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

[GMforPowergamers]

They are still trying to remove the 1.0 OGL, everything is smoke.

except not all of us find 1.0 OGL to be the target WE are shooting for. I would not mind if you won, I am in no way fighting against it right now... but I also see so many things better today then last week

 

[Pedantic]

I don't expect to change your mind. I simple wish to have both your and my thoughts equally put forward and debated.

Your thoughts are not equal, you're one of perhaps three regular posters who hold them, relative to a larger majority position. Your position is perfectly clear, and at this point clearly immutable as far as you're concerned, so the only reason to continue talking about it is to forward an argument you think will persuade people to adapt the same stance (or to take/not take some action).

I'm definitely not open to such persuasion, but I'm putting forward the argument that your position is so idiosyncratic, that I think practically no one is.

 

[Ashtagon]

Something to note about that morality clause.

"Obscene" isn't the only threshold. "Harmful" and "illegal" is in there too. That means content that models breaking and entry, murder, and theft can be banned. Many US prisons have in the past banned, or tried to ban, D&D, for exactly this reason.

The core concept of "bash down the door, kill the orc, take his treasure" is an example of modelling such criminal behaviour. Which means that under this "OGL", D&D itself would have to be banned.

 

[Scribe]

except not all of us find 1.0 OGL to be the target WE are shooting for. I would not mind if you won, I am in no way fighting against it right now... but I also see so many things better today then last week

Thats because you are falling for the smoke, which is fine, its what they want.

The only thing they (Wizards) cares about are.

1. The 1.0 OGL which contains the golden goose.
2. Killing any 'VTT/Video Game' 5e, before its born.

Thats it man, thats all of it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Thats because you are falling for the smoke, which is fine, its what they want.

The only thing they (Wizards) cares about are.

1. The 1.0 OGL which contains the golden goose.
2. Killing any 'VTT/Video Game' 5e, before its born.

Thats it man, thats all of it.

if they came out and said "hey we just want" and in slightly more elegant terms listed what you just did... I'm not sure I would be against them... at least not if they gave what they have. To be honest my BIGGEST issues was the royalties and the putting companies out (and it looks like ORC will replace OGL1.0 and keep most if not all of those companies going... they have like 1500, and I thought there were less then 200)

 

[Scribe]

if they came out and said "hey we just want" and in slightly more elegant terms listed what you just did... I'm not sure I would be against them... at least not if they gave what they have. To be honest my BIGGEST issues was the royalties and the putting companies out (and it looks like ORC will replace OGL1.0 and keep most if not all of those companies going... they have like 1500, and I thought there were less then 200)

Man I know you would be fine. You've said as much several times.

The 1.0 OGL is actually a big deal to most people paying attention to this, the fact you keep saying 'this is fine' along with a few others around here, is just signal boosting Wizards as 'doing the right thing'.

They are not. They are doing (or trying to do) something 1000% dishonest, and you are actually aiding them in doing this.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Your thoughts are not equal, you're one of perhaps three regular posters who hold them, relative to a larger majority position.

thank you for ruling on what is and is not an equal opionion... I guess that is better then people arguing that I am lying at least.

Your position is perfectly clear, and at this point clearly immutable as far as you're concerned, so the only reason to continue talking about it is to forward an argument you think will persuade people to adapt the same stance (or to take/not take some action).

except as I have shown it is not in fact immutable... I have taken arguments against what I am saying, thought about them and changed my positons... so I would think that is the opposite of immutable... although I do have a joke about you wishing I was muted right now

I'm definitely not open to such persuasion, but I'm putting forward the argument that your position is so idiosyncratic, that I think practically no one is.

so you think that my thoughts are so out there, no one could possible have them like me, and me trying to discuss this will not only not help me but wont help anyone else either? Is that correct?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Something to note about that morality clause.

"Obscene" isn't the only threshold. "Harmful" and "illegal" is in there too. That means content that models breaking and entry, murder, and theft can be banned. Many US prisons have in the past banned, or tried to ban, D&D, for exactly this reason.

The core concept of "bash down the door, kill the orc, take his treasure" is an example of modelling such criminal behaviour. Which means that under this "OGL", D&D itself would have to be banned.

this is an EXCELET point about how it will be very hard to argue that something is able to be taken out by this clause...

 

[Justice and Rule]

I just have no interest in engaging with this as I told you I will not compare this game and it's issues with license's to the atrocities of any war let alone that one.

I don't believe I compared it to a war, I compared it to a diplomatic settlement where someone declared victory after giving up the rights of someone else.

this is partially true. My thoughts right now are to hammer out a compromise and then stand down BUT keep our guard up. I respect if you wish to fight for more, but so far nothing has convinced me to make that big of a leap.
again I have changed my view before, and may again, but right now I am presenting as they are now.

This is a very dumb plan. Standing down almost immediately on a terrible compromise is basically why no one is taking you seriously.

I have the same standing you do. We both are people on enworld talking about how far we wish to push this.

But you don't because you've lost all credibility on the matter. That's the point being made.

I HAVE been part of the WE all week. I (and others) are just drawing our lines somewhere different then you... and we are seeing where Wotc landed and saying "close... maybe a few more steps"

No, you haven't. I've watched your posting. You're the last person to be saying we can just fight later, given that you were one of the first to turn around on Wizards.

wait... keeping an open mind, taking in new facts and arguments and evaluating them to adjust your stance is bad?
When did that happen?
You are far from teh first to say so, but I do wonder, does that mean no matter what facts or arguments are made you will NEVER change your opinion? You NEVER leave open the possibility you may be wrong?

The value of a changing mind is entirely dependent on what you have changed to and why. It does not have an inherent value in and of itself. That you are easily swayed isn't necessarily a strength, and given your current position, it actively goes against your idea of "fighting later": we don't trust you to fight later because you took the first chance to stop fighting this time.

I think you are mistaking what you are saying for what EVERYONE is saying. I see several people care about 1 or 2 of those and not all of them and I have seen people that care about NON of them. I have also seen people that say all of that isn't enough.

No, I'm pretty confident. Try taking your talk elsewhere and see how welcomed it is. Even in this thread, you are absolutely the minority voice, let alone this board. Why else do you think you are arguing with half a dozen people alone?

then it shouldn't matter what I say or do... like the BoEf and EtR if I am in the minority, then no matter what I do or say my way one come to be.

I don't even understand your attempt at reference, but in terms of trying to convince people yeah, it hasn't really mattered because your arguments are just very poor and everyone seems to have very similar lines.

becareful assuming you are the majority (something I have repeatedly said I don't know if I am)

I'm really not "assuming" because it's fairly self-evident that the popular position is the one I'm currently in. You could probably argue from a better spot if you realized that your position is just not carried by many people, especially given the things you are specifically trying to defend like the morality clause.

I weep at the thought that the majority (as you claim) dislike hearing someone who is willing to listen and change based on new evidence and arguments...

Again, "changing your mind" is not a virtue in and of itself, but completely dependent on what you changed your mind on and why you did. There are perfectly good reasons for why that can be a bad thing, not the least of which the reason many people have already enumerated: you are talking about fighting later, but given how quickly you have changed your mind there's no trusting that you'll stand up then.

1 that isn't even CLOSE to the nicest way you can put it...
snip

I don't care that you changed your mind and your indignation means nothing to me. I will continue to say: your argument is undermined by the idea that you change your mind quickly, and your current actions reinforce that take.

that feel like your general answer to be honest...

Sometimes you must be blunt.

pretty simply... we all have our own goals and our own lines in the sand.

I would not call what I desire to be "crumbs" and probably would have corrected that, but instead you basically said "Yeah, I'm here for the crumbs!" Hence my comment.

I have tried... but as you said, you see no upside to listening to other's thoughts and facts and rethinking your positions... so I understand why you don't like it.

No, you've just constantly tried to obfuscate because you really have problems addressing the basic issue beyond "But we can fight them later!" It's just a very bad, inane argument that doesn't hold up.

I am trying to show you that it is possible for 2 good honest people to see this differently

You can be an honest, good person and also have a terrible position. I don't really care about how honest or good you are, the position you advocate for is just plain bad. You keep arguing for compromise, but you don't address any arguments about how bad this is as a compromise except to say that we can fight again later... when we have a worse position.

i disagree

Cool! I'm glad you've spent so many words about how incredible you are for being able to change your mind, but when it comes to actually addressing the counterargument against you all you can spare is two words.

I again must remind myself you see no virtue in rethinking from others points of view, and you have to assume you are not only 100% correct but that nothing can change that...

I see no inherent virtue in it, yes. You don't get brownie points for changing your mind because it's all dependent on what you change your mind to and why you changed it. The details matter.

And in this case, well, I think people find my argument more convincing than yours. If you want to compromise with Wizards, feel free to. But as its been pointed out, don't go around telling people we can "fight later" when you barely made it through a week of it before changing your mind.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

if they came out and said "hey we just want" and in slightly more elegant terms listed what you just did... I'm not sure I would be against them... at least not if they gave what they have.

I'm completely baffled by this. What exactly has WotC "given" us here? WotC is actively trying to take things away from us. That's what has everyone so upset.