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

[Irlo]

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.

It’s not based on ideology, though. It’s based on product content that conflicts with the values of the business and its customer base. It’s based on derogatory statements, and defamation.

 

[Alzrius]

It’s not based on ideology, though. It’s based on product content that conflicts with the values of the business and its customer base. It’s based on derogatory statements, and defamation.

"Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.

 

[thirdkingdom]

"Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.

Just out of curiosity, @Alzrius , are you one of the publishers who potentially will be affected by this updated policy?

 

[Alzrius]

Just out of curiosity, @Alzrius , are you one of the publishers who potentially will be affected by this updated policy?

Nope, though I should add that I try not to be someone who only cares about the things that affect them personally.

 

[Irlo]

"Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.

Oh, I see. I would distinguish between the ideology of a content creator and any particular expression of that ideology in a product or in public discourse. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs.

I’m not a huge DTRPG customer — I’ve spent < $200 there in the last 10 years — but if the site was a minefield of misogyny and racism and other offensive content, I wouldn’t browse there at all. Those content creators who got some of my money can thank the site’s curation for that.

 

[thirdkingdom]

Nope, though I should add that I try not to be someone who only cares about the things that affect them personally.

Ah. I'm one of those publishers, and the staff has been pretty clear about these updated policies. A lot of them have been in place for years and are part of the contract you sign when applying to sell stuff through their platform. The specific instances that seem to have people riled up is a specific response to a very small number of bad actors who are being either abusive or manipulating the system for their own benefit. They posted a clarification today that further explains their decision, and you might find it helpful to read.

I don't want to speak for all publishers, but my experiences with Drivethru's staff -- as a publisher and purchaser both -- have been nothing but positive. I think they go out of their way to be as helpful and clear as possible.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't want to speak for all publishers, but my experiences with Drivethru's staff -- as a publisher and purchaser both -- have been nothing but positive. I think they go out of their way to be as helpful and clear as possible.

Of that I have no doubt; I don't think that DriveThruRPG is trying to be an ogre about this, and I'm equally certain that they're trying to do right by as many people as they can. I just think that there are also points of legitimate criticism that can be made with regard to some of their policies (both old and new), and that there's merit in bringing them up, at least when the exchange can be held frankly and respectfully with regard to the different philosophies involved.

 

[jdrakeh]

We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this.

Not just him. Several publishers who run in that circle manufacture outrage to sell their products by defaming (no, not merely criticizing) DTRPG.

 

[dragoner]

Not just him. Several publishers who run in that circle manufacture outrage to sell their products by defaming (no, not merely criticizing) DTRPG.

I'm not sure if it better or worse for them to have the stated policy. People such as him, could still be refused service, however.

Sort of like the OGL, I know lawyers have posted various places that the power of it is only for the use of the trademarks, and nothing else is enforceable.

Overall though, as a publisher, I have found dtrpg to be helpful and nice.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree but this is probably a bigger issue that gets into politics. All I will say is except platforms don't get broken up anymore. It tends not to happen, and in the case of Amazon, I think they are really on the cusp of being a major issue. Amazon arguably is a monopoly (I do think for a company the size of amazon, especially since they took over Wholefoods and are getting into our refrigerator now), they have a lot of moral responsibility in terms of what products they are willing to carry (beyond books, but including what they stock on their shelves).

That's kind of my point. Yelling at the monopoly to monopolize more ethically is...wasted effort. They won't, unless they happen to be personally amenable to it and it doesn't cost them significantly to do so.

The solution is to start bullying the federal government to actually regulate monopolies again, which it seems like hasn't happened much since Microsoft got broken up. DTRPG is a much less monopolized force. Any creator can crowdfund the first printing and use that drum up notoriety. Being the biggest player doesn't make them the only game in town.

And again, even if they were, they wouldn't be obligated to carry inflammatory works that run counter to their morals and those of their customer base.

Because when a company gets that big, you can have special needs products that people need for say medical or dietary reasons that vanish from the supply chain if a company the size of an amazon is not actively selling them. They also are able to play games with the market because they have so much data on products sales as a seller (that when they make their own products they are able to put themselves at an unfair advantage).

All of which relates to monopolies and the purpose of laws restricting them, not to the supposed obligation of a venue to publish literally any speech handed to it, regardless of it's content.

To me this seems a very extreme position. This is a spectrum, surely we are all going to draw the line at different places, but I think saying they are never ever obligated morally to sell something, seems short sighted to me. Obviously even if books are available elsewhere, not being on major platforms like amazon, is going to impact what books actually get made. If amazon says tomorrow, "No books covering sexual orientation or LGTQ issues" I would take issue and say they have a moral obligation to not exclude books on that basis. Because that is going to impact both peoples access to such books and whether such books even get made in the first place (and it is also just a bad reason morally for them not carrying the book). Or if they took down the bible or the Quran I would say the same thing.

I generally assume that readers can be relied upon to apply basic assumptions like "except in case of discrimination against protected classes" just like I assume alzurius doesn't think DTRPG has to publish stuff that explicitly makes specific threats of violence or other illegal material, without needing them to say that. (they may have done, actually, I don't recall at this point)