Which is why I asked about a list of what is and is not acceptable. Not, as Yurei suggests, because I want to know "how far I can go", but because it might not be obvious to all of us what is and is not acceptable. Things are changing so quickly that some of us may not even be aware of what the new "norm" is if we didn't happen to be following twitter that day, especially those of us who want to be supportive of marginalized communities, but who have very little experience with, or within, those communities.
Asking for a list of what is or is not acceptable is not the right way to go about this. The right way to go about this is to commit to listening and evaluating seriously any and every time someone says that something has caused them harm. Which is why this is a job for people whose sole job it is to listen and evaluate such things.
I appreciate your willingness to learn, but if you are coming from a position where you are not a multi-marginalized person the first thing you should learn is that it is not your place to demand that marginalized people produce receipts of their hurts. It is your place to open space for us to feel safe enough to come forward on our own. Sit down. Open your eyes, your ears, and your heart. Do some Googling. Follow accounts of marginalized people talking about their experiences. Do not come in with demands and centering yourself in the conversation.
And then, who is the final arbiter of that list? What if the community disagrees vehemently about whether or not something belongs on the list?
It's like we're being told that the government is passing new laws, but won't tell us what those laws are, but if we break those laws we are in trouble. We'd like to respect the laws, but it's hard to do if we don't know what they are!
I'm sure some users, like Yurei, will accuse me of arguing disingenuously, and suggest that I am a BAD person who just wants permission to do BAD things. On the contrary, I'm just trying to understand what the bad things are, and who gets to decide.
As in everything, we are ultimately just humans trying to do the best we can. There are people who have chosen to focus their efforts in this area, like the aforementioned cultural consultants that WOTC have said they hired. I'm not sure I think there is any sort of ultimate authority on this, but I think that if there are enough people committed to the process of bettering the industry and making it safer for people, that we will make progress as a whole.
Which is why I think that some sort of independent body would be the way to go. One that is committed to safeguarding the disenfranchised, one that resolves to make their process transparent, and one which is always open and ready to improve upon their processes in response to community feedback,
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!
But if you don't enumerate the "Morality rules" specifically (a list?) then no matter the intention, it just takes someone coming to power with different ideas of morality to use it against you.
So, can we enumerate these morality rules or not? If we can, why won't anyone do it?
Here's some that I make non-negotiable in my session 0: Absolutely NO gratuitous violence towards children or animals; No non-consensual sex or assault; No use of derogatory words, slurs, jokes or language based on a person's identity.
I didn't say there shouldn't be rules or clearly defined parameters, but I don't think they should go into the static form like an irrevocable OGL. I think that is not flexible enough to do justice to something that is unavoidably complex. Which is why I think the static contract should instead refer to a third party. That third party is who should hold a list of clearly unacceptable things and they should be able to update and change the list in response to a clear and transparent process of review and appeal.
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!
As in everything, we are ultimately just humans trying to do the best we can. There are people who have chosen to focus their efforts in this area, like the aforementioned cultural consultants that WOTC have said they hired. I'm not sure I think there is any sort of ultimate authority on this, but I think that if there are enough people committed to the process of bettering the industry and making it safer for people, that we will make progress as a whole.
Which is why I think that some sort of independent body would be the way to go. One that is committed to safeguarding the disenfranchised, one that resolves to make their process transparent, and one which is always open and ready to improve upon their processes in response to community feedback,
Okay, so then who gets to be on this panel, and what sort of balance is there. Is there opportunity to debate? Because there will be times when group A believes something is "obviously unacceptable" and group B believes it is "obviously acceptable". How do we determine that on fundamental disagreements?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
But if you don't enumerate the "Morality rules" specifically (a list?) then no matter the intention, it just takes someone coming to power with different ideas of morality to use it against you.
So, can we enumerate these morality rules or not? If we can, why won't anyone do it?
Here's some that I make non-negotiable in my session 0: Absolutely NO gratuitous violence towards children or animals; No non-consensual sex or assault; No use of derogatory words, slurs, jokes or language based on a person's identity.
I didn't say there shouldn't be rules or clearly defined parameters, but I don't think they should go into the static form like an irrevocable OGL. I think that is not flexible enough to do justice to something that is unavoidably complex. Which is why I think the static contract should instead refer to a third party. That third party is who should hold a list of clearly unacceptable things and they should be able to update and change the list in response to a clear and transparent process of review and appeal.
Okay, I can understand this, and even support this idea, but I would need to see that panel give us more concrete guidance, and have a mechanism for disagreement.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
As in everything, we are ultimately just humans trying to do the best we can. There are people who have chosen to focus their efforts in this area, like the aforementioned cultural consultants that WOTC have said they hired. I'm not sure I think there is any sort of ultimate authority on this, but I think that if there are enough people committed to the process of bettering the industry and making it safer for people, that we will make progress as a whole.
Which is why I think that some sort of independent body would be the way to go. One that is committed to safeguarding the disenfranchised, one that resolves to make their process transparent, and one which is always open and ready to improve upon their processes in response to community feedback,
Okay, so then who gets to be on this panel,
The ... cultural consultants that I mentioned in the post you just quoted? I mean that's the first and most obvious answer, since they already have them, but I would be open to further development of the idea, like again maybe a DEI Division with its own C-level exec.
and what sort of balance is there. Is there opportunity to debate? Because there will be times when group A believes something is "obviously unacceptable" and group B believes it is "obviously acceptable". How do we determine that on fundamental disagreements?
This is like ... the fourth or maybe fifth time I've said it? Again, a review and appeals process that should ideally be transparent to the public. Including the criteria for their decisions. The whole process itself should also be open to revision based on feedback from the community.
Please read my posts before asking again? Because if you keep just asking the same questions over and over when they've already been answered it begins to feel like you're just badgering me in order to wear me down rather than actually participating in good faith conversation.
As in everything, we are ultimately just humans trying to do the best we can. There are people who have chosen to focus their efforts in this area, like the aforementioned cultural consultants that WOTC have said they hired. I'm not sure I think there is any sort of ultimate authority on this, but I think that if there are enough people committed to the process of bettering the industry and making it safer for people, that we will make progress as a whole.
Which is why I think that some sort of independent body would be the way to go. One that is committed to safeguarding the disenfranchised, one that resolves to make their process transparent, and one which is always open and ready to improve upon their processes in response to community feedback,
Okay, so then who gets to be on this panel,
The ... cultural consultants that I mentioned in the post you just quoted? I mean that's the first and most obvious answer, since they already have them, but I would be open to further development of the idea, like again maybe a DEI Division with its own C-level exec.
and what sort of balance is there. Is there opportunity to debate? Because there will be times when group A believes something is "obviously unacceptable" and group B believes it is "obviously acceptable". How do we determine that on fundamental disagreements?
This is like ... the fourth or maybe fifth time I've said it? Again, a review and appeals process that should ideally be transparent to the public. Including the criteria for their decisions. The whole process itself should also be open to revision based on feedback from the community.
Please read my posts before asking again? Because if you keep just asking the same questions over and over when they've already been answered it begins to feel like you're just badgering me in order to wear me down rather than actually participating in good faith conversation.
I did read those posts, what I guess I'm saying is, I don't think the people you've picked are enough. I feel like that's a biased panel from the start, and anyone who wanted to contest a decision is having to do so in front of a biased panel that already has a very strict idea of how the world/game should be. I think such a panel would need more representation from the wider community, not just cultural consultants.
And I mean that if something comes before the panel for consideration, there should be a balanced panel to debate the merits before someone has to contest a decision.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I did read those posts, what I guess I'm saying is, I don't think the people you've picked are enough.
In the future please be more clear then. Don't just ignore my answer because you don't like it and just ask the question again, that makes me think you didn't even read my answer and is a miscommunication as well as being tiring and irritating.
I feel like that's a biased panel from the start, and anyone who wanted to contest a decision is having to do so in front of a biased panel that already has a very strict idea of how the world/game should be. I think such a panel would need more representation from the wider community, not just cultural consultants.
Sure that's fine. My list of ideas was not exhaustive. I'm not actually on the clock working on this idea. The idea is that there should be such a body whose purpose is to safeguard the product for the audience. The cultural consultants are just an easy reach because they are already there. How would you go about establishing this body and how would you ensure that the process is aimed toward protecting people?
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!
I feel like, if you're going to be a racist troll, there are easier, faster, and more profitable ways to be a racist troll than to publish third party content for Dungeons and Dragons.
Fair point, but not all racists are trying to be racist. It is often something that happens unintentionally. It is still harmful, though.
Which is why I asked about a list of what is and is not acceptable. Not, as Yurei suggests, because I want to know "how far I can go", but because it might not be obvious to all of us what is and is not acceptable. Things are changing so quickly that some of us may not even be aware of what the new "norm" is if we didn't happen to be following twitter that day, especially those of us who want to be supportive of marginalized communities, but who have very little experience with, or within, those communities.
And then, who is the final arbiter of that list? What if the community disagrees vehemently about whether or not something belongs on the list?
It's like we're being told that the government is passing new laws, but won't tell us what those laws are, but if we break those laws we are in trouble. We'd like to respect the laws, but it's hard to do if we don't know what they are!
I'm sure some users, like Yurei, will accuse me of arguing disingenuously, and suggest that I am a BAD person who just wants permission to do BAD things. On the contrary, I'm just trying to understand what the bad things are, and who gets to decide.
Ultimately, I recognize that we live in the real world. Regardless of what we do, it is guaranteed to unintentionally hurt someone somewhen. not my intentions, but given the reality of the situation, what we do now may be considered hurtful 50 years from now.
Recognizing this, I am committed to 3 things: 1) treat all individuals with respect, 2) listen and try to appreciate other’s viewpoints and 3) not get easily offended at the beliefs of others.
And I mean that if something comes before the panel for consideration, there should be a balanced panel to debate the merits before someone has to contest a decision.
You keep saying "balanced" and I'm not even sure what you mean. The goal is to protect people so that everyone feels safe and welcome in the gaming community. That's everyone's goal. What is there to balance? Everyone is trying to achieve the same thing, there is no other side to it.
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!
I did read those posts, what I guess I'm saying is, I don't think the people you've picked are enough.
In the future please be more clear then. Don't just ignore my answer because you don't like it and just ask the question again, that makes me think you didn't even read my answer and is a miscommunication as well as being tiring and irritating.
I feel like that's a biased panel from the start, and anyone who wanted to contest a decision is having to do so in front of a biased panel that already has a very strict idea of how the world/game should be. I think such a panel would need more representation from the wider community, not just cultural consultants.
Sure that's fine. My list of ideas was not exhaustive. I'm not actually on the clock working on this idea. The idea is that there should be such a body whose purpose is to safeguard the product for the audience. The cultural consultants are just an easy reach because they are already there. How would you go about establishing this body and how would you ensure that the process is aimed toward protecting people?
I'm not an expert in these things, but any such panel would have to have a way to maintain real fairness, because there are some issues that we can't agree on, and sometimes it seems like we end up over-correcting. We need a way to protect people, while also protecting the rights of players to play the game in a way they want and which is not clearly harmful, but offends someone.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I'm not an expert in these things, but any such panel would have to have a way to maintain real fairness, because there are some issues that we can't agree on, and sometimes it seems like we end up over-correcting. We need a way to protect people, while also protecting the rights of players to play the game in a way they want and which is not clearly harmful, but offends someone.
No such over correction exists. No one polices how you play at your table, that would be impossible. You have every right to play however you like. The publishing company has the responsibility to the public, that is not the same thing as the responsibility that a DM at their individual table has to judge the safety of their players and thus include more things that might not be appropriate for the public at large. Your concern here is a non-issue.
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!
We need a way to protect people, while also protecting the rights of players to play the game in a way they want and which is not clearly harmful, but offends someone.
Do we though?
Players are playing in private. At home, or in hobby shops, or in online chats and such. Nobody is monitoring their play. If you want to bring in racism and sexism and every other ism, you can. The only people who may object will be the others in the game. WotC or some big panel won't know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home. The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?
If you want to bring in racism and sexism and every other ism, you can. The only people who may object will be the others in the game. WotC or some big panel won't know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home. The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?
And this is the assumption people make. You jump to the conclusion that I want to include racism and sexism in my game, and that I'm worried about my own personal game. This issue is that what those words means is the uncertain issue to be debated.
What if a 3PP wants to publish a campaign world book compatible with D&D, in which an evil god creates a species of evil sentient creatures.
Is THAT book allowed?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
If you want to bring in racism and sexism and every other ism, you can. The only people who may object will be the others in the game. WotC or some big panel won't know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home. The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?
And this is the assumption people make. You jump to the conclusion that I want to include racism and sexism in my game, and that I'm worried about my own personal game. This issue is that what those words means is the uncertain issue to be debated.
What if a 3PP wants to publish a campaign world book compatible with D&D, in which an evil god creates a species of evil sentient creatures.
Is THAT book allowed?
I was making no assumption... I was using the "Royal You" to refer to the general populace, not you as an individual.
As for publishing, I was not speaking on that matter. I was specifically speaking on if players needed protections about how they play. I specifically said, and you quoted me saying, "The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?" which should make it clear I was only partaking in the portion of the discussion regarding players. As such, I have no comment on the book you mention...
I have been involved with many organizations where the people on the panels exist to cosign white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, classist, and/or ableist BS on behalf of the BS-ers in power.
That's how the people on the panels get to stay on the panels.
Either that, or the BS-ers in power ignore the people on the panels, only to bring them out and say, "If we were doing something wrong, our panel would have told us," whenever somebody questions the BS-ers in power on their BS.
And these were far more justice-oriented organizations than a billion dollar toy company.
At the end of the day, I don't trust Hasbro to do anything better than, or even as well as, the tabletop roleplaying game community at large in regards to diversity and inclusion - especially given Wizards of the Coast's spotty record with BIPOC creators and LGBTQ creators who have worked with them in the past to review Wizards of the Coast's own content.
Which is why I asked about a list of what is and is not acceptable. Not, as Yurei suggests, because I want to know "how far I can go", but because it might not be obvious to all of us what is and is not acceptable. Things are changing so quickly that some of us may not even be aware of what the new "norm" is if we didn't happen to be following twitter that day, especially those of us who want to be supportive of marginalized communities, but who have very little experience with, or within, those communities. ...
The issue I have with this, October, is that you in specific have been informed of hurtful things that have caused people issues in D&D, and have gone on record as telling those people they are wrong and their pain is invalid. That's not okay. It's never been okay. You're attempting to cut the other person out of the equation, to get a list of what is and isn't okay that's independent and irrespective of what any given person wants, does, or is. You've been told, repeatedly, in other threads in the past what is and is not okay and you've ignored it.
No one is going to give you a list of things that you can point to and say "Not on this list? You're not allowed to complain about it." That is not how this works, it's never been how this works, and dead gods willing it'll never be how this works. There is no objective human-proof standard of what is and is not hateful, because hate is a thing that one person inflicts upon another person. Hate is an interaction between people. There is no hate without people to do the hating and people that are being hated, and trying to ignore, disregard, and discard the words and wishes of the latter group places one squarely in the former.
The typical way you'd create an independent authority for evaluating content (for whatever purpose) is via trademark law -- someone who's been given a passing grade gets to use that organization's trademark. Examples you'd probably be familiar with include underwriter's laboratories, the MPAA, and the ESRB (the ESRB is probably the closest equivalent). Looking at such organizations is also useful for understanding both the powers and perils of such a strategy.
Absolutely nothing in the Wizards announcement prevents creation of such an entity.
What if the community disagrees vehemently about whether or not something belongs on the list?
I'm sure some users, like Yurei, will accuse me of arguing disingenuously, and suggest that I am a BAD person who just wants permission to do BAD things. On the contrary, I'm just trying to understand what the bad things are, and who gets to decide.
What do you mean by "the community"? If something offends a sizable amount of D&D players, then that thing should be removed or altered. Just because something doesn't personally hurt you, then that doesn't mean it can't hurt other people and that their opinion should be invalidated because not everyone feels that same way.
I personally don't think you are arguing disingenuously. The problem however is that this shouldn't mostly be about arguing; It should be about listening to other people's experiences and making sure everyone's needs are met.
In general, the way to avoid getting in trouble of unintentional harm is working to be aware of others' needs and changing aspects of what you publish that people find problematic. In every draft of the License Wizards gave, there was a 30 day warning period when you get notified you are violating their terms. If an anti-hate clause is done properly, people will be given the chance to do better and improve and their contracts won't necessarily be terminated over one minor mistake.
No one can tell you who will be in charge of enforcing a rule about this until the clause is made. We can only offer you ideas.
I haven't read through all this here, but I think it is worth writing:
First of all, no matter the reasons and the reasons others claim WotC had: Thank you for this decision. I personally really appreciate it. I grew up with D&D under WotC and I was let's say dissatisfied with the decision to change the OGL.
But contrair to how it is painted. I don't see you as the bad guys and others as the good ones, like some content creators and surely some other companies want to paint it. Others tried to instantly jump on the opportunity to make money out of the situation and that's as understandable for me as Wizards having the idea to change the OGL, wich would have been their right.
But because it would have been WotCs right legally to change it and they decided to not do it, again, thank you
...and don't pull something like that again please :-D
Well, that was rather anti-climactic. And honestly it’s likely just a stop-gap, not a resolution. Hopefully this at least gives both sides enough time to cool down and WotC enough time to put together something a bit better defined for whatever license they come up with for 1D&D. Personally I do think it would be better for everyone if we had a license that actually defined the terms used and allows WotC to more tangibly distance themselves from a truly problematic 3PP if one crops up (or should I say “when” now that the issue has had a spotlight shone on it and WotC has backed down from a position that would let them take action for the time being), but hopefully this will at least cut down on the torches and pitchforks mentality here.
By putting the SRD in the CC, it means WotC has in fact distanced itself. These hypothetical 3rd party publishers making "problematic" 5e content don't need to include OGL 1.0a at all, they can just use the CC license. This means Wizards doesn't have any responsibility to "take action" (not that they ever did, but anyway...) because now they have no possible standing to "take action". The SRD now permanently belongs to everybody, forever, to pretty much use as they see fit.
The brand is saved! Congrats! You got what you wanted! We all win! Cheers!
“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.
Asking for a list of what is or is not acceptable is not the right way to go about this. The right way to go about this is to commit to listening and evaluating seriously any and every time someone says that something has caused them harm. Which is why this is a job for people whose sole job it is to listen and evaluate such things.
I appreciate your willingness to learn, but if you are coming from a position where you are not a multi-marginalized person the first thing you should learn is that it is not your place to demand that marginalized people produce receipts of their hurts. It is your place to open space for us to feel safe enough to come forward on our own. Sit down. Open your eyes, your ears, and your heart. Do some Googling. Follow accounts of marginalized people talking about their experiences. Do not come in with demands and centering yourself in the conversation.
As in everything, we are ultimately just humans trying to do the best we can. There are people who have chosen to focus their efforts in this area, like the aforementioned cultural consultants that WOTC have said they hired. I'm not sure I think there is any sort of ultimate authority on this, but I think that if there are enough people committed to the process of bettering the industry and making it safer for people, that we will make progress as a whole.
Which is why I think that some sort of independent body would be the way to go. One that is committed to safeguarding the disenfranchised, one that resolves to make their process transparent, and one which is always open and ready to improve upon their processes in response to community feedback,
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!
I didn't say there shouldn't be rules or clearly defined parameters, but I don't think they should go into the static form like an irrevocable OGL. I think that is not flexible enough to do justice to something that is unavoidably complex. Which is why I think the static contract should instead refer to a third party. That third party is who should hold a list of clearly unacceptable things and they should be able to update and change the list in response to a clear and transparent process of review and appeal.
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!
Okay, so then who gets to be on this panel, and what sort of balance is there. Is there opportunity to debate? Because there will be times when group A believes something is "obviously unacceptable" and group B believes it is "obviously acceptable". How do we determine that on fundamental disagreements?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
Okay, I can understand this, and even support this idea, but I would need to see that panel give us more concrete guidance, and have a mechanism for disagreement.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
The ... cultural consultants that I mentioned in the post you just quoted? I mean that's the first and most obvious answer, since they already have them, but I would be open to further development of the idea, like again maybe a DEI Division with its own C-level exec.
This is like ... the fourth or maybe fifth time I've said it? Again, a review and appeals process that should ideally be transparent to the public. Including the criteria for their decisions. The whole process itself should also be open to revision based on feedback from the community.
Please read my posts before asking again? Because if you keep just asking the same questions over and over when they've already been answered it begins to feel like you're just badgering me in order to wear me down rather than actually participating in good faith conversation.
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!
I did read those posts, what I guess I'm saying is, I don't think the people you've picked are enough. I feel like that's a biased panel from the start, and anyone who wanted to contest a decision is having to do so in front of a biased panel that already has a very strict idea of how the world/game should be. I think such a panel would need more representation from the wider community, not just cultural consultants.
And I mean that if something comes before the panel for consideration, there should be a balanced panel to debate the merits before someone has to contest a decision.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
In the future please be more clear then. Don't just ignore my answer because you don't like it and just ask the question again, that makes me think you didn't even read my answer and is a miscommunication as well as being tiring and irritating.
Sure that's fine. My list of ideas was not exhaustive. I'm not actually on the clock working on this idea. The idea is that there should be such a body whose purpose is to safeguard the product for the audience. The cultural consultants are just an easy reach because they are already there. How would you go about establishing this body and how would you ensure that the process is aimed toward protecting people?
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!
Ultimately, I recognize that we live in the real world. Regardless of what we do, it is guaranteed to unintentionally hurt someone somewhen. not my intentions, but given the reality of the situation, what we do now may be considered hurtful 50 years from now.
Recognizing this, I am committed to 3 things: 1) treat all individuals with respect, 2) listen and try to appreciate other’s viewpoints and 3) not get easily offended at the beliefs of others.
You keep saying "balanced" and I'm not even sure what you mean. The goal is to protect people so that everyone feels safe and welcome in the gaming community. That's everyone's goal. What is there to balance? Everyone is trying to achieve the same thing, there is no other side to it.
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!
I'm not an expert in these things, but any such panel would have to have a way to maintain real fairness, because there are some issues that we can't agree on, and sometimes it seems like we end up over-correcting. We need a way to protect people, while also protecting the rights of players to play the game in a way they want and which is not clearly harmful, but offends someone.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
No such over correction exists. No one polices how you play at your table, that would be impossible. You have every right to play however you like. The publishing company has the responsibility to the public, that is not the same thing as the responsibility that a DM at their individual table has to judge the safety of their players and thus include more things that might not be appropriate for the public at large. Your concern here is a non-issue.
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!
Do we though?
Players are playing in private. At home, or in hobby shops, or in online chats and such. Nobody is monitoring their play. If you want to bring in racism and sexism and every other ism, you can. The only people who may object will be the others in the game. WotC or some big panel won't know what you are doing in the privacy of your own home. The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?
And this is the assumption people make. You jump to the conclusion that I want to include racism and sexism in my game, and that I'm worried about my own personal game. This issue is that what those words means is the uncertain issue to be debated.
What if a 3PP wants to publish a campaign world book compatible with D&D, in which an evil god creates a species of evil sentient creatures.
Is THAT book allowed?
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
I was making no assumption... I was using the "Royal You" to refer to the general populace, not you as an individual.
As for publishing, I was not speaking on that matter. I was specifically speaking on if players needed protections about how they play. I specifically said, and you quoted me saying, "The concern is sold materials, not what is used with them at home, no?" which should make it clear I was only partaking in the portion of the discussion regarding players. As such, I have no comment on the book you mention...
I have been involved with many organizations where the people on the panels exist to cosign white supremacist, transphobic, misogynistic, homophobic, classist, and/or ableist BS on behalf of the BS-ers in power.
That's how the people on the panels get to stay on the panels.
Either that, or the BS-ers in power ignore the people on the panels, only to bring them out and say, "If we were doing something wrong, our panel would have told us," whenever somebody questions the BS-ers in power on their BS.
And these were far more justice-oriented organizations than a billion dollar toy company.
At the end of the day, I don't trust Hasbro to do anything better than, or even as well as, the tabletop roleplaying game community at large in regards to diversity and inclusion - especially given Wizards of the Coast's spotty record with BIPOC creators and LGBTQ creators who have worked with them in the past to review Wizards of the Coast's own content.
The issue I have with this, October, is that you in specific have been informed of hurtful things that have caused people issues in D&D, and have gone on record as telling those people they are wrong and their pain is invalid. That's not okay. It's never been okay. You're attempting to cut the other person out of the equation, to get a list of what is and isn't okay that's independent and irrespective of what any given person wants, does, or is. You've been told, repeatedly, in other threads in the past what is and is not okay and you've ignored it.
No one is going to give you a list of things that you can point to and say "Not on this list? You're not allowed to complain about it." That is not how this works, it's never been how this works, and dead gods willing it'll never be how this works. There is no objective human-proof standard of what is and is not hateful, because hate is a thing that one person inflicts upon another person. Hate is an interaction between people. There is no hate without people to do the hating and people that are being hated, and trying to ignore, disregard, and discard the words and wishes of the latter group places one squarely in the former.
Please do not contact or message me.
The typical way you'd create an independent authority for evaluating content (for whatever purpose) is via trademark law -- someone who's been given a passing grade gets to use that organization's trademark. Examples you'd probably be familiar with include underwriter's laboratories, the MPAA, and the ESRB (the ESRB is probably the closest equivalent). Looking at such organizations is also useful for understanding both the powers and perils of such a strategy.
Absolutely nothing in the Wizards announcement prevents creation of such an entity.
What do you mean by "the community"? If something offends a sizable amount of D&D players, then that thing should be removed or altered. Just because something doesn't personally hurt you, then that doesn't mean it can't hurt other people and that their opinion should be invalidated because not everyone feels that same way.
I personally don't think you are arguing disingenuously. The problem however is that this shouldn't mostly be about arguing; It should be about listening to other people's experiences and making sure everyone's needs are met.
In general, the way to avoid getting in trouble of unintentional harm is working to be aware of others' needs and changing aspects of what you publish that people find problematic. In every draft of the License Wizards gave, there was a 30 day warning period when you get notified you are violating their terms. If an anti-hate clause is done properly, people will be given the chance to do better and improve and their contracts won't necessarily be terminated over one minor mistake.
No one can tell you who will be in charge of enforcing a rule about this until the clause is made. We can only offer you ideas.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I haven't read through all this here, but I think it is worth writing:
First of all, no matter the reasons and the reasons others claim WotC had: Thank you for this decision. I personally really appreciate it. I grew up with D&D under WotC and I was let's say dissatisfied with the decision to change the OGL.
But contrair to how it is painted. I don't see you as the bad guys and others as the good ones, like some content creators and surely some other companies want to paint it. Others tried to instantly jump on the opportunity to make money out of the situation and that's as understandable for me as Wizards having the idea to change the OGL, wich would have been their right.
But because it would have been WotCs right legally to change it and they decided to not do it, again, thank you
...and don't pull something like that again please :-D
By putting the SRD in the CC, it means WotC has in fact distanced itself. These hypothetical 3rd party publishers making "problematic" 5e content don't need to include OGL 1.0a at all, they can just use the CC license. This means Wizards doesn't have any responsibility to "take action" (not that they ever did, but anyway...) because now they have no possible standing to "take action". The SRD now permanently belongs to everybody, forever, to pretty much use as they see fit.
The brand is saved! Congrats! You got what you wanted! We all win! Cheers!
“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