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

[Snarf Zagyg]

Answer me this are you ok with a creator having their license revoked for having an Only Fans? Under the proposed 1.2 WotC can. There are many people who consider Only fans content offensive and just as many who have no issue with it. This is one of the problems with a morality clause different people find different things offensive.

"The big bad racist" WotC is selling you as the reason for the clause is nothing more than a smoke screen.

Answer me this- how are they going to do this? BE SPECIFIC.

You are trying to say that this would be under the warranties - paragraph 6(e) and (f). You didn't read those sections, did you?

Read the sections, and then, being quite specific, explain to me how those warranty sections would apply to your parade of horribles.

 

[Umbran]

You have a point here. Still as written the clause is way too broad and open to abuse.

I agree. Hasbro's approach to this does not demonstrate the ethical strength to justify such one-sided power in the relationship. And, even if we did somehow trust them now... this whole debacle shows that times and corporate leadership change. Justifying such one-sided power for all time would need extraordinary arguments.

Like, even Clark Kent gets exposed to the wrong kind of Kryptonite from time to time, and turns into a colossal jerk. And they ain't no good-hearted Kent farmboy.

 

[raniE]

It's not about another Satanic Panic. I was just explaining that it wasn't correct that this hasn't happened.

I've already been through this. It's about whether D&D wants to allow people to have unfettered ability to use its brand in ways that might be offensive.

That's something that is unheard of for most brands. And that's what they consider it now- a brand. You might not like that, and you might disagree with that, but it's not like they are being irrational. Or if you think they are, why don't you petition Disney to put Marvel's properties under an open license?

And you were wrong then too. Because the OGL doesn’t allow you to use any brand identity. You can’t put “Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover, you can’t use their imagery etc. So no, you are entirely incorrect. There was no ability to use their brand, that’s why no product released under the OGL has blown back on Hasbro, that’s why no product released under the OGL can blow back on Hasbro.

 

[Alzrius]

Answer me this- how are they going to do this? BE SPECIFIC.

It seems pretty straightforward, Snarf.

WotC sends notification (via the methods outlined in Section 9(a)) that they're invoking Section 7(b)(i) (specifically regarding the last clause, re: violations of Section 6(f)) to immediately terminate your license under the OGL v1.2. At that point, you can no longer create OGL v1.2 materials and (presumably) must pull all current products produced under the OGL v1.2 from distribution.

That's it. There's nothing about them having to inform you as to what you've done, or why they view it as a Section 6(f) violation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It seems pretty straightforward, Snarf.

WotC sends notification (via the methods outlined in Section 9(a)) that they're invoking Section 7(b)(i) (specifically regarding the last clause, re: violations of Section 6(f)) to immediately terminate your license under the OGL v1.2. At that point, you can no longer create OGL v1.2 materials and (presumably) must pull all current products produced under the OGL v1.2 from distribution.

That's it. There's nothing about them having to inform you as to what you've done, or why they view it as a Section 6(f) violation.

sigh

Really. Do I have to do this. I honestly am beginning to feel more stupid for participating in these threads given the misinformation flying around (OMG do you realize that there is governing law provision ... HABRO IS TRYING TO GOVERN US).

The example used was- What if a content creator also happens to have an OnlyFans page? WHAT THEN????

6(f) sopecifies that the material in question is in "Your Licensed Works ..." So ... IT CANNOT APPLY BY ITS VERY TERMS.

Good? Good. Can we at least keep the hysteria to things that are bad and can occur?

 

[Alzrius]

The example used was- What if a content creator also happens to have an OnlyFans page? WHAT THEN????

6(f) sopecifies that the material in question is in "Your Licensed Works ..." So ... IT CANNOT APPLY BY ITS VERY TERMS.

Snarf, Section 6(f) also cites conduct as well as content, as I noted in a previous post:

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

EDIT: Which is to say, they could very well decide that being registered on certain platforms (or groups within those platforms, potentially) constitutes conduct in violation of that section.

 

[MGibster]

I worry about how transparent any such organization would be, i.e. who's actually making the decisions.

The MPAA has a pool of individuals and they assign a certain number to review each movie. As far as I know, they won't tell the studio which MPAA employees reviewed their submitted film.

 

[tetrasodium]

sigh

Really. Do I have to do this. I honestly am beginning to feel more stupid for participating in these threads given the misinformation flying around (OMG do you realize that there is governing law provision ... HABRO IS TRYING TO GOVERN US).

The example used was- What if a content creator also happens to have an OnlyFans page? WHAT THEN????

6(f) sopecifies that the material in question is in "Your Licensed Works ..." So ... IT CANNOT APPLY BY ITS VERY TERMS.

Good? Good. Can we at least keep the hysteria to things that are bad and can occur?

It removes your ability to appeal. You could write a game about puppies & daisies that focuses on puppies picking daisiesfor their humans fit for /r/eyebleach. Wotc could yoink it because dogs are considered unclean in some parts of the world or because the puppies are owned by their humans... Not only that they don't even need to tell you the flimsy reason and you can't appeal anywhere or sue them over it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I like the clause fine because nuTSR really is a thing and what if we get another group like that but who know what they are doing? I think the only issue is having WotC in sole control. I would have any cases arbitrated by a three member panel of OGL stakeholders, only one of them from WotC, and one from a neutral third party.

that's the thing NuTSR is dumb... and doing the hate thing.
But there are smart people that can totally get away with it... Having that clause at least will make them second guess, and at most will be something we can bring to WotC attention to stop.

 

[Alzrius]

The MPAA has a pool of individuals and they assign a certain number to review each movie. As far as I know, they won't tell the studio which MPAA employees reviewed their submitted film.

Which is probably for the best. But I can see some people arguing for confirmation that someone representative of a group allegedly maligned by a particular product was one of the people arbitrating said product, and potentially not being satisfied if they're not told specifically who.