Zardnaar
Legend
I feel like there's a typo in this sentence but I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The "at a minimum" doesn't seem to work with the rest of the sentence though.
Non-problematic instead of problematic maybe? If so I'm not sure that's really true. I think there are probably plenty that accidentally dodge any significant problematic stuff.
But I don't think that's really a problem. I think he said "major", and if you just let people email you or click a button after they've bought something on DM's Guild or w/e, the major offenders would get many times more hits than the other ones, and you could just have someone slowly working through it all.
I'm not sure where "correct" comes in. Acknowledge, though, is helpful. I don't think you need to hit every product. I do think there are ones as bad as this which perhaps deserve more than the disclaimer.
Meh. All they'd do would be to get the order of approach wrong, and you could quickly dismiss them. You keep a spreadsheet and if they make you look at X book first and it's obviously fine, you check it off and ignore future reports on that unless someone like emails with specifics.
It draws attention to it and clicks and views. Orcs of Thar was mostly long forgotten wasn't even that major when it came out.
It's fanning the fires if they did do a rewrite it would make YouTube videos etc.
Well more like blowing oxygen on near dead embers.
People think that helps but after the events of 2015/16 it makes things worse.
The product is a reflection of the time it was made. Sometimes those mirrors to the past aren't nice.