OGL 1.2 is a step in the right direction, but there needs to be a neutral third party who decides whether content is harmful, discriminatory, etc. There's a lot of mistrust based on 1.1 that is leading to people not trusting @Wizards_DnD to apply this standard fairly.
@Wizards_DnD Not only did you roll a nat 1, you rolled a nat 1 with advantage and dice weighted to land on 20... were you not already the most profitable TTRPG? Did your community not already give you that place under the old agreement? All you had to do was leave it alone.
@beinlibertarian I think that the stock market growth can be a huge motivator for elected officials, but they should have very little control of which stocks they own...
@JonathanCoton@DnDBeyond I'd argue that even scrapping 1.1 isn't enough. They'll have to additionally release 1.0b which contains everything in 1.0a and clarifies that it's irrevocable, otherwise there's no guarantee they won't try this again.
Even if @Wizards_DnD choose to backtrack on the awful OGL 1.1, it won't be enough for the community because there's no guarantee they won't try again in the future. They need to release 1.0b which is the same as 1.0a but with the word "irrevocable" added. #OpenDnD
@alotofgalaxies@sinyrd@RidiQlouslee@FreshlobsterC@bbrode After it's decided which series it will pull from, it rolls to determine which card you get from that series. Once you're series 3 complete, if it rolls and determines you should get a series 3 card, it instead gives you 400 tokens.
@alotofgalaxies@sinyrd@RidiQlouslee@FreshlobsterC@bbrode Yes, but when you get a collector's cache, it rolls on a table to determine what you'll get. Among other things, you have a chance to get a card from a series or 100 tokens. If you roll a card, it rolls again to see whether you get one from series 3, 4 or 5...
@LefterthanLeft @davemacladd@elonmusk I don't necessarily think that's true. If you read something on the onion, for instance, it's labeled as satire by the fact that it's on the onion. That doesn't make it not satire.
@legal_himbo If Twitter wishes to be a town square, they should strive to only ban individuals who engage in illegal speech. Otherwise, they should simply improve users abilities to moderate content how they choose.
@obeseandy@davemacladd@elonmusk If it was very obvious, it probably should not have been banned. I've done a lot of clarifying my position over the last couple hours.
@tennysonestead @davemacladd@elonmusk If you had read my other responses, you would realize that I had clarified my position as basically being that he had overstepped in the right direction. Dealing with scammers impersonating people is something that Twitter needs to do. This solution goes too far.
@legal_himbo ... but I do think that there are people who are legitimately trying to scam people by impersonating others and that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
@legal_himbo Unpopular speech, hate speech, and lies are all also part of free speech. I've come to realize that this fix is probably not the best version of this fix (it's an overstep in the right direction). I don't think parody impersonation is a problem...