D&D 5E (2014) Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[bedir than]

then they should sacrifice the CEO's bonus instead the lay off.

That would save about 5% of the jobs of people who were laid off.
It's performative only, a performance I wish companies would take, but it doesn't really change the math

 

[The Scythian]

I did say I was done with these wall of text, tit for tat sort of responses, but I do appreciate that you're making an effort to be neutral about this topic. Although reading this latest post of yours, I can see you're still being emotionally clouded by your preconceptions to some degree, but I do see the effort. So thanks for that.

Excellent!

Loaded language... that's the first example of a preconception colouring your view of what I said in my opinion. Honestly, I think you should take a step back and stop assuming that I am saying something that is some sort of threat to mankind.

What I said was:

If you are running a business, and employee others, thereby being responsible for their livelihoods, being proactive about protecting them from threats to your business makes you a good person. If, on the other hand, you just ride along and bad things happen because there are:

1. bad things in the world
2. there are people who incidentally have influence on your business who:
   1. maliciously make a decision to influence your business negatively
   2. who make a decision to enhance their business, but did not consider your business in that decision
      1. maliciously
      2. not maliciously

You are, maybe not a bad person, but a morally sloppy and irresponsible person. You did not mean to be bad, but you were lazy. You did not put in effort to protect your employees from outside harms. Those harms were not your employees' fault. Or your fault. Or perhaps the outside party's fault (although they may have been).

Where the fault is yours, as the owner of a business, is in failing to protect your employees from problems you should be solving.

The shorter version of what you're saying is that business owners should watch out for their employees. Not a single person in this thread has disagreed with that at any point.

I asked you what specific, concrete steps licensees could have taken to prepare for the possibility that WotC might attempt to dissolve the OGL. You are unable to provide any. (Edit: Ulorian has since answered this question when asked by someone else, but it was true at the time I composed this post.)

This statement tells me you are completely missing the point of what I am saying. See my point above.

So, you have no evidence for your repeated claim that WotC, Hasbro, or whoever was somehow saddled with a license that they believed was harming them, and you can't identify how that happened.

Please don't be hurt because you think I 'lectured you'. We're adults. I am not trying to hurt your feelings. We're having a discussion. I am not trying to fight with anyone, or win internet points, or whatever you think it is I am trying to do.

So, you can't identify any fact or facts that I would see differently if I wasn't supposedly in pain. You can't explain how considering the motivation you've claimed might change my view of the facts of the case. And you can't say how what I'm advocating (simply stated, that contracts are good and parties should not attempt to renege on them) is going to cause problems.

Also, I did not say anything at all about letting the other party in a contract getting away with reneging on that contract. Again, are you sure you're not letting an emotional connection to this topic distort what I am actually saying?

I never said that you said anything about letting a party in a contract get away with reneging on that contract. I did say, accurately, that you claimed the solution I am advocating would cause problems down the line. My solution is that parties to a contract should not attempt to renege on that contract. I asked you to explain how that would cause problems. Pretty simple question. The fact that you tried to turn it into an attack on me is... well, at this point not surprising, but it is illuminating.

Lord of the Flies... it seems like maybe you do have a problem with the hyperbole! It was a bit hyperbolic, so that's fine.

What I'm expressing here is my frustration with the tribalism I'm seeing in responses to my posts.

I have not the slightest problem with hyperbole. As I said, clearly and in plain English, I was just surprised that you were engaged in it. The reason I was surprised is that you acted offended when Mamba employed far milder hyperbole in the past, and attempted to insinuate that he was a bad person for doing it.

So, okay. Throughout this thread, you've been getting a lot of little digs in at people, often presented in a way calculated to make you look reasonable and the other person look unreasonable. At one point, you claimed you wanted to opt out of your conversation with Mamba, on the grounds that he was too hot under the collar. Later, you tried to insinuate that he was a bad person for daring to use mild hyperbole to highlight a flaw in one of your arguments, which isn't some kind of underhanded thing. In your very next post to him, you accused him of trolling. (That behavior probably goes back further than that, though. That's just when I noticed it.)

(Note: As I was editing this, you responded to Mamba in exactly the same way I am calling out here! I literally laughed out loud.)

When I got involved in the discussion, you initially seemed respectful. But eventually, you started to respond in similar ways to me. I thought maybe it was because I speculated that you were trolling, but I decided to remain respectful and tried to move on. But then your posts started getting kind of weird. For example, you started asserting that I was somehow hurt and that was clouding my vision and making a lot of incorrect assumptions about what was going on in my head.

The other night, when I saw your Lord of the Flies post, it gave me pause. I thought about the situation from your point of view. For the most part, the OGL sub-discussion has basically been you versus almost everybody else who has entered it. I thought maybe you were a little overwhelmed and frustrated, so I tried to reset the tone of the discussion. I restated my questions, and presented them in a respectful, no pressure fashion.

Your response was positively dripping with condescension, and you doubled down on playing armchair psychologist.

I do appreciate that you're making an effort to be neutral about this topic. Although reading this latest post of yours, I can see you're still being emotionally clouded by your preconceptions to some degree, but I do see the effort. ... Loaded language... that's the first example of a preconception colouring your view of what I said in my opinion. Honestly, I think you should take a step back and stop assuming that I am saying something that is some sort of threat to mankind. ... Please don't be hurt because you think I 'lectured you'. ... Again, are you sure you're not letting an emotional connection to this topic distort what I am actually saying?

I'm probably missing some examples, but that should get my point across.

So, to address things that I probably shouldn't need to address:

When I point out that you're using loaded language, or adopting a lecturing tone, or being condescending, it's not because you've hurt me (you're giving yourself way too much credit there), or my vision is clouded, or because my emotions are getting the best of me, or because I think you're a threat to mankind. It's because you've used loaded language, or adopted a lecturing tone, or you're being condescending.

This is part of a larger pattern with you. You accuse me of misunderstanding you because my emotions are in the way or whatever you decide at that moment, but you accuse others of misunderstanding you a lot, too. You've accused Mamba of misunderstanding you. You've accused Morrus of misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure if I got back through your posts in the thread, I'll find other examples.

There's a saying where I'm from: If you run into a bad driver on the way to work, well, you ran into a bad driver. However, if everyone you run into on the way to work is a bad driver, then you are probably the bad driver.

This is kind of like that. If you find yourself typing "you're misunderstanding me" over and over, the problem might not be that other people are dummies who can't understand you, that their view is clouded by emotions, or that they simply don't like you. It might be that you're not expressing yourself very well, or that your positions are weak, or that your arguments are unpersuasive, or that you're wrong on the facts, or something else entirely.

But, like I said, there's a pattern. It seems like whenever an argument is going against you, it's always the other person's fault. They're misunderstanding you, or they're trying to incite anger, or they're being irrational, or they're engaged in something underhanded by using hyperbole. Every single time you've decided to announce your departure from a conversation in this thread, you've always put it on the other person. They're too heated to continue, or it's Lord of the Flies, or whatever.

I don't know if you're engaging in conversations here in good faith or bad faith, and I'm not going to speculate on that. However, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the condescension, the armchair psychology, and the little digs at myself and others. It's a matter of basic respect.

 

[mamba]

I understand. But when you write something, then attribute it to me, then put it in literal, actual quotes... you can see where that would rub me the wrong way I hope.

as I said, I meant it to paraphrase what you wrote, otherwise I would have put an actual quote. The ‘ were meant to denote the start and end of that, no more. Not sure if there is some other notation you would prefer

I also believe that it accurately reflects what you wrote, if it does not do that, I can see why you would push back.

If you think it was meant to be seen as a fabricated quote, then I assure you that was not the intent and I did not expect anyone to interpret it as that, given that we have an actual quote feature

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

Were Jumbo Video and Blockbuster bad businesses in your estimation then, because someone might popularize a different way to view visual media?

No, they were not bad businesses. I, again, very literally, in the post that you quoted, said that they weren't.

And a company reneging on a contract many parties, including they themselves, explicitly said couldn't be unilaterally dissolved is too big a risk without having something else to fall back upon to keep afloat?

Yes, honestly.

You're trying to paint a picture where something absolutely horrible, terrible and world-ending is happening, when in actuality what you're describing is what businesses and adult human beings deal with constantly. For example, are you a parent? Then you deal with the unexpected, constantly. Even from sources you expect to be expected.

Remember also what I've said upthread multiple times: this doesn't mean you roll over and accept a bad situation at face value. It does mean that you have to respond to it though.

 

[mamba]

Remember also what I've said upthread multiple times: this doesn't mean you roll over and accept a bad situation at face value. It does mean that you have to respond to it though.

the 3pps did respond. What would you have done differently if it were you, other than not signing on in the first place or diversifying ahead of things to not be 100% dependent on the OGL (however much that would actually insulate you without giving up on the OGL entirely)? Is there anything else they should have done in addition / differently in late 2022 / early 2023, or does this boil down to a ‘you should have gotten out while you still could’?

 

[Remathilis]

The first thing they should have done is realise that they created businesses that were 100% dependent on the existence and good will of a singular other business. When you are in that situation, real life will happen, and you are at heavy risk of having something catastrophic happen to you, and those that depend on you. What you have going for you is that you are providing a product and maybe a service to customers who appreciate your take on RPGs. Is there something you can add to your business to make it independent of the mothership you are started out, riskily, depending on?

I don't think that is a realistic expectation, even if it is plausible. Much like how Unity this year tried to retroactively change the Unity Engine license to collect royalties on games made and sold years ago. Nothing short of time travel or precognition can account for that.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

the 3pps did respond. What would you have done differently if it were you, other than not signing on in the first place or diversifying ahead of things to not be 100% dependent on the OGL (however much that would actually insulate you without giving up on the OGL entirely)? Is there anything else they should have done in addition / differently in late 2022 / early 2023, or does this boil down to a ‘you should have gotten out while you still could’?

The way they responded was perfect; they protected their interests. They created businesses that were high risk, but they got after it when that risk came calling.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The shorter version of what you're saying is that business owners should watch out for their employees. Not a single person in this thread has disagreed with that at any point.

I asked you what specific, concrete steps licensees could have taken to prepare for the possibility that WotC might attempt to dissolve the OGL. You are unable to provide any. (Edit: Ulorian has since answered this question when asked by someone else, but it was true at the time I composed this post.)



So, you have no evidence for your repeated claim that WotC, Hasbro, or whoever was somehow saddled with a license that they believed was harming them, and you can't identify how that happened.



So, you can't identify any fact or facts that I would see differently if I wasn't supposedly in pain. You can't explain how considering the motivation you've claimed might change my view of the facts of the case. And you can't say how what I'm advocating (simply stated, that contracts are good and parties should not attempt to renege on them) is going to cause problems.



I never said that you said anything about letting a party in a contract get away with reneging on that contract. I did say, accurately, that you claimed the solution I am advocating would cause problems down the line. My solution is that parties to a contract should not attempt to renege on that contract. I asked you to explain how that would cause problems. Pretty simple question. The fact that you tried to turn it into an attack on me is... well, at this point not surprising, but it is illuminating.



I have not the slightest problem with hyperbole. As I said, clearly and in plain English, I was just surprised that you were engaged in it. The reason I was surprised is that you acted offended when Mamba employed far milder hyperbole in the past, and attempted to insinuate that he was a bad person for doing it.

So, okay. Throughout this thread, you've been getting a lot of little digs in at people, often presented in a way calculated to make you look reasonable and the other person look unreasonable. At one point, you claimed you wanted to opt out of your conversation with Mamba, on the grounds that he was too hot under the collar. Later, you tried to insinuate that he was a bad person for daring to use mild hyperbole to highlight a flaw in one of your arguments, which isn't some kind of underhanded thing. In your very next post to him, you accused him of trolling. (That behavior probably goes back further than that, though. That's just when I noticed it.)

(Note: As I was editing this, you responded to Mamba in exactly the same way I am calling out here! I literally laughed out loud.)

When I got involved in the discussion, you initially seemed respectful. But eventually, you started to respond in similar ways to me. I thought maybe it was because I speculated that you were trolling, but I decided to remain respectful and tried to move on. But then your posts started getting kind of weird. For example, you started asserting that I was somehow hurt and that was clouding my vision and making a lot of incorrect assumptions about what was going on in my head.

The other night, when I saw your Lord of the Flies post, it gave me pause. I thought about the situation from your point of view. For the most part, the OGL sub-discussion has basically been you versus almost everybody else who has entered it. I thought maybe you were a little overwhelmed and frustrated, so I tried to reset the tone of the discussion. I restated my questions, and presented them in a respectful, no pressure fashion.

Your response was positively dripping with condescension, and you doubled down on playing armchair psychologist.



I'm probably missing some examples, but that should get my point across.

So, to address things that I probably shouldn't need to address:

When I point out that you're using loaded language, or adopting a lecturing tone, or being condescending, it's not because you've hurt me (you're giving yourself way too much credit there), or my vision is clouded, or because my emotions are getting the best of me, or because I think you're a threat to mankind. It's because you've used loaded language, or adopted a lecturing tone, or you're being condescending.

This is part of a larger pattern with you. You accuse me of misunderstanding you because my emotions are in the way or whatever you decide at that moment, but you accuse others of misunderstanding you a lot, too. You've accused Mamba of misunderstanding you. You've accused Morrus of misunderstanding you. I'm pretty sure if I got back through your posts in the thread, I'll find other examples.

There's a saying where I'm from: If you run into a bad driver on the way to work, well, you ran into a bad driver. However, if everyone you run into on the way to work is a bad driver, then you are probably the bad driver.

This is kind of like that. If you find yourself typing "you're misunderstanding me" over and over, the problem might not be that other people are dummies who can't understand you, that their view is clouded by emotions, or that they simply don't like you. It might be that you're not expressing yourself very well, or that your positions are weak, or that your arguments are unpersuasive, or that you're wrong on the facts, or something else entirely.

But, like I said, there's a pattern. It seems like whenever an argument is going against you, it's always the other person's fault. They're misunderstanding you, or they're trying to incite anger, or they're being irrational, or they're engaged in something underhanded by using hyperbole. Every single time you've decided to announce your departure from a conversation in this thread, you've always put it on the other person. They're too heated to continue, or it's Lord of the Flies, or whatever.

I don't know if you're engaging in conversations here in good faith or bad faith, and I'm not going to speculate on that. However, I would appreciate it if you would stop with the condescension, the armchair psychology, and the little digs at myself and others. It's a matter of basic respect.

This is a pretty long and seemingly, at first glance, a hateful post. If you want to tighten that up and make another post, I can give that another read.

 

[The Scythian]

Yes. I don't know what happened exactly, clearly. I just picked one of the possibilities. But that's beside the point. One of the positions I was taking earlier in this thread was that before one takes a stand, particularly a strong stand, one should make an attempt to understand what it is one is railing against.

When something happens in the world that is alarming to you, it's super easy to demonise the 'opposition'. It's easy because what the opposition has done is scary to you, or otherwise hits you in the feels. You have a primal reaction. That's human nature.

The problem with that easy path primal reaction is that it doesn't generally lead to good solutions.

So, as hard as it is, it behooves you (the general you), as a person, and benefits society at large, to separate the primal reaction to a problem from actually understanding and dealing with the problem.

Part of that separation is to not assume evil in your 'opponent'. The person or people who have made the decision you are in disagreement with are human beings. Some human beings are altruistic. Most are not horrible, but when push comes to shove, will look out for themselves. Very, very few are truly evil. The problem with a lot of these types of discussions is that those in disagreement immediately default to 'those who disagreed with me are the devil incarnate'. That's the easy path, and helps no one. Maybe you get a few echo chamber type likes, but what greater good have you achieved?

I know you know this, but I'm making my point clear for other potential readers of this post.

In my last post, I was going to say that, a lot of the time, you don't seem to be talking to the person you're responding to so much as other people who might read your post but haven't read the thread or been reading closely. When you say, for example, that another poster seems too hot under the collar, you're hoping that other readers might just accept what you're saying, seeing you as reasonable and the other person as unreasonable. I refrained from that, because I wasn't sure it was fair, but here we are.

Which potential readers of the post are you talking about? Who is demonizing the opposition? What is the "primal reaction" that you're talking about? Who is saying that anybody who is involved in this discussion (or is the subject of this discussion) is "truly evil"? Who is saying that "'those who disagreed with me are the devil incarnate'"? (You even put that last one in quotes!)

If I wanted to make a point clear to potential readers, I would direct my post to those readers. But, of course, you're writing this for the benefit of people not directly involved in the discussion, using loaded language ("demonising", "primal reaction", "truly evil", "the devil incarnate", "echo chamber") in an attempt to insinuate that the people who disagree with you are unreasonable, overcome by their emotions, engaged in groupthink, mindlessly tribal, or otherwise bad. Maybe that'll work, maybe it won't. We'll see.

I do want to break this out of the post and address it separately, though:

Maybe you get a few echo chamber type likes, but what greater good have you achieved?

Maybe people are liking your opponents' posts not because this is some kind of Lord of the Flies tribal hellscape and they're clapping like mindless seals. Maybe it's because they simply disagree with you.

Also, if you're bothered that you're getting fewer likes than other people in the thread, maybe pay less attention to them? I'm appreciative when I receive likes, and I feel good when I log in and see notifications, but I don't go around comparing the number I get to the number other people are getting.

 

[The Scythian]

This is a pretty long and seemingly, at first glance, a hateful post. If you want to tighten that up and make another post, I can give that another read.

There is nothing hateful in my post. I think that your condescension, your armchair psychology, and the little digs you try to get in at people are disrespectful, but I can assure you, I don't hate you.

And no, I'm good on the length. My post is exactly as long as it needed to be, and given the change in your tone, you've clearly read enough of it to get my point.