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

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, we fall back to the issue that we're just supposed to trust WotC to be honorable and to not use the killswitch arbitrarily.

no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...

Despite the fact that, by trying to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a (which WotC itself assured everyone that it was perpetual and irrevocable) WotC has proven to be entirely untrustworthy. That's a tall order.

I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.

Well, that escalated quickly.

okay i may have worded that badly

 

[GMforPowergamers]

At any point, you could get an email from WotC saying that your license to use the SRD is revoked for harmful conduct. And that's all there is to it.

and if you think that it was unfair come here, go to twitter, and make a tic tok... get the word out and we will all be BLASTING WotC and D&D for it. People will then cancle subs and WotC will have to go back or lose money.

Do you trust WotC to wield that power responsibly? I sure don't.

I trust Tyr to be Tyr

 

[Azzy]

no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money

By that time, though, it's too late—the damage is already done for whomever they went after. Yes, we can make angry noises, but they've already achieved what they wanted to.

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....

Assuming enough of us unite and there's enough backlash.

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...

I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.

I prefer something more solid to hold on to. If they persist on using a morality clause, I want guardrails—like dropping the nebulous, non-specific terms, using third-party arbitration, et al. I want these guardrails OSHA-approved.

okay i may have worded that badly

I'm glad you did, that gave me a chuckle.

 

[Justice and Rule]

for hate speech....

the ability to kill the company that uses hate speech's company at any given time.

Not just hate speech, but anything they deem harmful or offensive. You talk only about hate speech, but it encompasses so much more... in fact, anything since they get to define it how they like and you give up any legal recourse to dispute it.

Taking Wizards at their word that they are only going to use it for good when they were just trying to bully the industry into taking their plan is like thinking Hitler only wants the Sudetenland: farcical and inane on its face. We know who they are, and we've seen what they do. It's dumb to think otherwise.

and if you think that it was unfair come here, go to twitter, and make a tic tok... get the word out and we will all be BLASTING WotC and D&D for it. People will then cancle subs and WotC will have to go back or lose money.

Why would that work when people like you are already seeking to deal? At that point, they'll have what they want, and they'll know that giving table scraps will be enough for some people to forgive them. You can't go around saying how we beat them and we can do it again when the fight has barely begun.

The people who want to immediately compromise are the last people who should be making this argument, because they are the same people who are attempting to undo any sort of momentum this whole thing has.

I trust Tyr to be Tyr

And apologists will be apologists.

You say this, but you are seemingly ignorant of their previous outrages and contract battles. Wizards will be Wizards, and they will live and die by how many fight back and how many cower and deal. That's the long and short of it. If you accept crumbs now, you will accept crumbs later.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

By that time, though, it's too late—the damage is already done for whomever they went after. Yes, we can make angry noises, but they've already achieved what they wanted to.

yes and no... the threat of it, the very act of us being vigilant will keep them (in the short term form abusing it... and most likely IF at some future point they plan to abuse it they will have to find justification...

Assuming enough of us unite and there's enough backlash.

correct. I have thoughts and opinions that are not universally held by the community, no matter how much I huff and puff my minority can make little difference.
This last week has shown though, if they go nuke happy and weaponize this, we do have a footing to stand on, and there is a coalition of the willing.
Of course like any coalition we all have different red lines... you can see already some of us (like me) are ready to say "good enough" while many of you are not.

However I still am digging in and reading and open to having my mind changed (infact it has multi times in the last 7 days)

I prefer something more solid to hold on to. If they persist on using a morality clause, I want guardrails—

100% agree. I want more solid wording, and the write up me and the guys made tonight instead of gaming mentions there needs to be an appeal process for this.

like dropping the nebulous, non-specific terms, using third-party arbitration, et al. I want these guardrails OSHA-approved.

both of these sound great to me... (and unlike my buddy who works in safety I love osha)

I'm glad you did, that gave me a chuckle.

I'm glad that at least we can laugh togather even if we are not all eye to eye.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

Why let them have a nuke in the first place? If they insist on building a nuke, we do the only thing that can defuse it, which is go elsewhere.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Why let them have a nuke in the first place? If they insist on building a nuke, we do the only thing that can defuse it, which is go elsewhere.

But you see, they have to have a Death Star. How else will they be able to keep order in the galaxy? And I'm told they will only use it for good, so...

 

[HomegrownHydra]

no... we trust WotC (and any company) to want to make money MORE then they want to 'win' some imaginary points. To make money they need to keep the majority of us happy enough not to pull what we just did.

So yeah, they can decide next month that anyone publishing at piazo are 'the enemy' and shut them down with this... BUT then me and all the people who went back to WotC have to say "wait, did they just weaponize this... are we ready to raise a fuss again?" and if enough of us answer YES, they LOOS money

So it is in there best intrest to NOT do that....

I don't trust them to be "good" or to be "fair" I trust them to do what is in there own best interest, and to slowly do a bit of bad things they can get away with and hold back on things that will cause what this just did...

I only ask that you trust them to want to keep our business'.

okay i may have worded that badly

You are arguing that people should not complain about WotC trying to force everyone to agree to a license that puts major restrictions on the community without any meaningful benefit to the community. Instead you are saying that everyone should just roll over and accept the agreement with the rationale that if WotC abuses their powers people can just... complain.

But if people give in now then the lesson WotC will take from this is that if they hold their ground and give token scraps for appeasement eventually the complaints will go away and WotC will get what they want. So, no, telling people to be quiet now and only complain after the new license takes effect does not make sense.

 

[Justice and Rule]

You are arguing that people should not complain about WotC trying to force everyone to agree to a license that puts major restrictions on the community without any meaningful benefit to the community. Instead you are saying that everyone should just roll over and accept the agreement with the rationale that if WotC abuses their powers people can just... complain.

But if people give in now then the lesson WotC will take from this is that if they hold their ground and give token scraps for appeasement eventually the complaints will go away and WotC will get what they want. So, no, telling people to be quiet now and only complain after the new license takes effect does not make sense.

Ultimately the problem is that our ardent apologist doesn't realize that minor monetary loss for a stronger market position is absolutely an acceptable tradeoff. This is especially when it allows you to destroy the VTT market in the process as well as completely control your own gaming garden. For some, all WotC needs to say is:

and they'll accept it as gospel.

 

[Scribe]

wait so you trust DriveThruRPG, KickStarter, Amazon, Ebay, Visa, MasterCard, PayPal, but not WotC...

I mean, Amazon is pretty gross, but at least they are openly gross. WoTC tried to convince people they were a good company before this.

So as far as 'least trustworthy' yeah, its Wizards, the ones who as of Friday, continue to lie.