BECAUSE, if you have the definition based on a SUBJECTIVE term that is susceptible to one persons whims instead of a concrete OBJECTIVE definition, what isn't considered "hateful" today can be tomorrow. Not to mention the legal pitfalls you can run into leaving what is essentially contract law to "Meh I just felt like *this* should apply today!"
Objective morality isn't. Human beings are subjective, and hate cannot exist save between human beings.
Some people can easily accomodate that reality and have learned how to change with the times and assimilate new information to keep their internal standards of hatefulness and what to avoid up to date.
Other people want explicit legal permission to be hateful to as many other people as they possibly can because they feel powerful when somebody else is hurting, or whatever it actually is I dunno.
One of these groups of people is the one I want to try and be part of and play D&D with.
Counterpoint: why is everyone so seemingly concerned with being unfairly swept up in some sort of misguided anti-hate purge?
What are all y'all doing that's so borderline hateful you're always constantly afraid you're on the target list for this stuff?
People don't want to give a hard-line definition of what counts/qualifies as Hateful Content because 1.) such a definition is impossible and harmful to pursue, and 2.) we all know exactly what you lot will do with it - nitpick and debate and castigate that definition endlessly without ever offering any substantive information or opinion of your own. It's a classic bad Internet Debate tactic - force the other side to define their position, then ceaselessly attack that definition without ever providing a definition or arguing point of your own. Why should anyone open themselves up to that? Especially since I tried to give such a definition earlier in another thread and got exactly that - endless nitpickery and bad-faith badmouthing of my specific definition and why those specific words were deficient, rather than the core idea being deficient.
Stop it.
BECAUSE, if you have the definition based on a SUBJECTIVE term that is susceptible to one persons whims instead of a concrete OBJECTIVE definition, what isn't considered "hateful" today can be tomorrow. Not to mention the legal pitfalls you can run into leaving what is essentially contract law to "Meh I just felt like *this* should apply today!"
Provisions like the one you are still bashing even though Wizards disavowed it are extremely standard in licensing agreements. They are hardly a “legal pitfall” - they’re industry standard and the OGL is the oddity because they do not have such language.
Here’s two examples, both taken from the very third party publishers at the heart of this issue:
You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo.
In all cases, the use of our IP within your Fan Projects must be appropriate. Fan Projects cannot be defamatory, offensive (including but not limited to anything transphobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, ableist, ageist) or harmful to others in any way (as determined solely by CR).
I'll say it again. What is considered acceptable today isn't always considered acceptable tomorrow. Sadly if I try to give more specific examples of what I mean the post will get nuked. Which oddly enough is a great example of what I'm getting at here. There were subjects we could always talk about before, not even being mean or denigrating but just discussing of those topics would be considered acceptable. But now if you decide to even talk about em (let alone dare to disagree) you are shut down and have your voice removed be it digitally or in print. You can be subject to the arbitrary whims of just one or two people because they have decided that this subject or that is *verboten*. This is why contracts are generally speaking very specific in their language. So that there is no ambiguity and little to no chance for a lawyer to come in and argue vagueness in the contract to whatever ends they are trying to achieve.
Counterpoint: why is everyone so seemingly concerned with being unfairly swept up in some sort of misguided anti-hate purge?
What are all y'all doing that's so borderline hateful you're always constantly afraid you're on the target list for this stuff?
People don't want to give a hard-line definition of what counts/qualifies as Hateful Content because 1.) such a definition is impossible and harmful to pursue, and 2.) we all know exactly what you lot will do with it - nitpick and debate and castigate that definition endlessly without ever offering any substantive information or opinion of your own. It's a classic bad Internet Debate tactic - force the other side to define their position, then ceaselessly attack that definition without ever providing a definition or arguing point of your own. Why should anyone open themselves up to that? Especially since I tried to give such a definition earlier in another thread and got exactly that - endless nitpickery and bad-faith badmouthing of my specific definition and why those specific words were deficient, rather than the core idea being deficient.
Stop it.
BECAUSE, if you have the definition based on a SUBJECTIVE term that is susceptible to one persons whims instead of a concrete OBJECTIVE definition, what isn't considered "hateful" today can be tomorrow. Not to mention the legal pitfalls you can run into leaving what is essentially contract law to "Meh I just felt like *this* should apply today!"
Provisions like the one you are still bashing even though Wizards disavowed it are extremely standard in licensing agreements. They are hardly a “legal pitfall” - they’re industry standard and the OGL is the oddity because they do not have such language.
Here’s two examples, both taken from the very third party publishers at the heart of this issue:
You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo.
In all cases, the use of our IP within your Fan Projects must be appropriate. Fan Projects cannot be defamatory, offensive (including but not limited to anything transphobic, sexist, homophobic, racist, ableist, ageist) or harmful to others in any way (as determined solely by CR).
I'll say it again. What is considered acceptable today isn't always considered acceptable tomorrow. Sadly if I try to give more specific examples of what I mean the post will get nuked. Which oddly enough is a great example of what I'm getting at here. There were subjects we could always talk about before, not even being mean or denigrating but just discussing of those topics would be considered acceptable. But now if you decide to even talk about em (let alone dare to disagree) you are shut down and have your voice removed be it digitally or in print. You can be subject to the arbitrary whims of just one or two people because they have decided that this subject or that is *verboten*. This is why contracts are generally speaking very specific in their language. So that there is no ambiguity and little to no chance for a lawyer to come in and argue vagueness in the contract to whatever ends they are trying to achieve.
For someone who keeps demanding evidence, you sure do not like to actually read it when provided, do you?
I just provided you two examples of content moderation terms from other members in this very industry. Paizo’s goes with the extremely vague what “the general public would classify” - something which very much opens them up to legal disputes - while Critical Role’s grants themselves the sole right to decide what they consider an offensive use of their content.
So, you are free to opine on what you think contracts should look like - but you opining on something doesn’t make you right. You’ll have to pardon me for placing my trust in the legal teams at Paizo and Critical Role over you, someone who is very clearly playing at being an armchair lawyer.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
Except, once again, it doesn’t - it shouldn’t - and it won’t.
There’s a reason Paizo doesn’t use specific language. Critical Role doesn’t use specific language. Really no one uses specific language - you define something and you are just inciting bigots to say “technically I didn’t break the exact language of the rules, so you can’t do nothing.”
But, again, I provided the receipts to back that up - statements from other contracts showing that my fellow lawyers simply know you are wrong. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but your own speciation and clearly unqualified views on the legal system.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
Objective. Morality. Isn't.
You fundamentally cannot make fixed, unchanging, unbending, hyper-rigid, Eternal Forever rules on this issue. It does not work. It cannot work. The only people who want it to work are people who want to know where the bright, hard shiny line is so they can ndudge themselves right up to it, ride the border as closely and tightly as they can, and use that overly rigid definition as a shield to deflect criticism from their borderline hatefulness.
Everyone else knows that inclusivity is by its fundamental nature a moving target and requires care and adaptation to achieve and maintain. Society doesn't yet know how to be inclusive. We're all figuring that out as we go, listening to people who're being targeted by hate and trying to fix the hate they're suffering from however we can manage. Only children and fools believe morality exists as some sort of objective, scientific stgandard outside of the human condition.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
I wouldn't support such content. Why would you?? And if you wouldn't, if no one supports it, it doesn't really flow freely does it?? It just gets swept to the side and left behind.
If I might be permitted, Yurei1453, might I append "and some philosophers" to your final statement?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
Objective. Morality. Isn't.
You fundamentally cannot make fixed, unchanging, unbending, hyper-rigid, Eternal Forever rules on this issue. It does not work. It cannot work. The only people who want it to work are people who want to know where the bright, hard shiny line is so they can ndudge themselves right up to it, ride the border as closely and tightly as they can, and use that overly rigid definition as a shield to deflect criticism from their borderline hatefulness.
Everyone else knows that inclusivity is by its fundamental nature a moving target and requires care and adaptation to achieve and maintain. Society doesn't yet know how to be inclusive. We're all figuring that out as we go, listening to people who're being targeted by hate and trying to fix the hate they're suffering from however we can manage. Only children and fools believe morality exists as some sort of objective, scientific stgandard outside of the human condition.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
I wouldn't support such content. Why would you?? And if you wouldn't, if no one supports it, it doesn't really flow freely does it?? It just gets swept to the side and left behind.
First, some will support it, if only because some folks are terrible human beings. Second, in the world we live in, all it takes is a single instance of hate being tied back to WotC (or any other content creator), to feed the outrage machine and generate bad press that they then have to defend. Third, creators tend to want their creations used in a manner reflective of their own values, and balk when it is not used that way (look up Alfred Noble, the creator of the Nobel Prize (and dynamite), for a clear example of this). If the creators of D&D 5e want their content used in a manner reflecting an inclusive and benevolent society, they should have a say in how others use that content.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
If I might be permitted, Yurei1453, might I append "and some philosophers" to your final statement?
As someone with a philosophy minor in my first degree, I assert that the "and fools" part covers philosophers just fine :P But a fair note, if one that is generally rooted in the existence of an outside force independent of humanity that humanity is intrinsically intended to serve/please/conform to. 'Objective Morality', with the sort-of-exception of the categorical imperative, almost always asserts that morality comes from a place of divine influence or origin - that morality isn't really human at all, but rather a flawed human understanding of the moral code of a being, entity or force that exists beyond us.
I find such assertions to be obnoxious. The Higher Codes of Greater Forces don't do anyone on this planet one single lick of good. 'Flawed human understanding' is the best understanding we have, and as a species and society we have to live with that and make the best we can of it. Objectivity and rigor are for the natural and physical sciences, not for Peopleology.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
And I'm saying that if they set rules that never change, then bad actors will find ways to spread hate in ways not addressed by said rules. So they instead want to be able to make the calls as they go, and still be able to act against said bad actors.
There is not a perfect solution to this. The human experience is subjective, and the mores of society change with time. You are advocating for a fossilized morality that cannot work in a world that is changing constantly.
Again, stopping after the first line or two. Immediately out the gate you're wrong. What you are describing is a dictatorship. What we have as a government is a Representative Republic, meaning we collectively voted to elect a group of people that then go forward to represent us (talking about Congress) as lawmakers granting equal representation. A President is not a supreme leader and do not make unilateral decisions in law making. So right out the gate your premise is flawed.
And no, that wasn't presumption OR projection. You quite effectively made the same argument that I have made for several pages here.
How many representatives or Ministers does a person vote for in an election to represent them? How about Governors? Odds are pretty good the number is 1. That person represents them and they give them the authority to make decisions about what is right or wrong.
And as for dictatorship, I'm sorry, i will point to what the current Governor of Florida is doing? Or recent efforts by third parties to prevent a peaceful transition of power? Those actions certainly were and are unilateral. nor is the making of law the only thing that they do., and much of it is, indeed, unilateral. It is suggested some study of the greater operations of national governments is in order if there is some illusion that unilateral action is not an ability of an elected official whose vote is ultimately always a unilateral action.
Democracy is the only form of government where two people can tell eight what to do -- all they have to do is keep them arguing among themselves. perhaps finishing the responses is indicated?
I ask, why make it personal? You, you, you. It isn't about me or you, it is about the concepts or ideas. One need not say you to make a point. If I can be forgiven for relying on my old therapy practices: stick to I statements.
Not getting into a political debate here. They've already thrown one of my posts in the book burn pile from this very thread today. That said, I said you because in this case I am talking about what YOU said.
One need not get political to discuss the actions referenced, only the purpose, goals, and motivations thereby. That is, after all, how one gets close to but does not cross the rules. ( I mean, I could go for a deeper dive into the inherent meaning of "political" and how this was such long before elected figures were mentioned, but that might be a tad much and playing unfair.)
In quoting an individual, the responses being made to that individual are inherently (and rhetorically) implied to be towards said individual. Doubling down on them (saying "you") makes it come across as a personal attack, and reduces the ability to effectively communicate and express one's ideas, feelings, thoughts, and whatnot.
In short, it sets one up in an aggressive posture, even if there is no intent to do so, and is fundamentally a defensive posture, which also not conducive to the sorts of discussions in play. it is one of the reasons why doing family or couples therapy can be such a challenge for participants, as they must learn new skills such as active listening to help overcome this and achieve an understanding of positions even though agreement may not be possible.
In closing, I will note that I was not engaging previously after a while with certain arguments put forth that are claimed to have been the point -- so I am at a loss to determine why a side discourse on the nature of the social contract and duty suddenly had to become a discourse on the flawed presumption that my previous work was supportive of something which it was not so.
I would argue it is almost as if there was an intent to draw me in and shift the conversation away from the Social Contract and Duty concept and return me to the rather boring and long ago lost argument that, apparently, (because I was not aware that was the argument, since I was speaking to the social contract and Duty) there should be explicit instructions about what is and is not permissible, even though both legally and historically such is not a capacity that humans have at this time.
FFS, people still argue about whether an individual or class of persons deserves human rights -- ie, that they are human, or people, to begin with. until such as that is solved, any expectation of the sort suggested simply will not happen.
and yeah, imma stop working now. Payment will be expected going forward. I am thinking in miniatures...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
If I might be permitted, Yurei1453, might I append "and some philosophers" to your final statement?
As someone with a philosophy minor in my first degree, I assert that the "and fools" part covers philosophers just fine :P But a fair note, if one that is generally rooted in the existence of an outside force independent of humanity that humanity is intrinsically intended to serve/please/conform to. 'Objective Morality', with the sort-of-exception of the categorical imperative, almost always asserts that morality comes from a place of divine influence or origin - that morality isn't really human at all, but rather a flawed human understanding of the moral code of a being, entity or force that exists beyond us.
I find such assertions to be obnoxious. The Higher Codes of Greater Forces don't do anyone on this planet one single lick of good. 'Flawed human understanding' is the best understanding we have, and as a species and society we have to live with that and make the best we can of it. Objectivity and rigor are for the natural and physical sciences, not for Peopleology.
As a peopleologist, I thoroughly agree, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
And I'm saying that if they set rules that never change, then bad actors will find ways to spread hate in ways not addressed by said rules. So they instead want to be able to make the calls as they go, and still be able to act against said bad actors.
There is not a perfect solution to this. The human experience is subjective, and the mores of society change with time. You are advocating for a fossilized morality that cannot work in a world that is changing constantly.
I agree there isn't a perfect solution to this, nor am I naïve enough to think my way here is perfect. It's not, it has it's flaws, that said however I tend as general rule of thumb to err on the side of free speech over that of stifling said speech. In this case let the consumer of what may be considered "hateful" decide whether the product succeeds or fails.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
And I'm saying that if they set rules that never change, then bad actors will find ways to spread hate in ways not addressed by said rules. So they instead want to be able to make the calls as they go, and still be able to act against said bad actors.
There is not a perfect solution to this. The human experience is subjective, and the mores of society change with time. You are advocating for a fossilized morality that cannot work in a world that is changing constantly.
I agree there isn't a perfect solution to this, nor am I naïve enough to think my way here is perfect. It's not, it has it's flaws, that said however I tend as general rule of thumb to err on the side of free speech over that of stifling said speech. In this case let the consumer of what may be considered "hateful" decide whether the product succeeds or fails.
Wrong. You are not advocating for free speech--in fact, you are advocating against it by trying to restrict a speaker's ability to control THEIR OWN speech.
Morality clauses do NOTHING to limit a third-party's speech. They exist only to limit what can be done with the First Party's speech. In a situation where a morality clause exists, Ernie is free to write "Putting Racism Back into the Game" all he wants--his speech is not reduced in the slightest. What he can't do is write "Putting Racism Back into the Game and Using Wizards of the Coast's Speech as Part of my Efforts to do this." That is all a licensing deal is--it is an entity saying "I have this speech. It is mine. You can use it if you want." All a morality clause does is add "but if you are going to use my speech, please do not use MY speech in a way that I find unsavory."
Anyone who says that a morality clause in a licensing agreement infringes on speech understands neither free speech nor morality clauses in licensing agreements.
Not getting into a political debate here. They've already thrown one of my posts in the book burn pile from this very thread today. That said, I said you because in this case I am talking about what YOU said.
One need not get political to discuss the actions referenced, only the purpose, goals, and motivations thereby. That is, after all, how one gets close to but does not cross the rules. ( I mean, I could go for a deeper dive into the inherent meaning of "political" and how this was such long before elected figures were mentioned, but that might be a tad much and playing unfair.)
In quoting an individual, the responses being made to that individual are inherently (and rhetorically) implied to be towards said individual. Doubling down on them (saying "you") makes it come across as a personal attack, and reduces the ability to effectively communicate and express one's ideas, feelings, thoughts, and whatnot.
In short, it sets one up in an aggressive posture, even if there is no intent to do so, and is fundamentally a defensive posture, which also not conducive to the sorts of discussions in play. it is one of the reasons why doing family or couples therapy can be such a challenge for participants, as they must learn new skills such as active listening to help overcome this and achieve an understanding of positions even though agreement may not be possible.
In closing, I will note that I was not engaging previously after a while with certain arguments put forth that are claimed to have been the point -- so I am at a loss to determine why a side discourse on the nature of the social contract and duty suddenly had to become a discourse on the flawed presumption that my previous work was supportive of something which it was not so.
I would argue it is almost as if there was an intent to draw me in and shift the conversation away from the Social Contract and Duty concept and return me to the rather boring and long ago lost argument that, apparently, (because I was not aware that was the argument, since I was speaking to the social contract and Duty) there should be explicit instructions about what is and is not permissible, even though both legally and historically such is not a capacity that humans have at this time.
FFS, people still argue about whether an individual or class of persons deserves human rights -- ie, that they are human, or people, to begin with. until such as that is solved, any expectation of the sort suggested simply will not happen.
and yeah, imma stop working now. Payment will be expected going forward. I am thinking in miniatures...
Yeah well for my part I simply stated that the said person would consider me the other end of pol spectrum even though I'm not and that was enough to warrant the deletion of my post and infraction points, so not taking a chance with it again. And really? You're complaining that I am using the pronouns you, your, and you're when trying to tell *pronoun redacted* that *pronoun redacted* are wrong about something. "Context of the statement be d***ed, he's saying you and your. I must stop him now!" Most people are arguing that the correct your or you're be used, but no now we are griping that they are being used at all?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Objective morality isn't. Human beings are subjective, and hate cannot exist save between human beings.
Some people can easily accomodate that reality and have learned how to change with the times and assimilate new information to keep their internal standards of hatefulness and what to avoid up to date.
Other people want explicit legal permission to be hateful to as many other people as they possibly can because they feel powerful when somebody else is hurting, or whatever it actually is I dunno.
One of these groups of people is the one I want to try and be part of and play D&D with.
I'll let y'all decide which one that is.
Please do not contact or message me.
I'll say it again. What is considered acceptable today isn't always considered acceptable tomorrow. Sadly if I try to give more specific examples of what I mean the post will get nuked. Which oddly enough is a great example of what I'm getting at here. There were subjects we could always talk about before, not even being mean or denigrating but just discussing of those topics would be considered acceptable. But now if you decide to even talk about em (let alone dare to disagree) you are shut down and have your voice removed be it digitally or in print. You can be subject to the arbitrary whims of just one or two people because they have decided that this subject or that is *verboten*. This is why contracts are generally speaking very specific in their language. So that there is no ambiguity and little to no chance for a lawyer to come in and argue vagueness in the contract to whatever ends they are trying to achieve.
For someone who keeps demanding evidence, you sure do not like to actually read it when provided, do you?
I just provided you two examples of content moderation terms from other members in this very industry. Paizo’s goes with the extremely vague what “the general public would classify” - something which very much opens them up to legal disputes - while Critical Role’s grants themselves the sole right to decide what they consider an offensive use of their content.
So, you are free to opine on what you think contracts should look like - but you opining on something doesn’t make you right. You’ll have to pardon me for placing my trust in the legal teams at Paizo and Critical Role over you, someone who is very clearly playing at being an armchair lawyer.
Xippo, the argument you're making is that no one should ever be allowed to ever do anything at all to stop the spread of hate and thus hateful content should flow freely and unimpeded throughout all of D&D.
Why is that an argument anyone should feel is valid?
Please do not contact or message me.
No that's not the argument I've made at all. Thanks for playing though. The argument I have made is that it needs to be defined in concrete terms so that there is no ambiguity in it. SO that people will know that the rules they are going by when they start the process will be the same rules they are going by when they end the process. And that leaving that decision up to the whims of one or two people WILL lead to more issues.
Except, once again, it doesn’t - it shouldn’t - and it won’t.
There’s a reason Paizo doesn’t use specific language. Critical Role doesn’t use specific language. Really no one uses specific language - you define something and you are just inciting bigots to say “technically I didn’t break the exact language of the rules, so you can’t do nothing.”
But, again, I provided the receipts to back that up - statements from other contracts showing that my fellow lawyers simply know you are wrong. You, on the other hand, have provided nothing but your own speciation and clearly unqualified views on the legal system.
If I am a guest in your home, do you want the ability to set rules for what I can and can't do? Do you set a list of concrete rules to abide by in your home? In your situation, if you told me I couldn't come into your room and stare at you while you sleep, but nothing else, would you want to be powerless if I instead decided to stand in the hallway and stare at you while you sleep? What you are proposing leads to that outcome, where people, having been given a list of things they can't do, stretch their imaginations to do things that allow them to do the same general thing while not violating the "list".
What these entities want (as owners of IP) are to have the ability to decide how their IP is used, just as you would want the ability to decide how someone treats your home.
Objective. Morality. Isn't.
You fundamentally cannot make fixed, unchanging, unbending, hyper-rigid, Eternal Forever rules on this issue. It does not work. It cannot work. The only people who want it to work are people who want to know where the bright, hard shiny line is so they can ndudge themselves right up to it, ride the border as closely and tightly as they can, and use that overly rigid definition as a shield to deflect criticism from their borderline hatefulness.
Everyone else knows that inclusivity is by its fundamental nature a moving target and requires care and adaptation to achieve and maintain. Society doesn't yet know how to be inclusive. We're all figuring that out as we go, listening to people who're being targeted by hate and trying to fix the hate they're suffering from however we can manage. Only children and fools believe morality exists as some sort of objective, scientific stgandard outside of the human condition.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wouldn't support such content. Why would you?? And if you wouldn't, if no one supports it, it doesn't really flow freely does it?? It just gets swept to the side and left behind.
If I might be permitted, Yurei1453, might I append "and some philosophers" to your final statement?
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Again, you are ascribing intent.
First, some will support it, if only because some folks are terrible human beings. Second, in the world we live in, all it takes is a single instance of hate being tied back to WotC (or any other content creator), to feed the outrage machine and generate bad press that they then have to defend. Third, creators tend to want their creations used in a manner reflective of their own values, and balk when it is not used that way (look up Alfred Noble, the creator of the Nobel Prize (and dynamite), for a clear example of this). If the creators of D&D 5e want their content used in a manner reflecting an inclusive and benevolent society, they should have a say in how others use that content.
I didn't say they can't set rules, I'm saying they need to set rules that are clearly defined and will be the SAME rules from start to finish.
As someone with a philosophy minor in my first degree, I assert that the "and fools" part covers philosophers just fine :P But a fair note, if one that is generally rooted in the existence of an outside force independent of humanity that humanity is intrinsically intended to serve/please/conform to. 'Objective Morality', with the sort-of-exception of the categorical imperative, almost always asserts that morality comes from a place of divine influence or origin - that morality isn't really human at all, but rather a flawed human understanding of the moral code of a being, entity or force that exists beyond us.
I find such assertions to be obnoxious. The Higher Codes of Greater Forces don't do anyone on this planet one single lick of good. 'Flawed human understanding' is the best understanding we have, and as a species and society we have to live with that and make the best we can of it. Objectivity and rigor are for the natural and physical sciences, not for Peopleology.
Please do not contact or message me.
And I'm saying that if they set rules that never change, then bad actors will find ways to spread hate in ways not addressed by said rules. So they instead want to be able to make the calls as they go, and still be able to act against said bad actors.
There is not a perfect solution to this. The human experience is subjective, and the mores of society change with time. You are advocating for a fossilized morality that cannot work in a world that is changing constantly.
One need not get political to discuss the actions referenced, only the purpose, goals, and motivations thereby. That is, after all, how one gets close to but does not cross the rules. ( I mean, I could go for a deeper dive into the inherent meaning of "political" and how this was such long before elected figures were mentioned, but that might be a tad much and playing unfair.)
In quoting an individual, the responses being made to that individual are inherently (and rhetorically) implied to be towards said individual. Doubling down on them (saying "you") makes it come across as a personal attack, and reduces the ability to effectively communicate and express one's ideas, feelings, thoughts, and whatnot.
In short, it sets one up in an aggressive posture, even if there is no intent to do so, and is fundamentally a defensive posture, which also not conducive to the sorts of discussions in play. it is one of the reasons why doing family or couples therapy can be such a challenge for participants, as they must learn new skills such as active listening to help overcome this and achieve an understanding of positions even though agreement may not be possible.
I notice some things which may be an indication of bad faith; lest anyone not be familiar with the nature of and cost of a bad faith argument, I provide the following informative graphic: https://www.dyssonance.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/tumblr_inline_n81r8eOnsa1qfsy9b.jpg
In closing, I will note that I was not engaging previously after a while with certain arguments put forth that are claimed to have been the point -- so I am at a loss to determine why a side discourse on the nature of the social contract and duty suddenly had to become a discourse on the flawed presumption that my previous work was supportive of something which it was not so.
I would argue it is almost as if there was an intent to draw me in and shift the conversation away from the Social Contract and Duty concept and return me to the rather boring and long ago lost argument that, apparently, (because I was not aware that was the argument, since I was speaking to the social contract and Duty) there should be explicit instructions about what is and is not permissible, even though both legally and historically such is not a capacity that humans have at this time.
FFS, people still argue about whether an individual or class of persons deserves human rights -- ie, that they are human, or people, to begin with. until such as that is solved, any expectation of the sort suggested simply will not happen.
and yeah, imma stop working now. Payment will be expected going forward. I am thinking in miniatures...
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
As a peopleologist, I thoroughly agree, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I agree there isn't a perfect solution to this, nor am I naïve enough to think my way here is perfect. It's not, it has it's flaws, that said however I tend as general rule of thumb to err on the side of free speech over that of stifling said speech. In this case let the consumer of what may be considered "hateful" decide whether the product succeeds or fails.
Wrong. You are not advocating for free speech--in fact, you are advocating against it by trying to restrict a speaker's ability to control THEIR OWN speech.
Morality clauses do NOTHING to limit a third-party's speech. They exist only to limit what can be done with the First Party's speech. In a situation where a morality clause exists, Ernie is free to write "Putting Racism Back into the Game" all he wants--his speech is not reduced in the slightest. What he can't do is write "Putting Racism Back into the Game and Using Wizards of the Coast's Speech as Part of my Efforts to do this." That is all a licensing deal is--it is an entity saying "I have this speech. It is mine. You can use it if you want." All a morality clause does is add "but if you are going to use my speech, please do not use MY speech in a way that I find unsavory."
Anyone who says that a morality clause in a licensing agreement infringes on speech understands neither free speech nor morality clauses in licensing agreements.
Yeah well for my part I simply stated that the said person would consider me the other end of pol spectrum even though I'm not and that was enough to warrant the deletion of my post and infraction points, so not taking a chance with it again. And really? You're complaining that I am using the pronouns you, your, and you're when trying to tell *pronoun redacted* that *pronoun redacted* are wrong about something. "Context of the statement be d***ed, he's saying you and your. I must stop him now!" Most people are arguing that the correct your or you're be used, but no now we are griping that they are being used at all?