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

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'.
yes, it is saying "not everyone agrees"
I would take some offence at ANY of my posts saying "Wizards are doing the right thing" I would argue that at best I have been showing and saying "All big companies suck, Wizards and Hasbro are trying to take everything they can BUT right now thanks to a week of these debates we are close to what I think is a fair compromise but I have some reservations" but that may be too wordy.
They are not. They are doing (or trying to do) something 1000% dishonest, and you are actually aiding them in doing this.
I don't think I am aiding them, my opposition just isn't as hard as yours.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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...

He is literally pointing out how absurd the morality clause is in that it could be used to destroy companies using the very things that D&D already does. You say "very hard to argue", but there is no argument because only Wizards gets to decide who does it.
 

yes, it is saying "not everyone agrees"
I would take some offence at ANY of my posts saying "Wizards are doing the right thing" I would argue that at best I have been showing and saying "All big companies suck, Wizards and Hasbro are trying to take everything they can BUT right now thanks to a week of these debates we are close to what I think is a fair compromise but I have some reservations" but that may be too wordy.

This comes off as fundamentally dishonest, given that you've been trying to give them ultimate power with their morality clause and have argued for it for a while now.

I don't think I am aiding them, my opposition just isn't as hard as yours.

You really are. Not only are you trying to defend Wizards, you've actively said you don't care about 1.0a and you actively were defending the morality clause throughout the week, even before 1.2 came out.
 

Autumnal

Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
Here’s a preview of the morality clause in action, courtesy of the DM’s Guild, here WotC already has the power. note that this already happened, in 2020, so speculation needed. We don’t have to guess how they feel about the work of the field‘s many queer creators, like Steve Kenson and Joe Carricker and so many more. We’ve seen it.


I don’t feel like my personal safety or the moral tone of gaming as a whole were improved, y’know.
 

Scribe

Legend
I don't think I am aiding them, my opposition just isn't as hard as yours.

You are, you and a few others are running interference for Wizards, who (Wizards) are demonstrably acting in bad faith, and being openly dishonest.

Which is fine, but this is also 100% why you continue to get pushback from others. Me? I'll just pass over what you are saying regarding this topic now, its just not worth it.
 

This is a very dumb plan. Standing down almost immediately on a terrible compromise is basically why no one is taking you seriously.
if no one was taking me seriously I would not have 5 conversations at once.
But you don't because you've lost all credibility on the matter. That's the point being made.
do you lose credibility for believing that learning new facts and changing your own mind based on the new data is bad?
no just me?
Okay, I will take the "credibility" hit to continue talking through this... that is a cost I am willing to pay.
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.
so because I turned on wizards, and worked with YOU, then got to the point were I was happy with the compromise, then learned new fact took in new arguments and now have NEW reservations based on those that I am trying (with my gaming group) to compile... that is why I can't be trusted?
You lost me somewhere in there.
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.
You do realize I am still complaining to WotC... just not about EVERYTHING you are? right? You do realize the entire point of this was to find a GOOD way to keep teh Morality clause and all you have done (in a + thread) is talk about how it can never be?
No, I'm pretty confident. Try taking your talk elsewhere and see how welcomed it is.
in my gaming group I am the most knowledgeable of this... we talked for hours tonight
On tic tok I have been talking about this the whole time (but I do spend less time on there then here)
I even reopened my Twitter that I have not used in forever when this started to tweet about it... I have found that not everyone is on the same page even there.
On facebook not only I, but 2 people I super respect, like teh concept of teh morality clause but want it fine tuned.
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?
becuase half a dozen people are as crazy as I am to be up at 4am?
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.
okay, no one stood with me for the book of erotic fantays, or Eat the Rich (at least on here) I am use to a vocal number of posters overwhelming everyone and trying to brow beat them into the exact same group think. I 'm sorry you don't like it, but I still disagree.
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.
then why is there a + thread at all to try to make it work?
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.
refusing to change, bargan or compromise is not a virtue either. Not wanting to ever have facts or thoughts that oppose you be spoken is not a virtue...
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.
and YOUR argument is undercut by not respecting that people actually grow and learn and change.
Sometimes you must be blunt.
that doesn't get you much though
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.
What I said was WHAT YOU CALL CRUMBS... not I am only here for crumes... I am here for Morality clause, no royalties (or if there must be MUCH better ones) and releasing enough to allow PF LU and BF to continue on.
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.
stopping progress because something bad MIGHT happen in the future is a bad argument. Assuming that the Higher Ups are more motivated by 'winning the argument through tricks' then making money is foolish at best.
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 put that whole 2 honest and good people part in here becuase you have been trying to stear this from talking about the morality clause to putting ME personally in the questions
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.
there is no counter argument... you just keep telling me I am wrong.
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.
the fact that you have made it clear nothing will change your mind is a problem. It doesn't matter if I made the Ultimate Argument of Logic, had all the figures and all the facts showing you that you were wrong... You don't WANT to be shown another way.
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.
I guess we will see when the survey results come out
 

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.
ironic by 'giving us' in this context I mean taken away
Mostly the Royalties.

The other thing is a subset of (what they believe they can legally or bully wise) what they can take back given back to the creative commons with a better newer wording.
 

He is literally pointing out how absurd the morality clause is in that it could be used to destroy companies using the very things that D&D already does. You say "very hard to argue", but there is no argument because only Wizards gets to decide who does it.
what he did was point out the nuance of why ,y survey has to go into detail on how to fix teh concept (you know what this + thread was about).
It was an excellent point EVEN if it isn't a point proving me right
 

You really are. Not only are you trying to defend Wizards, you've actively said you don't care about 1.0a and you actively were defending the morality clause throughout the week, even before 1.2 came out.
yup, I like the concept of the morality clause. I have since day 1... so far the changes on my mind about that have been degrees and wording...
 

Here’s a preview of the morality clause in action, courtesy of the DM’s Guild, here WotC already has the power. note that this already happened, in 2020, so speculation needed. We don’t have to guess how they feel about the work of the field‘s many queer creators, like Steve Kenson and Joe Carricker and so many more. We’ve seen it.


I don’t feel like my personal safety or the moral tone of gaming as a whole were improved, y’know.
I didn't hear about this before... I will add it to Eat the Rich and Book of errotic fantasy in things I think Wotc got wrong
 


SoonRaccoon

Explorer
ironic by 'giving us' in this context I mean taken away
Mostly the Royalties.

The other thing is a subset of (what they believe they can legally or bully wise) what they can take back given back to the creative commons with a better newer wording.
You mean the core rules they're going to release under CC-BY? That's an obvious ruse. We already had that, as it was released under the OGL 1.0a. They're trying to lock down the rest of the 5e SRD under a much more restrictive licensing agreement that gives them leverage over competitors. The portion of the SRD that they're going to release under the CC-BY license will just be the stuff that is most obviously uncopyrightable anyway.

They tried to take away 100% of the SRD. We complained, so they're letting us keep 25% of the SRD and they're still trying to take away 75% of the SRD. And they want us to give them the power to police pretty much all third party content.

So, again, what are they giving us that we didn't already have?
 

if no one was taking me seriously I would not have 5 conversations at once.

I think it's because you have bad arguments that people feel the need to address in this situation. Also you keep posting, so people keep posting.

do you lose credibility for believing that learning new facts and changing your own mind based on the new data is bad?
no just me?
Okay, I will take the "credibility" hit to continue talking through this... that is a cost I am willing to pay.

I mean, no one cares that you changed your mind on something when you still have bad opinions on the issues that matters. Again, not an inherent virtue.

so because I turned on wizards, and worked with YOU, then got to the point were I was happy with the compromise, then learned new fact took in new arguments and now have NEW reservations based on those that I am trying (with my gaming group) to compile... that is why I can't be trusted?
You lost me somewhere in there.

Did you turn on Wizards? Like, you didn't even get through a single revision of the OGL. You always came off as someone looking for an out. Again, you were defending the morality clause early.

You do realize I am still complaining to WotC... just not about EVERYTHING you are? right? You do realize the entire point of this was to find a GOOD way to keep teh Morality clause and all you have done (in a + thread) is talk about how it can never be?

Who cares about what you are complaining about when you are giving in on the most important things? Again, you don't get points simply for the act of complaining. You seem to have this idea that there are inherent values to certain actions when there aren't: everything is defined by the details.

in my gaming group I am the most knowledgeable of this... we talked for hours tonight
On tic tok I have been talking about this the whole time (but I do spend less time on there then here)
I even reopened my Twitter that I have not used in forever when this started to tweet about it... I have found that not everyone is on the same page even there.
On facebook not only I, but 2 people I super respect, like teh concept of teh morality clause but want it fine tuned.

There's no fine-tuning a superlaser like that. Wizards has yet to change that and has explicitly argued for it. It's not going to give it up. Acting like it can be "fine-tuned" misses that it's unnecessary and simply dangerous to anyone who isn't part of Wizards.

becuase half a dozen people are as crazy as I am to be up at 4am?

I'm guessing they all aren't in EST, and also they think your opinions aren't great but you post a whole lot.

okay, no one stood with me for the book of erotic fantays, or Eat the Rich (at least on here) I am use to a vocal number of posters overwhelming everyone and trying to brow beat them into the exact same group think. I 'm sorry you don't like it, but I still disagree.

You talked about Eat the Rich at the time it happened? And if you did, you realize you are just giving Wizards a bigger mandate to do stuff like that without any sort of guardrail or limitation?

then why is there a + thread at all to try to make it work?

Because that person was trying to create a theoretical idea of how to make one work, which explicitly takes Wizards out of the equation. You're just actively advocating for Wizards to have it, which is very much not the same.

refusing to change, bargan or compromise is not a virtue either. Not wanting to ever have facts or thoughts that oppose you be spoken is not a virtue...

I didn't claim that as a virtue, and while I have heard your "facts" I (like many) are thoroughly unconvinced by your reasoning, which largely relies on the ability to "fight later". This argument, especially coming from someone who barely fought at all, is very unconvincing.

and YOUR argument is undercut by not respecting that people actually grow and learn and change.

It's not, because no one really buys what you are saying as reflective of what I'm trying to get across. It's just a very weak effort to try and paint yourself as reasonable because you can't defend your point, and it's just not a good defense on its own because it assumes changing one's mind as an inherent virtue rather than based on the details of how and why it happened.

that doesn't get you much though

I wasn't trying to get much, to be honest. In fact, I could have stood getting less.

What I said was WHAT YOU CALL CRUMBS... not I am only here for crumes... I am here for Morality clause, no royalties (or if there must be MUCH better ones)

Already compromising yet again. You wonder why we don't take your call of "fight in the future" as a serious argument and it's because you are folding to a stiff breeze on royalties in your own arguments. :oops:

and releasing enough to allow PF LU and BF to continue on.

That is not actually assured, especially given what Wizards seems to think is its IP.

stopping progress because something bad MIGHT happen in the future is a bad argument. Assuming that the Higher Ups are more motivated by 'winning the argument through tricks' then making money is foolish at best.

This is a very bad argument, especially for a company that has recently been attempting to breach contracts and also strong-arm small publishers via NDA and the OGL 1.1. I assume bad things will happen because Wizards has repeatedly been doing bad things, up to and including the last week. I'd be a moron to disregard their current actions when giving them more power, let alone something that could annihilate the 3PP market.

I put that whole 2 honest and good people part in here becuase you have been trying to stear this from talking about the morality clause to putting ME personally in the questions

I actually didn't put you in the questions, you've just made a whole show and argument about the virtues of you personally changing your mind. It's why I said you can be a good and honest person with a terrible position.

there is no counter argument... you just keep telling me I am wrong.

We keep explaining to you in detail, but you keep coming back with stuff like "Don't just assume the company that has acted in bad faith recently will use this clause to act in bad faith!" It's not a good look, tbh.

the fact that you have made it clear nothing will change your mind is a problem. It doesn't matter if I made the Ultimate Argument of Logic, had all the figures and all the facts showing you that you were wrong... You don't WANT to be shown another way.

Oh, I can change my mind, it just really requires a lot in this case. When someone shows themselves as a dishonest liar it just really takes a lot to regain the lost trust... if it can be regain at all. Wizards has broken that trust thoroughly and I have not seen any action that shows contrition or remorse for what they have done. Rather, I see them continuing on their path.

I guess we will see when the survey results come out

We will! I expect not to be surprised.
 

Autumnal

Bruce Baugh, Writer of Fortune
I didn't hear about this before... I will add it to Eat the Rich and Book of errotic fantasy in things I think Wotc got wrong
Note that under OGL 1.1/2.0/1.2/(pi/2)/etc, Wizards claims the power to immediately terminate the licensing of anything like that gay vampires module, without appeal or recourse. And since they claim the right to act based on creators’ conduct as well as what they put in their game books, he could also get in trouble for complaining about it on Twitter. Since there’s no boundary in space or time on that clause, Wizards could nuke some or also of what he publishes in the future for having complained in the past about the treatment of this one.

And people who’ve already acted in bad faith shouldn’t get any presumption of good will without a lot of hard work on repairing their reputation. That’s not what WotC is doing any of.
 


you keep posting, so people keep posting.
I mean 90% of myposts aree responses to people quoiting or @ing me
I mean, no one cares that you changed your mind on something when you still have bad opinions on the issues that matters. Again, not an inherent virtue.
yes being willing to change with new facts is in and of it self a virtue... in fact it may be the most important part of discussions. Being 100% sure nothing can ever change your mind is NOT a virtue
Did you turn on Wizards?
the last week when I have spoken out against them and have been pimping other non D&D non OGL system.... wheen I spent money to support 3pps
you were defending the morality clause early.
not defending actively liking, endorsing and pushing for.
Who cares about what you are complaining about when you are giving in on the most important things? Again, you don't get points simply for the act of complaining. You seem to have this idea that there are inherent values to certain actions when there aren't: everything is defined by the details.
yes that is true... if I were complaining about the paper weight... but compalaining about the content of the paper is not bad just because I don't agree with YOU
There's no fine-tuning a superlaser like that. Wizards has yet to change that and has explicitly argued for it. It's not going to give it up. Acting like it can be "fine-tuned" misses that it's unnecessary and simply dangerous to anyone who isn't part of Wizards.
its' not a super laser and this is a (+) thread... I note you ignore that over and over again
You talked about Eat the Rich at the time it happened?
within a week of it happenng, I don't think that I knew the day it did.
And if you did, you realize you are just giving Wizards a bigger mandate to do stuff like that without any sort of guardrail or limitation?
no I want us to be the guardrail and limitation... now it might not work, you may not care when it happens next.
Because that person was trying to create a theoretical idea of how to make one work, which explicitly takes Wizards out of the equation. You're just actively advocating for Wizards to have it, which is very much not the same.
this is a (+) thread
I didn't claim that as a virtue, and while I have heard your "facts" I (like many) are thoroughly unconvinced by your reasoning, which largely relies on the ability to "fight later". This argument, especially coming from someone who barely fought at all, is very unconvincing.
adress the argument not tthe poster
It's not, because no one really buys what you are saying as reflective of what I'm trying to get across.
more personal attacks
It's just a very weak effort to try and paint yourself as reasonable because you can't defend your point,
i try to defend my point, but when people disagree they seem to like to make it about me not the point
and it's just not a good defense on its own because it assumes changing one's mind as an inherent virtue
being willing to... not the act of doing it, being willing to admit that you may not be right on something and be willng to reevaluate.

take this simple test... is there ANY argument that you would except to change your mind? if the answer is no there is a problem.
rather than based on the details of how and why it happened.
the details are what gets me to change my mind
We will! I expect not to be surprised.
there it is... you can't believe it possible that you are wrong
 

Note that under OGL 1.1/2.0/1.2/(pi/2)/etc, Wizards claims the power to immediately terminate the licensing of anything like that gay vampires module, without appeal or recourse.
again this (along with others) has convinced me to aske them to add an appeal process.
And since they claim the right to act based on creators’ conduct as well as what they put in their game books, he could also get in trouble for complaining about it on Twitter. Since there’s no boundary in space or time on that clause, Wizards could nuke some or also of what he publishes in the future for having complained in the past about the treatment of this one.
a 'timely' clause would make sense to me, but I doubt that will work I watch people get actors fired for things 10 years ago... but I am willing to try.
And people who’ve already acted in bad faith shouldn’t get any presumption of good will without a lot of hard work on repairing their reputation. That’s not what WotC is doing any of.
i don't trust WotC to 'do the right thing' I hope to trust us to call them out if they don't though
 


I mean 90% of myposts aree responses to people quoiting or @ing me

Because you are the one putting out opinions people don't agree with. Almost like a lot of people don't agree with you.

yes being willing to change with new facts is in and of it self a virtue... in fact it may be the most important part of discussions. Being 100% sure nothing can ever change your mind is NOT a virtue

You keep removing the word "inherent", so at this point I'm just going to assume the whole "I can change my mind!" thing isn't an honestly held belief, but now is just a cover for your opinions. Otherwise you wouldn't be actively and continually changing my words.

the last week when I have spoken out against them and have been pimping other non D&D non OGL system.... wheen I spent money to support 3pps

Dude, you spent the last week defending the morality clause and basically gave up on OGL 1.0a instantly. Try all you like, but you're stuck with your actions. If you don't like that they are being put back in your face, then maybe you should reconsider them.

not defending actively liking, endorsing and pushing for.

oh-my-god-he-admit-it-tim-robinson.gif


I hate telling you this, but defending this stuff is basically the most telling of the bunch. The little stuff you were against really does nothing and even in your own post you already started waffling on the stuff

yes that is true... if I were complaining about the paper weight... but compalaining about the content of the paper is not bad just because I don't agree with YOU

But you are. You are simply talking about that you changed, and not what you changed from and how you did. You are literally doing what you are trying to say you aren't.

its' not a super laser and this is a (+) thread... I note you ignore that over and over again

It's a + thread for the idea they put forward, not your wholehearted acceptance of it.

within a week of it happenng, I don't think that I knew the day it did.

You got proof of that, or am I to take the word of someone who modifies my own to suit his argument?

no I want us to be the guardrail and limitation... now it might not work, you may not care when it happens next.

There's no guardrail or limitation coming, and people like you are just enabling this sort of terrible behavior.

this is a (+) thread

The idea of the + was to try and make it acceptable, not just tout it wholeheartedly. You aren't trying to modify it, you've proposed no limitations, and have continually defended the thing as-is.

adress the argument not tthe poster

Actually, that very much is addressing the argument. Certain arguments rely on the arguer, and when you say "We can do ______!", your previous actions are very important to buoy that idea. When you say "We can fight again!", you can't be the guy who didn't go a full week before giving in to what Wizards wanted.

The argument defeats itself because you are an example against it.

more personal attacks

That is actually not a personal attack. Saying "people don't believe you" is not a personal attack, it is an observation of what other people seem to think of what you are saying.

i try to defend my point, but when people disagree they seem to like to make it about me not the point

Have of your posts have been talking about your ability to change your mind. That's not defending your point, that's just a smokescreen to try and make you seem more reasonable. Your points have not changed, they've been addressed, you're just trying to play this weird respectability game at this point.

being willing to... not the act of doing it, being willing to admit that you may not be right on something and be willng to reevaluate.

And yet you miss the importance of the word "inherent" everytime I point it out.

take this simple test... is there ANY argument that you would except to change your mind? if the answer is no there is a problem.

There are plenty! I literally switched systems and talked about it on this board. I change my mind all the time.

But I'm not changing my mind on these because it's pretty clear that the right thing is to not trust a company completely acting in bad faith, and that the best thing to do is to try and limit their power because of said actions. Your arguments are incredibly weak in that regard, and it's why so many people disagree with you.

the details are what gets me to change my mind

The whole "I can change my mind" thing is entirely meaningless here because it's you defending some personal honor thing that no one cares about except you, and you're trying to substitute it as an argument because your current one is just not working.

there it is... you can't believe it possible that you are wrong

I like the idea of saying I "expect" something means that I think I can't be wrong. That's an incredibly new definition for that word. :LOL:
 

a 'timely' clause would make sense to me, but I doubt that will work I watch people get actors fired for things 10 years ago... but I am willing to try.
They shouldn't have a morality clause on individual actions/beliefs period. Especially as it's one way - are WotC going to pull their own books if their guys get up to no good?

Obviously not. And WotC have, in fact, hired people who turned out to have some uhhhh not great beliefs at a later date. I don't want to derail but one of the main 3E designers decided to venture into real-world "race-science" a few years ago, and did WotC pull his books from DM's Guild? No. Of course not.

I mean, imagine this scenario - WotC hires a new designer for 1D&D next year (not unprecedented). That person seems like a superstar, puts out a bunch of 1D&D books, has his name all over stuff. Then in say, 2028, he's found to be a truly terrible person, maybe an actual criminal. Will WotC pull 1D&D? No. Will WotC edit 1D&D? Only to delete his name from the books, and maybe not even that.

So that clause just needs to go away if they really want this to be an "open" licence. Stop BOOKS that are against the rules, sure, but trying to play silly games about individuals? Nah. You need a closed licence if you want to play those kind of games. An actual contract.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top