NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8908764" data-attributes="member: 177">If you were any such organization, where would/should such an action sit in your list of priorities?These organizations have resource limits - should they take a squabble over IP in a game before, say, a young African American man brutalized by police?  Or maybe it could bump over a rash of anti-Semitic graffiti? I don't find a morality clause, in general, to be a problem.  WotC does have legitimate brand safety concerns.  But, using resources from a group engaged in real-world public works to address when WotC over-extends seems inappropriate.It might be better to just remove the provisions that limit accountability on this item - if someone feels they've been wronged, let them take WotC to court over it.  Yes, WotC is an 800-lb gorilla, legally speaking, but court cases mean visibility, which means exposure to public opinion.  And we've seen the past week or two, that can give them pause.So, WotC is incentivized when someone's being a real racist jerk - because public opinion would generally be for them, and disincentivized when it it trumped up to abuse their license power, because we are apt to see through it when it becomes public.Well, someone like nuTSR, who are not using any WotC game license, would not be impacted by any morality clause in a license.This provision should not be seen as a way for WotC to police the gaming community for us - it should be for their legitimate brand-safety concerns.</blockquote>

Verification