I think I know how the morality clause acceptable(+)

[Alzrius]

My fear is two different yardsticks to measure to be used.

This brings up a related issue with regard to the "create an independent oversight group" idea; I suspect that there'd be dissatisfaction if a perceived instance of bigotry toward a particular group didn't have a member of that particular group as part of the arbitrating body.

 

[MoonSong]

If you were any such organization, where would/should such an action sit in your list of priorities?

These organizations have resource limits - should they take a squabble over IP in a game before, say, a young African American man brutalized by police? Or maybe it could bump over a rash of anti-Semitic graffiti?

I don't find a morality clause, in general, to be a problem. WotC does have legitimate brand safety concerns. But, using resources from a group engaged in real-world public works to address when WotC over-extends seems inappropriate

You have a point here. Still as written the clause is way too broad and open to abuse.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

No, because no one in the hobby associated things they hated that were released under the OGL with WotC. Because nothing released under the OGL is allowed to use trademarks or trade dress or anything like that, the risk of anything released under the OGL being associated with D&D by people who have no clue what they’re talking about is the same as a product having nothing to do with any version of D&D or any version of the OGL being associated with D&D.

So the fear is of a phantom, but even if there suddenly was another satanic panic, that’s not a good reason to censor. We think of the Comics Code, the Hays Code and the response to the Satanic Panic as bad. Why the hell would we think it’s reasonable to change the OGL to add the ability to censor in case of another satanic panic?

It's not about another Satanic Panic. I was just explaining that it wasn't correct that this hasn't happened.

I've already been through this. It's about whether D&D wants to allow people to have unfettered ability to use its brand in ways that might be offensive.

That's something that is unheard of for most brands. And that's what they consider it now- a brand. You might not like that, and you might disagree with that, but it's not like they are being irrational. Or if you think they are, why don't you petition Disney to put Marvel's properties under an open license?

 

[MoonSong]

This brings up a related issue with regard to the "create an independent oversight group" idea; I suspect that there'd be dissatisfaction if a perceived instance of bigotry toward a particular group didn't have a member of that particular group as part of the arbitrating body.

They can be adhoc? Or at least having a rotating spot or spot reserved for someone in the affected group(s)? Anything to make it less arbitrary?

 

[Alzrius]

They can be adhoc? Or at least having a rotating spot or spot reserved for someone in the affected group(s)? Anything to make it less arbitrary?

I mean, I think they'd have to, I just then wonder what sort of real-life issues that could bring up with regard to getting things done. If no one wants to decide a given case without a particular individual taking part, and that person is currently sick, or on vacation, or simply unavailable for some reason, that's how backlogs get started.

 

[Felonious Ntent]

It's not about another Satanic Panic. I was just explaining that it wasn't correct that this hasn't happened.

I've already been through this. It's about whether D&D wants to allow people to have unfettered ability to use its brand in ways that might be offensive.

That's something that is unheard of for most brands. And that's what they consider it now- a brand. You might not like that, and you might disagree with that, but it's not like they are being irrational. Or if you think they are, why don't you petition Disney to put Marvel's properties under an open license?

Answer me this are you ok with a creator having their license revoked for having an Only Fans? Under the proposed 1.2 WotC can. There are many people who consider Only fans content offensive and just as many who have no issue with it. This is one of the problems with a morality clause different people find different things offensive.

"The big bad racist" WotC is selling you as the reason for the clause is nothing more than a smoke screen.

 

[Greg Benage]

If you're going to have a third party manage the OGL, it's going to have to be some sort of gaming trade association like the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association, or the National Cotton Council.

Let GAMA do it. What could go wrong...

 

[tetrasodium]

Slags kinda offensive here as well depending how it's used.

Transformer Slag is fine don't call a women it though.

The critical difference is that it's a completely different meaning outside of a specific part of the world. Ferengi is another example... In the vast majority of the world that word is a race of aliens who caricature western culture... In some other areas of the world it has a very different and generally rude meaning

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

They can be adhoc? Or at least having a rotating spot or spot reserved for someone in the affected group(s)? Anything to make it less arbitrary?

It's not an issue of getting someone (or three someones) to adjudicate an appeal. That's easy. Just have, I dunno, the parties select from a list of mutually agreed-upon federal mediators, or whatever.

The issue is what standard is applied.

ETA- and what happens during the pendency of the appeal. That's also an issue. Devil, as always, will be in the details.

 

[Scars Unseen]

The only way I can see a morality clause being acceptable is if the 1.0a is preserved so that people who don't want to go along with Hasbro's Wild Ride can ignore it and keep making stuff with the old SRD.

To be fair, that's pretty much been my stance on literally everything WotC has tried to push with the new OGL.