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

[Bedrockgames]

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.)

Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.

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.

OK, I get that and in moderation I don't have a real problem with it - consequences of what one says and all that.

But that said, given the wording they've used what's stopping them from going after dissatisfied customers? "Derogatory comments" is a very wide net.

(If they were doing this to customers it would be a different story

As it sits they've left the door wide open for exactly this, the way I read it.

 

[Jer]

But that said, given the wording they've used what's stopping them from going after dissatisfied customers? "Derogatory comments" is a very wide net.

Well, because it's in the publisher's code of conduct for one thing. They don't have a customer code of conduct. If they add one I'll be the first in line to push back against it.

 

[Alzrius]

Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.

For what it's worth, I don't think that's correct; the new guidelines are with regard to publishers, not customers. You might run into an issue if you make a derogatory comment as a customer and then later start up a publishing company that wants to sell on their storefront, but it's hard to say if they'd hold that against you.

 

[Lanefan]

For what it's worth, I don't think that's correct; the new guidelines are with regard to publishers, not customers. You might run into an issue if you make a derogatory comment as a customer and then later start up a publishing company that wants to sell on their storefront, but it's hard to say if they'd hold that against you.

Ah. I thought it was blanket.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.

OK, I get that and in moderation I don't have a real problem with it - consequences of what one says and all that.

But that said, given the wording they've used what's stopping them from going after dissatisfied customers? "Derogatory comments" is a very wide net.

As it sits they've left the door wide open for exactly this, the way I read it.

The policy is for publishers, not customers (though if you view publishers as their customers as well, then that is different). But I don't think any of this applies to people who are simply buying PDFs and POD books at Drivethru. It applies to a publisher making claims on social media.

 

[Jer]

Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.

If they raised that number and said what it was it would just lead to abusers rounding up enough friends or creating enough accounts to reach the threshold that they've published. Give me a number and you've just created a metric to hit - and with it being online it doesn't make it harder, it just makes it a bit more time consuming. (I also don't actually believe that a single report does what they say - I suspect all of that is CYA language for legal and PR purposes, but even if it is the difference between 1 report and 10 reports on the anonymous internet is meaningless).

 

[J.Quondam]

Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.

But sometimes one report should be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.
There is no perfect system, and any system can (and will) be abused. The best one can hope for is that the whoever is implementing the system -- whatever it is -- is doing so in good faith.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

At least one person ITT seems to have a problem with that, actually. There are several people who get agitate over that every time this sort of thing comes up.

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.

That isn't what's happening.
Look, I sell autoparts. If the local Seafoam sales rep started using his position and professional contacts to badmouth my company, my upper management would absolutely be justified in removing Seafoam products from our shelves.

Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.

What's stopping them blocking someone from using the service because they find their work annoying? What right does anyone have to tell them they can't curate what is sold in their store?

But sometimes one report should be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.

I was nodding along until "stolen IP".

It is actively deleterious to creative endeavors to have "take down first and review later" policies for IP theft. That is a very widely abused type of policy. I would go so far as to say that IP theft should never cause removal until a human has reviewed the work in question.

Either way, it's not remotely comparable to snuff imagery. Obviously.

There is no "right" to get your book sold in stores, or even published by a publishing house. You have a right to write it, and to distribute it privately, and to distribute it publicly so long as it is not directly harmful to the public good. And even then, the Anarchist's Cookbook isn't illegal for a reason.

But you could never win a case that Amazon has to carry it. Not a legal case, nor a discussion on moral philosophy.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But sometimes one report should be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.
There is no perfect system, and any system can (and will) be abused. The best one can hope for is that the whoever is implementing the system -- whatever it is -- is doing so in good faith.

Sure, but then you have every product being treated as heavily as a snuff RPG. It isn't about the implentors of the system being good faith actors (I think OBS is a good faith actor, they don't want to screw over publishers). But anyone, literally anyone, can report a book as soon as it comes out, for whatever reason, and it gets taken down for two weeks. So it is the bad faith actors on the reporting side I think the system needs to protect against. If they are concerned about illegal content, then by all means have an "Illegal Content" specific report button, but maybe have that come with a stipulation (like if you report something as illegal, and it isn't you lose reporting privileges).