D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[AnotherGuy]

This has been a project for @Dungeonosophy for a while, so that feels like a bad read on the actual situation. And in general, these sorts of things have always been getting energy because people want to see Wizards doing better because they are such a big part of the industry.

Maybe. But the language used was Hasbro this and Hasbro that. That sounds like beef about the OGL to me.

WoTC is the company directly related to D&D. TSR was the company that published Gaz10. His letter reflects far too much on the Holding Company for me to believe that no OGL bias isn't slipping through.

 

[Maxperson]

But it's exactly the same, just in one instance your acceding to the desires of the thread-maker and in the other you aren't. But either way there are ground rules for what is to be discussed and what is off-limits, meant to focus discussion how the OP intends it to. We do this all the times in different threads, I don't see why this is really any different.

Ground rules =/= echo chamber. They are different, but at this point I think I'm done trying to show you what that difference is. We will have to agree to disagree.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Maybe. But the language used was Hasbro this and Hasbro that. That sounds like beef about the OGL to me.

WoTC is the company directly related to D&D. TSR was the company that published Gaz10. His letter reflects far too much on the Holding Company for me to believe that no OGL bias isn't slipping through.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Look, @Dungeonosophy has been talking about this for years at this point. Someone even bumped their thread up from over a year ago. Not everything is about the OGL.

Ground rules =/= echo chamber. They are different, but at this point I think I'm done trying to show you what that difference is. We will have to agree to disagree.

I would agree that "ground rules ≠ echo chamber", which is why I look at that thread as not being an echo chamber for simply having moderation. People have actually put up disagreements in it. What is being enforced is people basically questioning the whole point of the thread to begin with.

Echo chambers aren't necessarily about official rules, either. Echo chambers are about not having any dissent. If I wanted to, I could say this thread would be an echo chamber without me and @Irlo .

 

[Maxperson]

Echo chambers aren't necessarily about official rules, either. Echo chambers are about not having any dissent. If I wanted to, I could say this thread would be an echo chamber without me and @Irlo .

It's only an echo chamber if dissent is not allowed or tolerated. You guys aren't being driven out, because dissent is welcome.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Look, @Dungeonosophy has been talking about this for years at this point. Someone even bumped their thread up from over a year ago. Not everything is about the OGL.

I'm not saying it's all OGL - please don't make that mistake with my post. But do note he linked his/her letter directly to Kyle Brink's comments. To ignore that connection and the choice taken to hammer Hasbro specifically rather than focus on WoTC and TSR is telling.
We can agree to disagree.

 

[Oofta]

...



Apparently it's relevant enough to be put in the same breath as Birth of a Nation, Huckleberry Finn, and To Kill a Mockingbird. But being somewhat irrelevant kind of makes it easier to use since there will be less outrage over fixing it outside of people who get really outraged at recognizing and fixing these sorts of things.

...

I won't bother repeating most of my thoughts, because this topic is pretty much just on spin cycle anyway.

However, the idea that just because other literature was also mentioned on this thread somehow elevates little known D&D module from 3 decades ago is just goofy. Saying that Strange Brew and Schindler's List are both movies does not suddenly make the other more relevant. Obviously Strange Brew is a masterpiece of Canadian filmography.

 

[Justice and Rule]

It's only an echo chamber if dissent is not allowed or tolerated. You guys aren't being driven out, because dissent is welcome.

I mean, I don't think anyone else was "driven out" of the other thread, they just have to engage with it. If I was talking off-topic here, then I'd have to leave. That's part of ground rules. Echo chambers are where dissent is not allowed, and people can certainly dissent in that thread, but it would have to actually engage with the topic rather than try to shut it down.

I'm not saying it's all OGL - please don't make that mistake with my post. But do note his letter was directly linked to Kyle Brink's comments. To ignore that connection and the choice taken to hammer Hasbro specifically rather than focus on WoTC and TSR is telling.
We can agree to disagree.

I think it's just using points that have been recently made to help modernize their pitch on this topic. I really wouldn't look at it being further than that.

I won't bother repeating most of my thoughts, because this topic is pretty much just on spin cycle anyway.

However, the idea that just because other literature was also mentioned on this thread somehow elevates little known D&D module from 3 decades ago is just goofy. Saying that Strange Brew and Schindler's List are both movies does not suddenly make the other more relevant. Obviously Strange Brew is a masterpiece of Canadian filmography.

I think my point was largely that using such literature misses that those pieces often get used and looked at in those specific contexts, putting this in that sort of stratosphere misses that plenty of lesser things have gotten different reactions and different treatment. This is one of the problems with using "well-known examples" versus "more appropriate examples", in that conflating the two misses differences in how they are analyzed and treated.

Also it was half-a-joke. Not a full one, but at least 50% one.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, I don't think anyone else was "driven out" of the other thread, they just have to engage with it.

There was moderation saying accept the premise or leave, because that's what a + thread like that means.

If I was talking off-topic here, then I'd have to leave. That's part of ground rules.

Have you

Echo chambers are where dissent is not allowed, and people can certainly dissent in that thread

Not according to moderation. Moderation said if you dissent you will be banned from the thread.

 

[Justice and Rule]

There was moderation saying accept the premise or leave, because that's what a + thread like that means.

But that's the point: if you don't accept the premise of a thread and it's basically stifling discussion, that's needed. If we've already had the debate on doing something, do we need to debate it all over again?

Have you

I mean, not that I know of?

Not according to moderation. Moderation said if you dissent you will be banned from the thread.

There are literally people in that thread who have basically said they disagree with different parts. The point is that if you disagree with the whole thing, then you're not really engaging with the thread but questioning its existence in the first place. If I were coming over here and asking "Why do we have this thread, what's the point?", it'd be similar. What happens is there is no discussion because people shut it down in favor of something that the topic wasn't asking.

 

[LordEntrails]

I mean, if this is the case why did they put on a disclaimer to begin with if it was only going to be argued about? I feel like these sorts of arguments break down because they can be used to discount all actions, which they kind of are meant to do.

No, it's not meant to discount all actions. It's intended to point out that action has already been taken, and that action is adequate and further action would, imo, have detrimental impacts.

Again, if you turn it into a teaching tool about how to avoid this sort of racism, why wouldn't you want more people to see it? That seems to be the point of things.

If it were a teaching tool he would be looking to have it published in academic journals, not on a gaming product site.

I mean, I don't think anyone else was "driven out" of the other thread, they just have to engage with it.

I was. Because I could not disagree with the premise.

Look at my first post there, last I looked it had about 40 likes. I've never seen a post get anywhere near 40 likes (I'm sure others have, but I just haven't noticed them). For this forum, that's a sh!t-ton. Look at all the participation in this thread. If it hasn't already, it looks like it will soon surpass the number of posts in the original thread. It's the same topic, why is this thread so much more active then? Because the labelling of the other post as a + thread has simple shut down discussion of the topic and driven it here.

Notice how @Dungeonosophy has not participated in this thread? Why is that? It speaks volumes to me about his intentions with his petition. But I would love to know what his real intentions are, but only he can clarify that and speak for himself. Which he so far has chosen not to do.