If such a panel isn't to consist of people from different cultures—provided the hobby does—and isn't to allow room for nuance and to be impartial then it is about as trustworthy as a Soviet "people's court."
Yes, I can agree with that.
What is my working definition of racism? It is anything that reduces anyone to the color of his or her skin or to his or her ethnicity. Why? Because that is an affront to the very notion of human dignity. What is yours?
Generally like I posted above, "systemic discrimination against people for perceived racial differences." Which is actually a definition I struggled with for awhile, because for a long time I came from the place of the dictionary definition of purely just discrimination against someone for their race. It was only after long discussions with people from various other disenfranchised groups that I came to understand the importance and significance of both the "systemic" part as well as the "perceived" part.
I come from a country where hundreds of thousands of people are only ostensibly 'white' but are ethnically black. So I hope you can appreciate why I find any singular and one-sided definition for racism to be not only inadequate but also in and of itself racist.
The addition of 'systemic' plays no small part in telling anyone and everyone outside of systems and pillars of power in society that their own racism is permissible. It allows an African American man, no stranger to racism, to hate Jews as fervently as any Nazi and to tell himself that, well, at least he ain't racist. It's sick.
I once had an African-American woman tell me that the word "black" belongs to the African diaspora and that all other communities who use that word for themselves and their cultures are ... and I quote ... "stupid."
You might not think she was being racist. But I do. And I would seriously question your capacity to assess what is and do so adequately if you didn't
I'm not going to judge what you say that someone else said without waaaaay more context than that, so I'll thank you to not try and bait me that way.
To bring it back to the conversation at hand, you and I have agreed that without diverse representation in the body, it would not be a very trustworthy body to oversee any sort of anti-bigotry regulations in a gaming license. So lets say there is a certain degree of diverse members of such a body, I'll leave it up to you what you would determine to be the level of diversity that would make you trust that enough viewpoints were represented. What else are we looking for?
I have mentioned in previous threads that I think transparency to the public would be important for accountability. Do you agree?
Do you think it should be a third party entirely? Not beholden to WOTC?
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!
This thread is starting to devolve into personal attacks, name calling, inappropriate subject matter, and a generally terrible attitude towards fellow community members. This is a reminder to anyone who elects to participate in this discussion that you do so understanding that site rules must be followed. Importantly, your disagreement with someone does not ever entitle you to attack them
The addition of 'systemic' plays no small part in telling anyone and everyone outside of systems and pillars of power in society that their own racism is permissible. It allows an African-American man, no stranger to racism, to hate Jews as fervently as any Nazi and to tell himself that, well, at least he ain't racist. It's sick.
I feel like this is pretty off topic, but also important enough to address separately. I see what you're talking about and I know the issue. I had a problem with that as well, but to allay your suspicions I do think that discrimination can exist outside of the systemic definition of racism, and that it is just has wrong and hateful. It's just that it is important to point out that systemic discrimination is something that packs more of a punch because it has the weight of entire societies behind it. The problem with modern racism is that it hides behind things like the "colorblind" philosophy, which ignores the aggregation of subtler discrimination that can pile up even from policies and people that "don't see color."
Anyone who hides their discrimination behind, "well at least I'm not a systemic racist" is misunderstanding how it works and bending an important distinction to their benefit to allow them to continue their discrimination. Also it's a very weird and shallow take on the whole thing as well.
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!
You have it backwards. The shield that allows "bigots" to publish whatever they want is called a Bill of Rights. A morality clause in a publishing license would instead be a hammer to attack whomever the publisher deems immoral that uses their license.
No, I don't have it backwards. For one Freedom of Speech is mainly an American concept, and it doesn't actually apply to every country that Wizards of the Coast does business in. Secondly, companies have every right - both legally and morally - to limit what you write and say when you are using their products and intellectual properties. The Open Game License is a legal permission that grants you extra privileges, you are not required to sign it and I would recommend not doing so if you are worried about losing your "rights".
Also, morality clauses are common in numerous different contracts. Regardless, I never actually proposed a morality clause be implemented. What I actually said was that an anti-bigotry clause didn't need to come in the form of a morality one. It is extremely frustrating when people respond to points I never actually made, because I didn't propose the type of clause you are arguing against.
Honestly, I think we could stand to take a step back and ask why so many people are so hell-bent on never giving WotC/Hasbro an inch. Is it because they have a long and enduring track record of punitive litigious behavior against any 3PP that fails to toe an arbitrary and ever shifting line of morality? Not that I’ve seen in any earlier discussions. Or is it because this narrative of WotC/Hasbro as malicious fiends out to ruin everything you hold dear has been promulgated alongside the reasonable community pushback against 1.1? Quite a few online creators went on the attack hard over the issue, and frankly for me it crossed the line from pushing back on what I wholly agree would have been gross overreach if it had gone through as we heard it to a torches and pitchforks “kill the beast!” mentality in fairly short order.
I’m not saying we can unreservedly trust the companies, but I do think the insistence that no faith whatsoever can be placed on the companies is more the product of yellow journalism than actual consideration of the issue.
Your suggestion doesn't seem to allow for the nuances of some ideas if the panel is only made of sensitivity and cultural experts.
Wait, who else are we supposed to refer to with questions about a subject if not the experts? We are now debating about a lot of definitions and scenarios, but it's not like most of us have spent time and effort studying the subject, though I do have some on the job experience with DEI. Wouldn't it make sense for this matter to be overseen by people who have? It would be like fast forwarding through all of this useless arguing on the internet because they've already been through it and have some backing from whatever body of knowledge that humanity has already collected on it.
Who else would you suggest putting on this panel?
My fear is that such a panel will decree "X" to be racist even though that thing might not be racist, or the application of it in story can be justified.
1) Why do you fear this, specifically? 2) What is your working definition of racism?
We disagree fundamentally on some of these definitions of what constitutes racist, hated, or bigotry. There seems to be an assumption in these threads that there is a consensus on these things and there's not, or that one group has a consensus and assume they are right.
I mean sure there's some disagreement on some things, but generally when we want to learn something we go to the people and institutions that study such things. For me I would point to something like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a starting point. Then there are other groups who have made it their focus to study things like racism, many of them having a vested interest in understanding it because they represent groups who suffer from it, so it makes sense that they'd want to understand it well, like the NAACP for example. And then you have legal groups, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who study racism and bigotry because they deal with such cases in the legal system. Even the Wikipedia article on Racism is pretty well cited and links to other resources, which is a decent place to start researching the topic.
While there may still be some grey areas around the edges, there is a pretty general consensus among people who study racism that it is systemic discrimination against people for perceived racial differences. And even for me I struggled for awhile coming to an understanding of that "systemic" part.
I don't know what you mean by "one group" because who else is there besides those who make an effort to study the subject?
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 told that woman that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people use the term black to define themselves and their cultures. And that is what she said: "They're stupid." Because that word "belongs to" those of the African diaspora.
Why would I make that up?
I said nothing about you making anything up. I just said I wasn't going to judge a statement made by someone else without more context.
You know, I think your hurts are valid and are helping me to learn of a perspective I didn't have before, but I also think hat we're talking at cross purposes. Almost none of your responses to my posts seem to be direct responses to my points, but rather to be responding to things I haven't said or extrapolations you are making from them? Either that or I am just misunderstanding. We also seem to be veering pretty off topic. If you would like to continue this conversation in private messages, feel free to message me. That way we can let the discussion here continue without interruption?
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!
Second of all. I do have very strong opinions on the matter. I believe hate should not be spread. A lot of people say that there's no need for any sort of controls on the matter because hateful content is self-defeating, i.e. "nobody will buy this garbage". They say that hate is unprofitable and cannot spread if people of good conscience don't allow it to do so.
...
I think the confusion here is that you've conflated hate-speech with hate. You can't stop hate itself by gagging people. This only strips them of their right/ability to express themselves, which tends to intensify rather than calm hatred. Censoring, shunning, cancelling, etc., generates the very opposite outcome than the one you intend. The only known method that works to diffuse hatred is to actively engage with and listen to the people who might hate you.
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
I think the confusion here is that you've conflated hate-speech with hate. You can't stop hate itself by gagging people. This only strips them of their right/ability to express themselves, which tends to intensify rather than calm hatred. Censoring, shunning, cancelling, etc., generates the very opposite outcome than the one you intend. The only known method that works to diffuse hatred is to actively engage with and listen to the people who might hate you.
Point of order here that a company disallowing people from using their IP in a particular way does not constitute censorship.
Also, the issue isn't about trying to teach bigots, it's about protecting people from their bigotry. Both of those things are worthy causes, but something like an anti-bigotry regulation in a theoretical OGL would be more about the latter than the former.
Honestly, I think we could stand to take a step back and ask why so many people are so hell-bent on never giving WotC/Hasbro an inch. Is it because they have a long and enduring track record of punitive litigious behavior against any 3PP that fails to toe an arbitrary and ever shifting line of morality? Not that I’ve seen in any earlier discussions. Or is it because this narrative of WotC/Hasbro as malicious fiends out to ruin everything you hold dear has been promulgated alongside the reasonable community pushback against 1.1? Quite a few online creators went on the attack hard over the issue, and frankly for me it crossed the line from pushing back on what I wholly agree would have been gross overreach if it had gone through as we heard it to a torches and pitchforks “kill the beast!” mentality in fairly short order.
I’m not saying we can unreservedly trust the companies, but I do think the insistence that no faith whatsoever can be placed on the companies is more the product of yellow journalism than actual consideration of the issue.
What about WotC' s trust in 3rd party creators and the players themselves? Seems to be absent if Wizards feels they ought to hold such authority over everyone. And for those who would support and argue for that regime, where is your own trust in the community? Telling us that we should trust Wizards when you clearly don't trust us is rather...hypocritical, is it not?
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
Honestly, I think we could stand to take a step back and ask why so many people are so hell-bent on never giving WotC/Hasbro an inch. Is it because they have a long and enduring track record of punitive litigious behavior against any 3PP that fails to toe an arbitrary and ever shifting line of morality? Not that I’ve seen in any earlier discussions. Or is it because this narrative of WotC/Hasbro as malicious fiends out to ruin everything you hold dear has been promulgated alongside the reasonable community pushback against 1.1? Quite a few online creators went on the attack hard over the issue, and frankly for me it crossed the line from pushing back on what I wholly agree would have been gross overreach if it had gone through as we heard it to a torches and pitchforks “kill the beast!” mentality in fairly short order.
I’m not saying we can unreservedly trust the companies, but I do think the insistence that no faith whatsoever can be placed on the companies is more the product of yellow journalism than actual consideration of the issue.
What about WotC' s trust in 3rd party creators and the players themselves? Seems to be absent if Wizards feels they ought to hold such authority over everyone. And for those who would support and argue for that regime, where is your own trust in the community? Telling us that we should trust Wizards when you clearly don't trust us is rather...hypocritical, is it not?
I trust the community to the exact same degree I trust the companies; a large body of individuals who in aggregate are neither good nor bad, simply human. The community is demonstrably able to keep WotC honest if they overreach into our end, and by the same token I think it is fair WotC has some mechanism to at least demonstrably disassociate themselves if a community product overreaches in how it uses a WotC license.
Wait, who else are we supposed to refer to with questions about a subject if not the experts? We are now debating about a lot of definitions and scenarios, but it's not like most of us have spent time and effort studying the subject, though I do have some on the job experience with DEI. Wouldn't it make sense for this matter to be overseen by people who have? It would be like fast forwarding through all of this useless arguing on the internet because they've already been through it and have some backing from whatever body of knowledge that humanity has already collected on it.
Who else would you suggest putting on this panel?
I would prefer to see a panel that includes more voices from the community, like a rotating list of representatives from the 3PPs and maybe the wider community, not just from experts in the field. There needs to be space for debate before a decision is made when the only other alternative would seem to be taking WotC to court after the fact, which almost no one can afford.
My fear is that such a panel will decree "X" to be racist even though that thing might not be racist, or the application of it in story can be justified.
1) Why do you fear this, specifically? 2) What is your working definition of racism?
1. Because there are people in this community who steadfastly hold the position that some things are racist, when many others disagree.
2. Very similar, if not the same, as yours and the definitions of others here who oppose racism.
I mean sure there's some disagreement on some things, but generally when we want to learn something we go to the people and institutions that study such things. For me I would point to something like the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a starting point. Then there are other groups who have made it their focus to study things like racism, many of them having a vested interest in understanding it because they represent groups who suffer from it, so it makes sense that they'd want to understand it well, like the NAACP for example. And then you have legal groups, like the Southern Poverty Law Center, who study racism and bigotry because they deal with such cases in the legal system. Even the Wikipedia article on Racism is pretty well cited and links to other resources, which is a decent place to start researching the topic.
While there may still be some grey areas around the edges, there is a pretty general consensus among people who study racism that it is systemic discrimination against people for perceived racial differences. And even for me I struggled for awhile coming to an understanding of that "systemic" part.
I am starting from a position that applying these concepts to imaginary things in a game is already problematic. Some people want to apply the idea of bioessentialism to a game of make-believe.
I believe that I am capable of holding two opposing views in my mind, and not being the worse for it. I am capable of telling a make-believe story where a make-believe evil god can create a make-believe evil sentient species, while also holding to be true the heartfelt belief that in real life all human beings are, and should be, equal. I do not believe that any member of the human race should be categorized as "all X".
But I am having difficulty with the idea that some people don't separate the in-game world from the real world. I can appreciate that this may be because of my privilege, but we're talking about a game where ALL elves and Dwarves have dark-vision, for example. Those are specific (imaginary) genetic traits that ALL members of that species have, yet we get hung up on another thing as being "genetic" to an entire species.
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 think the confusion here is that you've conflated hate-speech with hate. You can't stop hate itself by gagging people. This only strips them of their right/ability to express themselves, which tends to intensify rather than calm hatred. Censoring, shunning, cancelling, etc., generates the very opposite outcome than the one you intend. The only known method that works to diffuse hatred is to actively engage with and listen to the people who might hate you.
Point of order here that a company disallowing people from using their IP in a particular way does not constitute censorship.
Also, the issue isn't about trying to teach bigots, it's about protecting people from their bigotry. Both of those things are worthy causes, but something like an anti-bigotry regulation in a theoretical OGL would be more about the latter than the former.
When the "disallowed use" in question is the legal publishing of protected speech, that constitutes the very meaning of censorship. Point denied.
Furthermore, no mention was made of "teaching", but rather of listening and engaging. (Oh, the irony.)
Finally, the point left entirely on the floor was that censorship does not protect people from bigotry, it just protects them from having an option to read an expression of it at the cost of fostering more hatred.
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
Frankly, a panel seems like too much of a pie in the sky idea. This is WotC’s speech and license the material would be interacting with, so it’s not unreasonable for them to want the final say. Now, a notice period for corrective action ahead of termination would give time for a creator to talk this out via informal channels or see if they are willing to take it to court (as has been noted, a “don’t sue us” clause seems to have shaky footing).
I think the confusion here is that you've conflated hate-speech with hate. You can't stop hate itself by gagging people. This only strips them of their right/ability to express themselves, which tends to intensify rather than calm hatred. Censoring, shunning, cancelling, etc., generates the very opposite outcome than the one you intend. The only known method that works to diffuse hatred is to actively engage with and listen to the people who might hate you.
Point of order here that a company disallowing people from using their IP in a particular way does not constitute censorship.
Also, the issue isn't about trying to teach bigots, it's about protecting people from their bigotry. Both of those things are worthy causes, but something like an anti-bigotry regulation in a theoretical OGL would be more about the latter than the former.
When the "disallowed use" in question is the legal publishing of protected speech, that constitutes the very meaning of censorship. Point denied.
Furthermore, no mention was made of "teaching", but rather of listening and engaging. (Oh, the irony.)
Finally, the point left entirely on the floor was that censorship does not protect people from bigotry, it just protects them from having an option to read an expression of it at the cost of fostering more hatred.
It’s not that they are publishing the material at all. It’s that they are doing it under the aegis of a WotC license, which serves as a tacit endorsement of the product. Ergo, it is a matter of how WotC’s speech is being employed by another.
It’s not that they are publishing the material at all. It’s that they are doing it under the aegis of a WotC license, which serves as a tacit endorsement of the product. Ergo, it is a matter of how WotC’s speech is being employed by another.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. WotC can easily disavow anything published by anyone. If it is published using protected IP, WotC can sue. If it's not published with protected IP, then the offender could have done it without the OGL.
The argument keeps coming back to "Bad actors can use the OGL as a shield". No, no they can't. Even as it stands they can be stopped, it's foolish to think otherwise. WotC has legal recourse to stop it if it impacts their brand, there is no way in hell they would have made this move if they didn't know they could still defend their brand, otherwise their brand becomes worthless.
And if the concern (raised by some) is that media will point at an offending product and say "Look what WotC allowed!" I would reply: 1. That seems unlikely to happen with any real consequence; and 2. the sort of media who would make a story out of such event are not the kind of media who would have any qualms about making up a story out of whole cloth to hurt the brand.
And what people are we talking about here? What people/media are we afraid will try to take down WotC and D&D if... IF... a bad actor publishes something questionable? If something like this ever hit the MSM, you can bet WotC would be there disavowing it, defending the brand, explaining how they don't support it and will take action against it.
I feel like this fringe case possibility is grasping at a straw that might never come to be, and if it did, WotC has lots of tools to deal with it!
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?
When the "disallowed use" in question is the legal publishing of protected speech, that constitutes the very meaning of censorship. Point denied.
Speech cannot be protected from corporations. Speech can only be protected from the government. Secondarily, you are getting into Paradox of Tolerance territory, wherein absolute tolerance of any ideal, even hateful ideals, acts to diminish tolerance rather than expand it. If a platform for speech - such as, in a particularly torturous definition of 'platform for speech' in this case, the ability to publish content for D&D 5e - has rules associated with the use of that platform, nobody gets to say "having rules is unfair!" No one is obligated to give hateful ideals a platform to broadcast to the world from.
Finally, the point left entirely on the floor was that censorship does not protect people from bigotry, it just protects them from having an option to read an expression of it at the cost of fostering more hatred.
Again, Paradox of Tolerance. People who express hateful, hurtful views do not magically become cured of those views by expressing them, and they do convert other people into hateful people and reduce the tolerance of the overall gestalt. Giving them a platform to broadcast their hatred to the masses results in Fox News the spread and amplification of hatred as the platform acts to normalize those hateful views. Will some people become obsessed with their hate if not allowed to try and spread that hate to others, feeling like they're oppressed and silenced and becoming ever more furious over it? Yes. Fact: this already happens. ANY amount of protection against/deplatforming of hateful speech causes 'festering resentment'; the sort of mindset given to blind, virulent hatred is also the sort of mindset generally not strongly inclined to rational thinking or introspection. One cannot help making hateful people more hateful. One can help the targets of that hate, by reducing the amount of hate that reaches them.
Nobody would complain if somebody loudly bellowing a racist rant in the middle of a Wal-Mart was asked to leave by the store's management. Why do people feel like Wizards is required to allow similar rants within its own sphere of operations, to the immediate and difficult to repair detriment of D&D as a whole?
If a platform for speech - such as, in a particularly torturous definition of 'platform for speech' in this case, the ability to publish content for D&D 5e - has rules associated with the use of that platform, nobody gets to say "having rules is unfair!" No one is obligated to give hateful ideals a platform to broadcast to the world from.
I have seen a number of people suggest that one solution WotC could have pursued was to make D&D Beyond like a combination of DM's Guild and Steam. Invite people to publish their content to, and to be compatible with, DDB and the new VTT where publishers can make money, and WotC can very easily enforce community standards.
As it is, while it is true that the 1st amendment in the US only applies to speech censored by the govt, I would argue that publishing a 3PP product using the mechanics of the game and publishing it outside of any WotC platform puts that speech in a different place than how it would be judged if it were within WotC's platform.
A book self-published using non-copyrightable mechanics but which WotC doesn't like, would seem to have far more protection, possibly even under the first amendment.
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?
It’s not that they are publishing the material at all. It’s that they are doing it under the aegis of a WotC license, which serves as a tacit endorsement of the product. Ergo, it is a matter of how WotC’s speech is being employed by another.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. WotC can easily disavow anything published by anyone. If it is published using protected IP, WotC can sue. If it's not published with protected IP, then the offender could have done it without the OGL.
The argument keeps coming back to "Bad actors can use the OGL as a shield". No, no they can't. Even as it stands they can be stopped, it's foolish to think otherwise. WotC has legal recourse to stop it if it impacts their brand, there is no way in hell they would have made this move if they didn't know they could still defend their brand, otherwise their brand becomes worthless.
And if the concern (raised by some) is that media will point at an offending product and say "Look what WotC allowed!" I would reply: 1. That seems unlikely to happen with any real consequence; and 2. the sort of media who would make a story out of such event are not the kind of media who would have any qualms about making up a story out of whole cloth to hurt the brand.
And what people are we talking about here? What people/media are we afraid will try to take down WotC and D&D if... IF... a bad actor publishes something questionable? If something like this ever hit the MSM, you can bet WotC would be there disavowing it, defending the brand, explaining how they don't support it and will take action against it.
I feel like this fringe case possibility is grasping at a straw that might never come to be, and if it did, WotC has lots of tools to deal with it!
How exactly do they have the tools to revoke a license the community has insisted must be absolutely irrevocable? Unless the bad actor actually uses protected content, the license stands. And, regardless of what you personally think, there’s a lot of people who eat sound bite news up, particularly on a matter they don’t care to understand in detail. WotC and Hasbro have a fiduciary duty to protect their company’s image, but this blind insistence on 1.0a has forced them to leave a significant gap open on that front. There is little to no action they can take beyond “we don’t support this, but they still get to keep the license”. Which, oddly enough, I doubt will play well on the news.
The point, which I notice keeps being glossed over, is that a license is a form of speech on the part of WotC, but apparently it is one they aren’t allowed to have any measure of control over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not going to judge what you say that someone else said without waaaaay more context than that, so I'll thank you to not try and bait me that way.
To bring it back to the conversation at hand, you and I have agreed that without diverse representation in the body, it would not be a very trustworthy body to oversee any sort of anti-bigotry regulations in a gaming license. So lets say there is a certain degree of diverse members of such a body, I'll leave it up to you what you would determine to be the level of diversity that would make you trust that enough viewpoints were represented. What else are we looking for?
I have mentioned in previous threads that I think transparency to the public would be important for accountability. Do you agree?
Do you think it should be a third party entirely? Not beholden to WOTC?
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!
This thread is starting to devolve into personal attacks, name calling, inappropriate subject matter, and a generally terrible attitude towards fellow community members. This is a reminder to anyone who elects to participate in this discussion that you do so understanding that site rules must be followed. Importantly, your disagreement with someone does not ever entitle you to attack them
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I feel like this is pretty off topic, but also important enough to address separately. I see what you're talking about and I know the issue. I had a problem with that as well, but to allay your suspicions I do think that discrimination can exist outside of the systemic definition of racism, and that it is just has wrong and hateful. It's just that it is important to point out that systemic discrimination is something that packs more of a punch because it has the weight of entire societies behind it. The problem with modern racism is that it hides behind things like the "colorblind" philosophy, which ignores the aggregation of subtler discrimination that can pile up even from policies and people that "don't see color."
Anyone who hides their discrimination behind, "well at least I'm not a systemic racist" is misunderstanding how it works and bending an important distinction to their benefit to allow them to continue their discrimination. Also it's a very weird and shallow take on the whole thing as well.
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!
No, I don't have it backwards. For one Freedom of Speech is mainly an American concept, and it doesn't actually apply to every country that Wizards of the Coast does business in. Secondly, companies have every right - both legally and morally - to limit what you write and say when you are using their products and intellectual properties. The Open Game License is a legal permission that grants you extra privileges, you are not required to sign it and I would recommend not doing so if you are worried about losing your "rights".
Also, morality clauses are common in numerous different contracts. Regardless, I never actually proposed a morality clause be implemented. What I actually said was that an anti-bigotry clause didn't need to come in the form of a morality one. It is extremely frustrating when people respond to points I never actually made, because I didn't propose the type of clause you are arguing against.
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.Honestly, I think we could stand to take a step back and ask why so many people are so hell-bent on never giving WotC/Hasbro an inch. Is it because they have a long and enduring track record of punitive litigious behavior against any 3PP that fails to toe an arbitrary and ever shifting line of morality? Not that I’ve seen in any earlier discussions. Or is it because this narrative of WotC/Hasbro as malicious fiends out to ruin everything you hold dear has been promulgated alongside the reasonable community pushback against 1.1? Quite a few online creators went on the attack hard over the issue, and frankly for me it crossed the line from pushing back on what I wholly agree would have been gross overreach if it had gone through as we heard it to a torches and pitchforks “kill the beast!” mentality in fairly short order.
I’m not saying we can unreservedly trust the companies, but I do think the insistence that no faith whatsoever can be placed on the companies is more the product of yellow journalism than actual consideration of the issue.
I think you may have missed this one:
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 said nothing about you making anything up. I just said I wasn't going to judge a statement made by someone else without more context.
You know, I think your hurts are valid and are helping me to learn of a perspective I didn't have before, but I also think hat we're talking at cross purposes. Almost none of your responses to my posts seem to be direct responses to my points, but rather to be responding to things I haven't said or extrapolations you are making from them? Either that or I am just misunderstanding. We also seem to be veering pretty off topic. If you would like to continue this conversation in private messages, feel free to message me. That way we can let the discussion here continue without interruption?
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 think the confusion here is that you've conflated hate-speech with hate. You can't stop hate itself by gagging people. This only strips them of their right/ability to express themselves, which tends to intensify rather than calm hatred. Censoring, shunning, cancelling, etc., generates the very opposite outcome than the one you intend. The only known method that works to diffuse hatred is to actively engage with and listen to the people who might hate you.
“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 SatiePoint of order here that a company disallowing people from using their IP in a particular way does not constitute censorship.
Also, the issue isn't about trying to teach bigots, it's about protecting people from their bigotry. Both of those things are worthy causes, but something like an anti-bigotry regulation in a theoretical OGL would be more about the latter than the former.
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!
What about WotC' s trust in 3rd party creators and the players themselves? Seems to be absent if Wizards feels they ought to hold such authority over everyone. And for those who would support and argue for that regime, where is your own trust in the community? Telling us that we should trust Wizards when you clearly don't trust us is rather...hypocritical, is it not?
“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 trust the community to the exact same degree I trust the companies; a large body of individuals who in aggregate are neither good nor bad, simply human. The community is demonstrably able to keep WotC honest if they overreach into our end, and by the same token I think it is fair WotC has some mechanism to at least demonstrably disassociate themselves if a community product overreaches in how it uses a WotC license.
I would prefer to see a panel that includes more voices from the community, like a rotating list of representatives from the 3PPs and maybe the wider community, not just from experts in the field. There needs to be space for debate before a decision is made when the only other alternative would seem to be taking WotC to court after the fact, which almost no one can afford.
1. Because there are people in this community who steadfastly hold the position that some things are racist, when many others disagree.
2. Very similar, if not the same, as yours and the definitions of others here who oppose racism.
I am starting from a position that applying these concepts to imaginary things in a game is already problematic. Some people want to apply the idea of bioessentialism to a game of make-believe.
I believe that I am capable of holding two opposing views in my mind, and not being the worse for it. I am capable of telling a make-believe story where a make-believe evil god can create a make-believe evil sentient species, while also holding to be true the heartfelt belief that in real life all human beings are, and should be, equal. I do not believe that any member of the human race should be categorized as "all X".
But I am having difficulty with the idea that some people don't separate the in-game world from the real world. I can appreciate that this may be because of my privilege, but we're talking about a game where ALL elves and Dwarves have dark-vision, for example. Those are specific (imaginary) genetic traits that ALL members of that species have, yet we get hung up on another thing as being "genetic" to an entire species.
"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?
When the "disallowed use" in question is the legal publishing of protected speech, that constitutes the very meaning of censorship. Point denied.
Furthermore, no mention was made of "teaching", but rather of listening and engaging. (Oh, the irony.)
Finally, the point left entirely on the floor was that censorship does not protect people from bigotry, it just protects them from having an option to read an expression of it at the cost of fostering more hatred.
“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 SatieFrankly, a panel seems like too much of a pie in the sky idea. This is WotC’s speech and license the material would be interacting with, so it’s not unreasonable for them to want the final say. Now, a notice period for corrective action ahead of termination would give time for a creator to talk this out via informal channels or see if they are willing to take it to court (as has been noted, a “don’t sue us” clause seems to have shaky footing).
It's a numbers game. Wizards is one company, 3PPs are thousands, and even if 99% of the 3PPs are fine, the remaining 1% can cause PR problems.
It’s not that they are publishing the material at all. It’s that they are doing it under the aegis of a WotC license, which serves as a tacit endorsement of the product. Ergo, it is a matter of how WotC’s speech is being employed by another.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. WotC can easily disavow anything published by anyone. If it is published using protected IP, WotC can sue. If it's not published with protected IP, then the offender could have done it without the OGL.
The argument keeps coming back to "Bad actors can use the OGL as a shield". No, no they can't. Even as it stands they can be stopped, it's foolish to think otherwise. WotC has legal recourse to stop it if it impacts their brand, there is no way in hell they would have made this move if they didn't know they could still defend their brand, otherwise their brand becomes worthless.
And if the concern (raised by some) is that media will point at an offending product and say "Look what WotC allowed!" I would reply: 1. That seems unlikely to happen with any real consequence; and 2. the sort of media who would make a story out of such event are not the kind of media who would have any qualms about making up a story out of whole cloth to hurt the brand.
And what people are we talking about here? What people/media are we afraid will try to take down WotC and D&D if... IF... a bad actor publishes something questionable? If something like this ever hit the MSM, you can bet WotC would be there disavowing it, defending the brand, explaining how they don't support it and will take action against it.
I feel like this fringe case possibility is grasping at a straw that might never come to be, and if it did, WotC has lots of tools to deal with it!
"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?
Speech cannot be protected from corporations. Speech can only be protected from the government. Secondarily, you are getting into Paradox of Tolerance territory, wherein absolute tolerance of any ideal, even hateful ideals, acts to diminish tolerance rather than expand it. If a platform for speech - such as, in a particularly torturous definition of 'platform for speech' in this case, the ability to publish content for D&D 5e - has rules associated with the use of that platform, nobody gets to say "having rules is unfair!" No one is obligated to give hateful ideals a platform to broadcast to the world from.
Again, Paradox of Tolerance. People who express hateful, hurtful views do not magically become cured of those views by expressing them, and they do convert other people into hateful people and reduce the tolerance of the overall gestalt. Giving them a platform to broadcast their hatred to the masses results in
Fox Newsthe spread and amplification of hatred as the platform acts to normalize those hateful views. Will some people become obsessed with their hate if not allowed to try and spread that hate to others, feeling like they're oppressed and silenced and becoming ever more furious over it? Yes. Fact: this already happens. ANY amount of protection against/deplatforming of hateful speech causes 'festering resentment'; the sort of mindset given to blind, virulent hatred is also the sort of mindset generally not strongly inclined to rational thinking or introspection. One cannot help making hateful people more hateful. One can help the targets of that hate, by reducing the amount of hate that reaches them.Nobody would complain if somebody loudly bellowing a racist rant in the middle of a Wal-Mart was asked to leave by the store's management. Why do people feel like Wizards is required to allow similar rants within its own sphere of operations, to the immediate and difficult to repair detriment of D&D as a whole?
Please do not contact or message me.
I have seen a number of people suggest that one solution WotC could have pursued was to make D&D Beyond like a combination of DM's Guild and Steam. Invite people to publish their content to, and to be compatible with, DDB and the new VTT where publishers can make money, and WotC can very easily enforce community standards.
As it is, while it is true that the 1st amendment in the US only applies to speech censored by the govt, I would argue that publishing a 3PP product using the mechanics of the game and publishing it outside of any WotC platform puts that speech in a different place than how it would be judged if it were within WotC's platform.
A book self-published using non-copyrightable mechanics but which WotC doesn't like, would seem to have far more protection, possibly even under the first amendment.
"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?
How exactly do they have the tools to revoke a license the community has insisted must be absolutely irrevocable? Unless the bad actor actually uses protected content, the license stands. And, regardless of what you personally think, there’s a lot of people who eat sound bite news up, particularly on a matter they don’t care to understand in detail. WotC and Hasbro have a fiduciary duty to protect their company’s image, but this blind insistence on 1.0a has forced them to leave a significant gap open on that front. There is little to no action they can take beyond “we don’t support this, but they still get to keep the license”. Which, oddly enough, I doubt will play well on the news.
The point, which I notice keeps being glossed over, is that a license is a form of speech on the part of WotC, but apparently it is one they aren’t allowed to have any measure of control over.