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

[Alzrius]

No, it doesn't. DTRPG has no duty to provide the service they provide, and thus has no duty to ensure that they do not limit it.

I disagree. I think that they do have a duty to provide that service insofar as it means not denying it based purely on not liking someone's beliefs.

Saying that DTRPG is the only vector doesn't make it true. Saying that DTRPG makes it affordable for a marginal business to operate is true, but this doesn't impose a duty on DTRPG or make them a monopoly.

On the contrary, it gives them monopoly power, which in turn imposes a greater responsibility on them to utilize that power in a manner that benefits more than just themselves.

Yes. DTRPG is under no obligation to provide a cost effective way for your business to exist. This isn't true in any other context. It's not true here.

When they're the only cost-effective way for your business to exist, it becomes true in that context, and so is true here.

 

[Nikosandros]

But most people aren't even commenting on him, they are criticizing the outcome in terms of new policy (which affects all publishers, not just Venger Satanis).

Yes, that's clear. I wrote that in my post.

 

[Jer]

Here there is an interesting debate about some rather general issues, but I think that it is also important to remember what happened with Venger. He published two products that were purposefully inflammatory, he hoped for this exact outcome, so that he could whine about censorship and try to put himself in the spotlight.

Yup. It's somewhat unfortunate that one bad actor ends up forcing them to come up with a policy to handle him that has to cover everyone because that's how our society works, but that's exactly the dynamic that is going on. It's the same thing that created the content and reporting policy that he's lying about now in the first place - one bad actor screwing it up for everyone else.

And now non-bad actors have to worry that this policy will be used against them - just like @Bedrockgames worrying about the content reporting policy being used against publishers acting in good faith - because that's what these guys do. They trash the place and make it a worse place to be than it was before they got there.

 

[Umbran]

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.

So, you view it as "attempting to control". I think another very valid way to view it is telling you up front that they will not work with people who treat them poorly in the public arena.

Many appeal to "freedom of speech" here, but seemingly forget that idea comes with an associate - freedom of association. As in, DriveThruRPG has a right to choose who it works with. And, yeah, if you trash on them in public, they aren't going to want to work with you! This should surprise exactly nobody.

And, "You are (relatively, in a small market) successful, so you are ethically bound to take public abuse from those who work with you," seems a very strange position to take. It seems very easy to apply to someone else, but few, I think, are going to volunteer for being required to stay in business with people who say bad things about them to customers.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I disagree. I think that they do have a duty to provide that service insofar as it means not denying it based purely on not liking someone's beliefs.

You moved the goalposts, but did move them far enough to save your point. What I said was that there's no duty whatsoever to provide the cost-effective access that allows a publisher to stay afloat. You've tried to move that to a duty not to refuse business based on expressed beliefs. But you've broadened the "beliefs" to be anything someone says, and not the actual legal requirement of creed, culture, religion and the like. That's not how that works, either.

On the contrary, it gives them monopoly power, which in turn imposes a greater responsibility on them to utilize that power in a manner that benefits more than just themselves.

No, there's no monopoly power because they do not control the market at all. They provide a service to access that market for publishers that could not otherwise do so, but that's not monopolistic. That's just offering a service. If there was no thing like DTRPG, those publishers would still be unable to access the market. The market was not created and is not controlled by DTRPG.

When they're the only cost-effective way for your business to exist, it becomes true in that context, and so is true here.

No, it doesn't. It means that your business is non-viable without help. There's no duty to make your non-viable business viable.

 

[Alzrius]

You moved the goalposts, but did move them far enough to save your point.

No, actually those are where they always were. You just didn't correctly summarize my point before.

What I said was that there's no duty whatsoever to provide the cost-effective access that allows a publisher to stay afloat. You've tried to move that to a duty not to refuse business based on expressed beliefs. But you've broadened the "beliefs" to be anything someone says, and not the actual legal requirement of creed, culture, religion and the like. That's not how that works, either.

Again, that's not moving it, but rather what I've been saying the entire time. This was never about legal requirements; I've said that since the beginning, back when I was noting that this wasn't a First Amendment issue. It's still not one.

No, there's no monopoly power because they do not control the market at all. They provide a service to access that market for publishers that could not otherwise do so, but that's not monopolistic. That's just offering a service. If there was no thing like DTRPG, those publishers would still be unable to access the market. The market was not created and is not controlled by DTRPG.

Monopoly power does not require that they control the market. It doesn't even require that they restrict access to all of the market; you can have monopoly power without having a monopoly, as noted previously. When they're the only ones who can offer that service in an effective manner (e.g. 85% of the customer base, as an example), then they're the only game in town, and other venues would be able to more effectively offer their services insofar as reaching customers goes.

No, it doesn't. It means that your business is non-viable without help. There's no duty to make your non-viable business viable.

Except the help in question can only come from a single business entity, which puts the onus on them to not refuse help based purely on ideology.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, actually those are where they always were. You just didn't correctly summarize my point before.

Again, that's not moving it, but rather what I've been saying the entire time. This was never about legal requirements; I've said that since the beginning, back when I was noting that this wasn't a First Amendment issue. It's still not one.

Monopoly power does not require that they control the market. It doesn't even require that they restrict access to all of the market; you can have monopoly power without having a monopoly, as noted previously. When they're the only ones who can offer that service in an effective manner (e.g. 85% of the customer base, as an example), then they're the only game in town, and other venues would be able to more effectively offer their services insofar as reaching customers goes.

Except the help in question can only come from a single business entity, which puts the onus on them to not refuse help based purely on ideology.

Okay. Let's do this. I'll proceed forward with my understanding, and you proceed with yours, and let's see what happens with DTRPG and this whole thing. I have my money on "it's perfectly legal, no monopoly claims will be made, and everyone will have to deal with it." What's your guess?

 

[Alzrius]

Okay. Let's do this. I'll proceed forward with my understanding, and you proceed with yours, and let's see what happens with DTRPG and this whole thing. I have my money on "it's perfectly legal, no monopoly claims will be made, and everyone will have to deal with it." What's your guess?

I'm absolutely sure that it's perfectly legal; I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, unless you read that into my saying that it has monopoly power meant that it was somehow in violation of the law. I just think it's a crappy thing for them to do, and my guess is that they'll get away with it despite that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I'm absolutely sure that it's perfectly legal; I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, unless you read that into my saying that it has monopoly power meant that it was somehow in violation of the law. I just think it's a crappy thing for them to do, and my guess is that they'll get away with it despite that.

I hope they continue to do so, 100%. I find your assignment of moral duties to be forced to do business with customers because otherwise they those customers could not afford to have a viable business to be actually harmful and the fastest way to make sure there's no market at all. Neither you nor I have the right to have a viable RPG publishing business, and DTRPG is certainly under no obligations to see it so if we did.

 

[Alzrius]

I find your assignment of moral duties to be forced to do business with customers because otherwise they those customers could not afford to have a viable business to be actually harmful and the fastest way to make sure there's no market at all. Neither you nor I have the right to have a viable RPG publishing business, and DTRPG is certainly under no obligations to see it so if we did.

I completely disagree, and think that allowing businesses to do whatever they want after they've captured an exceptionally large section of market access, particularly with regard to letting them pick and choose whom that access is granted to based on their personal feelings about someone else, would be what results in no market at all.