"Quality Standards" in the d20 System Guide

[Psion]

Illumination and intelligence are not the same thing.
You should know this.

Fair enough. But is it one's definition of porn? You'll excuse me if I don't find your definition of illumination too... enlightened.

 

[Psion]

Admittedly, it sounds like the BoEF was intentionally designed to piss off the lawyers because someone had a rocket in their pocket towards WoTC. However, to change the d20 liscence like this and leave other publishers high and dry asking questions, wondering if they are next is poor sportsmanship.

Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.

We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.

 

[Ralts Bloodthorne]

Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.

We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.

It's a little hard to keep up with this in a lot of ways.
Personally, I think it WAS targeted at BoEF. Sure, it was already in the works, but I think Anthony Valterra forced WotC's hand. The lack of "legalese" in the STL changes, the rushed appearance and vauge statements in it.
While the change may have been in the works, but BoEF may have just caused someone to fly off the handle and rush to block it. "WE HAVE TO STOP THIS SMUT FROM BEING PRINTED."
But, like I said, with all the various threads, it can be difficult to keep up.

Fair enough. But is it one's definition of porn? You'll excuse me if I don't find your definition of illumination too... enlightened.

(First of all, I'm not picking on Psion, before anyone crawls up my nether reasons)
And that right there is the biggest problem with these "Quality Standards" right now. Who decides what is excessive. Who decides what is disgusting.
Is a picture (adapted from a museam piece of an ancient fertility idol) of a pot-bellied woman in a lotus position with 8 bare breasts pornography, or out of context if you are placing/stating/describing the Kobold Goddess of Fertility? Why should it be forbidden? What about doing factual statements on Minoan dress/culture, where bare breasts are common? I'm not talking the "Big Book of Tetten!" but within taste and reason.
Who decides what is excessive blood & gore? What if I use a picture I took during Desert Storm of the "Highway of Death" and convert it to a drawing with photoshop for a book on Modern Warfare. Dead bodies rotting in the sun, burnt out tanks and vehicles. Is it excessive? Who decides?

Finally...
Why wasn't there any warning? By dropping this bomb, making it retroactive, and providing no warning that it was going to happen, I'm out more money than I pay in rent. For some of you, that might not be a big deal, but I'm supporting 6 people off of minimum wage.
Six months ago, I had not commissioned this artwork.
Now, it's all useless.
Wizards knew that this would happen, that some companies would get hit right in the slim pocketbook by losing artwork that they had commissioned and paid for.
Why didn't we get at least some professional courtesy and told: "Hey, guys, in 6 months we're going to be banning icky pornographic female nipples and breasts in an effort to return to Victorian times. Oh, and your orcish war god better get rid of his package. No more looking like he's shoplifting a basketball under his loincloth." so a lot of us didn't end up wasting cold hard cash?

But, that's just my $1.50, since 2 cents won't buy you a punch in the face.

 

[reiella]

Unforunately, the OGL doesn't allow for you to claim compatiblity with another system/trademark/PI/yada... And while the current EQ example of "100% compatible with 3rd edition fantasy role-playing rules" seems accepted, I'm unsure how the reaction / interpretation would fair in a court, and I'm fairly sure explicitly using 3.5 would be a bit too ... risky.

 

[Psion]

(First of all, I'm not picking on Psion, before anyone crawls up my nether reasons)

Not at all Ralts. Your points are well taken. It is sort of tangential to what I was saying, because I was not debating definitions of porn, but defending myself against Hildulf's attempt to belittle me based on my definitions.

 

[smetzger]

Arrgh! Another case of someone not keeping up with the thread.

We already know that BoEF was not specifically targeted as this change was coming down the pipe before AV ever left WotC, according to his post. So if you want to engage in this line of thinking, you'll have to do it without the assumption that there is a precedent of a targeted company.

And you didn't read his comment. He said AV had a problem with WOTC. AV said he tried to get this out before the coming changes. Thus it is a distinct possibility that things happened like this:

1) WOTC wants to include the "Decency" and "Prejudice" clauses and starts puching this through.
2) AV starts his own company and releases a product to spite WOTC that clearly violates the impending decency clause.
3) WOTC releases the changes.

 

[DanMcS]

Question. Would that be legally ok ?

No. In fact, this is pretty much exactly what trademark law is designed to prevent. It's a logo that looks and feels like the d20 logo, and is intended to indicate compatability in the same way the d20 logo is, but avoids the license issue and will confuse customers and dilute the trademark. This would get smacked down hard and fast.

If you didn't have the white field and the border just so, and removed the word compatible, then you'd be getting into a much grayer area. They can't trademark "3.5", for instance.

 

[Faraer]

So what is WotC's actual concern here? The 1980s controversies caused big sales boosts.

 

[woodelf]

Okay, agree or disagree, it does at least look as though they have a specific set of guidelines (or at least rules of thumb) they're going by. I really don't think, as I said earlier, that we're going to be seeing WotC pulling products for "sinister" reasons.

I'm still not especially happy with this change, but I honestly don't think it's the disaster some people are heralding it as.

So why not put these specific guidelines into the Usage Guide? Sure, Andy Smith says that's how things will be judged--but is he the one who actually gets to do the judging? And what if he's laid off next Xmas--how will the next person interpret the vague standards of the Usage Guide?

Again, the disaster is *not* the particular standards being implemented. It's that (1) they are vague, (2) they are not publicly defined, and (3) they almost can not help but be selectively enforced. I'd be ok with them implementing any decency clause they want, provided that they (A) defined it clearly enough in the Guide so that no one would have any reasonable doubts about (non)compliance, and wouldn't need to go to WotC for a judgement call, (B) had some sort of time limits on their review process, and (C) they provided some explanation of a mechanism whereby they could actually keep track of the vast corpus of D20 products and thus enforce the standards evenly. It's not the standards that are the problem--it's the uncertainty.

 

[woodelf]

That seems to me a distortion in order to be offended. I know somebody said this once, but it obviously bears repeating. WotC can't prevent anyone from publishing anything. But they can -- and have every legal and ethical right to -- prevent people from using THEIR good name/trademarks/ip from promoting somthing that is harmful to their image.

Agreed. However, the standards as written in the D20System Guide would flag several (most?) WotC products. I have trouble accepting the "we have to protect our good name" argument when they want to prevent stuff they themselves have done. Now, if you go with the more generous standards that Andy Smith put forth, then it mostly eliminates the double standard--but i'm not very comfortable with a very strict standard and the powers that be saying "oh, don't worry, we won't actually *enforce* it to that level".