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

[MGibster]

I thinkntheybneed to tie it to a strong existing standard (EU regulations seem plausible?), so that WotC doesn't have to make a subjective call, with an option for arbitration. Otherwise doing business under the OGL seems dicey.

When Numenera was released, there were some complains regarding the Nibovian Wife, a biological construct whose sole function is to seduce men, get pregnant, and give bith to some abomination. Is this an example of misogyny that shouldnt' see the light of day in an OGL product? Are attribute score increases linked to race/lineage an example of biological essentialism or racism? Is a succubus/incubus in a fantasy game okay? These are all rhetorical questions, I don't expect that to be hashed out in this thread, I only want to illustrate that there might be varied opinions on these topics. It's not cut and dried because there are no objective standards here. We can all point to cases we can almost universally agree on, but there's a lot of edge cases out there that aren't so cut and dried.

 

[Azzy]

I'm on board with this.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I was thinking how the morality clause could be made acceptable.

1) Have a third party like the antidefamation league make the call, with the publisher/creator bring given a chance to make their case.

2) Have it apply to works( not creators), and only to the extent of the actual hateful content. Content deemed hateful can be removed from the work to make it acceptable. Parts not being deemed hateful can still be salvaged

Edit: and lets make this a plus thread. I don't like that clause anymore than you. But for the argument's sake...

At a dead minimum the determination needs to be made by a third party, not by WotC (not the ADL lol, they're okay but they have moments where they flip out and decide to be the Israeli government's propaganda wing - then return to normal. It's very disconcerting lol. But someone like the SPLC maybe.)

This is an absolute requirement because WotC have form here - they classed something that was "anti-capitalist" as "hateful" on DM's Guild and force the creators to change the language to like "anti-imperialist" or something, which is deeply messed up.

Secondly, they need to have some kind of transparent right of appeal, with minute'd sessions and findings and so on (tiny charities manage this, note, before anyone tries to claim that's impossible or something). Arbitration would probably be good as default, and I don't think they should be able to rule out legal action so casually.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When Numenera was released, there were some complains regarding the Nibovian Wife, a biological construct whose sole function is to seduce men, get pregnant, and give bith to some abomination. Is this an example of misogyny that shouldnt' see the light of day in an OGL product? Are attribute score increases linked to race/lineage an example of biological essentialism or racism? Is a succubus/incubus in a fantasy game okay? These are all rhetorical questions, I don't expect that to be hashed out in this thread, I only want to illustrate that there might be varied opinions on these topics. It's not cut and dried because there are no objective standards here. We can all point to cases we can almost universally agree on, but there's a lot of edge cases out there that aren't so cut and dried.

WotC will make subjective calls, and it will make them wrong, in both directions. It's already made them wrong in both directions, c.f. racist monkey-people and "being against capitalism is a hate crime".

So there needs to be a way to appeal, and it needs to be transparent, and really it needs to be third party.

 

[MoonSong]

WotC will make subjective calls, and it will make them wrong, in both directions. It's already made them wrong in both directions, c.f. racist monkey-people and "being against capitalism is a hate crime".

So there needs to be a way to appeal, and it needs to be transparent, and really it needs to be third party.

And it needs to be limited to a work, not to the creator.

 

[ECMO3]

I was thinking how the morality clause could be made acceptable.

1) Have a third party like the antidefamation league make the call, with the publisher/creator bring given a chance to make their case.

2) Have it apply to works( not creators), and only to the extent of the actual hateful content. Content deemed hateful can be removed from the work to make it acceptable. Parts not being deemed hateful can still be salvaged

Edit: and lets make this a plus thread. I don't like that clause anymore than you. But for the argument's sake...

I would be against a 3rd party and WOTC is one of the last organizations that should do this.

The fact that they published Volos Guide to Monsters and Spelljammer show factually that they are not positioned to effectively police content for offensive material. In addition to those factual examples, there are also many unproven allegations of mistreatment of creators of color and non-cis creators that work for them.

If they are really serious about stomping out hate join the OCR and let a panel decide and based on past history WOTC should not be permitted to be a voting member on that panel.

 

[Gradine]

I think a 3rd party arbitrator isn't a terrible idea, although if the actionable clause is "against WotC's values" then I'm not sure who would be a better judge of that than WotC.

Objective standards are fine on paper, but they are always going to be too soft for some, too hard for others, and fail to account for everything. Not to mention inviting loopholes and tip-toeing of lines on sheer principle. In practice, such standards are dicey at best, and horrifically arbitrary at worst (lookin' at you, MPAA).

That's the thing I think most people are missing about this. These are Wizards' toys. And their "morality clause" is really about their values. It's not about whether a work measures up to any objective or subjective measure of "appropriate" or "inoffensive". It's about whether the work (or the primary activities of the person behind it) promoting, existing alongside neutrally, or actively working against said values. If it's their values, why shouldn't they be the judge of who measures up?

I think there's a tendency to view this as analogous to the Hayes Code, but that's absolutely the wrong analogy. The actual analogy is a politician you hate playing your song at their rallies.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I like the OP's consideration. It keeps the clause from being used as an arbitrary cudgel while making sure it is enforced in the way it was presented to us.

The only issue would be finding a general human rights group with the bandwidth to do this. Sadly, most major groups are focused on specific disenfranchised groups, not just a blanket group.

 

[Parmandur]

I think a 3rd party arbitrator isn't a terrible idea, although if the actionable clause is "against WotC's values" then I'm not sure who would be a better judge of that than WotC.

Objective standards are fine on paper, but they are always going to be too soft for some, too hard for others, and fail to account for everything. Not to mention inviting loopholes and tip-toeing of lines on sheer principle. In practice, such standards are dicey at best, and horrifically arbitrary at worst (lookin' at you, MPAA).

That's the thing I think most people are missing about this. These are Wizards' toys. And their "morality clause" is really about their values. It's not about whether a work measures up to any objective or subjective measure of "appropriate" or "inoffensive". It's about whether the work (or the primary activities of the person behind it) promoting, existing alongside neutrally, or actively working against said values. If it's their values, why shouldn't they be the judge of who measures up?

I think there's a tendency to view this as analogous to the Hayes Code, but that's absolutely the wrong analogy. The actual analogy is a politician you hate playing your song at their rallies.

The Hayes code was also voluntary and multipolar: Universal couldn't use it to strong-arm Fox, say.

I have no problem with a morality or taste clause: but it needs to be more concrete if done.

 

[Langy]

That's the thing I think most people are missing about this. These are Wizards' toys. And their "morality clause" is really about their values. It's not about whether a work measures up to any objective or subjective measure of "appropriate" or "inoffensive". It's about whether the work (or the primary activities of the person behind it) promoting, existing alongside neutrally, or actively working against said values. If it's their values, why shouldn't they be the judge of who measures up?

That's why I'm fine with WOTC making the initial decision, but as-is the morality clause means WOTC can terminate any license for any reason at any time. Just because they put that bit under a heading labeled 'Hateful content' doesn't mean it's restricted to being about WOTC's values or hateful content or anything like that - it gives WOTC ultimate veto control over anything published under the license.

Under the morality clause as-is the OGL v1.2 effectively gives the licensees no rights whatsoever.