D&D Beyond Cancellations Changed WotCs Plans

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...

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.

 

log in or register to remove this ad

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"
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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

Ein 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

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
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

Ein 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
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top