DocMoriartty said:
It is pretty obvious to me.
It may be obvious, and I am just not getting it. But, after reading this post, I think I see where the confusion is coming from.
The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation. They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like. To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option.
Let us look at these statements individualy, and then as an argument (by argument, I am making a "logic" reference, not trying to state that we are arguing).
The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation. -- I cannot say this for sure. I can say and will concede that it is related to intimidation; in other words, intimidation certainly plays a part. But I think it is more closely "entirely" about emotional responses. The Ad Copy was geared to evoke an emotional response. It succeeded.
They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like. -- this is an empty statement. Nobody wants the hobby to go in directions they do not like. This statement is akin to the logic statement (A or ~A); this statement is always true, and thus tells us nothing.
To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option. -- This is somewhat true. I think it has more to do with the fact that AV is both a high-profile employee of WotC and a 'freelance' writer. This duality is causing the problem. Consider this: let us think of AV as two people. For simplicity, let us call these two people 'A' and 'V'
'A' works with WotC. 'A' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to not produce it. If 'A' insists enough, because he is an imployee and thus has an impact on their image, WotC is well within their rights to fire 'A' or otherwise deal with him as they would any employee. Censorship? In a manner of speaking, but in a legal and quite acceptable form.
'V' does not work for WotC. 'V' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to distance themselves from 'V' but 'V' is still capable of producing the book. WotC cannot censor this, and should not be allowed to under the current law, and OGL/d20 STL license structure.
OK... now we combine these:
'AV' works with WotC. 'AV' wants to produce the book in question. WotC is well within their rights to not produce it. 'AV' has the option of producing the book through another avenue (ie: freelancing). If 'AC' insists upon doing this, because he is also an employee of WotC and thus has an impact on their image, WotC is well within their rights to fire 'A' or otherwise deal with him as they would any employee. 'AV' is still capable of producing the book. WotC cannot censor this, and should not be allowed to under the current law, and OGL/d20 STL license structure.
Now, my feelings on how WotC should handle this are my opinions. Expressing those opinions -- or even presuring WotC one way or another -- is a completely legal and acceptable tactic and it not forcing their opinion down your throat. AV had every avenue available to produce this in a way that it would not cause any image troubles/concerns/perceptions for WotC and chose not to do so.
The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial.
Yes it is. That is why I never brought it up.
What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.
And here is the problem with your argument -- you are combining two things and leaving out some important details, and adding in some that are irrelivant. What needs to be said here (to be complete) is:
If you, as an employee of Wizards of the Coast, produce an independent product under the licensing agreements for the d20 system that Wizards of the Coast finds objectionable, or capable of harming the corporate image of Wizards of the Coast or its parent company Hasbro via the implied association that you, as an employee, have with those companies, then they have every right to distance themselves from that product, up to and including firing you should you not cease such activities.
To be honest, I have no trouble with this. No trouble at all. AV had oportunities to ensure that WotC was nowhere near this product. He chose to make it one that was very close to WotC.
What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation.
Yes. But the one actually being attempted is self censorship. There is nothign illegal about that.
you dont think AV would be intimidated if it was "hinted" to him one day that releasing this book means WOTC will use the first justifiable reason to fire him?
Not nearly as much as he would be when he realizes that releasing the book under the conditions he has chosen to do so would, in and of itself, give WotC every legal means they need to terminate him immediately.
Jobs are hard to come by in todays economy this is more so in the gaming community when there is so much competition. I doubt AV wants to lose his job at WOTC over this.
Then he should have planned and considered his options a little more carefully.
Look, I do not want to see him lose his job. But should he lose it, this is not a right-wing conspiracy or an attempt at some sort of Machiavellian scheme to censor him. It is a natural consequence of his (poor) choices regarding this product. In all honesty, if it is handled well, I want to buy it -- but I think that you are looking for (and finding) a level of extremism that simply is not there... at least not where you are pointing at the moment.
