though it would pain me to say it.
This is also one of the reasons why - as I have mentioned on other threads - I gave Wizards feedback telling them to remove the “you can’t challenge our decision in court” language. I don’t mind Wizards making the decision initially - but someone should be able to sue for breach of contract and have a judge decide if Wizards’ decision to strip the license constituted a breach or not.
That is actually putting faith in the law - taking away the legal shield racists have of “you didn’t say I couldn’t” and forcing both sides to actually defend their positions if the matter ever came before a judge.
I am not sure this is helpful.
1.2 gives absolute power to WotC. They can decide your work to be harmful and that is it. You are not allowed to test WotC's decision at court. You waived that right by contract of taking the 1.2 license. A moral clause is always a problem, but having no external instance to appeal to makes it a non-starter.
This. Ernie and his troll brigade being too dumb to use the OGL 1.0a as a shield doesn't mean WotC should count on trolls staying dumb in perpetuity.
The "bUT hAdOZeE!!" argument ignores the most basic fact of that situation - that WotC, having been the ones to make the mistake, were able to correct it near-instantly. They didn't have issue any C&Ds, sue anyone, wrestle with the horribly vague 1.0a, or have the language floating out there any longer than it needed to. If something like Hadozee were printed under 1.0a, getting rid of it would be much harder.
And the guy you quoted is against WotC having absolute power in that situation. Did you even read what he wrote?
Is the evil described really an issue? We've had several decades worth of RPGs, including from WoTC themselves, that has whatever harmful content that can be imagined, such as what they saw in VGtM, MToF, CoS and SJ, and can simply be ignored in your own games or request it of others not to put in, as should always be done in zero session.
But even if it was truly harmful in a very real way, where somehow playing in a racist sexist system and setting physically summons a murderous demon in real life or some other crazy thing, how would the new OGL even solve that? Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted, and moving harmful content away from D&D doesn't just suddenly make it disappear. The publishers are still free to make and publish it as another system in the same way as a million other RPGs, or they could just continue to play extremely dark settings using D&D rules. That demon would still be summoned.
If WotC wishes to show all the literally harmful games made using the OGL 1.0a that somehow creates these very real problems, that for some reason need their OGL, I'm all ears. Otherwise I don't care if someone is playing and making SuperHitler 3000 using the OGL. Again, they'd simply make and publish Hitlerpunk 4000 without the OGL anyway. It solves nothing even if they were an actual threat.
Meanwhile, why should there be trust in the 'benevolent' overlord angels of WotC? For them to have total financial and legal control over some settings and systems by pulling the plug simply because the other party put in a few "harmful" (whatever that means) characters in it for contrast, or ironically to give some foes for the party to fight. And the other party can't fight it in court? Even if our overlords were actually benevolent and fair, who is to say it will stay that way? Do examples need to be listed of new corporate heads enacting abuse of the legal power they now have?
It sounds to me like the real evil is authoritarian corruption using the law and other issues as a shield and a justification for their potential abuses in the future. While I generally don't like showing similarities to much harsher examples, it does fit quite well to certain nations justifying invasions to fight racists.
But lets just say this goes through. The old OGL is defunct and the new OGL is in and it has everything wanted in moving said evil out of view. It has all the limitations and control to protect D&D from harmful elements. So what? Now the upcoming ORC, or just standard CC licenses out there, will function as the new haven for whatever evil was somehow conjured up specifically through the OGL 1.0a. Literally 1500+ 3rd party publishers signed it, who were apart of the community of D&D now leaving and making their own thing. Perhaps what it does give is a sense of pride and accomplishment for keeping a brand community, pure and purged of such taint. Just don't look out the window.
Let them do the latter then. WotC doesn't have to enable them just to appease you.
Yes? They are doing the latter with ORC. Not sure why you think WotC should appease me though. In the very thing you quoted I said I don't care.
You don't know what kind of provisions or safeguards will be in ORC. It doesn't exist.
The 1.0a is this communities treaty of 1815. If you have any knowledge of history, then you'll realize what happened over the next few decades! Let's just say that the term "indian giver" never reflected poorly on Native Americans. It was always about taking back what was "given" to the original peoples of this land, which was theirs.to begin with.
You want to talk about hateful conduct? Destabilizing the careers of thousands, taking food off the tables of their children by trying to steal back what they have already given is shameful, and hateful. I had one book cancelled for "hate content". I hit like on a Facebook post for 2nd Amendment rights. Considering I've twice had my life saved by firearms, it is a precious thing to me. Allowing a billion dollar corporation to determine what is ethical, is not a good idea. The next CEO might be a right winger and turn those tables against you.
I have scars from stepping stepping in to defend people against racists. I still recall crying because as I was getting Sweet Lou's autograph and the sheriff came to return his motel money, saying that he didn't have adequate staff to protect the Harlem Globetrotters, because several threats had been made by ignorant fools who didn't like the way their ladies were looking at them. The costume contest at the Con I used to host was named after a friend who was a member of the LGBT community that won the contest the first year and died later that year. So hate is not something I support. What I do support is freedom of expression. You can't create a more inclusive community by excluding people. It wasn't too long ago that the idea of two people of the same sex saying that they wanted to get married would have been called hurtful to society. Had the right to speak out when people thought that homosexuality was a threat to society been denied that community where would we be now? It is always the expression of the unpopular opinion that needs protecting.
I do support the badges! I do think that Wizards has every right to issue an expanded SRD and a new OGL that has these terms in it for their new content. As a matter of fact, I would recommend changing the term, so that products released under the new license are separated from those under the OGL, giving a further between of distance between creators not willing to follow these guidelines and Wizards of the Coast. I'll even go one step further and say that WotC could deny the use of the Dungeons and Dragons name requiring any future releases to have something along the lines compatible with OGL 1.0a and 3rd ed., 3.5, or 5e rather than actually saying Dungeons and Dragons.
I am currently anxiously awaiting the next UA so our community has something else to talk about, and tempers can cool.
Exactly. All this talk of OGL 1.0a being a "shield" is total nonsense. There is nothing that prevents people from publishing whatever they want regardless. Instead, the real intent is to make the new version a hammer. In exchange for making some fools think that Wizards will be making the world a better place, they will actually be using that hammer mainly to crush and control 3rd party creators and any VTT competition.
“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 SatieThat's why I said "doing", in that they are in transition to switching. Given the whole point of it being made is openness and neutrality without fear of it being revoked or have to deal with court costs, and was started by all the companies' annoyances of the 1.0a drama, many inferences can be made. Not that publishers need ORC though, its just as an example of alternative licenses being used or worked on besides the upcoming OGL (which doesn't exist yet, just "drafts" as they legally say). Another is CC, which WotC is also, in part, switching to in some hybrid form.
Censorship is always bad, it is not an opinion, it is a fact.
It is a tool that is used for evil, often under the guise of "protecting good". Your example is no more relevant than saying one can ask another to leave one own's house (unless you live in California). The marketplace will determine what is acceptable or not. Using SUBJECTIVE ideals to determine the OBJECTIVE existence of art is a very slippery slope. It would put every publisher, including WotC in a catch 20 situation. Produce a product which has a "straight" character in it, could be deemed as "hateful, harmful, or discriminatory" as much as one which has a LGTBQ+ character by victim minded people. In fact if 6(f) remains in place, WotC will get sued on ANY content it produces, using its own language to support the basis for whatever victim minded portion of the populace who chooses to take offense and be "harmed" by words.
It's ok though, it worked for almost a decade for the National Socialist Workers Party before change came, it is always interesting to see people who are so concerned about having freedom are willing to do so at the cost of liberty for any they disagree with, or find "harmful".