What is the most scathing feedback you left?(+)

[The Myopic Sniper]

I haven't even filled out the OGL survey yet. I think I am just done with them and the brand. Though I just need to muster up some enthusiasm to tell them that. I still like the community, but it may take a bit to figure out how to engage with that outside of Hasbro.

 

[ThorinTeague]

For example, to the question "Do you feel comfortable creating content with the OGL 1.2?" I answered something along the lines of:

No, the personal risk is too big, and the balance of power is too unequal. Losing the right to publish my content is unacceptable, and as it is happening once already I cannot trust you to this not happening again in the future. And lacking access to existing OGC makes it even less worth it.

I left basically some variant of the same feedback on every page of the survey: WoTC must reverse course and fully walk back on any attempt to "deauthorize" 1.0a. OGL1.0a cannot be "deauthorized."

And that's about all I said in most cases.

 

[ThorinTeague]

I haven't even filled out the OGL survey yet. I think I am just done with them and the brand. Though I just need to muster up some enthusiasm to tell them that. I still like the community, but it may take a bit to figure out how to engage with that outside of Hasbro.

I recommend trying a different RPG. Or even a few.

 

[Umbran]

The most scathing comment I made was a perfectly civil, hopefully well-reasoned argument with no insults included or implied.

 

[Haplo781]

The most scathing comment I made was a perfectly civil, hopefully well-reasoned argument with no insults included or implied.

How very on-brand. Did you post it in red text?

 

[tetrasodium]

I left a lot but this might qualify as scathing

Spoiler

Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

Open Game License:Frequently Asked Questions

Open Game License: Frequently Asked Questions -- Version 2.0 -- January 26, 2004

web.archive.org

 

[Horwath]

 

[The Stray]

I worked some version of "cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a" into every field.

When I got to the part specifically about the deuathorization, I put:

Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a.

There is no path forward without this simple fact. You do not have this authority. Ryan Dancy, one of the architects of the OGL, has stated that if this was a power they wanted WotC to have, they would have included it in the original license. To quote him:

"Hasbro also does not have the power to change the terms of v1.0a. They cannot modify the license to insert new terms limiting your use of the content, or removing your right to use the Open Game Content they published as per the terms of the license

FOREVER"

You yourselves have acknowledged this on your own FAQ about how the OGL works, which you have shamefully tried to scrub from the internet to hide your prior stance. Those words did not go away. To quote you:

"Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway."

Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a. This is a path that will only lead to litigation, possible class action against you, and possible anti-trust suits. I can't help but think there would be plenty of software companies who would want to aid any legal case against you, given that they would not like to see a precedent set that someone could just void a license because it does not align with their financial goals.

This will bring you more financial pain than you would gain from your actions.

Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a
Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a
Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a
Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a
Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a
Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a

(That last bit was me filling in the box with that message)

When I got to the part about commentary on the types of content covered and the ownership rights, I put:

Assuming you cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a, and a licensee is free to choose whether or not to accept it over this one, I fail to see what incentive a creator would have choosing this one over the other. Perhaps if you offered better incentives, people would be more willing to take you up on it. As it is now, it is all stick and no carrot, and the only possible reason someone would join this license over the 1.0a is because of your illegal efforts to deauthorize and effectively revoke that license. Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a and offer a better deal.

When I got to the VTT policy, I may have been starting to loose my cool around this point. I didn't have too much to say:

Stop trying to kill your competition. We all know you're working on a VTT with the very features you are declaiming here. This is a fool's errand. Just stop. Build a product that can compete on its own merits.

Also, cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a. I know I sound like a broken record, but this really is the core issue, that must be addressed before any others.

When they asked whether I'd be willing to publish anything under the 1.2, I took some cues from Justin Alexander:

You are attempting to illegally deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a. Absolutely no one can trust you won't do the same with this or any other license you offer. And no amateur or professional publisher could rationally publish books under a license that allows someone else to force them to pulp their inventory at a whim. The OGL 1.2 is deliberately designed to give Hasbro the ability to do just that, through craven and deceitful means of "protecting the community" from imagined threats while using very real struggles as a fig leaf and shield from criticism.

I had some final thoughts as well:

I have one major red line, which I hope has been crystal clear throughout my responses to these questions.

I have been a consumer of both Magic: The Gathering and Dungeons & Dragons products for over 25 years. I have purchased thousands of dollars worth of your products over the years. I am the sort of person who runs games and introduces people to D&D, and I purchase products in furtherance of the hobby.

I will not purchase a single Hasbro product from this point onward if you do not cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a. You released your content into the open. Twice. It has built a thriving community of avid amateur and professional creators. If your fear is that your greatest obstacle to your current financial goals is your past actions, then you should get comfortable with that and make better products. If they are good, then people will buy them. If not, people will go elsewhere.

If you wish to have greater controls over objectionable content, have better quality control. All the most hateful stuff associated with your brand (the Vistani, the Hadozee, etc.) came from YOUR OWN PRODUCTS. As such, it is laughable that you think you should police the morality of people who use content you've produced.

Cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a. Your brand will be better off for it in the long run.

I couldn't add any formatting, which I would have if I'd been able to emphasize points, but I think I expressed my scathing ire in any case.

 

[Haplo781]

I worked some version of "cease & desist in your illegal attempt to deauthorize and effectively revoke the OGL 1.0a" into every field.

When I got to the part specifically about the deuathorization, I put:



(That last bit was me filling in the box with that message)

When I got to the part about commentary on the types of content covered and the ownership rights, I put:



When I got to the VTT policy, I may have been starting to loose my cool around this point. I didn't have too much to say:



When they asked whether I'd be willing to publish anything under the 1.2, I took some cues from Justin Alexander:



I had some final thoughts as well:



I couldn't add any formatting, which I would have if I'd been able to emphasize points, but I think I expressed my scathing ire in any case.

Ok but what do you think they should do with the OGL 1.0a