The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

[prabe]

I believe it's pronounced Grog-hawk. The "nard" is silent

Well, French.

 

[trappedslider]

 

[Gradine]

The thing that bothers me is Section 7(b)(i), which allows WOTC to terminate OGL 1.2 with a licensee without any notice or opportunity to cure or notice if the licensee's works include material that is "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing," or the licensee "engage
in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing." WOTC has the "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful," and the licensee agrees not to challenge any determination. Is gender affirming care obscene? Discriminatory? A critic would say it is "harmful." Would you trust that guy to decide, unilaterally with no ability to challenge the ruling, what is harmful, discriminatory, or obscene? I sure don't.

On the other hand, many people who published works under the OGL 1.0 are no longer with us. When (not if) they deauthorize the 1.0 OGL, all of those works will be lost in time, like tears in rain, with no authority to reissue them.[/S]

I get the issue in principle, but not in practice. And one thing I've learned on the front lines is that the latter often undervalued but more important in both the short and long term. D&D had (an honest attempt at) gender-inclusive language in 2014. So forgive if I find the idea that they'll pull a 180 a decade in the future to shut down a 3PP more than a little far-fetched. Same with sex-work, another issue I've seen crop up despite D&D having former sex workers as brand ambassadors in the past. I do think, however, that the language in that clause does need to be lightened some. I'd press for an allowance to appeal. And to remove the term "obscene" from the list.

My favorite "tears in rain" fact is that it's the only film monologue to have its own english-language Wikipedia article (and most of the other monologues with their own pages are from plays, poetry, stand-up, and that time Clint Eastwood yelled at a chair)

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Stop insisting that Little Caesars deserves a Michelin star.

You are allowed to enjoy bad things.

You don't need to lie to yourself and everyone else about how good they are.

 

[Cadence]

I get the issue in principle, but not in practice. And one thing I've learned on the front lines is that the latter often undervalued but more important in both the short and long term. D&D had (an honest attempt at) gender-inclusive language in 2014. So forgive if I find the idea that they'll pull a 180 a decade in the future to shut down a 3PP more than a little far-fetched. Same with sex-work, another issue I've seen crop up despite D&D having former sex workers as brand ambassadors in the past. I do think, however, that the language in that clause does need to be lightened some. I'd press for an allowance to appeal. And to remove the term "obscene" from the list.

My favorite "tears in rain" fact is that it's the only film monologue to have its own english-language Wikipedia article (and most of the other monologues with their own pages are from plays, poetry, stand-up, and that time Clint Eastwood yelled at a chair)

I wonder how many school and public libraries in <insert states> have D&D books or sponsor D&D games or clubs. What is WotC's reaction if <insert states' governors and/or allied media outlets> decide that the next easy batch of media attention is going after D&D's being accepting of <insert something we like>? Or linking D&D to what is in a 2.0 approved book (and thus meeting Hasbro's standards) that deals respectfully and up front with <insert something we like>? I'd like to think that Hasbro would tell such a state to shove off and would offer free books to kids their instead of nuking that material. Is it worth risking without the ability to appeal?

Similarly, how big of a market is China? Will Hasbro cut some products off if the choice is losing the entire market for movies and video games if they don't?

 

[Scribe]

 

[Ryujin]

Is it awful that I want this OGL nonsense to work out well in the end? Like... I like Dungeons & Dragons. But there definitely seems to be a certain eagerness to watch Wizards implode from this; and I don't really think that's a good thing.

If the only difference between between the OGL 1.0 and OGL 2.0 is "this is exactly the same, except Nazis can naughty word off"... what's the problem?

I'm just wondering what Peter Adkison thinks of all this mess. Is he watching in terror as the company he built gets torn apart, online, or is he swimming in his cash like Scrooge McDuck and chortling to himself? Something in between? I've got one degree of separation from him, in a couple of different ways, but don't have the guts to ask.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Similarly, how big of a market is China?

Close to non-existent, I think.

 

[Cadence]

Close to non-existent, I think.

Is it important for movies and video games?

 

[Asisreo]

Why did you make me do that?

I am now a little sadder, and a lot stupider, from learning about the "controversy."

Tbf, the fact that pink floyd went back in time to change their album cover just to appeal to "them" is an egregious violation of time travel laws.

You'd think after the Madela and Berenstein bear incident, time travelers would be kept in check.

Never trusted them, anyways. The fact that they never showed up to Stephen Hawking's party was kinda a d-move.