Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Azzy" data-source="post: 8898981" data-attributes="member: 6563">Then again, he's not trying to revoke a 20-odd year license that was publicly stated to be irrevocable and by doing so is putting 3PP's livelihoods in danger. So I find the morality clause argument to be a distraction from the real issue (which is why I suspect WotC is trying to use it).Personally, I'm not against such a clause in theory, but I am against it being ill-defined and nebulous. The problem with terms like &quot;repugnant&quot; is that it's repugnant to whom? Obviously to Monte, in this specific case (and we generally know where he stands), but this kind of wording from a corporate entity would be bad news. Corporations do not have a sense of morality, especially when leadership changes hands regularly. Any stance on morality they make is typically following whichever way the wind is blowing—and that can be dangerous as well as good. There are regressive and bigoted elements in society with outsized power that want to tear down the rights of various minority and &quot;othered&quot; groups and censor or ban material—and this is usually done under the guise of &quot;morality&quot;. With ill-defined terms, a morality clause that may have the intention of stopping anti-LGBTQ+ material (for example) could later be used to actually support an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda because of pressure from politicians, religious group, and such.A second issue is that vague terms like that can also be used as a blanket excuse to quash competition regardless of whether the competitor publication's actual content was actually objectionable. If you let a corporation use vague, ill-defined terms, they will use it against you eventually. You cannot trust corporations to do the right thing—like not trying to dismantle a license that they initially claimed was irrevocable.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Azzy, post: 8898981, member: 6563"] Then again, he's not trying to revoke a 20-odd year license that was publicly stated to be irrevocable and by doing so is putting 3PP's livelihoods in danger. So I find the morality clause argument to be a distraction from the real issue (which is why I suspect WotC is trying to use it). Personally, I'm not against such a clause in theory, but I am against it being ill-defined and nebulous. The problem with terms like "repugnant" is that it's repugnant to whom? Obviously to Monte, in this specific case (and we generally know where he stands), but this kind of wording from a corporate entity would be bad news. Corporations do not have a sense of morality, especially when leadership changes hands regularly. Any stance on morality they make is typically following whichever way the wind is blowing—and that can be dangerous as well as good. There are regressive and bigoted elements in society with outsized power that want to tear down the rights of various minority and "othered" groups and censor or ban material—and this is usually done under the guise of "morality". With ill-defined terms, a morality clause that may have the intention of stopping anti-LGBTQ+ material (for example) could later be used to actually support an anti-LGBTQ+ agenda because of pressure from politicians, religious group, and such. A second issue is that vague terms like that can also be used as a blanket excuse to quash competition regardless of whether the competitor publication's actual content was actually objectionable. If you let a corporation use vague, ill-defined terms, they will use it against you eventually. You cannot trust corporations to do the right thing—like not trying to dismantle a license that they initially claimed was irrevocable. [/QUOTE]

Verification