TSR Who's running the TSR3 social media accounts?

Ernie Gygax (before he and Stephen Dinehart accused the whole affair of being orchestrated by WotC and then deleted their Twitter accounts) indicated that Justin LaNasa was running the social media accounts for TSR3, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum.

After a full week of insults, barbed exchanges, and problematic statements from all three accounts, the following has been posted by somebody who identified themselves as "Michael", perhaps suggesting that Justin LaNasa is no longer with the company (which seems unlikely), leaving many on social media to question whether "Michael" exists. The new TSR3 was founded by LaNasa, Stephen Dinehart, and Ernie Gygax, and despite the acrinomious social media activity, the former two founders' names have largely escaped much of the criticism.

UPDATE -- the below tweets now appear to have been deleted.

​

Around the same time, the header above the available events at the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum website was altered to read: "Most role playing games will be played in old school fashion so if you're easliy offended or Rude ! DO NOT PLAY !" (sic)

​

So who is TSR3 co-founder Justin LaNasa? He was an American politician who ran for office in 2014 and 2020, and who was involved in a minor scandal during the latter campaign.

​

 

[Sacrosanct]

The shanara stories were post-apoc, and these settings keep getting made. Recently I got UVG, which is excellent, and I am sure there are dozens others.

Doh! Terry Brooks is one of my favorite authors. How I forgot the Shannara series is beyond me lol. That was in 1977, and I know there were at least video games based off it.

A person with the background he has, it's really weird to hear Jim make that claim. And it wasn't the first time either (he made the same claim several weeks ago).

Jim is a smart guy. I have no idea what this team is doing with their claims. First ever fantasy post-apoc game? The original designers are back? Star Frontiers being re-released?

This are not just hyperbolic claims, these are so far out there and so easily validated as untrue, who would believe them? Oh wait, I just remembered the crazy things large groups of people have been believing recently...

 

[BookTenTiger]

The social media attacks that specifically singled out Ernie for attack through multiple retweets fit within the academic paper"s premise of network harassment.

Whether Ernie is guilty of another crime is irrelevant to him bring a target of network harassment. The focus of the paper is how that is not a healthy social model, not the innocence or guilt of the victim.

Online harassment is a real topic worthy of greater discussion.

But I feel like that's not what this thread is about. You keep bringing it up, though. How do you find it relevant to the statements that TSR3 and Ernie Gygax have made, and the absence of a real apology to the LGBTQ+ community?

 

[Sir Brennen]

Not being a lawyer, I don't know if it's possible for Wizards to sue for reputational damage at this point. It seems like a stretch, though, and even if they could, I still can't imagine it would be a very potent threat right now.

That last point IM(unprofessional)O seems pretty much like libel, which is actually pretty hard to prove.

I don't know if anyone has been keeping tabs on the TSR Games Twitter account, but it does seem like there's several tweets over the last couple of days now trying to state how they are inclusive, praising Hasbro, and focusing more on the upcoming product. Twitter seems to be showing them in random order, so it's a little difficult to follow (thanks Twitter). That's all on top of the deleted tweets/accounts. So maybe "Michael" is trying to clean up things a bit (there's still some questionable tweets and replies), after realizing how badly they screwed the company's reputation right out of the gate.

All I can think of is the Maya Angelou quote: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”

 

[Maxperson]

Doh! Terry Brooks is one of my favorite authors. How I forgot the Shannara series is beyond me lol. That was in 1977, and I know there were at least video games based off it.

And two seasons of a TV show.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Doh! Terry Brooks is one of my favorite authors. How I forgot the Shannara series is beyond me lol. That was in 1977, and I know there were at least video games based off it.

My first thought on hearing Giant Lands premise was for one of my favorite author's as well, Gene Wolfe and the Book of the New Sun series. Definitely post-apocalyptic sci-fantasy, and was adapted as an TTRPG setting by Steve Jackson Game's for their GURPS system.

And it's set on Earth, which seems to be one of the qualifiers Giant Lands added to their "unique genre" claim.

 

[Maxperson]

That last point IM(unprofessional)O seems pretty much like libel, which is actually pretty hard to prove.

They don't have to be able to prove it, though. They just need to be able to have something reasonable to point to for the lawsuit, which they arguably have. At that point you're running up legal fees which WotC can afford and TSR most likely can't.

 

[Sacrosanct]

And two seasons of a TV show.

I've heard rumors of those. Like I heard rumors that Highlander 2 was a thing. But I don't believe they exist.

 

[Steampunkette]

The article itself reads as an attempt to create a scientific basis for the idea of virtue signaling. Which is itself a dog whistle and politically motivated piece of jargon intended to shut down any sort of response to impropriety.

That's what they mean when they use this particular phrasing:

"In morally motivated networked harassment, a member of a social network or online community accuses a target of violating their network’s norms, triggering moral outrage. Network members send harassing messages to the target, reinforcing their adherence to the norm and signaling network membership."

Apply this same logic to any other form of society or situation thereof.

Person A engages in an act that is counter to society's norms.

Person B points out that that person has engaged in an act that is counter to society's norms.

Society at large rebukes Person A while a handful of people, typically following a counter culture, defend Person A.

The situation in reality is usually resolved in one of four ways:

1) Person A faces civil or legal repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society.

2) Person A faces social repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are not codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society but are widely regarded as wrong.

3) Person B is rebuked for lying about Person A violating social norms triggering option one or two for themselves.

4) Person B is rebuked because the social norm that they claimed has been broken does not exist, regardless of how much it should exist, thus triggering option one or two for themselves.

That's it. That's society in a nutshell. Trying to pretend that it's something new and interesting and strange and different because it's online is just kind of weird to me? Particularly since they self-defined network harassment as a form of social shaming while acknowledging that harassment typically means something much more visceral or terrible. Such as sexual harassment, death threats, threats of physical violence, or stalking. They should have just called it social shaming instead of "network harassment"

Giving it the name network harassment just seems needless. It's placing a higher or more drastic word to something that is not that difficult or extreme. It's an attempt to equate people facing very simple consequences for their statements and actions to the targeted harassment and pain that people do face through no fault of their own.

In short an attempt to co-opt a serious problem and apply it to the wounded pride of individuals who in any other aspect of society face similar repercussions unless they were surrounded entirely by a subcultural bubble which adheres to their particular social norms that are different from societal social norms.

 

[Maxperson]

I've heard rumors of those. Like I heard rumors that Highlander 2 was a thing. But I don't believe they exist.

I haven't seen these rumored seasons. I take it that they are pretty bad.

 

[RFB Dan]

The article itself reads as an attempt to create a scientific basis for the idea of virtue signaling. Which is itself a dog whistle and politically motivated piece of jargon intended to shut down any sort of response to impropriety.

That's what they mean when they use this particular phrasing:

Apply this same logic to any other form of society or situation thereof.

Person A engages in an act that is counter to society's norms.

Person B points out that that person has engaged in an act that is counter to society's norms.

Society at large rebukes Person A while a handful of people, typically following a counter culture, defend Person A.

The situation in reality is usually resolved in one of four ways:

1) Person A faces civil or legal repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society.

2) Person A faces social repercussions for their actions, in the event that their actions are not codified into law as being opposed to the social norms of the society but are widely regarded as wrong.

3) Person B is rebuked for lying about Person A violating social norms triggering option one or two for themselves.

4) Person B is rebuked because the social norm that they claimed has been broken does not exist, regardless of how much it should exist, thus triggering option one or two for themselves.

That's it. That's society in a nutshell. Trying to pretend that it's something new and interesting and strange and different because it's online is just kind of weird to me? Particularly since they self-defined network harassment as a form of social shaming while acknowledging that harassment typically means something much more visceral or terrible. Such as sexual harassment, death threats, threats of physical violence, or stalking. They should have just called it social shaming instead of "network harassment"

Giving it the name network harassment just seems needless. It's placing a higher or more drastic word to something that is not that difficult or extreme. It's an attempt to equate people facing very simple consequences for their statements and actions to the targeted harassment and pain that people do face through no fault of their own.

In short an attempt to co-opt a serious problem and apply it to the wounded pride of individuals who in any other aspect of society face similar repercussions unless they were surrounded entirely by a subcultural bubble which adheres to their particular social norms that are different from societal social norms.

So maybe it's just my perspective, and by no means am I trying to be a jerk. But I do think the reason they get so upset about all this and coin ridiculous terms like "virtue signaling" and "cancel culture" and blame the internet & social media for all the backlash is simply because they used to get away with it by being totally anonymous for the first twenty years on the internet and now they actually have to face repercussions for their actions.