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

[Myrdin Potter]

It's not a "very strong free speech belief" to argue that a private company, merely by virtue of being popular or successful, is morally obligated to continue do business with vendors who attack the company's financial well-being by publicly disparaging them - even if the public attacks on that company are untruthful or are intended to gin up attacks on social media.

There were more updates to their policy than just the hostile marketing one. My statement is in regard to their policy on posting strong political views in public without their written permission.

It has zero to do with attacking them or encouraging others to attack them.

 

[mythago]

There were more updates to their policy than just the hostile marketing one. My statement is in regard to their policy on posting strong political views in public without their written permission.

It has zero to do with attacking them or encouraging others to attack them.

Where in their policy does it say “if you post strong political views in public without DTRPG’s written permission we may kick you off DTRPG”?

I find it interesting that the deep concerns about free speech gloss right over OBE’s review policy, which prohibits anyone connected professionally to the author from leaving a review (even if they disclose that relationship).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Where in their policy does it say “if you post strong political views in public without DTRPG’s written permission we may kick you off DTRPG”?

That isn't the exact phrasing but the portion of the guidelines around this that people are discussing is actually from a guideline that I think has been in place for a bit (I am not sure when it went up; I could be wrong on the timing, especially since I haven't released something on there in two years and am a bit rusty and behind). But it is part of the product guidelines (which is linked to in the Publisher Conduct Guidelines page on Drivethru):

Product Content

Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases, may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.

 

[Morrus]

That refers specifically to material promoting a title on DTRPG. It doesn't mean, as some people seem to be interpreting it, that you can't post political views anywhere. I think it could be phrased a little more clearly, but I feel the intention is clear.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That refers specifically to material promoting a title on DTRPG. It doesn't mean, as some people seem to be interpreting it, that you can't post political views anywhere. I think it could be phrased a little more clearly, but I feel the intention is clear.

I tend to agree with your interpretation. I just posted it so that the relevant text was there (sometimes in these discussions people start debating other peoples interpretations of texts or a posts, so I thought it would be beneficial to repost the original text). I do think it is a little unclear as you say, and I think there is a gray area here as well. You could argue for example that a publishers blog page is always promoting books they have on Drivethru (i.e. any time you post about anything it is feeding the overall marketing) or that their twitter account is always doing so, and if they interpreted their own guidelines very broadly, it might be applies to any post a publisher makes on a platform that is part of their marketing efforts. But I don't see any evidence that this is how they are intending the guidelines to be used. I think it would be good if they revised it though for clarity.

Also because I think a little mercy on this one would be a good idea. I can easily foresee something like a publisher making an appeal to a political issue that heats up and they feel emotional over, and then mention one of their books or say they will be donating all proceedings from that book to a cause (we saw that with some recent events in US politics for example). I wouldn't want to see those individuals punished by Drivethru for that.

I think the bigger problem with this one is it basically says you can't make an overtly political RPG. I am not sure that is a good thing for anyone (one any side of the political aisle). Because it isn't just about the marketing: it says the work itself in the intro. Personally I am not into RPGs that are trying to advance political agendas. Just my opinion and preference. But I think that is a valid form of expression in the medium and probably important to a lot of creators and fans to have. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing this, so maybe it is just weirdly phrased, and not really the guidelines. But if that is the case, again, I think changing the wording would go a long way to help clarify what is allowed.

 

[mythago]

That isn't the exact phrasing but the portion of the guidelines around this that people are discussing is actually from a guideline that I think has been in place for a bit (I am not sure when it went up; I could be wrong on the timing, especially since I haven't released something on there in two years and am a bit rusty and behind). But it is part of the product guidelines (which is linked to in the Publisher Conduct Guidelines page on Drivethru):

And those product guidelines don't say "you cannot post anything political in public without our written permission". They don't say anything remotely like it. They are referring to what you can put up on DTRPG.

I think the bigger problem with this one is it basically says you can't make an overtly political RPG. I am not sure that is a good thing for anyone (one any side of the political aisle). Because it isn't just about the marketing: it says the work itself in the intro. Personally I am not into RPGs that are trying to advance political agendas. Just my opinion and preference. But I think that is a valid form of expression in the medium and probably important to a lot of creators and fans to have. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing this, so maybe it is just weirdly phrased, and not really the guidelines. But if that is the case, again, I think changing the wording would go a long way to help clarify what is allowed.

No, it says that DTRPG may refuse to give you a venue to sell RPGs that are, in management's view, "overtly political". It doesn't say a thing about what games you can make; it doesn't prohibit someone from posting their 'non-political' games for sale on DTRPG and selling their 'overtly political' games elsewhere, like at itch.

 

[Bedrockgames]

No, it says that DTRPG may refuse to give you a venue to sell RPGs that are, in management's view, "overtly political". It doesn't say a thing about what games you can make; it doesn't prohibit someone from posting their 'non-political' games for sale on DTRPG and selling their 'overtly political' games elsewhere, like at itch.

this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know

 

[Gradine]

The problem here is the phrase "politics", and who we let define it. Some refer to calls for or acts of inclusion "politics"; other's call hatred and bigotry and other acts of exclusion "politics". Both are categorically wrong. The former is basic human decency and latter are garbage individuals not fit for polite society. Neither is "political" unless we accept that all things personal are political, which may very well be true but it makes cries against "politics" all the more ineffectual.

I oppose a blanket ban on "politics" because it is moral cowardice, a both-sides-ist Rorschach test masquerading as a stand. I think there are plenty of appropriate and interesting ways to address politics (even modern politics!) without creating anything objectionable (or at least not objectionable by non-trash individuals), and if we entertain that inclusivity OR bigotry are politics then it is the height of hypocrisy to declare its opposite apolitical. Either both or neither are.

Quite frankly the only truly moral stance is an acceptance (if not outright embrace) of inclusion and a fully throated and consistently upheld exclusion of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry. The only truly moral society is one that gives all those who go out of their way to attack, belittle, dismiss, and dehumanize others merely for who they are, absolutely no quarter. No platform to publish or share their toxic views. No where to feel comfortable or supported in their barbaric treatment of others. No safe spaces. No peace. Never for them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And those product guidelines don't say "you cannot post anything political in public without our written permission". They don't say anything remotely like it. They are referring to what you can put up on DTRPG.

I didn’t say it did. I posted it for clarity so you would have the text to work off instead of the other poster’s synopsis

But do note the portion at the beginning where it talks about marketing (which would include marketing off of DTRPG for products that are up on Drivethru)

 

[Jd Smith1]

this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know

You waffle a great deal.