| Author |
 Topic  |
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 18:29:11
|
| As for the movie, I have no interest in seeing it in the theater. We typically don't watch movies in the theater because of health reasons but my grandson and I will make an exception if our interest in the movie is high enough (this will typically also mean that we will support the movie financially as well by buying it as soon as it is available in digital format and then later purchase a physical copy as well). This whole OGL debacle has soured my support for D&D in general and WotC in particular. I will wait until it is available on some streaming service for free. |
"Iriaebor is a fine city. So what if you can have violence between merchant groups break out at any moment. Not every city can offer dinner AND a show."
My FR writeups - http://www.mediafire.com/folder/um3liz6tqsf5n/Documents
|
 |
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 18:30:31
|
| Same for me (and I mean, the movie looks uninspired and cliché, judging from the trailer). But I suspect tons of people will just go see it and keep doing things as normal. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 18:36:42
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
It is a step in the right direction -- but only a step. It remains to be seen if WotC will take any more steps in the right direction.
Not really, anything that deauthorizes the previous OGL is the same crap. OGL 1.2 in particular is still very malicious--yes, malicious--it's just better packaged horsedung. They're even slimier than before, because they've upped their deception game.
Not that much, though, they're still very hamfisted in regards to major points. For example, they gave themselves the right to cancel you because they don't like you--not even your content, you as a person and your everyday activities.
They dropped the license-back thing and royalties. That's an improvement.
Sure, the revocation of the original OGL 1.0a is still there, and it's still a crap deal over all, but it's less of a crap deal than it was.
So it is a step in the right direction, but they've got miles to go before it's actually worthwhile.
And I refuse to consider misguided greed to be malicious. You want to say it's malicious, show me where a WotC exec said this was a deliberate attempt to harm others.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
At this point, however, it seems to me that the community has lost. I guess this is a game that can only be won by not playing--as soon as people start providing feedback that isn't "make 1.0a irrevocable", it's a slippery slope from there. And if D&D personalities start saying that 1.2 is a step, you know tons of people will follow suit. Moreover, WotC still has the right to replace this new license with their original intent once it's approved.
There's a hell of a difference between saying something is better than it was and saying it's good. Putting ketchup on dog crap may improve the taste, but it's still dog crap.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
WotC execs may very well be right that this is just a temporary fad and things will return to normal quite soon. For example, I expect most people to entirely forget about this once the movie drops.
I disagree. The revocation of the original OGL has an impact on every gaming company that isn't WotC. When people can't buy non-WotC products that they want, or those products are delayed because of WotC's antics, those people are not going to be happy and they know exactly where to place the blame. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
Edited by - Wooly Rupert on 22 Jan 2023 18:37:48 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 19:06:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
They dropped the license-back thing and royalties. That's an improvement.
They gave up the royalty thing, but they just hid the license-back thing better. They can still take your work and sell it, and you waive any right to stop them from doing so. Even if you prove that they *intentionally* copied your work, you can't stop them from selling it and have to settle for a payment. Also, as written, if 1.2 goes live, anytime you (creator) use SRD stuff, even if it's to keep selling stuff already published under 1.0a, you automatically (if unwittingly) accept it. The published stuff will probably still be under 1.0a, but you're now shackled by 1.2. They're being deceptive.
They also hid the "we can terminate your work whenever we want" thing under a pretty gross morality clause, in which they claim that they can terminate the license if they dislike anything about your work or you as a person. Yes, they state harmful or obscene acts, but that's so vague they just have to come up with any bullshit reason and can cancel you.
quote:
And I refuse to consider misguided greed to be malicious. You want to say it's malicious, show me where a WotC exec said this was a deliberate attempt to harm others.
Malicious=/=sadistic. Their way to make more money is to harm/deceive creators, and potentially customers too. Their license is clearly attempting to snuff competition, and/or control it to an extreme degree, with dishonest methods. Also, their terms are very anti-consumer, as they're trying to force people who want to play D&D to use their subscription system and 6e.
Keep in mind that people don't just wake up one morning and decide that they want to hurt others. Instead, it's often that they have a goal and their way to reach it including hurting others. Hurting others is almost never the goal itself, often not even for murderers and rapists. Heck, even for a serial killer, attempting to gain back power over an early life trauma may very well be the goal, and killing others a (misguided) way to do it. If you restrict malicious to "my goal is to hurt other people", then you can argue that nearly nothing is really malicious.
WotC's goal isn't to hurt other people, but they're *intentionally* trying to hurt other people to reach their goal, and that's malicious. Moreover, WotC's continued use of deceptive language, as well as constant lying and gaslighting, also is. I'm honestly not sure why you're saying that they aren't being malicious. Yes, "malicious" is not to be used lightly, but there are situations where it *should* be used, because some behaviors are indeed intentionally harmful.
quote:
There's a hell of a difference between saying something is better than it was and saying it's good. Putting ketchup on dog crap may improve the taste, but it's still dog crap.
Didn't say it was the same, I said it was a slippery slope from there. The moment you shift the focus from "you don't get to deauthorize 1.0a, and if you try to do that, everything else you propose is irrelevant" to "let's see how to make this crap less gross", you start to lose the game. Influencers pointing that "this is the right direction" are playing into WotC's hands.
Compromise can be good, but this isn't one of those situations. You don't compromise with gaslighters who see their community as an obstacle. and are out to hurt said community to reach their goal.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
I disagree. The revocation of the original OGL has an impact on every gaming company that isn't WotC. When people can't buy non-WotC products that they want, or those products are delayed because of WotC's antics, those people are not going to be happy and they know exactly where to place the blame.
There will be stuff to buy in the monthly VTT subscription thingy. Unfortunately, situations like this tend to fizzle out once you start to concede. We've seen it plenty of times: company does crappy thing->people rage->company releases new shiny->people forget about the crappy thing. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Jan 2023 19:28:35 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 19:15:59
|
But let's also be real: there's no way they aren't aware that their terms hurt creators and the community. They paid $$ to have lawyers carefully write this crap, they *know* what they're doing.
If they aren't aware that this will hurt people, then I guess we should start questioning their intelligence, because it's obvious that this will hurt poeople. If they're aware, they're doing this intentionally, and are therefore malicious. So, they're either severely mentally impaired, or malicious. People in the higher ups might not always be very competent, but it's really hard to believe that they're severely mentally impaired. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Jan 2023 19:18:49 |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 19:31:45
|
Why do insist it's not being malicious? Because the goal of any company is to make money. And unless it's a company without any competition at all in their market, the only way to make more money is to do something that makes people give money to you instead of your competitors. Maybe you make a better product, maybe you come up with the next killer app, or maybe you do something to otherwise shift market share in your direction.
Either way, it's not personal, it's business. It's been happening for thousands of years, in hundreds of thousands of markets, all around the world, and it will continue as long as there is money to spend. As soon as the first currency was invented, someone was trying to figure out how to get more of it than the next guy got.
I'm not defending WotC's tactics; far from it -- I'm just saying that singling out one single company and ascribing a purely human motive to it, for a poorly-considered attempt to do what EVERY SINGLE BUSINESS that has ever existed has done, is not right.
Maliciousness is a human emotion. Notwithstanding what some US politicos say, corporations are not people and do not have human emotions. A corporation cannot be evil. A corporation cannot be malicious. Similarly, a corporation cannot be good or benevolent, either. All of that rests on the leadership of the company. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 19:43:55
|
1)Maliciousness doesn't require the matter to be personal, it just requires intentionally harming others, for whatever goal. A robber who shoots you to take your wallet doesn't have a personal beef with you, nor their goal is to hurt you. They're trying to make more money, and intentionally hurting you is their way to achieve that. That's malicious.
2)Corporations don't make decisions. As far as actions are concerned, "corporation" is just a label slapped on a bunch of people. The people in charge make the decisions, and they can indeed be malicious.
That's true in WotC's case, because they are intentionally trying to harm creators in dishonest, deceiftul, and gaslighting ways, in order to make money. That's not normal competition, that's abusive and deceitful behavior aimed at harming others as a way to make more money. If that's not malicious, I don't know what it is.
I'm not singling WotC out either, but they're the topic of this discussion, and it'd be weird if I randomly said "WotC are being malicious, and XYZ also are being malicious". I also don't feel like not pointing out the maliciousness in their action, because I don't want to pereceive malicious ways to make money as normal enough to not warrant being pointed out, just because they're common. That's a step towards tricking yourself into seeing them as ultimately acceptable.
That said, if it makes things better, I can provide other examples of a company being malicious in trying to make more money.
a)Nestlé has tried to get water to no longer be considered a fundamental human right for their profit. That's malicious.
b)A steelwork company near my city refuses to upgrade their plant in order to save money, and they know (and it has been proved through multiple measurements) that the outated plant causes an astronomically increased cancer rate in my city. They don't have anything personal against the city, they're just after profit, and have decided that kids with cancer and mothers with heavy metals and dioxins in their breast milk are worth the increased profit. However, they're still malicious. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Jan 2023 20:08:50 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 20:20:37
|
| We also have the name of a specific person, btw: Chris Cao. On top of all the current stuff, there are reports of that dude bullying many employees, who all ended up leaving the company, as they couldn't do crap about that. I mean, I feel like we can safely say that the dude definitely doesn't act in good faith. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 22 Jan 2023 20:21:02 |
|
|
|
Gary Dallison
Great Reader
United Kingdom
6353 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 23:11:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
1)Maliciousness doesn't require the matter to be personal, it just requires intentionally harming others, for whatever goal. A robber who shoots you to take your wallet doesn't have a personal beef with you, nor their goal is to hurt you. They're trying to make more money, and intentionally hurting you is their way to achieve that. That's malicious.
2)Corporations don't make decisions. As far as actions are concerned, "corporation" is just a label slapped on a bunch of people. The people in charge make the decisions, and they can indeed be malicious.
That's true in WotC's case, because they are intentionally trying to harm creators in dishonest, deceiftul, and gaslighting ways, in order to make money. That's not normal competition, that's abusive and deceitful behavior aimed at harming others as a way to make more money. If that's not malicious, I don't know what it is.
I'm not singling WotC out either, but they're the topic of this discussion, and it'd be weird if I randomly said "WotC are being malicious, and XYZ also are being malicious". I also don't feel like not pointing out the maliciousness in their action, because I don't want to pereceive malicious ways to make money as normal enough to not warrant being pointed out, just because they're common. That's a step towards tricking yourself into seeing them as ultimately acceptable.
That said, if it makes things better, I can provide other examples of a company being malicious in trying to make more money.
a)Nestlé has tried to get water to no longer be considered a fundamental human right for their profit. That's malicious.
b)A steelwork company near my city refuses to upgrade their plant in order to save money, and they know (and it has been proved through multiple measurements) that the outated plant causes an astronomically increased cancer rate in my city. They don't have anything personal against the city, they're just after profit, and have decided that kids with cancer and mothers with heavy metals and dioxins in their breast milk are worth the increased profit. However, they're still malicious.
I don't see anything here saying it's maliciousness. Greed, yes, but not an active desire to harm others.
Again, businesses exist to make money. And as I noted before, unless a business is the only one providing a particular good or service in its particular market, then it has competition, and it's going to try to make money at the expense of its competitors. You don't need an explicit desire to harm people to want to make money.
You cite some good examples of companies doing shady, if not illegal things (like Nestle continuing to take water from that reservoir years after their permit to do so expired), but these are still examples of greed, not maliciousness.
Unless you're going to say that the corporate leadership of that steelwork company, for example, explicitly decided to give people cancer, then what they're doing is not malicious. Just because the end result is bad doesn't mean it was a deliberate goal.
We're projecting emotions onto these companies because we don't agree with their actions. The leadership may be shortsighted, greedy, misguided, stupid, even callous, but none of that is the same as actively desiring to bring harm to others.
Until active intent to harm is proven, I'm sticking with greed and a misunderstanding of their target market -- which is something we've seen countless times from many companies. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 22 Jan 2023 : 23:13:56
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
We also have the name of a specific person, btw: Chris Cao. On top of all the current stuff, there are reports of that dude bullying many employees, who all ended up leaving the company, as they couldn't do crap about that. I mean, I feel like we can safely say that the dude definitely doesn't act in good faith.
Who is this guy, and where are these reports? |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2023 : 01:37:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Someone else said that Wizards didn't have to work on AI DMs -- they could outsource it.
AI DMs? As in, a cloud DM the players consult on a computer?
It seems unlikely to me that a bunch of players will sit at a table with a computer propped up at one end. Input their actions, output the reactions and narratives. Click buttons to select actions, click buttons to roll dice, etc.
It seems more likely to me that each of the players will be sitting in front of a computer - maybe in the same room or maybe not even in the same country - and will essentially be playing a sort of multiplayer video game.
So it seems to me that the players will need computers, internet, software/apps, subscriptions, etc. But they will not need to buy things like hardcopy books, terrain tiles and minis, props, dice. The things which WotC sells. Why would WotC outsource competition to undermine its own published products? |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2023 : 02:06:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Someone else said that Wizards didn't have to work on AI DMs -- they could outsource it.
AI DMs? As in, a cloud DM the players consult on a computer?
It seems unlikely to me that a bunch of players will sit at a table with a computer propped up at one end. Input their actions, output the reactions and narratives. Click buttons to select actions, click buttons to roll dice, etc.
It seems more likely to me that each of the players will be sitting in front of a computer - maybe in the same room or maybe not even in the same country - and will essentially be playing a sort of multiplayer video game.
So it seems to me that the players will need computers, internet, software/apps, subscriptions, etc. But they will not need to buy things like hardcopy books, terrain tiles and minis, props, dice. The things which WotC sells. Why would WotC outsource competition to undermine its own published products?
The rumor was that people could get an AI DM, as part of their DNDBeyond subscription. WotC could outsource the creation of this AI to another company. Since it would be paid for by WotC and only accessible via DNDBeyond, it would neither be competition nor undermining their products.
It would, assumably, be used by people already using a VTT to play. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2023 : 02:25:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
There are quite a few of the "celebrity" gamers (not actual celebrities, but known for gaming) that have commented that this is a step in the right direction. And it comes down to this: D&D is the "known" brand.
"Celebrity" gamers have public visibility and credible reputation as "impartial" reviewers or "entertaining" youtubers or whatever.
How many are sponsored by Wizbro? And how many will be sponsored by Wizbro in the coming future?
There's always at least a few obvious shills (paid advertisers and supporters). They use the majority of legit "celebrities" as camouflage. I'm just curious if this is an "advertising market" which Wizbro invests into or if they consider it worthless. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 23 Jan 2023 02:46:10 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2023 : 05:06:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who is this guy, and where are these reports?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kGMsZSdbY
The report is at 12:20 |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Starshade
Learned Scribe
Norway
279 Posts |
Posted - 23 Jan 2023 : 14:53:23
|
The AI DM rumors is most likely connected to the virtual tabletop with Unreal Engine which is rumored to be tiered, basically the rumors paint a picture of a "play at home" virtual tabletop online requiring monthly subscription, with corp goals of 1b income from the franchise.
But, it do not impact me personally in any way, I will DM, GM, or play. If ppl want to do tabletop. Mostly I will buy fantasy books,etc. But this seems like could hurt the hobby, yea, for profit.
Edit: I think the AI is a full robot GM right? chatbot DMing on the Unreal tabletop? |
Edited by - Starshade on 23 Jan 2023 14:54:34 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7971 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 03:30:21
|
| Hurting WotC will not hurt the hobby, I think. The branding might tarnish, the settings might be abandoned, the company might (in theory) be forced to downsize or bankrupt. But the company is not the hobby, many other companies are avidly passionate about the hobby and will keep it alive. Players might lose some choices but would gain other choices in return, they'll always be found playing with the "best" platform regardless of who publishes and controls it. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
TheIriaeban
Master of Realmslore
USA
1289 Posts |
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 16:07:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Starshade
The AI DM rumors is most likely connected to the virtual tabletop with Unreal Engine which is rumored to be tiered, basically the rumors paint a picture of a "play at home" virtual tabletop online requiring monthly subscription, with corp goals of 1b income from the franchise.
But, it do not impact me personally in any way, I will DM, GM, or play. If ppl want to do tabletop. Mostly I will buy fantasy books,etc. But this seems like could hurt the hobby, yea, for profit.
Edit: I think the AI is a full robot GM right? chatbot DMing on the Unreal tabletop?
I think it's more a scripted thing where you play it like a video game. |
|
|
|
HighOne
Learned Scribe
214 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 16:34:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by TheIriaeban
Given WotC's seeming "Scortched Earth" policy, will that have any effect on this website?
WotC is still a few steps away from that level of proprietary insanity. I can see them going after the FR Wiki, because it's borderline plagiaristic and might well encroach on their business. But even that would be a serious escalation of what they're currently doing. |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 17:21:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
You cite some good examples of companies doing shady, if not illegal things (like Nestle continuing to take water from that reservoir years after their permit to do so expired), but these are still examples of greed, not maliciousness.
Ah...so they're more often amoral rather than immoral. Much better  . |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 17:35:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't see anything here saying it's maliciousness. Greed, yes, but not an active desire to harm others. If you knowingly harm others to satisfy your greed, guess what? You're being malicious. There are non malicious ways for a business to make money. Once again, I don't think intentionally harming others to make money should be considered normal enough to warrant not pointing out its maliciousness. Just because it's common doesn't mean it is normal and it's not malicious.
Again, businesses exist to make money. And as I noted before, unless a business is the only one providing a particular good or service in its particular market, then it has competition, and it's going to try to make money at the expense of its competitors. You don't need an explicit desire to harm people to want to make money.
You cite some good examples of companies doing shady, if not illegal things (like Nestle continuing to take water from that reservoir years after their permit to do so expired), but these are still examples of greed, not maliciousness.
Unless you're going to say that the corporate leadership of that steelwork company, for example, explicitly decided to give people cancer, then what they're doing is not malicious. Just because the end result is bad doesn't mean it was a deliberate goal.
We're projecting emotions onto these companies because we don't agree with their actions. The leadership may be shortsighted, greedy, misguided, stupid, even callous, but none of that is the same as actively desiring to bring harm to others.
Until active intent to harm is proven, I'm sticking with greed and a misunderstanding of their target market -- which is something we've seen countless times from many companies.
Man, once again, maliciousness doesn't require harming others to be the end goal, nor does it require having a beef with a specific individual or group of individuals.
Maliciousness just requires wanting to harm others, and if you're willing to harm others to satisfy your greed, then you do indeed want to harm others. In other words, there's intentionality, and if something is intentional, then (unless you had no other choice, which is not the case for WotC or the companies that I mentioned) you chose to do it, which means you wanted to--otherwise you wouldn't have done it. It doesn't require you to enjoy the process, just to want the process to happen for whatever reason--in this case, satisfying one's greed.
So, if you consider children with cancer, almost every family in the city having experienced cancer, and mothers with dioxins and heavy metals in their breast milk to be an acceptable cost to satisfy your greed, then you're being malicious. You know you're harming others, you have chosen--and therefore want--to sacrifice them for your greed.
If maliciousness required harming others to be the end goal, then not even many serial killers would be malicious, because their end goal often isn't killing others. Killing others, in many cases, is an attempt at controlling/resolving the circumstances of an early trauma, aka taking back power over one's life. It's just that killing others is their way to do that, and it's intentional.
Having the explicit goal of harming others for the sake of harming others is extremely rare, and that's sadism. Sadism is always malicious, maliciousness isn't always sadistic.
Now, there are non malicious ways to make money, and I don't feel that malicious ways to make money should be considered normal enough to not warrant pointing out their maliciousness. Just because they're common, doesn't mean they're non-malicious. Moreover, refraining from pointing out that intentionally harming others to make money is malicious, is a good first step towards tricking yourself into considering those practices acceptable. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Jan 2023 18:36:04 |
|
|
|
Scots Dragon
Seeker
United Kingdom
86 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 20:37:26
|
| What convinces me that this the current WotC management is malicious is that they're run by an abusive blowhard tyrant who wants to put several other companies out of business using strong-arming tactics that probably aren't actually legal, but WotC thinks they can get away with it due to the fact that they have Hasbro Money and Hasbro Lawyers. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 20:57:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
I don't see anything here saying it's maliciousness. Greed, yes, but not an active desire to harm others. If you knowingly harm others to satisfy your greed, guess what? You're being malicious. There are non malicious ways for a business to make money. Once again, I don't think intentionally harming others to make money should be considered normal enough to warrant not pointing out its maliciousness. Just because it's common doesn't mean it is normal and it's not malicious.
Again, businesses exist to make money. And as I noted before, unless a business is the only one providing a particular good or service in its particular market, then it has competition, and it's going to try to make money at the expense of its competitors. You don't need an explicit desire to harm people to want to make money.
You cite some good examples of companies doing shady, if not illegal things (like Nestle continuing to take water from that reservoir years after their permit to do so expired), but these are still examples of greed, not maliciousness.
Unless you're going to say that the corporate leadership of that steelwork company, for example, explicitly decided to give people cancer, then what they're doing is not malicious. Just because the end result is bad doesn't mean it was a deliberate goal.
We're projecting emotions onto these companies because we don't agree with their actions. The leadership may be shortsighted, greedy, misguided, stupid, even callous, but none of that is the same as actively desiring to bring harm to others.
Until active intent to harm is proven, I'm sticking with greed and a misunderstanding of their target market -- which is something we've seen countless times from many companies.
Man, once again, maliciousness doesn't require harming others to be the end goal, nor does it require having a beef with a specific individual or group of individuals.
Maliciousness just requires wanting to harm others,
You've just contradicted yourself, and agreed with me.
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
and if you're willing to harm others to satisfy your greed, then you do indeed want to harm others. In other words, there's intentionality, and if something is intentional, then (unless you had no other choice, which is not the case for WotC or the companies that I mentioned) you chose to do it, which means you wanted to--otherwise you wouldn't have done it. It doesn't require you to enjoy the process, just to want the process to happen for whatever reason--in this case, satisfying one's greed.
So, if you consider children with cancer, almost every family in the city having experienced cancer, and mothers with dioxins and heavy metals in their breast milk to be an acceptable cost to satisfy your greed, then you're being malicious. You know you're harming others, you have chosen--and therefore want--to sacrifice them for your greed.
If maliciousness required harming others to be the end goal, then not even many serial killers would be malicious, because their end goal often isn't killing others. Killing others, in many cases, is an attempt at controlling/resolving the circumstances of an early trauma, aka taking back power over one's life. It's just that killing others is their way to do that, and it's intentional.
Having the explicit goal of harming others for the sake of harming others is extremely rare, and that's sadism. Sadism is always malicious, maliciousness isn't always sadistic.
Now, there are non malicious ways to make money, and I don't feel that malicious ways to make money should be considered normal enough to not warrant pointing out their maliciousness. Just because they're common, doesn't mean they're non-malicious. Moreover, refraining from pointing out that intentionally harming others to make money is malicious, is a good first step towards tricking yourself into considering those practices acceptable.
But here's the thing: Just because something could harm someone else, doesn't mean it will. People don't sit around and think "Kids getting cancer is okay if I can make a buck." They justify it by saying the science or the connection is unproven, or that it's just a statistical anomaly or any of a thousand other justifications that equate to "I didn't cause this." Are they lying to themselves? Yes. Does that prove that they actively wanted to harm someone else? No. People lie to themselves all the time on a lot of different topics. Negligence is not maliciousness.
You bring up sadism, but that's not a factor, here. I never said that maliciousness required harm for the sake of harm -- only that it was intentional that harm was inflicted, a point that you yourself agreed on.
Really, I don't get why we keep debating this. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Azar
Master of Realmslore
1294 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 22:41:14
|
| Wooly, we - collectively - put up with a lot of corporate corruption that results in the little guy getting shafted because it's both so damn common that we've lowered the bar and because those titans have the finances to stave off a lot of complaints. |
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right and part with him when he goes wrong.
Earth names in the Realms are more common than you may think. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 22:48:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azar
Wooly, we - collectively - put up with a lot of corporate corruption that results in the little guy getting shafted because it's both so damn common that we've lowered the bar and because those titans have the finances to stave off a lot of complaints.
I'm not disagreeing with any of that, and I'm certainly not defending WotC. I'm just saying that greed, callousness, and unscrupulousness aren't the same as maliciousness, even if the end result is the same. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 23:12:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
Man, once again, maliciousness doesn't require harming others to be the end goal, nor does it require having a beef with a specific individual or group of individuals.
Maliciousness just requires wanting to harm others,
You've just contradicted yourself, and agreed with me.
Wooly, you took this out of context. You broke the sentence mid-way, when the point of the whole sentence was to explain that if you decide to harm others to satisfy your greed, then you do indeed want to harm others, which is the exact definition of maliciousness.
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
But here's the thing: Just because something could harm someone else, doesn't mean it will. People don't sit around and think "Kids getting cancer is okay if I can make a buck." They justify it by saying the science or the connection is unproven, or that it's just a statistical anomaly or any of a thousand other justifications that equate to "I didn't cause this." Are they lying to themselves? Yes. Does that prove that they actively wanted to harm someone else? No. People lie to themselves all the time on a lot of different topics. Negligence is not maliciousness.
Oh, they did that at the beginning, then they stopped, and just accepted that astronomically high cancer rates are an acceptable cost. You can't lie to yourself through 70 years of proofs and scientific evidence being overwhelmingly against you. Also, there's literally no other source in the area for the dioxins and heavy metals found in various mothers' breast milk. I'll repeat it: they don't even try to justify their stance, at this point they just refuse to comment. They know, and they accept it. They don't even consider the topic in their meetings.
If you are willing to harm others to satisfy your greed, then you want to harm others, then you're being malicious. It's that simple, and games of chance can't change that. Even if there's a non-100%, but still significant chance of causing harm, you're still willing to cause harm to satisfy your greed. Once again, you're being malicious.
But let's take a more substantial example: If I go in a rather thin crowd and start shooting in random directions with the goal of drawing attention, nothing says that anyone will actually get hurt. Just because it *could* happen doesn't mean it will. I will also tell myself that people should just be more careful, and I haven't done anything bad because I haven't targeted anyone directly. But I'm still willing to take a significant risk of harming others to get the attention I crave. I WANT to take a large risk of harming or killing other people to get my attention fix. According to the logic of your point, then this isn't malicious, which to me sounds like total bullshit.
In WotC's case it's even more explicit, because...
quote:
You bring up sadism, but that's not a factor, here. I never said that maliciousness required harm for the sake of harm -- only that it was intentional that harm was inflicted, a point that you yourself agreed on.
Really, I don't get why we keep debating this.
...because in WotC's case, they WANT to harm creators because they think it's the best method of making more money. Their measures have the clear goal of putting people--even small creators--out of business and appropriating their work through bullying and deceit. Many lawyers have commented that, judging by the measures, WotC was out to erase creators and force people into their VTT. The leaks confirmed as much: scorched earth tactics. They are ACTIVELY trying to hurt creators in order to be the only fish in the pond, which they perceive as the beast way of satisfying their greed. Therefore, they are being malicious. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
Edited by - Irennan on 24 Jan 2023 23:37:46 |
|
|
|
Irennan
Great Reader
Italy
3802 Posts |
Posted - 24 Jan 2023 : 23:47:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
unscrupulousness aren't the same as maliciousness, even if the end result is the same.
If I'm unscrupulous, then I'm choosing to take a significant risk of harming others in order to satisfy my greed, therefore I want to take that risk. I know that sooner or later someone will get harmed, and I'm fine with it. That's maliciousness. |
Mathematics is the art of giving the same name to different things. |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36779 Posts |
Posted - 25 Jan 2023 : 02:47:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irennan
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
Who is this guy, and where are these reports?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4kGMsZSdbY
The report is at 12:20
Finally sat down to watch this video... And gave up a few minutes into it. I am highly skeptical that the VP of Digital would be surprised by the acquisition of DNDBeyond, and even more skeptical that he'd say "Hey, we just spent a hell of a lot of money to get this thing that does exactly what I want... Let's destroy it so we can build a new one that does the same thing."
I know this D&D Shorts guy also said that no one reads the surveys, but there's been a hell of a lot of WotC people coming forward to say that's not true.
I'm not going to take everything WotC says on faith, of course, especially given their lies about 4E. But I also need more than someone saying "trust me, I've verified this" before I believe them.
I realize it may seem like I'm being difficult and nitpicky, but I'm disinclined to take anyone's statement as truth without some verification, especially when it deals with "insider" information that no one else is getting and that contains real headscratchers like the one above.
I'm not saying the guy is lying, I'm just saying I need more than just one person giving me this info. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
"One D&D" is coming
