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

[ReshiIRE]

I never said the petition called for ending availability or censorship.

Cleanse may not have been the the best term, but apologizing, giving all money ever earned to charity, hiring consultants, make amends by publishing additional materials, etc. Is IMHO trying to cleanse (aka clean up) what is perceived as objectionable materials.

WOTC will never do that. If this became a big issue they would just pull the publication, whether that's a stated or intended goal of the petition or not.

Stop accusing me of something I never said.

It's not as serious as an accusation and I hope I'm not painting you as something bad. I've asked for clarification and gotten it. I was trying to understand where you stood and why I found some of your earlier posts as not matching what you said earlier.

 

[Oofta]

I suppose, which makes the issue difficult to talk about because people default to quicker words rather than something with nuance. It doesn't help that people are really having the wrong conversation about this whole thing anyways.



What do you think you mean when you talk about "cleanse all old material"?

Apologize, rewrite or write new material that has an in-world correction/explanation, etc.. Basically attempt to make old materials more palatable somehow.

I don't see how you could do it without rewriting a lot of older material even if that was not directly called for in the petition.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Question to you about your definitions of censorship.

[This is not related to the topic of GAZ10, it is not implying any one position in that debate]

Let's say the League of Outraged Bowlers represented 10% of the bowlers in a given area. The LoOB absolutely hates turquoise bowling balls. They petition bowling alleys nationwide to not allow turquoise balls. Those bowling alleys realize they don't have many turquoise ball using guests to anger and want to keep the LoOB happy so they agree to the petition.

We're turquoise ball fans censored? If so what % of the blame goes toward the LoOB for the censoring?

I realize the above example does not fit the technical definition of censor however I do feel it fits the description as it's being used at ENworld. Im not sure if there is a better technical word to use to describe the outcome as it pertains to those affected by the change.

I mean, as it pertains to people I'd say "squeezed out", but I get the struggle here. Before we continue, I assume we are talking about the moderation choice here, i.e. the use of a "+" thread? I just want to be sure.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Apologize, rewrite or write new material that has an in-world correction/explanation, etc.. Basically attempt to make old materials more palatable somehow.

I don't see how you could do it without rewriting a lot of older material even if that was not directly called for in the petition.

I don't really think that jives with most people's understanding of how that works. "Retcon" is probably something closer to what you want, but definitely not "rewrite". But also I don't really agree with your underlying contentions about what that entails, either.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I mean, as it pertains to people I'd say "squeezed out", but I get the struggle here. Before we continue, I assume we are talking about the moderation choice here, i.e. the use of a "+" thread?

I'm certainly not talking about any particular action or choice , I'm just illustrating how the word censor might mean different things to different people and trying to bridge an understanding.

To bring it back to the OP of this thread ... I personally believe that if this petition were "successful" (and by that I mean get enough attention WotC were forced to respond to it) then the end result would be not anything that the petition asked for, but instead just a removal of the item from the marketplace.

Because I value free and easy access to whatever information an individual is interested in over almost all else, this petition would at best have no affect on GAZ10 availability and at worst make it harder to find for those who want a copy.

 

[Oofta]

It's not as serious as an accusation and I hope I'm not painting you as something bad. I've asked for clarification and gotten it. I was trying to understand where you stood and why I found some of your earlier posts as not matching what you said earlier.

My stance:

• I think that in the half century D&D has been around, there have been a lot of things that don't sit well today.
• GAZ10 is a weird an obscure publication to be concerned about.
• Drow, on the other hand are a prime example of something that never sat well with me and I've revised their lore in my home campaign.
• a more generic, but detailed discussion that talks about a variety of issues might be a good thing. You could include things like GAZ10, but it wouldn't stop there.
• There is no way they're going to put significant thought or effort into legacy modules unless they are rewriting and republishing (i.e. Ravenloft).
• Since they are never going to spend money on these older materials if there's enough controversy and negative publicity for them to care, they'll just stop selling them.

That's the main points.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I'm certainly not talking about any particular action or choice , I'm just illustrating how the word censor might mean different things to different people and trying to bridge an understanding.

It really is hard because it depends on what you are talking about. So much of this is based in the exact situation that it makes broad hypotheticals harder to use. Like, if you were making a comparison to the "+" thread, that'd be easier: that's moderation, curation, etc. If you are talking about taking a piece of literature off, that's a bit different. Maybe that could be censorship, but maybe not. It depends.

To bring it back to the OP of this thread ... I personally believe that if this petition were "successful" (and by that I mean get enough attention WotC were forced to respond to it) then the end result would be not anything that the petition asked for, but instead just a removal of the item from the marketplace.

Because I value free and easy access to whatever information an individual is interested in over almost all else, this petition would at best have no affect on GAZ10 availability and at worst make it harder to find for those who want a copy.

I keep hearing this as the obvious default response, but the disclaimers up are only 3 years old. They had the option to nuke it then and didn't. I feel like it's wrong to simply think that is the default choice and find that this sort of thinking is more meant to stifle trying. It sort of comes off as the D&D version of "Better things aren't possible".

 

[ReshiIRE]

Let's say the League of Outraged Bowlers represented 10% of the bowlers in a given area. The LoOB absolutely hates turquoise bowling balls. They petition bowling alleys nationwide to not allow turquoise balls. Those bowling alleys realize they don't have many turquoise ball using guests to anger and want to keep the LoOB happy so they agree to the petition.

We're turquoise ball fans censored? If so what % of the blame goes toward the LoOB for the censoring?

I assume by area you mean a national area, and not a specific area within a national context

I would not call this censorship, because one can assume that:

a) turquoise ball fans can talk about it and presumably can still have their turquoise balls outside of said space

b) they have an opportunity to make their own bowling alley

c) ... this example comes off as incompete because there hasn't been a reason specified as to why these balls are hated, why there aren't many fans, and what the motivations are?

 

[ReshiIRE]

My stance:

• I think that in the half century D&D has been around, there have been a lot of things that don't sit well today.
• GAZ10 is a weird an obscure publication to be concerned about.
• Drow, on the other hand are a prime example of something that never sat well with me and I've revised their lore in my home campaign.
• a more generic, but detailed discussion that talks about a variety of issues might be a good thing. You could include things like GAZ10, but it wouldn't stop there.
• There is no way they're going to put significant thought or effort into legacy modules unless they are rewriting and republishing (i.e. Ravenloft).
• Since they are never going to spend money on these older materials if there's enough controversy and negative publicity for them to care, they'll just stop selling them.

That's the main points.

I agree on all of those except 2 and I think I soft disagree on 6 / think it's more complex.

My knowleldge of how significant GAZ10 is not there (I wasn't around for it, I have not done that research) and the more popular a piece is the more harm it can cause. However, to me, that isn't a relevant point - a harmful work is a harmful work, and random crap can suddenly receive attention because of anything. I think dealing with any wrong is a commendable thing, even if I would agree a wider conversation is needed.

I can see WoTC being lazy and stop selling some material but I can see them being less lazy depending on how the company changes over time. I think the naughty word that happened with Spelljammer may have hopefully been a proper turning point and that they can see the value medium and long term to taking the effort to just, say, donating further proceeds to chairty and working with the community to identify harmful hateful content in past books (because a lot of this information is out there and documented).

I don't know. I am pretty cynical about WoTC but I can see them taking positive action on something like this - especially since just taking them down would prompt a further backlash.

 

[Oofta]

I agree on all of those except 2 and I think I soft disagree on 6 / think it's more complex.

My knowleldge of how significant GAZ10 is not there (I wasn't around for it, I have not done that research) and the more popular a piece is the more harm it can cause. However, to me, that isn't a relevant point - a harmful work is a harmful work, and random crap can suddenly receive attention because of anything. I think dealing with any wrong is a commendable thing, even if I would agree a wider conversation is needed.

I can see WoTC being lazy and stop selling some material but I can see them being less lazy depending on how the company changes over time. I think the naughty word that happened with Spelljammer may have hopefully been a proper turning point and that they can see the value medium and long term to taking the effort to just, say, donating further proceeds to chairty and working with the community to identify harmful hateful content in past books (because a lot of this information is out there and documented).

I don't know. I am pretty cynical about WoTC but I can see them taking positive action on something like this - especially since just taking them down would prompt a further backlash.

I just think revisiting a mod published by TSR would be opening a can of worms for little benefit.

Unless they're publishing a new version, it's not happening.