It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Parmandur]

Wow, yeah, there is. We trust, or distrust, companies based on their past performance all the time. That's why we read reviews, both professional and customer, to find out how reliable--trustworthy--they are. To give an example: if you ordered from a restaurant and more often than not they screwed your order up or forgot it entirely or gave you ingredients you told them you were allergic to... how much would actually want to eat there? How much would you trust that they'd get your order right this time? If you needed to service your car, but the repair place has dozens of reviews saying how they overcharge customers or charge them to "fix" things that aren't actually broken, would you trust them to do a worthwhile job?

Can I trust WotC to produce quality material? No. Spelljammer shows that they are willing to skimp a lot on lore and mechanics (which lets them save money on writing and playtesting) and make the book look more substantial than it really is by using paper with a heavier weight than typical (which lets them jack up the prices because it's nicely presented). That makes me not trust their ability to produce well-written books in the future. Which, when combined with their recent actions, means I'm spending my money elsewhere.

And that means that WotC is going to have to (A) show that they're not going to try to do something shady with the OGL, including making One incompatible enough that a Creative Commons license for 5e becomes worthless (because it's supposed to be backwards-compatible, or so they have claimed), and (B) have their next several books be very well-done.

Well, liking or not liking their books is a different kettle of fish than "trusting" them somehow. Past experience does indicate that WotC puts out quality books (I liked the Spelljammer set, personally, and the Dragonlance stuff is awesome), but past results are not indicative of future performance as such.

Their track record on product design isn't connected to their business dealings, however, so my decision to buy a given product or not is unrelated to the OGL situation. I'm getting Keys from the Golden Vault because Radiant Citadel and Candlekeep worked for me, and business shenanigans are not related to the purchase.

 

[Aldarc]

And that not only should we ignore that fact, but that we should reward them by giving them our money.

I just don't get this mentality.

One should not underestimate the power of D&D as a feel good "life-style brand" as per how they view themselves and other people on this forum have referred to them as. Many people just want things to go back to normal and to sweep everything under the rug as if it never happened. Furthermore, it's psychologically challenging for many people to cut themselves off products, brands, and IPs that they love, especially if companies provide them with excuses to come back.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And that not only should we ignore that fact, but that we should reward them by giving them our money.

I just don't get this mentality.

I don't get your mentality either. In my opinion, and I know, you will call it whataboutism, there are other companies constantly doing harm, no matter how much the outcry and how many people will boycot them. Just by holding a position where you can't get around them. WotC just forefeited that position forever.

 

[Bix and Box]

...that's a financial transaction, not a personal relationship. There is no trust involved.

And yet corporations spend all sorts of time, money and energy building brand trust. What dopes!

 

[Bix and Box]

Snarf's snarkiness aside, there's some issue with attaching ethical fault to things that never actually happen.

So therefore Criminal Intent should no longer be a crime. It attaches ethical fault to things that never actually happen.

 

[Bix and Box]

So, the way humans (and mammals in general) work, ceasing negative input is not the same as positive input, in terms of learning or training.

There are no sticks? Only carrots?
And when a great example is given to debunk your assertion, you rule it out of bounds. That's pretty handy.

Tell me. Do you find any conflict of interest in being a participant in a debate, and its referee?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So therefore Criminal Intent should no longer be a crime. It attaches ethical fault to things that never actually happen.

Given your lack of desire to engage in any substantive or serious conversation, I will likely regret this. But sure, let's examine your premise.

Murder (using the term loosely) is considered malum in se, or innately immoral. Unlike other things that are defined as crimes (regulatory crimes, for example) that are malum prohibitum, it was historically considered under the law that there wouldn't even need to be a specific law regarding murder (notice) because it was it was immoral- in and of itself! IOW, you didn't have to be told that murdering people was wrong.

So when people push back on people claiming murder and ethical fault, this is the reason why. There is actually a long an rich history of this. In addition, if you want to get technical, there are further issues with trying to argue for inchoate crimes in similarity. Inchoate (incomplete) crimes are all those where the final act was not complete- such as attempted murder. Of course, there are actual rules for that as well, given that there is a strong societal interest in not punishing people when they don't actually do anything (strong limits on what crimes are allowed to be charged as inchoate crimes, as well as a requirement of substantial steps, not to mention the possibility of abandonment).

As for your question- no, criminal intent itself is never a crime. Criminal intent (mens rea) is simply an element of those crimes that have an intent requirement- not all do.

Finally, you might ask yourself- is attempted breach of contract a crime? Well, is breach of contract a crime? Once you understand that, you probably have your answer. As to whether it's ethically sound or not, I suggest not reviewing extant literature on efficient breach of contract.

Given that you seem to have created an account on Saturday, and the history of your posts (especially your most recent one!) I am quite sure you will take this in the constructive manner it was intended.

 

[Bix and Box]

You really should avoid ascribing emotions to people you've never even met

Like this, boss?...

I understand that there's still a lot of free-flowing anger out there...
Whatever makes people feel better, I guess?

Don't confuse the feelings you have...

It's not that I don't understand the frustration and rage...

By the way, if you want to be mad, go ahead.

there is no moral obligation to be outraged

What's with this place? There's never a cop around when you need one!

 

[glass]

So therefore Criminal Intent should no longer be a crime. It attaches ethical fault to things that never actually happen.

I think you and I are broadly in agreement on the issues in this thread, but I do feel the need to point out that for the most part only things you actually did are crimes, not things that you thought about doing but did not follow through on. And to the extent that that is not true, it really should be.

But that does not matter, because thinking twice about buying a corporation's products is not the same as convicting them of a crime, and does not require the same level of justification. And more importantly (and this must not be lost sight of), we are talking about things that they actually did!

That those things did not have the effect they were hoping for does not change that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Wow, yeah, there is. We trust, or distrust, companies based on their past performance all the time.

Is it the royal "we" or a certain group?
And I really want to know, because I am confused. I do it differently. The past achievments only play a part. As you know, all companies correct their course every once in a while.
Companies who used to produce good products last year might produce trash this year and vice versa.