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

[SoonRaccoon]

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.

If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not really a big deal for you to just lump everything in with hate speech.

right because I really don't want to type a paragraph or two with disclaimers to talk about the over all concept.

But, holy cow, do you realize how goddamn frightening it would be for someone with actual power to have that attitude? It essentially boils down to "What I don't like is hate speech." You say it's not the same, but if you treat it so, well, it must be hate speech.

I don't like LWQF. not only is it not hate speech, but it is not anywhere NEAR what I am grouping together.
I hate when a new spell or feat or ability comes out and the rules are hidden mid flavor text so you might miss something... That is not ANYWHERE near what I am grouping together here.
I hate when DMs play what I call word games (they understand both what the player wants to do and how they want to do it, but it isn't phrased the right way for the game so they make them restate it) THAT is not anywhere near what I am grouping here.

I am not grouping "Everything I hate" and you know it.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

where I understand why you don't think the changes are enough, I find it hard to understand or empathize with thinking that the situation has not evolved over the last 2 days.

The new license is still revocable at a whim by WotC. WotC is still going to try to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a, whatever that actually means. Is the 1.2 draft better than the leaked 1.1 draft? I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but I don't think that's the metric we should be using. Is the license anywhere near acceptable? No, absolutely not. In that respect, nothing has changed. WotC is still going to try to create its walled garden where it can milk customers for ever increasing monthly subscription fees and where no one can compete with them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

1st I am trying to be pretty simplistic with my answers...

Snip

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.

I would prefer we avoid using language as loaded as WW2 so I will sit out this analogy but say lots of things I would have done different in power in the early 1900s... but like the above East the rich and book of erotic fantasy, I can understand why they (people in charge of USA Brittan, and other allied powers) did what they did even if I disagree.

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.

here is the thing... when they do super bad stuff (and they tried just now) we ALL agreed to stand up. We didn't all agree on what was the line they crossed... for some I am sure they only put there foot over the line. For a lot (I will include myself) they took several steps past that line. for still others (and I believe that this is where you fall) they ran past that line and can't even make it out when they turn they are so past it.

They can't do there worst (say "all you guys are shut down cause we said so" without justification without blowing past that line again... maybe some of us would be willing to accept something before others... but that is the balanceing act we will force on them "How far can we push before we hit that wall?"

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.

You have no cache to make such a proposal. 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 kept an open mind, and moved my goal multi times.

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.

I however do NOT think it likely I will ever have my goal be as far as some here (and there are people worse... or at least saying worse on other social media)

If we lined up 30 enworld members, and we all drew our lines in the sand, I would be VERY shocked to see more then 3-5 of us have the same line... BUT wotc DID push all 30 of us past them and now they are backing down (a bit) and some of us are saying "I can live with this"

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.

Outside of yourself and a few others, these seem to be pretty popular and universal lines. 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.

i find it funny that you would say that.

I don't, but we all find humor in different things, I suppose.

when I am ignorant I ask questions.
I always reserve the right to modify or out right change my stance based on new information.
I have made modifications to my stance multi times this week.

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!"

However not only have I been insulted for my stances... I have been insulted for my questions.... and called a 'flip flopper' or worse when I modify my stances based on new information or 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.

I also got blocked by someone after they presented me with evidence I had asked for... and I thanked them and changed my stance to be more in line (but still not exactly) with there own...

---

so ignorant isn't what you think it is...

what you call crumbs some of us call the point.

That is incredibly sad. I don't even know how you admit to that.

if I make $200 a week...
Snip

This entire hypothetical is unnecessarily complex because we can literally just refer to the reality we are in and the situation currently at hand. We keep doing this and you keep getting into long, weird tangents instead of actually addressing what we are talking about.

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.

If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.

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".

 

[SoonRaccoon]

right because I really don't want to type a paragraph or two with disclaimers to talk about the over all concept.

May I suggest "harmful conduct" as a short hand. It's what is stated in the license itself, and is a good catch-all term.

 

[Justice and Rule]

May I suggest "harmful conduct" as a short hand. It's what is stated in the license itself, and is a good catch-all term.

And boy howdy, can it mean just about anything.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If we complain now, WotC has a chance to listen and change course. If WotC goes ahead and builds the Death Star anyway, then we have to stick to our guns by not doing business with them. Their Death Star only becomes fully armed and operational if publishers accept the terms of the OGL 1.2 and begin publishing for it. Publishers will only want to write for D&D if we play the game and create a market for it. Our recourse is to boycott D&D.

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?

But we're not there yet. We're still at waiting to see what WotC's final move is with their license. So, we keep up the pressure now.

I am... on the parts I most care about.

I also am here at 3am my time talking about it to make sure I have everyone's thoughts and give people a chacne to tell me what THEY think I should do... but I want them to respect that at the end of the day we all make this choice ourselves.

 

[MGibster]

I am not grouping "Everything I hate" and you know it.

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The new license is still revocable at a whim by WotC.

not on a whim... if you have something hateful or harmful and try to bring that into our community.

WotC is still going to try to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a, whatever that actually means.

YUp, and if they tried to do so alone I was with you... with the realse (or promise of) of the basics to teh commons I think that has mitigated some (but not all) of that issue... I do have notes on how I think this needs to still be fine tuned

Is the 1.2 draft better than the leaked 1.1 draft? I suppose it is, strictly speaking, but I don't think that's the metric we should be using.

things changed. THey changed in reaction to us and our reaction.

Is the license anywhere near acceptable? No, absolutely not.

disagree... if it went thought 100% as is I would not be happy (I have pages of notes about all the tweeks I want) The morality clause needs to be filled out more and go through a few more passes with legal and us teh community... but I still feel it is a good idea.

In that respect, nothing has changed. WotC is still going to try to create its walled garden where it can milk customers for ever increasing monthly subscription fees and where no one can compete with them.

Hey I am with you on not likeing the Subscription model... but I will be honest my group is torn on this... it is the biggest thing we do not speak with 1 voice on.

 

[Justice and Rule]

except what you are calling a death star is a phaser bank on the Enterprise E...

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.

I am... on the parts I most care about.


I also am here at 3am my time talking about it to make sure I have everyone's thoughts and give people a chacne to tell me what THEY think I should do... but I want them to respect that at the end of the day we all make this choice ourselves.

Then get off and stop talking about it. No one is making you stay on.