I ask you this, if Trump, Musk, or Oprah were to buy Hasbro tomorrow, would you still have the same trust, or lack of trust. CEOs turn over frequently. This time next year any one of these people could be in charge of defining what obscene, discriminatory, or harmful means.
Because if that would change your support of this, you should be able to understand why so many people are having trouble trusting this, especially when the company has been caught in so many half truths recently.
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Also, if any of you are interested in reading about a Black, queer creator’s experience working for WotC, to give you an idea of where WotC’s commitment to diversity and inclusion begins and ends:
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Exactly.
But those who couldn't care less if Wizards shafted a licensee for retweeting someone with whom they disagree but who would be thrown into a fever of hollering about bigotry were the reverse to take place don't care.
They're either perfectly conscious of the fact they lack principled ideological consistency but take pride in such insincerity and deceitfulness or they're deluded.
Or they believe protecting a non marginalized voice from heaping hate on marginalized people, that serves to further marginalized them and support structures and systems of oppression beyond people hacking on the internet is far worse than the harm caused by denying a platform to said person. It is a principled stand to have a hierarchy of things that need protection. It is also consistent if you stay within that system of judgements. Nothing deceitful about it. One person has benefitted from a system designed to allow for success. The other has not. Valuing the protection of one over the other is not a lie. I respect your right to disagree with it, but maybe we should not call people deluded liars who are unprincipled because they don’t share your exact belief.
For clarification, I don’t believe that the least popular voice needs to be protected if the reason that it’s the least popular voice is because its ableist, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, transphobic, etc.
They can take that nonsense and GTFO of the TTRPG community (or yeet that nonsense and come party with the rest of us).
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Exactly.
But those who couldn't care less if Wizards shafted a licensee for retweeting someone with whom they disagree but who would be thrown into a fever of hollering about bigotry were the reverse to take place don't care.
They're either perfectly conscious of the fact they lack principled ideological consistency but take pride in such insincerity and deceitfulness or they're deluded.
Or they believe protecting a non marginalized voice from heaping hate on marginalized people, that serves to further marginalized them and support structures and systems of oppression beyond people hacking on the internet is far worse than the harm caused by denying a platform to said person. It is a principled stand to have a hierarchy of things that need protection. It is also consistent if you stay within that system of judgements. Nothing deceitful about it. One person has benefitted from a system designed to allow for success. The other has not. Valuing the protection of one over the other is not a lie. I respect your right to disagree with it, but maybe we should not call people deluded liars who are unprincipled because they don’t share your exact belief.
1 I am speaking specifically of those who have tried to make the case that Wizards ought to be afforded the power to shaft any licensee who so much as retweets someone with whom they personally disagree simply because "It's Their Game," but who have oddly disappeared when asked if they truly believe a company should have that sort of power when the tables are turned and the retweeted individual is someone they personally endorse. They are being insincere and deceitful.
2 There is hate that does indeed harm the marginalized. But I'm not talking about racist idiots retweeting the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, here. I am talking about the sort of performative politics of those who would lobby and bully Wizards into ruining a publisher for so much as retweeting someone like J. K. Rowling for a tweet that isn't even malicious. If you'd have no problem with their shafting that publisher, would you be equally eager to see them shaft a licensee who once upon a time ago retweeted Snoop Dogg just because Snoop Dogg once upon a time ago vilified minorities with whom he disagreed?
I doubt it.
If you're convinced you're a mind-reader and that you just know whether someone is inspired by hate or not because you've a magic item that tells you what is truly hateful beyond any question, then maybe you don't fit into the first category (insincere and deceitful) but the second one (deluded).
1. Not elucidated upon in the point I was replying to. For the record, I do not believe a corporation should have that power without oversight. Silence is not the same as deceitful. I had to explain the difference between hateful acts and hateful thoughts. We cannot truly know the mind of anouther. We can know their acts.
2. So you agree with the base idea and we are now only looking at you personal foibles and beliefs. *** definitely bad, JK Rawlings ok. Also, your second example included a more complex scenario. There is not enough context for me to say yay or nay. That is why wizards should not have unilateral control.
BTW, jk, kind of an ass in her beliefs on trans rights imho. She has also tried to influence legislation that is harmful, so there’s that.
I think most of your points prove Twitter shouldn’t be a thing. Nobody should be borked over a retweet. Over a tweet maybe, again, grey area. How bad? When? Intent? Anyway, screw Twitter.
Wizards doesn’t even ruin people like Venger dingldongle and rpgfundip, even though they could right now. Both have overstepped copyright in their advertising, despite likely not even having 1.0a content in their work, for the most part. I can’t be sure. The only thing I own from them was a campaign setting I bought before knowing what I was doing.
I ask you this, if Trump, Musk, or Oprah were to buy Hasbro tomorrow, would you still have the same trust, or lack of trust. CEOs turn over frequently. This time next year any one of these people could be in charge of defining what obscene, discriminatory, or harmful means.
The worst part is that I could totally imagine Musk buying Hasbro to troll D&D players who are pro-diversity and pro-inclusion.
Which is why I have advocated and am continuing to advocate for protections to be added to 6f, like a "general public" clause and a curative period for non-egregious cases. But not to scrap the clause entirely.
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
not in the slightest, there is still roughly nine more days of community discussion and survey taking on 'draft' 1.2, then two weeks of Wotc trying to figure out what 'feedback' provided sounds better to their ability to continue driving a financial wedge between us and them.
Then once we get what Wotc releases as their assessment of the 'feedback' , we will either have another shit-storm, ( which will be followed by another statement to try and sooth the masses), or we have made a very loud statement That we the community are not idiots, and want a fair and concise license that can be mutually beneficial.
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
not in the slightest, there is still roughly nine more days of community discussion and survey taking on 'draft' 1.2, then two weeks of Wotc trying to figure out what 'feedback' provided sounds better to their ability to continue driving a financial wedge between us and them.
Then once we get what Wotc releases as their assessment of the 'feedback' , we will either have another shit-storm, ( which will be followed by another statement to try and sooth the masses), or we have made a very loud statement That we the community are not idiots, and want a fair and concise license that can be mutually beneficial.
It is possible that we, as a community, are on average brighter than the average person in the world. However it is just as likely that we have simply convinced ourselves so.
Hold up. Your use of 'we' implies that everybody else identifies with you. This is clearly not the case, not by a long shot.
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
not in the slightest, there is still roughly nine more days of community discussion and survey taking on 'draft' 1.2, then two weeks of Wotc trying to figure out what 'feedback' provided sounds better to their ability to continue driving a financial wedge between us and them.
Then once we get what Wotc releases as their assessment of the 'feedback' , we will either have another shit-storm, ( which will be followed by another statement to try and sooth the masses), or we have made a very loud statement That we the community are not idiots, and want a fair and concise license that can be mutually beneficial.
It is possible that we, as a community, are on average brighter than the average person in the world. However it is just as likely that we have simply convinced ourselves so.
Hold up. Your use of 'we' implies that everybody else identifies with you. This is clearly not the case, not by a long shot.
1) "It is possible." Are you saying that it is impossible that the community, whether that includes me or not, is brighter than the average person in the world?
2) "Just as likely" ... Are you saying it is also impossible that the community, again, whether that includes me or not, are not brighter than the average person in the world?
3) If I am not really here, posting in this 'community,' where am I? One can be part of something even if no one, including themselves, identifies them as such.
I have clearly said what I said. That you have a habit of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and derailing every discussion, is solely your responsibility and your problem.
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
not in the slightest, there is still roughly nine more days of community discussion and survey taking on 'draft' 1.2, then two weeks of Wotc trying to figure out what 'feedback' provided sounds better to their ability to continue driving a financial wedge between us and them.
Then once we get what Wotc releases as their assessment of the 'feedback' , we will either have another shit-storm, ( which will be followed by another statement to try and sooth the masses), or we have made a very loud statement That we the community are not idiots, and want a fair and concise license that can be mutually beneficial.
Take a look at any top election in any country in the world. Look objectively at the choices for candidates and remember: These people were chosen, usually democratically, to be considered to be the best within their respective parties. If you look at a country with no elections, at a dictatorship, consider, the majority of the people accept that country having a dictatorship. Are you certain the majority of the world's population are not idiots?
It is possible that we, as a community, are on average brighter than the average person in the world. However it is just as likely that we have simply convinced ourselves so.
(And yes, all this extends to the WotC and Hasbro execs too, even the top programmers, who, in their field, are quite likely rather brilliant)
Democratically candidates are chosen by how much money they spend making their opponents look worst and bs their constituents enough to gain the most votes. As for dictatorships, the majority of people are so oppressed by said dictatorship they have no choice but to accept the situation, Untill the point the majority decide that dictatorship has gone too far, and begin a rebellion against the oppression much like how the D&D community is rebelling against the Wotc dictatorship of the OGL.
I tend to give people and businesses the benefit of doubt with regards to their choices, but when businesses like Hasbro and Wotc upper execs ( not the poor people who are having to work under them) have made IMO a very dictatory decision behind falsehoods and have amassed a rebellion of their own making, then I put them in the same regards as politicians.( All both care about is numbers and money and self importance, public dissent viewed as nothing more than noise.)
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Amen, brutha!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Exactly.
But those who couldn't care less if Wizards shafted a licensee for retweeting someone with whom they disagree but who would be thrown into a fever of hollering about bigotry were the reverse to take place don't care.
They're either perfectly conscious of the fact they lack principled ideological consistency but take pride in such insincerity and deceitfulness or they're deluded.
Or they believe protecting a non marginalized voice from heaping hate on marginalized people, that serves to further marginalized them and support structures and systems of oppression beyond people hacking on the internet is far worse than the harm caused by denying a platform to said person. It is a principled stand to have a hierarchy of things that need protection. It is also consistent if you stay within that system of judgements. Nothing deceitful about it. One person has benefitted from a system designed to allow for success. The other has not. Valuing the protection of one over the other is not a lie. I respect your right to disagree with it, but maybe we should not call people deluded liars who are unprincipled because they don’t share your exact belief.
I don't believe they are deluded, or liars, but they are certainly self-defeating. You simply cannot create a world without marginalization, exclusion, and hate by marginalizing, excluding, and hating. It does not matter that one group has a already been on the receiving end and the other is "responsible" , logically it remains impossible. It adds to the problem rather than solves it. It's the classic codependent triangle on a grand scale - victims, perpetrators, and rescuers, all locked in drama that never ends as long as people accept that these roles actually exist.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Amen, brutha!
But isn't WotC's voice the least popular in this entire discussion?
So WotC is a victim?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
In the short term, that's true. But WotC can only "do what it wands when it wants" because of the game community. Their financial and creative support of the game has been WotC's biggest source of power. That source is fracturing. I suspect most will move elsewhere, to other games. Perhaps WotC will continue to prosper and remain powerful regardless? I won't be paying attention.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I ask you this, if Trump, Musk, or Oprah were to buy Hasbro tomorrow, would you still have the same trust, or lack of trust. CEOs turn over frequently. This time next year any one of these people could be in charge of defining what obscene, discriminatory, or harmful means.
The worst part is that I could totally imagine Musk buying Hasbro to troll D&D players who are pro-diversity and pro-inclusion.
Because if that would change your support of this, you should be able to understand why so many people are having trouble trusting this, especially when the company has been caught in so many half truths recently.
That is why I tell people that you can NOT create a more inclusive environment by excluding those you disagree with. It is always the least popular voice that needs protection
Also, if any of you are interested in reading about a Black, queer creator’s experience working for WotC, to give you an idea of where WotC’s commitment to diversity and inclusion begins and ends:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/orion-black-no-longer-a-d-d-designer-updated.673067/
Or they believe protecting a non marginalized voice from heaping hate on marginalized people, that serves to further marginalized them and support structures and systems of oppression beyond people hacking on the internet is far worse than the harm caused by denying a platform to said person. It is a principled stand to have a hierarchy of things that need protection. It is also consistent if you stay within that system of judgements.
Nothing deceitful about it. One person has benefitted from a system designed to allow for success. The other has not. Valuing the protection of one over the other is not a lie. I respect your right to disagree with it, but maybe we should not call people deluded liars who are unprincipled because they don’t share your exact belief.
For clarification, I don’t believe that the least popular voice needs to be protected if the reason that it’s the least popular voice is because its ableist, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, transphobic, etc.
They can take that nonsense and GTFO of the TTRPG community (or yeet that nonsense and come party with the rest of us).
I only want people to understand that WotC haven’t been the champions of diversity and inclusion that they claim to be; that WotC justifying the power grab that is the new OGL on the grounds of diversity and inclusion is a sham; and that the new OGL can harm marginalized creators by increasing WotC’s control over the TTRPG industry and decreasing opportunities for third party creators.
1. Not elucidated upon in the point I was replying to. For the record, I do not believe a corporation should have that power without oversight. Silence is not the same as deceitful. I had to explain the difference between hateful acts and hateful thoughts. We cannot truly know the mind of anouther. We can know their acts.
2. So you agree with the base idea and we are now only looking at you personal foibles and beliefs. *** definitely bad, JK Rawlings ok. Also, your second example included a more complex scenario. There is not enough context for me to say yay or nay. That is why wizards should not have unilateral control.
BTW, jk, kind of an ass in her beliefs on trans rights imho. She has also tried to influence legislation that is harmful, so there’s that.
I think most of your points prove Twitter shouldn’t be a thing. Nobody should be borked over a retweet. Over a tweet maybe, again, grey area. How bad? When? Intent? Anyway, screw Twitter.
Wizards doesn’t even ruin people like Venger dingldongle and rpgfundip, even though they could right now. Both have overstepped copyright in their advertising, despite likely not even having 1.0a content in their work, for the most part. I can’t be sure. The only thing I own from them was a campaign setting I bought before knowing what I was doing.
Which is why I have advocated and am continuing to advocate for protections to be added to 6f, like a "general public" clause and a curative period for non-egregious cases. But not to scrap the clause entirely.
Are we all finished yet?
WotC will do what it wants when it wants. nothing we say or do from here on out will change that.
not in the slightest, there is still roughly nine more days of community discussion and survey taking on 'draft' 1.2, then two weeks of Wotc trying to figure out what 'feedback' provided sounds better to their ability to continue driving a financial wedge between us and them.
Then once we get what Wotc releases as their assessment of the 'feedback' , we will either have another shit-storm, ( which will be followed by another statement to try and sooth the masses), or we have made a very loud statement That we the community are not idiots, and want a fair and concise license that can be mutually beneficial.
My goodness, now it turns out that everyone is an idiot except for a chosen elite, among which is the member Kotath.
Hell yeah champ, pat yourself on the back and ignore the laughs in the background.
Hold up. Your use of 'we' implies that everybody else identifies with you. This is clearly not the case, not by a long shot.
Many discussions could be unnecessary if there was a dislike button. But this is just as unwanted as the OGL 1.0a.
I have clearly said what I said.
That you have a habit of misinterpretation, misrepresentation, and derailing every discussion, is solely your responsibility and your problem.
Democratically candidates are chosen by how much money they spend making their opponents look worst and bs their constituents enough to gain the most votes. As for dictatorships, the majority of people are so oppressed by said dictatorship they have no choice but to accept the situation, Untill the point the majority decide that dictatorship has gone too far, and begin a rebellion against the oppression much like how the D&D community is rebelling against the Wotc dictatorship of the OGL.
I tend to give people and businesses the benefit of doubt with regards to their choices, but when businesses like Hasbro and Wotc upper execs ( not the poor people who are having to work under them) have made IMO a very dictatory decision behind falsehoods and have amassed a rebellion of their own making, then I put them in the same regards as politicians.( All both care about is numbers and money and self importance, public dissent viewed as nothing more than noise.)
Amen, brutha!
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron SatieI don't believe they are deluded, or liars, but they are certainly self-defeating. You simply cannot create a world without marginalization, exclusion, and hate by marginalizing, excluding, and hating. It does not matter that one group has a already been on the receiving end and the other is "responsible" , logically it remains impossible. It adds to the problem rather than solves it. It's the classic codependent triangle on a grand scale - victims, perpetrators, and rescuers, all locked in drama that never ends as long as people accept that these roles actually exist.
“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 SatieSo WotC is a victim?
“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 SatieIn the short term, that's true. But WotC can only "do what it wands when it wants" because of the game community. Their financial and creative support of the game has been WotC's biggest source of power. That source is fracturing. I suspect most will move elsewhere, to other games. Perhaps WotC will continue to prosper and remain powerful regardless? I won't be paying attention.
“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