The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
Uh, this is exactly what they've done by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons. What on earth are you still complaining about?
If they find something abhorrent, the most they can do is pull their attribution, which does not keep anyone from continuing to make or sell whatever thing.
Under the OGL they were proposing in 1.1 and 1.2 the 6(f) clause would've allowed them to pull your license and ultimately your ability to earn money off of that product you made, unless you go through and extensively rework the wording of your entire product, if they (WOTC) decided to arbitrarily declare your material *enter buzzword of the week here*. I explained this already, though it is possible that could also be another post of mine that was thrown on the burn pile.
It was way too broad of a clause. It left all discretion to whomever was reviewing that claim that day.
That is in fact pretty standard in the entertainment industry; it's just that the previous policy was less restrictive so it feels like something being taken away.
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
Uh, this is exactly what they've done by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons. What on earth are you still complaining about?
If they find something abhorrent, the most they can do is pull their attribution, which does not keep anyone from continuing to make or sell whatever thing.
Under the OGL they were proposing in 1.1 and 1.2 the 6(f) clause would've allowed them to pull your license and ultimately your ability to earn money off of that product you made, unless you go through and extensively rework the wording of your entire product, if they (WOTC) decided to arbitrarily declare your material *enter buzzword of the week here*. I explained this already, though it is possible that could also be another post of mine that was thrown on the burn pile.
1.1 and 1.2 are dead. Continuing to bang on about them ad nauseam until the heat death of the universe serves no purpose.
It was way too broad of a clause. It left all discretion to whomever was reviewing that claim that day.
That is in fact pretty standard in the entertainment industry; it's just that the previous policy was less restrictive so it feels like something being taken away.
Child labor used to be pretty standard in the..... well industry of industry. Doesn't mean it was a good thing.
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL. If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No. Let the community police itself. Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure. The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
Uh, this is exactly what they've done by releasing the SRD into Creative Commons. What on earth are you still complaining about?
If they find something abhorrent, the most they can do is pull their attribution, which does not keep anyone from continuing to make or sell whatever thing.
Under the OGL they were proposing in 1.1 and 1.2 the 6(f) clause would've allowed them to pull your license and ultimately your ability to earn money off of that product you made, unless you go through and extensively rework the wording of your entire product, if they (WOTC) decided to arbitrarily declare your material *enter buzzword of the week here*. I explained this already, though it is possible that could also be another post of mine that was thrown on the burn pile.
1.1 and 1.2 are dead. Continuing to bang on about them ad nauseam until the heat death of the universe serves no purpose.
And given the opportunity to try again, you don't think they will? That's just naïve. Especially since they have people from the company STILL going out trying to do damage control and STILL banging on about wanting to enforce it as such. So that said, I'm done talking about this here. You want to respond back thats on you I don't care. You want to message me about it outside of here, by all means feel free to.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
Nah, I'm good. You're welcome to direct your questions to WotC when their policy/standard is released.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
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
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
See, my problem starts at number 2. That's nice and vague, flexible enough for many people to have a different opinion about, leaving plenty of room for interpretation and loud voices to overrule reason on what exactly constitutes 'problematic'. Yeah, I don't I really like how that could turn out, depending on who swings the decision-hammer.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
Nah, I'm good. You're welcome to direct your questions to WotC when their policy/standard is released.
Ah, so you are willing to make a statement about what WotC SHOULD do, but not willing to elaborate on the why you think they should. Yeah, color me unimpressed.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
I'm sorry but if for example someone called me she, or her, or ma'am that doesn't devalue me as a human, doesn't devalue me as a man, it doesn't even violate my human rights. Sure it might be a d**k move for someone to say, but find me anywhere in the law that says violating a "social contract" has legal repercussions (in the U.S. at least) that include up to losing your livelihood because you said something some people might not like. I very highly doubt you're going to find it.
Edit: I keep letting myself jump back in to this. I'm going to go back to recovering form being sick this week, and go lay down and shut this all off.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
See, my problem starts at number 2. That's nice and vague, flexible enough for many people to have a different opinion about, leaving plenty of room for interpretation and loud voices to overrule reason on what exactly constitutes 'problematic'. Yeah, I don't I really like how that could turn out, depending on who swings the decision-hammer.
Thank you! That has been the main point of my argument here.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
See, my problem starts at number 2. That's nice and vague, flexible enough for many people to have a different opinion about, leaving plenty of room for interpretation and loud voices to overrule reason on what exactly constitutes 'problematic'. Yeah, I don't I really like how that could turn out, depending on who swings the decision-hammer.
that is the nature of the social contract in a society, however. If it were wholly uniform, it wouldn’t be a society, it would be a culture or subculture, and even within them the fundamental issue of “not everyone perceives the social contract in the same way” applies.
I have dealt with the vagaries of the social contract for over 30 years, and while the answer may not be a preferred choice, you asked where the duty comes from, not a discourse on the nature of how that duty is enacted under Agency in opposition to Structure.
that is where it comes from. That is what details it, that is the mechanism by which both stigmatization and ostracism are empowered, and thereby the parameters by which that duty is limited or empowered.
sorry it wasn’t the amazing solution to the underlying query.
Edit: for a mechanism, I will reference my post previously, 48, I think or thereabouts in the thread.
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
Trying to get this back on focus, from these threads, it does appear that Kyle’s videos are working—and he should be commended for that. I am seeing a lot of folks who, over the past couple months, expressed great concern seem reassured by his statements - and he has done a good job laying out a plan for the future of D&D, Beyond, and the corporate structure itself that is that seems to satisfy most of the legitimate critics.
And, sure, there’s still some bickering about his videos - but those with real concerns about the game’s future do seem mostly satisfied. After all, look at what all the arguments are now focused on - folks who are fabricating “racism” in Kyle’s videos that never existed and folks complaining about Kyle saying “yeah, we wish we could have better protections against our speech being used by racists, but we decided to throw in the towel rather than risk damage to useful members of our community.” Fabrication and harping on something Kyle rendered moot are hardly real complaints - and I think we all know what is motivating those making the “arguments” based on the common thread between them.
Still, continued illegitimate detractors aside, I do think there’s been a great shift on this site away from anger and more toward a cautious optimism about the future. Looking forward to the PR situation simmering down some so Wizards can move out of damage control mode and back into “hey, let’s all talk about OneD&D and work together on making that as great as possible!” After all, that is what most players actually care about - there’s a reason OneD&D polling would get 4x the responses of their OGL one.
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Even if the problematic folks are just a loud splinter group as you believe them to be, that doesn't mean WotC doesn't still have a duty to publicly distance themselves and their game from that contingent, both via statement and via game design.
Could you elaborate where this 'duty' is detailed? Who precisely determines which group(s) are to be distanced from, and by what parameters is such a group identified?
My curiosity is spiking here.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
I'm sorry but if for example someone called me she, or her, or ma'am that doesn't devalue me as a human, doesn't devalue me as a man, it doesn't even violate my human rights. Sure it might be a d**k move for someone to say, but find me anywhere in the law that says violating a "social contract" has legal repercussions (in the U.S. at least) that include up to losing your livelihood because you said something some people might not like. I very highly doubt you're going to find it.
Edit: I keep letting myself jump back in to this. I'm going to go back to recovering form being sick this week, and go lay down and shut this all off.
someone calling you she, her, or ma’am may not devalue you, but you are not the sum total nor the baseline for the determination of if it does or does not for others.
call me he and him and you certainly are doing so. Intentionally or not. It strikes dehumanization and therein violates human rights. Hell, I had to deal with that for seven years at the UN.
You wanted me to find a place in law where you can say something that people “might not like” — noting that this is different from saying something that has physical impact and can be measured both in the immediate term and long, and increases societal costs and risks — and, well, there is contract law, tort law, and ****, for all I know probably more than half of the other civil law stuff.
I have been many things, but never a licensed lawyer. Had them as patients, yes, had them as clients, yes, been a subject matter expert for many, yes, but never actually been one. You want specific laws, though, keep in mind it is their job to look for, use, and capitalize on such things, and good ones can do that at the drop of a hat. Hell, the ACLU is pretty much caught in the middle of all that.
So your doubt isn’t justified.
also, feel better. I have been avoiding news and social media except for here because I am “all full up” right now.
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
Trying to get this back on focus, from these threads, it does appear that Kyle’s videos are working—and he should be commended for that. I am seeing a lot of folks who, over the past couple months, expressed great concern seem reassured by his statements - and he has done a good job laying out a plan for the future of D&D, Beyond, and the corporate structure itself that is that seems to satisfy most of the legitimate critics.
And, sure, there’s still some bickering about his videos - but those with real concerns about the game’s future do seem mostly satisfied. After all, look at what all the arguments are now focused on - folks who are fabricating “racism” in Kyle’s videos that never existed and folks complaining about Kyle saying “yeah, we wish we could have better protections against our speech being used by racists, but we decided to throw in the towel rather than risk damage to useful members of our community.” Fabrication and harping on something Kyle rendered moot are hardly real complaints - and I think we all know what is motivating those making the “arguments” based on the common thread between them.
Still, continued illegitimate detractors aside, I do think there’s been a great shift on this site away from anger and more toward a cautious optimism about the future. Looking forward to the PR situation simmering down some so Wizards can move out of damage control mode and back into “hey, let’s all talk about OneD&D and work together on making that as great as possible!” After all, that is what most players actually care about - there’s a reason OneD&D polling would get 4x the responses of their OGL one.
it sure as heck what I care about.
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
The question is though, where should the line be drawn for people who are making/publishing content with the OGL.
The line should be "if you make something awful that hurts a lot of people, your product is bad and doesn't deserve to be successful or find support."
Why that is so ******* difficult for people to get behind, I will never understand.
If someone makes an adventure where racism, bigotry, etc is a main story beat with the intention that it should be stopped and a group runs it and does the opposite and WOTC/Hasbro decides well your book is "hate speech" even though in the context of it should be stopped is OBVIOUS in your adventure should they WOTC be able to potentially pull your license that you published on from you, losing any income you may have coming in from it? No.
Why does every single person come up with this same lame, tired, worn-out, incorrect excuse? "Dark" content is not the same as "hateful" content, nobody has ever said or suggested that it was. If your book gets pulled because of 'dark' content, it would only be because you executed that content so clumsily and poorly that you caused widespread harm through incompetence rather than malice. Which, hey, guess what - you still caused widespread harm. Should've been better at your job I suppose.
Let the community police itself.
No. The community is incapable of policing itself. 'The Community' has just as many people in it who actively desire hateful, intolerant, bigoted and exclusionist content as it has people who want to see the end of such content. Problem: one of those desires spreads harm and makes both D&D and the world in general a worse place.
Let consumers decide on their own if they are going to support or not support that adventure.
Nobody cares about your "stop the slavery!" adventure. On top of being boring and predictable, it's also not harmful. Not to the extent it would need to be to warrant action. Though I love that people think this sort of thing should be crammed down the throat of literally every last single D&D player in the entire world no matter their background, tastes, desires, or potential triggers. And by 'love' I mean hate.
The answer isn't to leave that in the hands of one or two people that might be having a bad day because their dog crapped on the floor that morning, or whatever.
We should instead leave the decision to the faceless mindless gormless spineless flesh-soup morass known as The D&D Community? An entity that knows nothing but outrage, hostility, and hurtfulness and has never once in the history of D&D actually liked this game? The same community that has a long and sordid history of being the exact sort of exclusionistic so-and-sos that kept marginalized people out of the game for decades?
sorry it wasn’t the amazing solution to the underlying query.
Edit: for a mechanism, I will reference my post previously, 48, I think or thereabouts in the thread.
Apologies for snipping it, but otherwise we are just posting looong quotes over and over.
The problem is, to me, that there is no such duty detailed. In fact, there is no details at all. It all just seems to be opinion on what it entails, should entail, maybe entails, or really definitely entails but without a proof for it .Yet when asked for said details, or specifics on what all of that should entail, there is either silence, a snubbed nose, or vagueries (as you call it) There is also a selection of people on a forum calling WotC to action over what they perceive is the just, righteous, proper form of action, and then another few more equating anybody who disagrees with them to raving masses, with gibbering mouthers, even going as far as setting them on the same line as hateful bigots. Elitism about post counts was also present.
Such tolerance, openness and respect indeed, would you not agree?
Now, for the record; and to be absolutely clear; I am not accusing you of ANY of the above. However, I am going to use this observation of mine to come back to my earlier sentence; I am no fan of calls for 'distancing', as it is terribly unclear where these parameters and definitions lie, and seems to be highly influenced by personal bias.
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.
This approach is a vast improvement over a 6F clause. I am concerned however about their intent to act as "an amplifier", as ultimately what will be amplified is the content in question. I really don't like the idea of the game becoming a front line in the culture wars. I think the wiser approach is to just ignore provocative content rather than give it the spotlight it craves.
From the Satanic Panic of the 80s to today’s decision to move away from identified historical issues, D&D has been on the front line of culture wars for decades. It hasn’t been their fault - it just seems that folks, be it the moralists of the 80s or the racists of today have decided to make D&D (and Wizards generally—they’ve had both moralist and pro-racism problems with Magic over that game’s history) a target for outrage.
Wizards cannot really control their involvement in culture wars - it isn’t their fault that they cater to a demographic with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals. It should be noted that Wizards is also not alone in this—gaming generally has a white supremacy problem, and both video games and other tabletop games like Warhammer 40k (though Games Workshop brings some of that on themselves due to 40k’s lore) have similar issues with their player bases.
This isn’t a fight Wizards picked - they probably would love to just ignore it. But it is a fight they find themselves in, and they, quite reasonably, do not want their own product and their own speech being co-opted and used for hate.
Seriously? You seriously think a game that has some of the most accepting groups of players and fans is some breeding ground for "white supremacy" and "problematic people"?
2 seconds in the last thread where people were freaking out over the most banal & corporate statement from Kyle where he said he wanted WotC to have a more diverse workforce kinda kills the myth that D&D has the "most accepting groups of players".
Since my post explaining this was so conveniently deleted... I am not saying it doesn't exist. My point is that the squeaky wheels that are making arguments like that are much fewer in number than the majority that are very accepting people.
Perhaps in the broader TTRPG community you're correct, there's plenty of interesting & progressive games, mostly from non-D&D creators (From Paizo to Evil Hat, there's a lot of diversity in many games out there). For creative diversity in d&d 5e, however, it really only comes from indie Kickstarters. Makes you wonder why WotC doesn't think wider lore about it's settings & cultures would do well.
sorry it wasn’t the amazing solution to the underlying query.
Edit: for a mechanism, I will reference my post previously, 48, I think or thereabouts in the thread.
Apologies for snipping it, but otherwise we are just posting looong quotes over and over.
The problem is, to me, that there is no such duty detailed. In fact, there is no details at all. It all just seems to be opinion on what it entails, should entail, maybe entails, or really definitely entails but without a proof for it .Yet when asked for said details, or specifics on what all of that should entail, there is either silence, a snubbed nose, or vagueries (as you call it) There is also a selection of people on a forum calling WotC to action over what they perceive is the just, righteous, proper form of action, and then another few more equating anybody who disagrees with them to raving masses, with gibbering mouthers, even going as far as setting them on the same line as hateful bigots. Elitism about post counts was also present.
Such tolerance, openness and respect indeed, would you not agree?
Now, for the record; and to be absolutely clear; I am not accusing you of ANY of the above. However, I am going to use this observation of mine to come back to my earlier sentence; I am no fan of calls for 'distancing', as it is terribly unclear where these parameters and definitions lie, and seems to be highly influenced by personal bias.
No worries on the snip, lol. i was replying on an ipad previously so they really make things a pain to deal with.
hmm. I think you are operating on the presumption that the social contract is a fixed, immutable thing, a document of sorts. It is not. It is a zeitgeist, a collective, unspoken will that defaults to certain common expectations, mores, norms, folkways, laws, religious structures, and more. I am speaking contextually, here, not about you in the larger world or your beliefs, merely about how you speak to the point of it being vague and lacking details.
The specific unwritten codicils are "be nice", "help others", "reduce harm". From those three codicils one can infer or add a codicil of it is your duty to be nice, to help others, to reduce harm" because it is expected of all people, not just some. Earlier there was an ask for a legal basis, and ultimately, that *is* the basis of the entire *idea* of law as we have it today -- and as someone who teaches a lot of stuff, including critical race theory, I can fully embrace the whole bit about there being significant failures of the idea of a legal system doing that, even though ultimately that is still the underlying premise all the way back to hammurabi.
But we have people who break some of the most basic laws: murder, theft, graft, assault, and so forth. They are not an insubstantial part of the society we live in, and an expectations that somehow a self selected group of people from the larger population would somehow not include such elements is rather foolish and too narrow. So yes, there are going to be people who post outright racism, misogyny, transphobia, what have you. In my own comments to WotC, I pointed out that is, to me, the single least believable part of their goals around all of this, because aside from cultural intransigence, there is apathy and the sheer weight of all that has gone before and just one of my many intersections has been fighting for something akin to freedom for that for around 1500 years, so how the hell do they think they will achieve it. Good news, they don't any longer (apparently).
The presence of such bad actors supports the basis of their being a such a duty, however -- if they did not exist, such a duty would not. Negative inference, granted, but still accurate and applicable.
So, ultimately "the social contract" *is* a detailed response -- but it may be my error because while I rarely expect everyone to have the same level of knowledge or understanding or grasp of a subject I do (I mean, I still don't get why t is important to throw a ball through a hoop and run around bases except from the macro view of cultural study), and there are others with a greater grasp, we are not all on the same page there, even if we are vaguely familiar with the term and to expect everyone to have that knowledge is an error. So I apologize if that was unintentionally implied.
It is funny that you mention people claiming their side is just and righteous and proper (to me), because in other threads I have had the same exact people making the argument about Orcs and such being evil and not needing a basis for the orcs themselves to see what they do as all those things. It is unrelated, but it made me chuckle -- and yes, that does exist. I have tried to redirect the conversation around that and I dread the thought of the third video and thread and what will come of it.
As for equating anyone to gibbering mouthers, I would expect them to have more respect for what are genuinely and literally racist depictions of people like me, but that's a whole separate thing and said mostly for a chuckle. fights around Human Dignity always devolve into such a mess, though, and a lot of people -- those folks who don't want to get involved or feel they are unaffected or see both sides as equal are why it persists.
Tolerance is not inherently a goal in all situations -- like the isms and phobia and related social ills, tolerance is a system, and the examples ehre are not indicative of failures of tolerance. Openness is also not a problem -- indeed, my peace in this thread is due to some people being so open that I was able to deduce their overall ick factor for me and block them.
as for respect, well...
I have been taught by 58 years of living as the thing that so many dislike that respect is an illusion and a tool of policing, and policing can only ever serve the status quo, so I am far too biased to answer or proffer an effective opinion on the presence or absence of respect in these threads. BEsides, I am a moderator of a dozen other groups and get to deal with people popping in and using things from those forums six months later in a court case meant to stretch all bounds of credulity and deny medical care.
Personal bias impacts everything. Especially these days, when an objective fact that something promotes health is suddenly declared harmful to people and outlawed by bad actors. Blaming the failure of many to follow the social contract in a given context is akin to blaming the stars for spinning through the galaxy.
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
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!"
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).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Under the OGL they were proposing in 1.1 and 1.2 the 6(f) clause would've allowed them to pull your license and ultimately your ability to earn money off of that product you made, unless you go through and extensively rework the wording of your entire product, if they (WOTC) decided to arbitrarily declare your material *enter buzzword of the week here*. I explained this already, though it is possible that could also be another post of mine that was thrown on the burn pile.
That is in fact pretty standard in the entertainment industry; it's just that the previous policy was less restrictive so it feels like something being taken away.
1.1 and 1.2 are dead. Continuing to bang on about them ad nauseam until the heat death of the universe serves no purpose.
Child labor used to be pretty standard in the..... well industry of industry. Doesn't mean it was a good thing.
And given the opportunity to try again, you don't think they will? That's just naïve. Especially since they have people from the company STILL going out trying to do damage control and STILL banging on about wanting to enforce it as such. So that said, I'm done talking about this here. You want to respond back thats on you I don't care. You want to message me about it outside of here, by all means feel free to.
Nah, I'm good. You're welcome to direct your questions to WotC when their policy/standard is released.
pardon me going all over educated ancient crone, but the only answers here that really work are:
1 - Human Rights, notably the foundation of Human Dignity and respect for it.
2 - the Social Contract.
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
See, my problem starts at number 2. That's nice and vague, flexible enough for many people to have a different opinion about, leaving plenty of room for interpretation and loud voices to overrule reason on what exactly constitutes 'problematic'. Yeah, I don't I really like how that could turn out, depending on who swings the decision-hammer.
Ah, so you are willing to make a statement about what WotC SHOULD do, but not willing to elaborate on the why you think they should. Yeah, color me unimpressed.
I'm sorry but if for example someone called me she, or her, or ma'am that doesn't devalue me as a human, doesn't devalue me as a man, it doesn't even violate my human rights. Sure it might be a d**k move for someone to say, but find me anywhere in the law that says violating a "social contract" has legal repercussions (in the U.S. at least) that include up to losing your livelihood because you said something some people might not like. I very highly doubt you're going to find it.
Edit: I keep letting myself jump back in to this. I'm going to go back to recovering form being sick this week, and go lay down and shut this all off.
Thank you! That has been the main point of my argument here.
that is the nature of the social contract in a society, however. If it were wholly uniform, it wouldn’t be a society, it would be a culture or subculture, and even within them the fundamental issue of “not everyone perceives the social contract in the same way” applies.
I have dealt with the vagaries of the social contract for over 30 years, and while the answer may not be a preferred choice, you asked where the duty comes from, not a discourse on the nature of how that duty is enacted under Agency in opposition to Structure.
that is where it comes from. That is what details it, that is the mechanism by which both stigmatization and ostracism are empowered, and thereby the parameters by which that duty is limited or empowered.
sorry it wasn’t the amazing solution to the underlying query.
Edit: for a mechanism, I will reference my post previously, 48, I think or thereabouts in the thread.
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
Trying to get this back on focus, from these threads, it does appear that Kyle’s videos are working—and he should be commended for that. I am seeing a lot of folks who, over the past couple months, expressed great concern seem reassured by his statements - and he has done a good job laying out a plan for the future of D&D, Beyond, and the corporate structure itself that is that seems to satisfy most of the legitimate critics.
And, sure, there’s still some bickering about his videos - but those with real concerns about the game’s future do seem mostly satisfied. After all, look at what all the arguments are now focused on - folks who are fabricating “racism” in Kyle’s videos that never existed and folks complaining about Kyle saying “yeah, we wish we could have better protections against our speech being used by racists, but we decided to throw in the towel rather than risk damage to useful members of our community.” Fabrication and harping on something Kyle rendered moot are hardly real complaints - and I think we all know what is motivating those making the “arguments” based on the common thread between them.
Still, continued illegitimate detractors aside, I do think there’s been a great shift on this site away from anger and more toward a cautious optimism about the future. Looking forward to the PR situation simmering down some so Wizards can move out of damage control mode and back into “hey, let’s all talk about OneD&D and work together on making that as great as possible!” After all, that is what most players actually care about - there’s a reason OneD&D polling would get 4x the responses of their OGL one.
someone calling you she, her, or ma’am may not devalue you, but you are not the sum total nor the baseline for the determination of if it does or does not for others.
call me he and him and you certainly are doing so. Intentionally or not. It strikes dehumanization and therein violates human rights. Hell, I had to deal with that for seven years at the UN.
You wanted me to find a place in law where you can say something that people “might not like” — noting that this is different from saying something that has physical impact and can be measured both in the immediate term and long, and increases societal costs and risks — and, well, there is contract law, tort law, and ****, for all I know probably more than half of the other civil law stuff.
I have been many things, but never a licensed lawyer. Had them as patients, yes, had them as clients, yes, been a subject matter expert for many, yes, but never actually been one. You want specific laws, though, keep in mind it is their job to look for, use, and capitalize on such things, and good ones can do that at the drop of a hat. Hell, the ACLU is pretty much caught in the middle of all that.
So your doubt isn’t justified.
also, feel better. I have been avoiding news and social media except for here because I am “all full up” right now.
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
it sure as heck what I care about.
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
The line should be "if you make something awful that hurts a lot of people, your product is bad and doesn't deserve to be successful or find support."
Why that is so ******* difficult for people to get behind, I will never understand.
Why does every single person come up with this same lame, tired, worn-out, incorrect excuse? "Dark" content is not the same as "hateful" content, nobody has ever said or suggested that it was. If your book gets pulled because of 'dark' content, it would only be because you executed that content so clumsily and poorly that you caused widespread harm through incompetence rather than malice. Which, hey, guess what - you still caused widespread harm. Should've been better at your job I suppose.
No. The community is incapable of policing itself. 'The Community' has just as many people in it who actively desire hateful, intolerant, bigoted and exclusionist content as it has people who want to see the end of such content. Problem: one of those desires spreads harm and makes both D&D and the world in general a worse place.
Nobody cares about your "stop the slavery!" adventure. On top of being boring and predictable, it's also not harmful. Not to the extent it would need to be to warrant action. Though I love that people think this sort of thing should be crammed down the throat of literally every last single D&D player in the entire world no matter their background, tastes, desires, or potential triggers. And by 'love' I mean hate.
We should instead leave the decision to the faceless mindless gormless spineless flesh-soup morass known as The D&D Community? An entity that knows nothing but outrage, hostility, and hurtfulness and has never once in the history of D&D actually liked this game? The same community that has a long and sordid history of being the exact sort of exclusionistic so-and-sos that kept marginalized people out of the game for decades?
Pass.
Please do not contact or message me.
Apologies for snipping it, but otherwise we are just posting looong quotes over and over.
The problem is, to me, that there is no such duty detailed. In fact, there is no details at all. It all just seems to be opinion on what it entails, should entail, maybe entails, or really definitely entails but without a proof for it .Yet when asked for said details, or specifics on what all of that should entail, there is either silence, a snubbed nose, or vagueries (as you call it)
There is also a selection of people on a forum calling WotC to action over what they perceive is the just, righteous, proper form of action, and then another few more equating anybody who disagrees with them to raving masses, with gibbering mouthers, even going as far as setting them on the same line as hateful bigots. Elitism about post counts was also present.
Such tolerance, openness and respect indeed, would you not agree?
Now, for the record; and to be absolutely clear; I am not accusing you of ANY of the above. However, I am going to use this observation of mine to come back to my earlier sentence;
I am no fan of calls for 'distancing', as it is terribly unclear where these parameters and definitions lie, and seems to be highly influenced by personal bias.
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.
Please do not contact or message me.
Perhaps in the broader TTRPG community you're correct, there's plenty of interesting & progressive games, mostly from non-D&D creators (From Paizo to Evil Hat, there's a lot of diversity in many games out there). For creative diversity in d&d 5e, however, it really only comes from indie Kickstarters. Makes you wonder why WotC doesn't think wider lore about it's settings & cultures would do well.
No worries on the snip, lol. i was replying on an ipad previously so they really make things a pain to deal with.
hmm. I think you are operating on the presumption that the social contract is a fixed, immutable thing, a document of sorts. It is not. It is a zeitgeist, a collective, unspoken will that defaults to certain common expectations, mores, norms, folkways, laws, religious structures, and more. I am speaking contextually, here, not about you in the larger world or your beliefs, merely about how you speak to the point of it being vague and lacking details.
The specific unwritten codicils are "be nice", "help others", "reduce harm". From those three codicils one can infer or add a codicil of it is your duty to be nice, to help others, to reduce harm" because it is expected of all people, not just some. Earlier there was an ask for a legal basis, and ultimately, that *is* the basis of the entire *idea* of law as we have it today -- and as someone who teaches a lot of stuff, including critical race theory, I can fully embrace the whole bit about there being significant failures of the idea of a legal system doing that, even though ultimately that is still the underlying premise all the way back to hammurabi.
But we have people who break some of the most basic laws: murder, theft, graft, assault, and so forth. They are not an insubstantial part of the society we live in, and an expectations that somehow a self selected group of people from the larger population would somehow not include such elements is rather foolish and too narrow. So yes, there are going to be people who post outright racism, misogyny, transphobia, what have you. In my own comments to WotC, I pointed out that is, to me, the single least believable part of their goals around all of this, because aside from cultural intransigence, there is apathy and the sheer weight of all that has gone before and just one of my many intersections has been fighting for something akin to freedom for that for around 1500 years, so how the hell do they think they will achieve it. Good news, they don't any longer (apparently).
The presence of such bad actors supports the basis of their being a such a duty, however -- if they did not exist, such a duty would not. Negative inference, granted, but still accurate and applicable.
So, ultimately "the social contract" *is* a detailed response -- but it may be my error because while I rarely expect everyone to have the same level of knowledge or understanding or grasp of a subject I do (I mean, I still don't get why t is important to throw a ball through a hoop and run around bases except from the macro view of cultural study), and there are others with a greater grasp, we are not all on the same page there, even if we are vaguely familiar with the term and to expect everyone to have that knowledge is an error. So I apologize if that was unintentionally implied.
It is funny that you mention people claiming their side is just and righteous and proper (to me), because in other threads I have had the same exact people making the argument about Orcs and such being evil and not needing a basis for the orcs themselves to see what they do as all those things. It is unrelated, but it made me chuckle -- and yes, that does exist. I have tried to redirect the conversation around that and I dread the thought of the third video and thread and what will come of it.
As for equating anyone to gibbering mouthers, I would expect them to have more respect for what are genuinely and literally racist depictions of people like me, but that's a whole separate thing and said mostly for a chuckle. fights around Human Dignity always devolve into such a mess, though, and a lot of people -- those folks who don't want to get involved or feel they are unaffected or see both sides as equal are why it persists.
Tolerance is not inherently a goal in all situations -- like the isms and phobia and related social ills, tolerance is a system, and the examples ehre are not indicative of failures of tolerance. Openness is also not a problem -- indeed, my peace in this thread is due to some people being so open that I was able to deduce their overall ick factor for me and block them.
as for respect, well...
I have been taught by 58 years of living as the thing that so many dislike that respect is an illusion and a tool of policing, and policing can only ever serve the status quo, so I am far too biased to answer or proffer an effective opinion on the presence or absence of respect in these threads. BEsides, I am a moderator of a dozen other groups and get to deal with people popping in and using things from those forums six months later in a court case meant to stretch all bounds of credulity and deny medical care.
Personal bias impacts everything. Especially these days, when an objective fact that something promotes health is suddenly declared harmful to people and outlawed by bad actors. Blaming the failure of many to follow the social contract in a given context is akin to blaming the stars for spinning through the galaxy.
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
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).