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

except what you are calling a death star is a phaser bank on the Enterprise E. It is powerful and scary, and can be MISSUSED to blow up a planet. It can also save mutliplanets by defending them, or stopping asteroids, or being adjusted with the gleep gloop to stop the wormhole.

I respecet that if they build this tool YOU and others may choose to say "too far"
If they build this tool do you respect that I (and at least some) will say "as long as you aren't blowing up planets it's Okay"

if you are okay with the above are you okay if they use that tool to blow up a rogue planet that is going to throw off gravity in a neighboring inhabited planet, and we say "We told you not to blow up planets... but that was a bad one so okay" will you respect our choice then too?

If after all that they do turn around and blow up alderan (or even just threaten too) and we say "Knock it off, we are leaving we warned you" and they try some feeble excuses "They had stat mods on race instead of background" or some such... I am sure SOME will stay... some will walk. Will you welcome those that walk or mock them for taking longer then you?
I think your position is very clear. You prioritize giving WotC the power to prevent people who create harmful content from using the SRD and D&D material over over maintaining the current open gaming norms, and you trust WotC to determine what constitutes harmful content.

Your argument is generally unsympathetic for two reasons. One, almost no else shares your prioritization, because they don't see a problem in the current status quo with harmful content that needs to be addressed and because they viewed the existing OGL as a particularly important good. Two, because a willingness to violate the existing norms by attacking the OGL means that basically no one else here trusts WotC at all, they find the second portion of your position uncreditable.

I honestly can't imagine an argument that will make anyone else agree with your first priority, and I don't see how anyone who doesn't share that particular frame could possibly agree with the second part.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

HomegrownHydra

Adventurer
not exactly how I would put it but close enough... if us complaining if they do something bad with this "death star" tool wont do anything then complaining now that they should make the tool is moot.

the tool is supposed to be used to stop bad people from getting a foot hold. It can in theory be turned on good people and force them out.

If someone believes that today we can complain to make them not build the tool then I don't see why it would matter now but not then.
It is far easier to destroy the Death Star while it is being built than after it is finished and fully operational. Furthermore, you seem to accept that the motivation for this new license is to prevent people from publishing hate speech. But their original attempt at this license went far beyond limiting hate speech and included requiring people to report their revenues as well as outrageous royalties that would be crippling. Worst of all, they had a clause that granted them the right to change or cancel the license at will! Such a clause would allow WotC to destroy any business at anytime and there is absolutely no legitimate reason for that clause. They revealed that their intentions are not good and so no one should be trusting them that they are really looking to just prevent hate speech. It's not like nuking the OGL will prevent anyone from publishing hate speech, that could be done before the OGL appeared and could be done if the OGL is destroyed. The OGL did not create a flood of hate speech in RPG's. This is almost entirely about WotC trying to get control over all of the 3pp's in order to further monetize the game.

The argument you are using is like saying the Rebellion should have let the Empire build the second Death Star because maybe it would be used for good despite them having already seen what the Empire's intentions were since the first Death Star had already been used for evil.

again, I am presenting that I am happish right now (although I do have a list of my own complaints I am going to be writing in... in fact instead of playing D&D tonight we as a group worked on our answers so we can fill out that survey.)
I totally get that you are happy with the proposed license, I'm pointing out that the reasoning you are using to try to convince others to give up the fight makes no sense. Surrendering now with the intention of fighting later is irrational because it would make clear to WotC that we are a bunch of pushovers who can be counted on to eventually surrender. Besides, if we surrender now it won't matter if we manage to win future fights because we will have already lost the war. By giving up the OGL the community will be far worse off even if WotC doesn't completely abuse their powers under the new license since we will already have lost so many rights we used to have.
 


This entire tangent is meaningless and I just have no interest in engaging with it. It is just not addressing anything we are talkinga bout.
okay
I'll point out that Britain changed leadership because of this, but it's an accurate comparison: taking a liar at their word and giving up because it's not you getting hurt.
I just have no interest in engaging with this as I told you I will not compare this game and it's issues with license's to the atrocities of any war let alone that one.
We all agreed to stand up now and we largely have agreed to continue standing up, and yet here you and others are, telling us that we should just accept this (a terrible deal) and make sure to fight hard if they do it again..
this is partially true. My thoughts right now are to hammer out a compromise and then stand down BUT keep our guard up. I respect if you wish to fight for more, but so far nothing has convinced me to make that big of a leap.
again I have changed my view before, and may again, but right now I am presenting as they are now.
You have no cache to make such a proposal.
I have the same standing you do. We both are people on enworld talking about how far we wish to push this.
You are the one who is giving up first. Why would I trust your ability to actually step up and push back when you have immediately given up and are actively defending perhaps the worst aspect of the whole deal? Your words here have little weight because they don't reflect your current actions. Talking about how "we" can do this again misses that you aren't part of the we, you are the one who is actively trying to deal when many of us are standing firm.
I HAVE been part of the WE all week. I (and others) are just drawing our lines somewhere different then you... and we are seeing where Wotc landed and saying "close... maybe a few more steps"
And this is a good reason as to why people really don't take your whole "We can stop them if this happens again": you've changed your position multiple times.
wait... keeping an open mind, taking in new facts and arguments and evaluating them to adjust your stance is bad?
When did that happen?
You are far from teh first to say so, but I do wonder, does that mean no matter what facts or arguments are made you will NEVER change your opinion? You NEVER leave open the possibility you may be wrong?
And I think, having read most of the conversations on here and elsewhere, that you'd probably be very wrong. We might have some different lines, but I think there would be some that are pretty common.
  • No touching 1.0a unless it is to make it completely irrevocable
  • No morality clause that allows them to unilaterally destroy someone's content
  • A redoing of their VTT policy to not be harmful to other VTTs in the business.
I think you are mistaking what you are saying for what EVERYONE is saying. I see several people care about 1 or 2 of those and not all of them and I have seen people that care about NON of them. I have also seen people that say all of that isn't enough.
Outside of yourself and a few others, these seem to be pretty popular and universal lines.
then it shouldn't matter what I say or do... like the BoEf and EtR if I am in the minority, then no matter what I do or say my way one come to be.
They just aren't your lines. I would recognize the reality of the situation if I were you and realize that your position is the minority/fringe one, and that the vast majority seem to have a pretty consistent goal.
becareful assuming you are the majority (something I have repeatedly said I don't know if I am)
Yeah, and that's why people don't want to listen to you. You're not consistent, you change your mind all the time. Saying that "Oh, we'll stand up next time!" is not reassuring when it's the guy who has changed his opinions multiple times and landed on "I, for one, welcome our new OGL 1.2 overlords!"
I weep at the thought that the majority (as you claim) dislike hearing someone who is willing to listen and change based on new evidence and arguments...
I mean, when you flipflop on things that is a risk you take. It really depends on what and how you change your mind. I would say that the way you have done it, you have limited how many people take your opinion seriously. That's the nicest way I can put it.
1 that isn't even CLOSE to the nicest way you can put it... but hey you want to be rude I get it, your angry and 100% sure you are right and nothing can change your mind... a dangerous combination

2 what part of "how" I changed my mind? Was it when I took everything the lawayer said and modified my thoughts on the legalities, was it when I ran the % numbers myself and showed that the royalties could sink people. Was it when I pushed to have the MOST effect on D&D WotC and Hsbro by pushing other systems? Was it when I bought 2 starter boxes for a game I don't play don't plan on playing and don't even really like to donate to a school and a library to support the company and the people in it even if I speak out against that company (Piazo for the record)
Maybe it was when I wrote suggestions to 3pp and how I would handle it form a $$ point of view, and when they went another way i said "Okay, not what I would do but good on you for standing for what you believe in"?
Maybe it was when I was reminded that the statement about them doing stuff was helping them sell more (including me who bought and donated things) that I punted out even on there side they were still infact trying to make money...
Maybe it was when I said no one had brought a real example of the harm that could be done with 'orphan content' and I was proven wrong twice and admited I was wrong and added those examples to what I will give for feed back?

No I think it is just when I said "Okay, I fought for the thinks I care about and it looks like they mostly listened, now I want to drill down on making this new license better instead of fighting for the old one"
that feel like your general answer to be honest...
That is incredibly sad. I don't even know how you admit to that. :oops:
pretty simply... we all have our own goals and our own lines in the sand.
This entire hypothetical is unnecessarily complex because we can literally just refer to the reality we are in and the situation currently at hand.
I have tried... but as you said, you see no upside to listening to other's thoughts and facts and rethinking your positions... so I understand why you don't like it.
We keep doing this and you keep getting into long, weird tangents instead of actually addressing what we are talking about.
I am trying to show you that it is possible for 2 good honest people to see this differently
The long and short is this: we are standing up because the deal right now is no deal, and that anything we currently gain (which is very little) can simply be taken away.
i disagree
But more seriously, this is exactly it. We haven't won anything. WotC is still trying to play games and thankfully it looks like vast majority of the community is not falling for it. We need to continue on, comment and engage, but be aware that Wizbro will almost certainly try to hard-sell 1.2 after the "playtest".
I again must remind myself you see no virtue in rethinking from others points of view, and you have to assume you are not only 100% correct but that nothing can change that...
 


No, I don't. You keep saying hate speech but this isn't just about hate speech and you know it. Lumping everything together might be convenient for you, but it's confusing for everyone else.
how do you feel about the above suggested "Harmful Content and Conduct"? do you have something better to workshop for it?
 

Scribe

Legend
But more seriously, this is exactly it. We haven't won anything. WotC is still trying to play games and thankfully it looks like vast majority of the community is not falling for it. We need to continue on, comment and engage, but be aware that Wizbro will almost certainly try to hard-sell 1.2 after the "playtest".

All that matters is the 1.0 OGL. Wizards knows it, and so does most of the community. Thats it, thats all.
 

Okay, so we use the whole idea of the "Death Star" as an easy-to-understand metaphor for what the morality clause can do, as well as commenting on Wizbro's status as a bad and dangerous actor.. Doing massive, extended metaphors about it outside of the actual reality of the situation bad for a lot of reasons:
  • They confuse the issue for a hypothetical fictional one
  • They are generally meaningless and useless when you expand them out in a broad, complicated fashion
  • Yours seem to have a habit of missing critical points: for example, Death Stars can also be used for good. The point being made when used is not only that they can destroy, but that Wizards itself is a bad actor and can't be trusted with this power.
So please, just address the reality instead of trying to go off on extended tangents. It is not helping discussion.
it is a tool. One that CAN be misused or used to help. It isn't a deathstar, it is a hammer... hammers are not ALWAYS the right tool for every job, and they CAN be used as weapons... but if you are about to build a house a hammer is a good tool to have.
Then get off and stop talking about it. No one is making you stay on.
So you DON'T want me to find the best answer, you DON'T want me to learn from you and maybe be convinced by you... you only want me to 'shut up' is that right?
 

I think your position is very clear. You prioritize giving WotC the power to prevent people who create harmful content from using the SRD and D&D material over over maintaining the current open gaming norms, and you trust WotC to determine what constitutes harmful content.
not a perfect reading, but close enough for government work... so yeah more or less.
Your argument is generally unsympathetic for two reasons. One, almost no else shares your prioritization, because they don't see a problem in the current status quo with harmful content that needs to be addressed and because they viewed the existing OGL as a particularly important good. Two, because a willingness to violate the existing norms by attacking the OGL means that basically no one else here trusts WotC at all, they find the second portion of your position uncreditable.
okay, you don't agree with me. That's cool. A lot of people disagree with each other.
I honestly can't imagine an argument that will make anyone else agree with your first priority, and I don't see how anyone who doesn't share that particular frame could possibly agree with the second part.
I don't expect to change your mind. I simple wish to have both your and my thoughts equally put forward and debated.
 

I totally get that you are happy with the proposed license, I'm pointing out that the reasoning you are using to try to convince others to give up the fight makes no sense.
this is where you (and others) are approching this wrong. I am not on at 330am my time trying to convince everyone I am right.
I AM on here debating and learning to make sure that when I make my survey on monday I am doing so with my own thoughts fully ready (and the others I am helping... none of who are on enworld and some of them have no one but our group to talk to).
By giving up the OGL the community will be far worse off even if WotC doesn't completely abuse their powers under the new license since we will already have lost so many rights we used to have.
If ORC wasn't a thing, if Black Flag wasn't a thing and if morrus himself wasn;t looking into retooling level up to be OGL free, I would agree we would be better off.
Where I am sitting making sure Black FLag, PF2, and LU can continue with what is put in the comons, putting restrictions on for 'harmful conduct and content' and making sure there are not royalties are my concerns.
If D&D takes a hit and is only the #1 game by feet instead of miles, or even if it fell to the #2 game for hardcore gamers... I would be fine with this.
 


I don't expect to change your mind. I simple wish to have both your and my thoughts equally put forward and debated.
Your thoughts are not equal, you're one of perhaps three regular posters who hold them, relative to a larger majority position. Your position is perfectly clear, and at this point clearly immutable as far as you're concerned, so the only reason to continue talking about it is to forward an argument you think will persuade people to adapt the same stance (or to take/not take some action).

I'm definitely not open to such persuasion, but I'm putting forward the argument that your position is so idiosyncratic, that I think practically no one is.
 

Ashtagon

Adventurer
Something to note about that morality clause.

"Obscene" isn't the only threshold. "Harmful" and "illegal" is in there too. That means content that models breaking and entry, murder, and theft can be banned. Many US prisons have in the past banned, or tried to ban, D&D, for exactly this reason.

The core concept of "bash down the door, kill the orc, take his treasure" is an example of modelling such criminal behaviour. Which means that under this "OGL", D&D itself would have to be banned.
 

Scribe

Legend
except not all of us find 1.0 OGL to be the target WE are shooting for. I would not mind if you won, I am in no way fighting against it right now... but I also see so many things better today then last week

Thats because you are falling for the smoke, which is fine, its what they want.

The only thing they (Wizards) cares about are.

1. The 1.0 OGL which contains the golden goose.
2. Killing any 'VTT/Video Game' 5e, before its born.

Thats it man, thats all of it.
 

Thats because you are falling for the smoke, which is fine, its what they want.

The only thing they (Wizards) cares about are.

1. The 1.0 OGL which contains the golden goose.
2. Killing any 'VTT/Video Game' 5e, before its born.

Thats it man, thats all of it.
if they came out and said "hey we just want" and in slightly more elegant terms listed what you just did... I'm not sure I would be against them... at least not if they gave what they have. To be honest my BIGGEST issues was the royalties and the putting companies out (and it looks like ORC will replace OGL1.0 and keep most if not all of those companies going... they have like 1500, and I thought there were less then 200)
 

Scribe

Legend
if they came out and said "hey we just want" and in slightly more elegant terms listed what you just did... I'm not sure I would be against them... at least not if they gave what they have. To be honest my BIGGEST issues was the royalties and the putting companies out (and it looks like ORC will replace OGL1.0 and keep most if not all of those companies going... they have like 1500, and I thought there were less then 200)

Man I know you would be fine. You've said as much several times.

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'.

They are not. They are doing (or trying to do) something 1000% dishonest, and you are actually aiding them in doing this.
 

Your thoughts are not equal, you're one of perhaps three regular posters who hold them, relative to a larger majority position.
thank you for ruling on what is and is not an equal opionion... I guess that is better then people arguing that I am lying at least.
Your position is perfectly clear, and at this point clearly immutable as far as you're concerned, so the only reason to continue talking about it is to forward an argument you think will persuade people to adapt the same stance (or to take/not take some action).
except as I have shown it is not in fact immutable... I have taken arguments against what I am saying, thought about them and changed my positons... so I would think that is the opposite of immutable... although I do have a joke about you wishing I was muted right now ;)
I'm definitely not open to such persuasion, but I'm putting forward the argument that your position is so idiosyncratic, that I think practically no one is.
so you think that my thoughts are so out there, no one could possible have them like me, and me trying to discuss this will not only not help me but wont help anyone else either? Is that correct?
 

Something to note about that morality clause.

"Obscene" isn't the only threshold. "Harmful" and "illegal" is in there too. That means content that models breaking and entry, murder, and theft can be banned. Many US prisons have in the past banned, or tried to ban, D&D, for exactly this reason.

The core concept of "bash down the door, kill the orc, take his treasure" is an example of modelling such criminal behaviour. Which means that under this "OGL", D&D itself would have to be banned.
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...
 

I just have no interest in engaging with this as I told you I will not compare this game and it's issues with license's to the atrocities of any war let alone that one.

I don't believe I compared it to a war, I compared it to a diplomatic settlement where someone declared victory after giving up the rights of someone else.

this is partially true. My thoughts right now are to hammer out a compromise and then stand down BUT keep our guard up. I respect if you wish to fight for more, but so far nothing has convinced me to make that big of a leap.
again I have changed my view before, and may again, but right now I am presenting as they are now.

This is a very dumb plan. Standing down almost immediately on a terrible compromise is basically why no one is taking you seriously.

I have the same standing you do. We both are people on enworld talking about how far we wish to push this.

But you don't because you've lost all credibility on the matter. That's the point being made.

I HAVE been part of the WE all week. I (and others) are just drawing our lines somewhere different then you... and we are seeing where Wotc landed and saying "close... maybe a few more steps"

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.

wait... keeping an open mind, taking in new facts and arguments and evaluating them to adjust your stance is bad?
When did that happen?
You are far from teh first to say so, but I do wonder, does that mean no matter what facts or arguments are made you will NEVER change your opinion? You NEVER leave open the possibility you may be wrong?

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.

I think you are mistaking what you are saying for what EVERYONE is saying. I see several people care about 1 or 2 of those and not all of them and I have seen people that care about NON of them. I have also seen people that say all of that isn't enough.

No, I'm pretty confident. Try taking your talk elsewhere and see how welcomed it is. 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?

then it shouldn't matter what I say or do... like the BoEf and EtR if I am in the minority, then no matter what I do or say my way one come to be.

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.

becareful assuming you are the majority (something I have repeatedly said I don't know if I am)

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.

I weep at the thought that the majority (as you claim) dislike hearing someone who is willing to listen and change based on new evidence and arguments...

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.

1 that isn't even CLOSE to the nicest way you can put it...
snip

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.

that feel like your general answer to be honest...

Sometimes you must be blunt.

pretty simply... we all have our own goals and our own lines in the sand.

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.

I have tried... but as you said, you see no upside to listening to other's thoughts and facts and rethinking your positions... so I understand why you don't like it.

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.

I am trying to show you that it is possible for 2 good honest people to see this differently

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 disagree

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.

I again must remind myself you see no virtue in rethinking from others points of view, and you have to assume you are not only 100% correct but that nothing can change that...

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.

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.
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top