DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[Bedrockgames]

But the answer to "rules can be abused" is never "therefore we should have no rules". They have a policy of what they are and are not willing to sell on their website and if you don't want to conform to it, you should really go sell things elsewhere because they've literally told you that your product isn't wanted. (A policy, I might add, that was put into place because someone put an OGL "rape tournament" module up for sale - the "no rules because you're all adults" lack of a policy they had before was shown to be insufficient to protect their business from malicious publishers wanting to create sales via controversy years ago, and I've seen no sign that things have gotten better on that front since).

The answer to rules can be abused is to have well phrased and well thought out rules and procedures. They can protect themselves from content everyone agrees they don't want, while also making clear to publishers that they are allowed to engage certain themes or not. The issue when you put together an RPG, it is a big cost for a very narrow margin of profit. So if you find yourself wondering whether something interesting in one of your books might but up against any of the guidelines, it can be a lot easier to just take that out (or go to OBS and directly ask permission: which you can do but then that does put them in a position of actually okaying what is allowed and what isn't). On the issue of the report button. I think we all understand the need to report titles for a variety of issues. I just think having it set so titles automatically come down from a report for two weeks, is asking for abuse. Making that threshold on reporting a little higher, maybe tiering it so that not every title under review gets taken down during the review period, would go a long way to making that less of a concern.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.

 

[Jer]

I just think having it set so titles automatically come down from a report for two weeks, is asking for abuse. Making that threshold on reporting a little higher, maybe tiering it so that not every title under review gets taken down during the review period, would go a long way to making that less of a concern.

The thing is - if products need to be manually reviewed and they have a small staff how do you expect them to handle it?

I will also bet that what they're giving in the official response is the worst case response time. Like you I also can't believe that nobody has tried to abuse the reporting system, so I suspect that they have processes in place that expedite the process for publishers they suspect are being maliciously reported and save the two week response window for the publishers whose books they know will need a serious review. They don't need to share those with us and frankly they shouldn't share them with us because it makes it easier for malicious actors to game their process.

Like I said - if people start coming forth to show that DriveThru is abusing their own rules I'll be the first in line to do whatever I can to support them. But so far I'm not seeing that - I'm seeing DriveThru spanking some malicious actors who really deserve to be removed from their site due to violation of the terms of the site that are pretty clearly spelled out. I can't get outraged over that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.

Which makes sense, since they should be able to determine from a review if it is a violation of their policy. The issue is the two weeks, because that is two weeks of missed revenue, but more importantly, for new releases that first two weeks is absolutely crucial. People organize all of their ad buying, marketing, etc on those first two weeks and build momentum. A release is part of a long coordinated effort. If something can come down because a competitor or person who doesn't like you has someone report your book (and if you look at what they said about publishers reviewing one another I think you'll see this is a valid concern), then can really undermine a new RPG (it can break it).

 

[Alzrius]

Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.

That's my understanding as well; it goes on a whitelist, as it were.

 

[Lanefan]

Let me put it like this. Those who think OBS is in the wrong, are you suggesting that ENWorld should allow posters to make hate speech, graphically describe violent sexual assault to women and children, and racism in their posts? It's the same thing. Both are private companies deciding what is allowed on their platform.

Determining what is allowed on one's own platform is one thing. I don't think many if any have a problem with this.

Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The thing is - if products need to be manually reviewed and they have a small staff how do you expect them to handle it?

My expectation is they don't have it set up so that 1 report automatically triggers a two week review that requires the product to come down. I think a better system would be either you have a much higher threshold of reports. I get that they might be walking a fine rope in terms of how many employees they have and where they can allocate resources. I don't expect them to hire an army to review.

I will also bet that what they're giving in the official response is the worst case response time. Like you I also can't believe that nobody has tried to abuse the reporting system, so I suspect that they have processes in place that expedite the process for publishers they suspect are being maliciously reported and save the two week response window for the publishers whose books they know will need a serious review. They don't need to share those with us and frankly they shouldn't share them with us because it makes it easier for malicious actors to game their process.

Like I said - if people start coming forth to show that DriveThru is abusing their own rules I'll be the first in line to do whatever I can to support them. But so far I'm not seeing that - I'm seeing DriveThru spanking some malicious actors who really deserve to be removed from their site due to violation of the terms of the site that are pretty clearly spelled out. I can't get outraged over that.

But the issue is, without that information, people don't even know if the system is being abused or not.

I am not saying Drivethru is abusing its own rules. I am saying bad actors can abuse the reporting system. Two things can be true: a person can abuse their reporting system for marketing reasons, and the reporting system itself can be prone to abuse from other people who just want to get things taken down so they can disrupt a publisher's pipeline.

 

[Jer]

But the issue is, without that information, people don't even know if the system is being abused or not.

Yes we do - publishers need to tell people if it is happening.

And before people say "but DriveThru's policy says they can't talk about it" - no it doesn't. It says defamatory and derogatory comments not any commentary at all. letting people know that the reporting system is being abused is not the same as ginning up a Twitter mob to go harass DriveThru's customer support people.

Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.

This is about businesses interacting with other businesses. I hate to break it to you but businesses choose who they do business with all of the time and bad mouthing another business publicly on social media is a really good way to get them to decide you're not worth the trouble to deal with. The only difference here is that DriveThru is being open about telling people that if they do that they'll drop them as a business partner.

(If they were doing this to customers it would be a different story - but if a business is defaming my business and the people who work for me on social media, I'm not going to be terribly anxious to put their products on my shelf either.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yes we do - publishers need to tell people if it is happening.

And before people say "but DriveThru's policy says they can't talk about it" - no it doesn't. It says defamatory and derogatory comments not any commentary at all. letting people know that the reporting system is being abused is not the same as ginning up a Twitter mob to go harass DriveThru's customer support people.

Or they could construct the reporting system so it isn't as vulnerable to abuse

 

[Jer]

Or they could construct the reporting system so it isn't as vulnerable to abuse

This is actually impossible - any system can be abused by a malicious actor. The best you can do is work on the back end to minimize the effects of that abuse. (Edit: And iteratively refine your system as you go to shut down avenues of abuse as you detect them - no system is going to be perfect but it can be iteratively refined to get better.)