Insightful, articulate, respectful, and clear 10 minutes of watching. Thank you, Professor DM.
TL;Didnt watch:
- Be respectful in all communications.
- Identifies all the PR magic in the "working conversation" we are currently in (genuinely really good PR magic, btw - big ups to the WOTC employed PR firm).
- Notes that none of what is "given" to customers in PR spin is relevant - as in, it can't be taken so doesn't really need to be given.
- OGL (original flavor) still probably cannot be revoked. Legally.
I think he's trying to make the company money, not destroy things. It probably did the opposite as it certainly seems to be losing the company money at present. Giving the execs some benefit of the doubt, they probably recognize the blunder but are scrambling to make it disappaer. One way to do this is to shift the narrative.
Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I think the PR spin is good to identify, so people can judge for themselves the substance underneath the simple social psychology that they are employing to shift the narrative.
For me, this kind of stuff is tiring and both myself and my wallet move elsewhere. I don't need PR spin with my dungeons, nor with my dragons.
It's certainly better than other videos being posted on this topic, although there are still issues.
He spends the first little while trying to frame Brink's email as a fake corporate apology. It's an apology that's been carefully thought about. Like, when you upset someone you care about, you think about and carefully construct what you're going to say in order to prevent making things worse and hopefully work towards reconciliation. That doesn't mean it's fake or manipulative, though. Is it fake? Maybe, maybe not. However, it doesn't matter what he said, it would be framed is fake and insincere. If Brink had just done an off the cuff apology, he'd be criticised for not putting enough effort in. People need to just get over it; either accept the apology as real and sincere, or ignore it as meaningless fluff. I don't really care which, but how videos are dissecting it in an attempt to set up the evil corporation narrative is unproductive at best. Accept it or dismiss it, that's all the honest person would do. To be frank, I could dissect his video the same way - and anyone's arguments.
He asserts that the OGL 1.0a is irrevocable; this is a question that can only solved in a court of law. I've not seen any language that says it is, and the point of licences and contracts is that the intentions of the writers are irrelevant. But my voice is just as irrelevant to this as his - a court would have to decide that question. Pretending that it is irrevocable without that judgement is disingenuous. Every video I've watched makes this "mistake" and claims things as settled when they're not.
I do agree with him that the morality clause is problematic. I think we all know that his example would never happen, but it's not like it's an impossibility that the mob can't pressure WotC into making judgements that are wrong. I've seen the furore that can happen when some -ism is depicted even when it's satirising or critiquing it. I can understand why WotC wants to retain full discretion on the matter, the situation changes, things we didn't realise needed to be reigned in suddenly become obvious and WotC needs the power to react to those changes. However, this is a licence, and lines still need to be drawn so we know where we stand. A compromise has to be struck, and as the draft OGL stands, it's WotC that needs to compromise somewhat. We won't get it struck or extremely heavily restricted, but it needs to be better than it is.
As for the courts location...yes, that worries me. However, I've seen this language before, and it's quite common in T's & C's. I do have to wonder how many people have actually read them when they sign up to stuff, because I've noticed this provision a lot. The charitable assumption is that WotC wants to avoid people suing in some random jurisdiction with some whacky judges and laws. I'm not sure of what the compromise position would look like for this. A selection of courts that the plaintiff can choose from, perhaps? A bit of an off-topic rant, but this is partly why I dislike the American system. Judges and other judicial officers should not be elected, they shouldn't, directly or indirectly, owe their position to people due to money. Worrying about who funded the court official's campaign shouldn't be a concern when in trying to settle a question on law.
The class action suits issue is similar, although I'm not aware of what WotC's concern is in this regard, so I can't offer a compromise.
Don't continue to cancel subs. It's a stupid idea. Cancelling your sub is a single shot way of getting your voice heard. Don't waste it when there's nothing to be achieved. If WotC refuses to listen, then go ahead. But cancelling now when WotC is at least ostensibly at the table and listening is not going to communicate anything other than you're a lost cause and not worth appeasing. Once it becomes obvious that there is no getting through to them (if that's the case), cancel your sub then. That would have meaning. Right now, it doesn't have any productive meaning whatsoever.
The video is better than others. It is more productive and rational. Unfortunately, he does recommend the videos of someone who has put at least one absolute trash of a video out, which reduces his credibility in my eyes. I've not seen the videos of the other guy.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
He spends the first little while trying to frame Brink's email as a fake corporate apology. It's an apology that's been carefully thought about. Like, when you upset someone you care about, you think about and carefully construct what you're going to say in order to prevent making things worse and hopefully work towards reconciliation. That doesn't mean it's fake or manipulative, though. Is it fake? Maybe, maybe not. However, it doesn't matter what he said, it would be framed is fake and insincere. If Brink had just done an off the cuff apology, he'd be criticised for not putting enough effort in. People need to just get over it; either accept the apology as real and sincere, or ignore it as meaningless fluff. I don't really care which, but how videos are dissecting it in an attempt to set up the evil corporation narrative is unproductive at best. Accept it or dismiss it, that's all the honest person would do. To be frank, I could dissect his video the same way - and anyone's arguments.
He asserts that the OGL 1.0a is irrevocable; this is a question that can only solved in a court of law. I've not seen any language that says it is, and the point of licences and contracts is that the intentions of the writers are irrelevant. But my voice is just as irrelevant to this as his - a court would have to decide that question. Pretending that it is irrevocable without that judgement is disingenuous. Every video I've watched makes this "mistake" and claims things as settled when they're not.
I do agree with him that the morality clause is problematic. I think we all know that his example would never happen, but it's not like it's an impossibility that the mob can't pressure WotC into making judgements that are wrong. I've seen the furore that can happen when some -ism is depicted even when it's satirising or critiquing it. I can understand why WotC wants to retain full discretion on the matter, the situation changes, things we didn't realise needed to be reigned in suddenly become obvious and WotC needs the power to react to those changes. However, this is a licence, and lines still need to be drawn so we know where we stand. A compromise has to be struck, and as the draft OGL stands, it's WotC that needs to compromise somewhat. We won't get it struck or extremely heavily restricted, but it needs to be better than it is.
As for the courts location...yes, that worries me. However, I've seen this language before, and it's quite common in T's & C's. I do have to wonder how many people have actually read them when they sign up to stuff, because I've noticed this provision a lot. The charitable assumption is that WotC wants to avoid people suing in some random jurisdiction with some whacky judges and laws. I'm not sure of what the compromise position would look like for this. A selection of courts that the plaintiff can choose from, perhaps? A bit of an off-topic rant, but this is partly why I dislike the American system. Judges and other judicial officers should not be elected, they shouldn't, directly or indirectly, owe their position to people due to money. Worrying about who funded the court official's campaign shouldn't be a concern when in trying to settle a question on law.
The class action suits issue is similar, although I'm not aware of what WotC's concern is in this regard, so I can't offer a compromise.
Don't continue to cancel subs. It's a stupid idea. Cancelling your sub is a single shot way of getting your voice heard. Don't waste it when there's nothing to be achieved. If WotC refuses to listen, then go ahead. But cancelling now when WotC is at least ostensibly at the table and listening is not going to communicate anything other than you're a lost cause and not worth appeasing. Once it becomes obvious that there is no getting through to them (if that's the case), cancel your sub then. That would have meaning. Right now, it doesn't have any productive meaning whatsoever.
The video is better than others. It is more productive and rational. Unfortunately, he does recommend the videos of someone who has put at least one absolute trash of a video out, which reduces his credibility in my eyes. I've not seen the videos of the other guy.
I believe the cancel subs thing started because it certainly appeared as if the corporation was not listening. Remember the fact that Brink's apology specifically called this out. They were tone def to the initial response to the leaked version. Yje first response was terrible. So the dissenters responded with a cancel subs. The next day the company responded with a much better reply.
It was the pressure appliedd that changed the course here, not complaining vociferously. This should continue until they prove they are listening. They did not listen to words. They did listen to actions. Telling people to stop that action is not as helpful as you think.
Also, I am still able to voice my concerns after cancelling. I cancelled and am still here. I want this to work. My sub is still in effect until September. Effectively, I have told Wizards they have until then to make it right or my money is gone. I am just one person, and they do not care about one person. They care about masses of persons.
I have noticed you make this one shot, nothing to be gained argument more than once. I believe you are wrong. While it may be one shot, it is the only real one we have. The rule of capitalism is vote with your wallet. I did. My voice was heard, and now we are having a discussion. I don't just want the discussion, I want change. Until things are finalized, change hasn't happened. If I like the changes I will vote with my wallet again. Right now, all we have is a promise. I want to see the promise fulfilled.
As for the video, of course people are going to dissect it. That is how artgumentation works. What is said is important. More import6antly though is how it is said and why it is said.
Professor DM's motives are clear, as they have been from the begining of his channel. He declares he wants to help play better games, as does Bob worldbuilder and several others.
The statement from Brink may be sincere, I don;t know him or have a backlog of his content to decidde that. I do have a backlog of Jerremy Crawford and Mike Mearlws and Chris Perkins. I have a backlog of Professor DM. Their motives are clear to me.
The statement was most likely vetted by PR people and lawyers. It was craft6ed. Dissecting the message is important because it tells us what they want to say and what they don't. This is valuable. More so because, we have a clear backlog of corporate statements over the last few months, and corporate behaviour of decades to compare it to. That record is not stellar, and you should understand why people are skeptical and wanting clarification.
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Words are nice, actions are better. They are taking some good actions now, but it isn't over, and I reserve final judgement. Telling me to give that up after a few words is not persuasive.
No one said that unsubbing was inherently ineffective. It can be. It's just not effective now. Go back an read what I said if you don't understand why.
On the one hand you're saying that WotC doesn't listen to talk and it required cancelling subs to get them to listen, then you say that you can stay and offer you're opinions and change things that way. Make your mind up - either unsubs are necessary to drive the message home, or not.
As for unsubbing being a single-use method, that is trivially true. What are you going to do? Resub then unsub? That would do more harm than good. I hope you used your unsub wisely and helped bring WotC to the table for negotiation, rather than wasting it in the meantime and this is just you trying to get rid of the cognitive dissonance that came with me pointing out that it's a waste.
Yes, people will dissect the emails and points brought up. It's meaningful to do so in good faith (which this video did much better than others), but it has to be the meat, trying to spin the apology as manipulation is at best unproductive at best and can actively harm discussions. It's what we call stirring the pot - the more precise term would upset the DDB mods, who want a family friend experience, so I'll refrain from using it - and it's all about riling people up. It needs to stop. People aren't merely being skeptical, and to be frank, the people manipulating the narrative by trying to respin the apology aren't interested in clarification. If they were, they wouldn't be responding whatever WotC says. They're no better than WotC at this point. The problem is that people are not skeptical enough - their skepticism is dialled up to 11 towards WotC while accepting anything said by anyone who criticises them.
I'm telling you to give up, and claiming so shows that you've either not bothered to read.wjat I've said or you're being disingenuous. I'm telling you and others to be smart in how you negotiate. Anyone who unsubs now is wasting their bargaining chip. They need to wait until they can cash it in for maximum bargaining power. That point is not now. People who have no interest in getting WotC on the right course are urging unsubs right now - and that's because they don't care about improving the situation, they just want to hurt WotC and DDB, they just want to destroy. It's a double whammy, because when the time to negotiate comes and you have a chance to cash in that bargaining chip...you won't have it to use (or with the background noise of constant unsubs, its message will be diluted), so WotC won't change course and they can potentially crash and burn.
There are three kinds of people in this discussion with WotC (and the apathetic on top of those). There are those who just want to break stuff, they want everyone to unsub now and hurt the company !and thereby the hobby) as much as possible. There are those who don't understand these dynamics and hear the first group's demands which feel cathartic and like they're doing something so they follow them, then you get the third group who understand the dynamics and wants what is best for the hobby, who want things to improve and get the best results.
I'm in that third group. I want these negotiations to produce the best results that works for everyone and allows for the best conditions for the hobby to be healthy and to grow. That means trying to hold your aces until they need to be used for effect, not squandering them now on meaningless hands.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I saw this video the other day and nearly came over to the forum to post it because I found it so reasonable and compelling; I also liked that he spent time talking about the emotional manipulation [or PR spin] they're using in the Kyle Brink statement. It's only a 'good' statement because their prior statements were so abysmally bad.
edit: I think a genuine apology would have covered more than two brief sentences. The only part of the statement that reads as an apology is the very simple, very short, very reductive 'We're sorry. We got it wrong'.
Okay, what did you get wrong? How did you get it wrong? A proper apology has a SUMMARY of what you did wrong in it, articulated in your own words and presented to whom you are apologizing so that they can be confident that you KNOW what you did wrong and you'll be able to be avoid it in the future (or be held accountable when you don't).
It lacked all of the truly important parts of an apology, because there's nothing in it that tells us they actually know what they ****ed up.
For me, I unsubbed as that is consistent with what matters to me. If the above poster is correct and WOTC won't stay at the table unless I stay subbed, then WOTC is welcome to do what they choose to do.
To think that they'd walk away because of a lost customer base and say "oh well, nothing we can do about that" isn't in keeping with my understanding of business. In business, you want lost customers back because its their money keeping your lights on.
To each their own, regardless. DND 5e is fun. I'll play it again no doubt. I'm not paying more than what I've already paid as I disagree with the conduct of the current copyright holders of DND in the recent past. That can change.
For sure, unsub more if you agree. Keep your sub if you disagree. Paying for the privledge of having our voice heard isn't how it works in business - if fact, usually businesses pay YOU for your opinion, not the other way around.
No one said that unsubbing was inherently ineffective. It can be. It's just not effective now. Go back an read what I said if you don't understand why.
I'm not great at message boards, so I will slow down and respond point by point for you. My initial response was to a single paragraph, so I will snip each paragraph for you.
You said that. You did. You called it a stupid idea. Implying a lack of value for the intended purpose. Furtther defining it as not necessary now. If not now, when?
"On the one hand you're saying that WotC doesn't listen to talk and it required cancelling subs to get them to listen, then you say that you can stay and offer you're opinions and change things that way. Make your mind up - either unsubs are necessary to drive the message home, or not."
I laid out a timeline of events. My subscription does not expire until September. Thus, my account is still active and I can use all the functions of the message board and the site. I can still be here while expressing in the language of business that my patience is not infinite.
I said they weren't listening to talk. Weren't. 1.1 leaked. Everybody screamed. Wizards said bad thing about screamers. No real movement. Unsub campaign started. Real movement. I said, and I repeat, they wren't listening, so a new tactic was necessary.
"As for unsubbing being a single-use method, that is trivially true. What are you going to do? Resub then unsub? That would do more harm than good. I hope you used your unsub wisely and helped bring WotC to the table for negotiation, rather than wasting it in the meantime and this is just you trying to get rid of the cognitive dissonance that came with me pointing out that it's a waste."
You called it a one shot thing. You are trivializing you own point as a response to me. If me saying it is a one shot tool is trivially true, then your point of not doing it because it is a one shot tool is also.... trivially true. I have npo cognitive dissonance. That implies I am trying to hold two contrary opinions in my head. You are not using the concept correctly because I am opposing your view point, not holding it. There is no dissonance. I am arguing against your point. I do not believe it was a waste. I do not buy your argument that it was a waste because I am holding to the timeline of events.
"Yes, people will dissect the emails and points brought up. It's meaningful to do so in good faith (which this video did much better than others), but it has to be the meat, trying to spin the apology as manipulation is at best unproductive at best and can actively harm discussions. It's what we call stirring the pot - the more precise term would upset the DDB mods, who want a family friend experience, so I'll refrain from using it - and it's all about riling people up. It needs to stop. People aren't merely being skeptical, and to be frank, the people manipulating the narrative by trying to respin the apology aren't interested in clarification. If they were, they wouldn't be responding whatever WotC says. They're no better than WotC at this point. The problem is that people are not skeptical enough - their skepticism is dialled up to 11 towards WotC while accepting anything said by anyone who criticises them."
ALL PR and marketing statements are in fact manipulative. They are trying to convince people of something. Pretending this was a heartfelt statement from the person without context is not constructive. I laid out in detail the contexts of other people's statements, including the video maker's. I then gave Kyle Brink some small ground, and the benefit of the doubt towards sincerity, tempered with skeptism towards the fact that it was a crafted and vetted response, and not a person winging it freeform.
I explained in detail why there might be a lot more skepticism towards WOTC than some creators. Those creator's body of work tells a story about who they are and what they are in to. The GSL, Undermontetized, 1.1, initial statement from WOTC all tell a story of what they are about. The newest statement repairs that image a bit. I now want to see action from them. I believe you are trying to be overly cynical towards creators motives. If I didn't know better, it would seem like you are trying to justify defending something you know sucks because it cqauses you to have some form of cognitive dissosomething, so to fight that you are attacking in a whataboutism style.
"I'm telling you to give up, and claiming so shows that you've either not bothered to read.wjat I've said or you're being disingenuous. I'm telling you and others to be smart in how you negotiate. Anyone who unsubs now is wasting their bargaining chip. They need to wait until they can cash it in for maximum bargaining power. That point is not now. People who have no interest in getting WotC on the right course are urging unsubs right now - and that's because they don't care about improving the situation, they just want to hurt WotC and DDB, they just want to destroy. It's a double whammy, because when the time to negotiate comes and you have a chance to cash in that bargaining chip...you won't have it to use (or with the background noise of constant unsubs, its message will be diluted), so WotC won't change course and they can potentially crash and burn."
You are flat out wrong here. The time to use the only chip we have is now. Before they implement wsomething and create precident. The time to tell WOTC to stop is NOW. Now is literally the time to negotiate. There is no future negotiation when they put it in place.
You also seem to think unsub is the only moentary thing to do, but you miss the point of unsubbing now. This is a warning shot. Change course or OneDnD will be just like 4e. A very underplayed system. Their brand is at its height right now. A movie is coming out that may further mainstream the game, followed by a new version release. Now is the time to warn WOTC that we will not buy OnedNd. We do that by cancelling subscriptions. Here's what you will loose if you do not negotiate.
You act as if there was going to be a negotiation, and we all just blew it up to watch the game burn. They started this war, plunged skyrim into chaos... sorry wait I forgot what I was doing. The 1.1 stuff and the NDA's and the release was already set until there was a leak. They set the table, we came to play. We did not start this issue, this is our response to an issue they started.
"There are three kinds of people in this discussion with WotC (and the apathetic on top of those). There are those who just want to break stuff, they want everyone to unsub now and hurt the company !and thereby the hobby) as much as possible. There are those who don't understand these dynamics and hear the first group's demands which feel cathartic and like they're doing something so they follow them, then you get the third group who understand the dynamics and wants what is best for the hobby, who want things to improve and get the best results.
I'm in that third group. I want these negotiations to produce the best results that works for everyone and allows for the best conditions for the hobby to be healthy and to grow. That means trying to hold your aces until they need to be used for effect, not squandering them now on meaningless hands."
That is absurdly re4ductyionist. I am none of those things so I am proving it wrong on the face.
I am not sure how you negotiate, but without some leverage, there is no negotiation. Our patronage is the leverage. I cannot stress this enough: you seem to be labouring under the illusion that WOTC was preparing to negotiate. They were not. Nothing in their behaviour or releases prior to KyleBrinks' showed any sign of negotiation.
Your statements do not seem to comport with my reading of the facts. While that does not inherently make you wrong, it does mean we have failed to meet on solid ground. It isn't that your thinking is wrong, or that we are at odds on our solution to the problem, it is that we do not even agree about the problem. It is like I said, the sky is on fire and you said the mountains are pretty. Maybe, but I think we should deal with the rain of colourless fire. And you said, not yet, we should wait until the sky is on fire. And I said it is. And you said, did you not hear what I said about the mountains.
Because I suck at message boards, I want to say this before I hit send. M<y analogy may seem like I am calling you dumb. I absolutely am not. I think you are articulate and well meaning. I t6hink you are passionate about the game. Please take my response as being meant in a spirit of debate. If you find my writting style to have offended you, I apologize and put forth I too am passionate about protecting the game.
The reason I have not fully left is that I hold out hope that some middle ground can be found. The reason I am engaging you is not to change your mind, but in hopes I might change the mind of someone observing our talk.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From Dungeon Craft: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oV9Fnkyyfc
Insightful, articulate, respectful, and clear 10 minutes of watching. Thank you, Professor DM.
TL;Didnt watch:
- Be respectful in all communications.
- Identifies all the PR magic in the "working conversation" we are currently in (genuinely really good PR magic, btw - big ups to the WOTC employed PR firm).
- Notes that none of what is "given" to customers in PR spin is relevant - as in, it can't be taken so doesn't really need to be given.
- OGL (original flavor) still probably cannot be revoked. Legally.
Great video, but Chris Cao is still trying to completely destroy the game, so...
I think he's trying to make the company money, not destroy things. It probably did the opposite as it certainly seems to be losing the company money at present. Giving the execs some benefit of the doubt, they probably recognize the blunder but are scrambling to make it disappaer. One way to do this is to shift the narrative.
Regardless of whether I am right or wrong, I think the PR spin is good to identify, so people can judge for themselves the substance underneath the simple social psychology that they are employing to shift the narrative.
For me, this kind of stuff is tiring and both myself and my wallet move elsewhere. I don't need PR spin with my dungeons, nor with my dragons.
It's certainly better than other videos being posted on this topic, although there are still issues.
He spends the first little while trying to frame Brink's email as a fake corporate apology. It's an apology that's been carefully thought about. Like, when you upset someone you care about, you think about and carefully construct what you're going to say in order to prevent making things worse and hopefully work towards reconciliation. That doesn't mean it's fake or manipulative, though. Is it fake? Maybe, maybe not. However, it doesn't matter what he said, it would be framed is fake and insincere. If Brink had just done an off the cuff apology, he'd be criticised for not putting enough effort in. People need to just get over it; either accept the apology as real and sincere, or ignore it as meaningless fluff. I don't really care which, but how videos are dissecting it in an attempt to set up the evil corporation narrative is unproductive at best. Accept it or dismiss it, that's all the honest person would do. To be frank, I could dissect his video the same way - and anyone's arguments.
He asserts that the OGL 1.0a is irrevocable; this is a question that can only solved in a court of law. I've not seen any language that says it is, and the point of licences and contracts is that the intentions of the writers are irrelevant. But my voice is just as irrelevant to this as his - a court would have to decide that question. Pretending that it is irrevocable without that judgement is disingenuous. Every video I've watched makes this "mistake" and claims things as settled when they're not.
I do agree with him that the morality clause is problematic. I think we all know that his example would never happen, but it's not like it's an impossibility that the mob can't pressure WotC into making judgements that are wrong. I've seen the furore that can happen when some -ism is depicted even when it's satirising or critiquing it. I can understand why WotC wants to retain full discretion on the matter, the situation changes, things we didn't realise needed to be reigned in suddenly become obvious and WotC needs the power to react to those changes. However, this is a licence, and lines still need to be drawn so we know where we stand. A compromise has to be struck, and as the draft OGL stands, it's WotC that needs to compromise somewhat. We won't get it struck or extremely heavily restricted, but it needs to be better than it is.
As for the courts location...yes, that worries me. However, I've seen this language before, and it's quite common in T's & C's. I do have to wonder how many people have actually read them when they sign up to stuff, because I've noticed this provision a lot. The charitable assumption is that WotC wants to avoid people suing in some random jurisdiction with some whacky judges and laws. I'm not sure of what the compromise position would look like for this. A selection of courts that the plaintiff can choose from, perhaps? A bit of an off-topic rant, but this is partly why I dislike the American system. Judges and other judicial officers should not be elected, they shouldn't, directly or indirectly, owe their position to people due to money. Worrying about who funded the court official's campaign shouldn't be a concern when in trying to settle a question on law.
The class action suits issue is similar, although I'm not aware of what WotC's concern is in this regard, so I can't offer a compromise.
Don't continue to cancel subs. It's a stupid idea. Cancelling your sub is a single shot way of getting your voice heard. Don't waste it when there's nothing to be achieved. If WotC refuses to listen, then go ahead. But cancelling now when WotC is at least ostensibly at the table and listening is not going to communicate anything other than you're a lost cause and not worth appeasing. Once it becomes obvious that there is no getting through to them (if that's the case), cancel your sub then. That would have meaning. Right now, it doesn't have any productive meaning whatsoever.
The video is better than others. It is more productive and rational. Unfortunately, he does recommend the videos of someone who has put at least one absolute trash of a video out, which reduces his credibility in my eyes. I've not seen the videos of the other guy.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe the cancel subs thing started because it certainly appeared as if the corporation was not listening. Remember the fact that Brink's apology specifically called this out. They were tone def to the initial response to the leaked version. Yje first response was terrible. So the dissenters responded with a cancel subs. The next day the company responded with a much better reply.
It was the pressure appliedd that changed the course here, not complaining vociferously. This should continue until they prove they are listening. They did not listen to words. They did listen to actions. Telling people to stop that action is not as helpful as you think.
Also, I am still able to voice my concerns after cancelling. I cancelled and am still here. I want this to work. My sub is still in effect until September. Effectively, I have told Wizards they have until then to make it right or my money is gone. I am just one person, and they do not care about one person. They care about masses of persons.
I have noticed you make this one shot, nothing to be gained argument more than once. I believe you are wrong. While it may be one shot, it is the only real one we have. The rule of capitalism is vote with your wallet. I did. My voice was heard, and now we are having a discussion. I don't just want the discussion, I want change. Until things are finalized, change hasn't happened. If I like the changes I will vote with my wallet again. Right now, all we have is a promise. I want to see the promise fulfilled.
As for the video, of course people are going to dissect it. That is how artgumentation works. What is said is important. More import6antly though is how it is said and why it is said.
Professor DM's motives are clear, as they have been from the begining of his channel. He declares he wants to help play better games, as does Bob worldbuilder and several others.
The statement from Brink may be sincere, I don;t know him or have a backlog of his content to decidde that. I do have a backlog of Jerremy Crawford and Mike Mearlws and Chris Perkins. I have a backlog of Professor DM. Their motives are clear to me.
The statement was most likely vetted by PR people and lawyers. It was craft6ed. Dissecting the message is important because it tells us what they want to say and what they don't. This is valuable. More so because, we have a clear backlog of corporate statements over the last few months, and corporate behaviour of decades to compare it to. That record is not stellar, and you should understand why people are skeptical and wanting clarification.
The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour. Words are nice, actions are better. They are taking some good actions now, but it isn't over, and I reserve final judgement. Telling me to give that up after a few words is not persuasive.
No one said that unsubbing was inherently ineffective. It can be. It's just not effective now. Go back an read what I said if you don't understand why.
On the one hand you're saying that WotC doesn't listen to talk and it required cancelling subs to get them to listen, then you say that you can stay and offer you're opinions and change things that way. Make your mind up - either unsubs are necessary to drive the message home, or not.
As for unsubbing being a single-use method, that is trivially true. What are you going to do? Resub then unsub? That would do more harm than good. I hope you used your unsub wisely and helped bring WotC to the table for negotiation, rather than wasting it in the meantime and this is just you trying to get rid of the cognitive dissonance that came with me pointing out that it's a waste.
Yes, people will dissect the emails and points brought up. It's meaningful to do so in good faith (which this video did much better than others), but it has to be the meat, trying to spin the apology as manipulation is at best unproductive at best and can actively harm discussions. It's what we call stirring the pot - the more precise term would upset the DDB mods, who want a family friend experience, so I'll refrain from using it - and it's all about riling people up. It needs to stop. People aren't merely being skeptical, and to be frank, the people manipulating the narrative by trying to respin the apology aren't interested in clarification. If they were, they wouldn't be responding whatever WotC says. They're no better than WotC at this point. The problem is that people are not skeptical enough - their skepticism is dialled up to 11 towards WotC while accepting anything said by anyone who criticises them.
I'm telling you to give up, and claiming so shows that you've either not bothered to read.wjat I've said or you're being disingenuous. I'm telling you and others to be smart in how you negotiate. Anyone who unsubs now is wasting their bargaining chip. They need to wait until they can cash it in for maximum bargaining power. That point is not now. People who have no interest in getting WotC on the right course are urging unsubs right now - and that's because they don't care about improving the situation, they just want to hurt WotC and DDB, they just want to destroy. It's a double whammy, because when the time to negotiate comes and you have a chance to cash in that bargaining chip...you won't have it to use (or with the background noise of constant unsubs, its message will be diluted), so WotC won't change course and they can potentially crash and burn.
There are three kinds of people in this discussion with WotC (and the apathetic on top of those). There are those who just want to break stuff, they want everyone to unsub now and hurt the company !and thereby the hobby) as much as possible. There are those who don't understand these dynamics and hear the first group's demands which feel cathartic and like they're doing something so they follow them, then you get the third group who understand the dynamics and wants what is best for the hobby, who want things to improve and get the best results.
I'm in that third group. I want these negotiations to produce the best results that works for everyone and allows for the best conditions for the hobby to be healthy and to grow. That means trying to hold your aces until they need to be used for effect, not squandering them now on meaningless hands.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I saw this video the other day and nearly came over to the forum to post it because I found it so reasonable and compelling; I also liked that he spent time talking about the emotional manipulation [or PR spin] they're using in the Kyle Brink statement. It's only a 'good' statement because their prior statements were so abysmally bad.
edit: I think a genuine apology would have covered more than two brief sentences. The only part of the statement that reads as an apology is the very simple, very short, very reductive 'We're sorry. We got it wrong'.
Okay, what did you get wrong? How did you get it wrong? A proper apology has a SUMMARY of what you did wrong in it, articulated in your own words and presented to whom you are apologizing so that they can be confident that you KNOW what you did wrong and you'll be able to be avoid it in the future (or be held accountable when you don't).
It lacked all of the truly important parts of an apology, because there's nothing in it that tells us they actually know what they ****ed up.
For me, I unsubbed as that is consistent with what matters to me. If the above poster is correct and WOTC won't stay at the table unless I stay subbed, then WOTC is welcome to do what they choose to do.
To think that they'd walk away because of a lost customer base and say "oh well, nothing we can do about that" isn't in keeping with my understanding of business. In business, you want lost customers back because its their money keeping your lights on.
To each their own, regardless. DND 5e is fun. I'll play it again no doubt. I'm not paying more than what I've already paid as I disagree with the conduct of the current copyright holders of DND in the recent past. That can change.
For sure, unsub more if you agree. Keep your sub if you disagree. Paying for the privledge of having our voice heard isn't how it works in business - if fact, usually businesses pay YOU for your opinion, not the other way around.
I'm not great at message boards, so I will slow down and respond point by point for you. My initial response was to a single paragraph, so I will snip each paragraph for you.
You said that. You did. You called it a stupid idea. Implying a lack of value for the intended purpose. Furtther defining it as not necessary now. If not now, when?
"On the one hand you're saying that WotC doesn't listen to talk and it required cancelling subs to get them to listen, then you say that you can stay and offer you're opinions and change things that way. Make your mind up - either unsubs are necessary to drive the message home, or not."
I laid out a timeline of events. My subscription does not expire until September. Thus, my account is still active and I can use all the functions of the message board and the site. I can still be here while expressing in the language of business that my patience is not infinite.
I said they weren't listening to talk. Weren't. 1.1 leaked. Everybody screamed. Wizards said bad thing about screamers. No real movement. Unsub campaign started. Real movement. I said, and I repeat, they wren't listening, so a new tactic was necessary.
"As for unsubbing being a single-use method, that is trivially true. What are you going to do? Resub then unsub? That would do more harm than good. I hope you used your unsub wisely and helped bring WotC to the table for negotiation, rather than wasting it in the meantime and this is just you trying to get rid of the cognitive dissonance that came with me pointing out that it's a waste."
You called it a one shot thing. You are trivializing you own point as a response to me. If me saying it is a one shot tool is trivially true, then your point of not doing it because it is a one shot tool is also.... trivially true. I have npo cognitive dissonance. That implies I am trying to hold two contrary opinions in my head. You are not using the concept correctly because I am opposing your view point, not holding it. There is no dissonance. I am arguing against your point. I do not believe it was a waste. I do not buy your argument that it was a waste because I am holding to the timeline of events.
"Yes, people will dissect the emails and points brought up. It's meaningful to do so in good faith (which this video did much better than others), but it has to be the meat, trying to spin the apology as manipulation is at best unproductive at best and can actively harm discussions. It's what we call stirring the pot - the more precise term would upset the DDB mods, who want a family friend experience, so I'll refrain from using it - and it's all about riling people up. It needs to stop. People aren't merely being skeptical, and to be frank, the people manipulating the narrative by trying to respin the apology aren't interested in clarification. If they were, they wouldn't be responding whatever WotC says. They're no better than WotC at this point. The problem is that people are not skeptical enough - their skepticism is dialled up to 11 towards WotC while accepting anything said by anyone who criticises them."
ALL PR and marketing statements are in fact manipulative. They are trying to convince people of something. Pretending this was a heartfelt statement from the person without context is not constructive. I laid out in detail the contexts of other people's statements, including the video maker's. I then gave Kyle Brink some small ground, and the benefit of the doubt towards sincerity, tempered with skeptism towards the fact that it was a crafted and vetted response, and not a person winging it freeform.
I explained in detail why there might be a lot more skepticism towards WOTC than some creators. Those creator's body of work tells a story about who they are and what they are in to. The GSL, Undermontetized, 1.1, initial statement from WOTC all tell a story of what they are about. The newest statement repairs that image a bit. I now want to see action from them. I believe you are trying to be overly cynical towards creators motives. If I didn't know better, it would seem like you are trying to justify defending something you know sucks because it cqauses you to have some form of cognitive dissosomething, so to fight that you are attacking in a whataboutism style.
"I'm telling you to give up, and claiming so shows that you've either not bothered to read.wjat I've said or you're being disingenuous. I'm telling you and others to be smart in how you negotiate. Anyone who unsubs now is wasting their bargaining chip. They need to wait until they can cash it in for maximum bargaining power. That point is not now. People who have no interest in getting WotC on the right course are urging unsubs right now - and that's because they don't care about improving the situation, they just want to hurt WotC and DDB, they just want to destroy. It's a double whammy, because when the time to negotiate comes and you have a chance to cash in that bargaining chip...you won't have it to use (or with the background noise of constant unsubs, its message will be diluted), so WotC won't change course and they can potentially crash and burn."
You are flat out wrong here. The time to use the only chip we have is now. Before they implement wsomething and create precident. The time to tell WOTC to stop is NOW. Now is literally the time to negotiate. There is no future negotiation when they put it in place.
You also seem to think unsub is the only moentary thing to do, but you miss the point of unsubbing now. This is a warning shot. Change course or OneDnD will be just like 4e. A very underplayed system. Their brand is at its height right now. A movie is coming out that may further mainstream the game, followed by a new version release. Now is the time to warn WOTC that we will not buy OnedNd. We do that by cancelling subscriptions. Here's what you will loose if you do not negotiate.
You act as if there was going to be a negotiation, and we all just blew it up to watch the game burn. They started this war, plunged skyrim into chaos... sorry wait I forgot what I was doing. The 1.1 stuff and the NDA's and the release was already set until there was a leak. They set the table, we came to play. We did not start this issue, this is our response to an issue they started.
"There are three kinds of people in this discussion with WotC (and the apathetic on top of those). There are those who just want to break stuff, they want everyone to unsub now and hurt the company !and thereby the hobby) as much as possible. There are those who don't understand these dynamics and hear the first group's demands which feel cathartic and like they're doing something so they follow them, then you get the third group who understand the dynamics and wants what is best for the hobby, who want things to improve and get the best results.
I'm in that third group. I want these negotiations to produce the best results that works for everyone and allows for the best conditions for the hobby to be healthy and to grow. That means trying to hold your aces until they need to be used for effect, not squandering them now on meaningless hands."
That is absurdly re4ductyionist. I am none of those things so I am proving it wrong on the face.
I am not sure how you negotiate, but without some leverage, there is no negotiation. Our patronage is the leverage. I cannot stress this enough: you seem to be labouring under the illusion that WOTC was preparing to negotiate. They were not. Nothing in their behaviour or releases prior to KyleBrinks' showed any sign of negotiation.
Your statements do not seem to comport with my reading of the facts. While that does not inherently make you wrong, it does mean we have failed to meet on solid ground. It isn't that your thinking is wrong, or that we are at odds on our solution to the problem, it is that we do not even agree about the problem. It is like I said, the sky is on fire and you said the mountains are pretty. Maybe, but I think we should deal with the rain of colourless fire. And you said, not yet, we should wait until the sky is on fire. And I said it is. And you said, did you not hear what I said about the mountains.
Because I suck at message boards, I want to say this before I hit send. M<y analogy may seem like I am calling you dumb. I absolutely am not. I think you are articulate and well meaning. I t6hink you are passionate about the game. Please take my response as being meant in a spirit of debate. If you find my writting style to have offended you, I apologize and put forth I too am passionate about protecting the game.
The reason I have not fully left is that I hold out hope that some middle ground can be found. The reason I am engaging you is not to change your mind, but in hopes I might change the mind of someone observing our talk.