OGL D&D Beyond Cancellations Changed WotCs Plans

DD-beyond-2364798935.jpg


Gizmodo has revealed that the partial OGL v1.1 walkback yesterday was in response to the fan campaign to cancel D&D Beyond subscriptions, with "five digits" worth of cancellations. However, the site also reveals that management at the company believed that fans were overreating and that it would all be forgotten in a few months.

In order to delete a D&D Beyond account entirely, users are funneled into a support system that asks them to submit tickets to be handled by customer service: Sources from inside Wizards of the Coast confirm that earlier this week there were “five digits” worth of complaining tickets in the system. Both moderation and internal management of the issues have been “a mess,” they said, partially due to the fact that WotC has recently downsized the D&D Beyond support team.

Yesterday's walkback removed the royalties from the license, but still 'de-authorized' the OGL v1.0a, something which may or may not be legally possible, depending on who you ask.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

I watch as people pretend any change is the worst thing ever... so yeah, I ignore everything you said because none of it is a reason to not add "You can't use this to put Hate speech in print"
How about this, in the last 23 years can you find a product that has hate speech in it? If you do, can you find any evidence that somebody has somehow mistaken that speech as something WotC/Hasbro endorsed. We are saying it’s a smoke screen because it’s not like the OGL is a new thing, and saying it needs to be fixed for a problem that until now I’ve never seen, is weird.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Are you avoid addressing any of the relevant points I made because you're unable to find even one specific example of disparaging depictions of "G* word" Romani or depictions the "final solution" in any OGL release in the past 22½ years? Are you attempting to cast anyone unhappy with any the potential de-authorizatrion of OGL 1.0a as being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...?
I am ignoreing that, as I said before "no one has robbed this bank in 20 years, so I am sure no one will in the next 20" doesn't sound like a secure bank.
We have had (and to avoid breaking rules I will be broad here) a pendulum swing where we have 'things are getting better' then swing to 'things are getting worse'. I don't care that someone didn't rob the bank yesterday, updating the security cameras when we have the chance is a GOOD thing...

now I want to pull out one part here.
Are you attempting to cast anyone unhappy with any the potential de-authorizatrion of OGL 1.0a as being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...?
this is a twist I can't imagine... I have said plenty of times IF THEY CAN CHANGE.... not "Yeah I'm happy they can change and everyone against me is a monster"
however I can promise you places less nice then enworld are FULL of people being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
is that you, I don't know, I would like to think not... but I know right now you are on the same side as the people who are being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
I want the rider in there... then I want everyone to watch closely how it is used. I DON'T trust that wotc will catch everything and be a grade a inclusive partner... I DO trust them to listen when we threaten to hit there wallet.

See this isn;'t a binary "Your for the new status que or against it" "You trust WotC or you don't"
Its WAY more complex and nuanced then that.
 

Haplo781

Legend
I am ignoreing that, as I said before "no one has robbed this bank in 20 years, so I am sure no one will in the next 20" doesn't sound like a secure bank.
We have had (and to avoid breaking rules I will be broad here) a pendulum swing where we have 'things are getting better' then swing to 'things are getting worse'. I don't care that someone didn't rob the bank yesterday, updating the security cameras when we have the chance is a GOOD thing...

now I want to pull out one part here.

this is a twist I can't imagine... I have said plenty of times IF THEY CAN CHANGE.... not "Yeah I'm happy they can change and everyone against me is a monster"
however I can promise you places less nice then enworld are FULL of people being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
is that you, I don't know, I would like to think not... but I know right now you are on the same side as the people who are being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
I want the rider in there... then I want everyone to watch closely how it is used. I DON'T trust that wotc will catch everything and be a grade a inclusive partner... I DO trust them to listen when we threaten to hit there wallet.

See this isn;'t a binary "Your for the new status que or against it" "You trust WotC or you don't"
Its WAY more complex and nuanced then that.
"I don't care if nobody has ever robbed this bank, we should let them strip-search everyone to make sure we don't have guns" is pretty much the analogy to your argument here.
 

How about this, in the last 23 years can you find a product that has hate speech in it?
that argument is not anything. It's the 'if no one broke into your house yesterday, you can keep your doors unlocked for ever now" argument...
I have addressed it over and over. We have games that do have hate speech, and we have people that are doing fantasy 'not D&D' also in court because they are NOT OGL and using dumb bad copyright stuff.
If you do, can you find any evidence that somebody has somehow mistaken that speech as something WotC/Hasbro endorsed. We are saying it’s a smoke screen because it’s not like the OGL is a new thing, and saying it needs to be fixed for a problem that until now I’ve never seen, is weird.
again, if they can't change it, this is mute. On the other hand if we ARE GETTING A CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT, then this change is some small + and should be there.
 


ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
I am ignoreing [sic] that, as I said before "no one has robbed this bank in 20 years, so I am sure no one will in the next 20" doesn't sound like a secure bank.
If you are unable to find even one specific example of disparaging depictions of "G* word" Romani or depictions the "final solution" in any OGL release in the past 22½ years when directly asked then why are justifying your position by deflecting with non sequitur fallacies of locking one's front door & security at a financial institution?

however I can promise you places less nice then enworld are FULL of people being okay with racism, homophobia, etc... is that you, I don't know, I would like to think not... but I know right now you are on the same side as the people who are being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
What are the specific names of these OLG products "with racism, homophobia, etc..." that have been released in the past 22½ years? Instead of cowardly dancing around the issue & implying I'm a racist & a homophobe because I have a problem with Wizbro going back on their word & breaking their contract by potentially de-authorizing OGL1.0a, you should at the very least have the courage to directly say so.
 
Last edited:

If you are unable to find even one specific example of disparaging depictions of "G* word" Romani or depictions the "final solution" in any OGL release in the past 22½ years when directly asked then why are justifying your position by deflecting with non sequitur fallacies of locking one's front door & security at a financial institution?
You and the others are tying to change my argument. I didn't ever say " we have too many" I said making it harder is better.

my argument has nothing to do with the old OGL, it has todo with tomorrow not yesterday.
What are the specific names of these OLG products "with racism, homophobia, etc..." that have been released in the past 22½ years?
why would I when that isnt my argument?
 

ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
however I can promise you places less nice then enworld are FULL of people being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
is that you, I don't know, I would like to think not... but I know right now you are on the same side as the people who are being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...
Instead of cowardly dancing around the issue & implying I'm a racist & a homophobe because I have a problem with Wizbro going back on their word & breaking their contract by potentially de-authorizing OGL1.0a, you should at the very least have the courage to directly call me a racist & a homophobe. You'd be very wrong, though...

why would I when that isnt my argument?
To me that sounds like an admission of not arguing in good faith.
 

Instead of cowardly dancing around the issue & implying I'm a racist & a homophobe because I have a problem with Wizbro going back on their word & breaking their contract by potentially de-authorizing OGL1.0a, you should at the very least have the courage to directly call me a racist & a homophobe. You'd be very wrong, though...
I didn't imply anything... what I AM accuseing you of is argueing past my arguement.

My entire stance is IF THEY CAN CHANGE IT, AND WE ARE GETTING CHANGES ANYWAY, THIS IS A GOOD ONE

notice nothing about you being anything. notice nothing about likeing or dislikeing de-authorizing... (if it matters I am still not sure what way I feel about it, but I am more then a little on the disliking how they do it side)
To me that sounds like an admission of not arguing in good faith.
No YOU are arguing in bad faith. You are asking me to defend a position I do not take. My Position is "No hate speech is a good change"
 

My Position is "No hate speech is a good change"
Do you not see how that is a "bad faith" position?

Because it is, given how little "hate speech" was occurred, and given how the OGL 2.0 or whatever does not, in fact offer "no hate speech", it just means "companies who a sign a terrible perverse licence" (so like, nobody), get to have their output policed after the fact by WotC.
 

Do you not see how that is a "bad faith" position?
no I see people who paint it as something it isn't as a 'bad faith' position... my position is very straight forward and very much out on my sleeve with no hidden message.

I dislike hate speech. I see more hate speech in the open daily. They put forward they can make changes, and we are unsure if that is true or not. 1 of the half dozen changes was 'a rider for no hate speech being allowed'

So all I am saying is if we are getting changes, that's a good one.

What about that is bad faith?
Because it is, given how little "hate speech" was occurred, and given how the OGL 2.0 or whatever does not, in fact offer "no hate speech", it just means "companies who a sign a terrible perverse licence" (so like, nobody), get to have their output policed after the fact by WotC.
THis seems a bad faith argument... "It has not happened yet so no safe guards are needed against it"
 

THis seems a bad faith argument... "It has not happened yet so no safe guards are needed against it"
LOL.

I see the problem here is that you literally don't understand what bad faith means. You even lied about my argument, which is itself an act of bad faith.
What about that is bad faith?
Because you know it's not true, because no-one has signed the OGL 1.1, which contained that clause, and it's very unlikely, at this point, that anyone is really going to sign the OGL 2.0.

And when something has never happened (and I'm NOT talking about gradually-happening things like climate change, which are a matter of science, I'm talking about social stuff), and you put huge into scaring people about it, creating FUD on purpose, and they try to capitalize on that FUD to push a corporate agenda which may include that element, but also includes many other, more directly greedy elements, you're acting in bad faith.

And defending that is bad faith itself because you're aware of the actual reasoning.
 

ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
notice nothing about you being anything.
Oh really, then why do you post this below, especially the part in bold?
I would like to think not... but I know right now you are on the same side as the people who are being okay with racism, homophobia, etc...

bad faith argument
Bad Faith Argument vs. Good Faith Argument
15 Logical Fallacies to Know, with Definitions and Examples
FUD Fear, uncertainty, and doubt
 

LOL.

I see the problem here is that you literally don't understand what bad faith means. You even lied about my argument, which is itself an act of bad faith.
This seems to be turning quite personal
Because you know it's not true,
what isn't true?
THey claim they can change the OGL (the whole authorize/deauthorize)
is that not true?

THey posted a bunch of changes (some they already walked back)
is that not true?

One of the changes not yet walked back is the 'no hate speech' rider
is that not true?

I like that potential change... you can't argue that isn't true, it;s what I like.
because no-one has signed the OGL 1.1, which contained that clause, and it's very unlikely, at this point, that anyone is really going to sign the OGL 2.0.
Then the entire discussion is just in theory... since I started with "If they have the power to change it" I don't see where this is a bad faith argument...
And when something has never happened (and I'm NOT talking about gradually-happening things like climate change, which are a matter of science, I'm talking about social stuff), and you put huge into scaring people about it, creating FUD on purpose, and they try to capitalize on that FUD to push a corporate agenda which may include that element, but also includes many other, more directly greedy elements, you're acting in bad faith.
No one is arguing for Corp Greed... I have been very straight forward with what I want and don't want... I am in no way hiding some special motive. I have put forward what I feel and what I want...

NOW I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED of calling people things, and now 'creating FUD on purpose' maybe you should consider that I have been very transparent here.
And defending that is bad faith itself because you're aware of the actual reasoning.
I don't CARE why they made the change... I like the change. That's it. Taking each change 1 by 1 I can say what ones I like, what ones I don't like and what ones I am unsure on...
I didn't like the 20 or 25%on revenue over $750 k (but it looks like that is being rolled back)
I don't like the 'you have a week' (but it looks like that MIGHT be turning to 6 months)
I don't like the stupid picture investmit things but I also don't REALLY have a horse in that race so as much as I like that rule if it went away it would not be a deal breaker.
I LOVE the idea that if you put hate speech in your product you lose the ability to use the OGL and as such can be sued...
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
that argument is not anything. It's the 'if no one broke into your house yesterday, you can keep your doors unlocked for ever now" argument...
I have addressed it over and over. We have games that do have hate speech, and we have people that are doing fantasy 'not D&D' also in court because they are NOT OGL and using dumb bad copyright stuff.

again, if they can't change it, this is mute. On the other hand if we ARE GETTING A CHANGE NO MATTER WHAT, then this change is some small + and should be there.
If they CAN de-authorize the 1.0a, it doesn't matter anymore.
 

Oh really, then why do you post this below, especially the part in bold?
becuase YOU brought it up, notice that only came up in responce to you...
this would require you to read my mind.
Essentially, a bad faith argument is an inauthentic argument. By this, we don’t necessarily mean a factually incorrect argument. Rather, an argument that the arguer doesn’t believe in themselves.
you are claiming that I don't believe in what I am saying.

You are pretty good on asking for proof. Other then you disagree with me, what would make you think I don't beleive that "this 1 bit, the anti hate speech part is good"?
What is there to fear? There is a lot to be uncertain about, but I'm not a lawyer I am letting them handle that. What is there to doubt?
 

you are claiming that I don't believe in what I am saying.
That is indeed what it looks like, yeah. It doesn't look like you believe WotC is genuinely trying to "fight hate speech", and yet you're arguing like they are.

Also, the idea that corporations are good at fighting hate speech is a frankly hilarious/sad one, as any number of people in certain minorities, especially trans people today, can tell you. Many corporations do active harm in the name of "fighting hate speech" rather than helping. This include not-for-profit companies like BBC here in Britain, who have decided to pick a side and that side is not the side of young people nor trans people.
 


ValamirCleaver

Jäger aus Kurpfalz
I don't CARE why they made the change... I like the change. That's it. Taking each change 1 by 1 I can say what ones I like, what ones I don't like and what ones I am unsure on...
I didn't like the 20 or 25%on revenue over $750 k (but it looks like that is being rolled back)
I don't like the 'you have a week' (but it looks like that MIGHT be turning to 6 months)
I don't like the stupid picture investmit things but I also don't REALLY have a horse in that race so as much as I like that rule if it went away it would not be a deal breaker.
I LOVE the idea that if you put hate speech in your product you lose the ability to use the OGL and as such can be sued...
You almost got it, but not quite so let me finish "threading the needle" for you. Wizbro is using using the façade, the false platitudes, of trying to protect against NFTs, blockchains, homophobia, racism, etc... to blunt criticism of their attempts to de-authorize OGL 1.0a & make it more palatable to the some of the dissenters at large. To me you're acting like it sounds as though you've wholeheartedly swallowed their maladroit, ham-fisted attempts "hook, line & sinker". Congratulations!
 

That is indeed what it looks like, yeah. It doesn't look like you believe WotC is genuinely trying to "fight hate speech", and yet you're arguing like they are.
I think that WotC is trying to save face after like 300 rakes in the yard smacked them... However I don't care WHY they are fighting hate speech, I care that I WANT THEM to.

I have no reason to believe that if we all found a new hate speech book and complained they would use this new clause to shut it down.
I don't KNOW if they will or wont try to shut down people who are not... but if they do I expect those same voices will complain to get them to stop.
Also, the idea that corporations are good at fighting hate speech is a frankly hilarious/sad one, as any number of people in certain minorities, especially trans people today, can tell you.
if they have no ability to do so they can't do anything about it... I would rather let them stop some of it by putting out a boiler plate "You don't get to hide behind the OGL and we will sue you" then saying "it's fine the market will decide"
Many corporations do active harm in the name of "fighting hate speech" rather than helping. This include not-for-profit companies like BBC here in Britain, who have decided to pick a side and that side is not the side of young people nor trans people.
And that is not a reason to let hate speech run free. That is a reason to pay attention and keep your opinions out there for these companies to see and feel
 

Visit Our Sponsor

Latest threads

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top