Lyandelill
Explorer
.
Last edited:
The thing is that wotc has demonstrated that they can not be trusted to act in good faith WRT their goal of terminating the OGL so everything needs to be read assuming the worst possible motives as plausible concerns. Heck 1.2 even included a section that tries to kneecap current VTTs to clear a path for the it still in production VTT & did so in a way that allows them to change those restrictions without having to change OGL1.2 itself.I can't believe how many people think it is abnormal.
Oh, yeah. I remember Roger Ebert complaining about this in the late 1990s or early 2000s. There was a film about two adolescent British boys that was given an R rating despite containing almost no violence, relatively minor swearing, and no explicit sex. But the boys were gay, so it wasn't appropriate for children under the age of 17 I guess. And for those who think that might not be a big deal, here in the United States, when a movie is rated R, it makes it a lot more difficult for anyone under the age of 17 to see it. TheatersInteresting fact: the MPAA has historically rated films featuring non-heterosexual relationships/sex/whatever as worse than the equivalent heterosexual thing. Same certainly goes for anything non-cis.
So rather than WotC dealing with it through a license people sign with them, they should deal with it through a license people sign with DriveThru and Kickstarter?People are going to write offensive things.
Instead of trying to legally stop them, just make it clear to DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc, that content like that should be banned from their platforms.
You can create something as awful as SFNG or F.A.T.A.L., but your only sales should be through your personal web site with bitcoin.
No license.So rather than WotC dealing with it through a license people sign with them, they should deal with it through a license people sign with DriveThru and Kickstarter?
Isn't that worse because WotC is avoiding any blame and doesn't have to get their hands dirty? They don't have to take any personal responsibility over banning content as they can shift the responsibility to DriveThru...
You literally have to sign Amazon's seller Terms of Service to sell content on their platform.Just like nobody signed a license for Amazon to refuse to host bad content.
So.... your argument is that if someone makes a hateful and racist D&D product and WotC says "sorry, not our book, we can't do anything" the angry activists exerting tremendous pressure will just stop and say "oh, okay, sorry to bug you" and drop the issue?If someone releases a 'hateful' product and your content is cited within it, there will be tremendous activist pressure on you to take a stand and revoke their use of your content. Since you have the ability to revoke it, those activists won't come after them, they will also come after you. If there is no hate clause, you can wash your hands of the whole thing. You can condemn it or not, but it doesn't affect your or your business. After all, its open content. But if you have reserved the power of revocation it will come back on you. Guaranteed.
isn't that the panel's job then?
wait so you trust DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, but not WotC...People are going to write offensive things.
Instead of trying to legally stop them, just make it clear to DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, etc, that content like that should be banned from their platforms.
You can create something as awful as SFNG or F.A.T.A.L., but your only sales should be through your personal web site with bitcoin.