D&D General PETITION: Acknowledge Hasbro's hurtful content (Black orcs, Asian yellow orcs, Native American red orcs)—through an Amendatory Bundle [+ thread]

[Paul Farquhar]

I ide

A 48-page course should be required before all important decisions. If someone isn't ready to learn about a thing, maybe they don't need to interact with/participate in it.

Sure. But it's an interesting idea to try and hold a thread on an internet discussion forum to a higher standard than a national government.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

This is way beyond the intent and scope of a [+] thread. For the record, you cannot assign homework to people who want to participate in a thread, let alone demad they read a 48-page document first.

Glad to know more about the scope of a [+] thread at ENWorld. I'm interested in collaborating with ENWorld moderation/leadership in shaping and discerning the scope of this [+] tool, when laying the groundwork for a genuine, informed discussion on a fraught topic.

I replaced the parameter of "reading the 48-page Research Document" with "reading the FAQ", which I just cut-and-pasted to the OP. Let me know if further re-shapings are necessary as I move forward.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

I can't help thinking that if people had to read a 48 page research paper before signing a petition, there would be a lot fewer signatures.

I'm okay with that. The petition is only one of several avenues I'm exploring for bringing Hasbro's hurtful content to a wider audience.

Not that that is necessarily a bad thing. I mean, petitions generally rely on knee-jerk emotional responses in order to gain signatures. It's why they are not actually a good reflection of popular opinion.

Hi Paul, this sounds close in tonality to one of the [+] parameters I requested that folks refrain from: NEGATIVE: "Petitions never work."
While you did include the hedging word "generally", the general tone of your comment points to an implication that the Petition is a "knee-jerk emotional response" and "not a good reflection of popular opinion."
I acknowledge that, since you said the word "generally", that technically you weren't specifically referring to this petition. But my [+] parameter, as stated (see above), includes negative statements about petitions in general.

I hear Micky Mouse reads everything though.

Could you explain this reference?

this article might be relevant to the discussion: Voices: I’m a ‘sensitivity reader’ – this is what Puffin failed to grasp on Roald Dahl

Paul, this statement of yours does not respect the [+] parameters I requested for this thread. The article you linked to is about how a publisher literally "re-wrote" the text of a Dahl book. When my petition is explicitly not about re-writing the text of GAZ10. (Yeah, I know that on the anti-thread, folks have, for their purposes, idiosyncratically self-defined the English word "re-write" to also include my proposed additive educational+fictive reframing bundle PDF, but I cannot help their bad faith.)

Here is the parameter I perceive you are disrespecting:

• NEGATIVE: [...] implying that bundling an educational/research PDF and a fictive re-framing PDF with the GAZ10 PDF (with that GAZ10 text itself left unchanged) is [...] "rewriting the book,"[.]

And if you mean to say that your link didn't necessarily apply to my petition, then I point you also to this parameter:

• NEGATIVE: Posting non-sequiturs along these lines[.]

The Moderators are welcome to correct me, but my perspective is that just because a poster uses "hedging words" (such as the word "might" or "generally"), that doesn't give a poster a carte blanche to then follow those "hedging words" with just anything, such as a statement which conflicts with ENWorld posting policies, or in this case, specific requested [+] parameters for this thread.

Hedge (linguistics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Morrus]

Glad to know more about the scope of a [+] thread at ENWorld. I'm interested in collaborating with ENWorld moderation/leadership in shaping and discerning the scope of this [+] tool, when laying the groundwork for a genuine, informed discussion on fraught topics.

I replaced the parameter of "reading the 48-page Research Document" with "reading the FAQ", which I just cut-and-pasted to the OP. Let me know if further re-shapings are necessary as I move forward.

Please do not respond to moderator text in-thread. If you have questions about moderation, that’s what the Meta forum is for. Additionally, no you can’t gate participation in a thread behind any amount of homework, or issue instructions to your fellow posters. If you want that much control over a discussion, you should start a blog; this is not the platform for that.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Folks... if you think that the OP is engaging in acceptable behaviour, have at it. I think it is reprehensible and self-centred, and places personal opinion above the greater good. We will have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

I appreciate that @Umbran addressed this. And I note the later apology and words of good faith; which is something:

By the way, I thought I was posting my opinions in the non-+ thread. Apologies for that error. And I just want to make clear again that my opinions are about this action and behaviour, not about anyone as a person. We could very well be in agreement on other topics in the future.

Yet, for future reference, I do have a question for the ENWorld moderators:
What is to stop hecklers from coming to a thread, posting one explicit, incisive thread-dump each (knowing that the Moderator will just say a stern word or two), and then apologizing. Resulting in a supposedly [+] positive thread which is riddled with explicit thread-dumps.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Sure. But it's an interesting idea to try and hold a thread on an internet discussion forum to a higher standard than a national government.

Paul, if you hadn't used the word "but", I'd take your words as genuine. Rather than a negative thread-dump.

For this topic, I am definitely aiming for a higher standard of discussion than governmental and political forums.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yeah, I know that on the anti-thread, folks have, for their purposes, idiosyncratically self-defined the English word "re-write" to also include my proposed additive educational+fictive reframing bundle PDF, but I cannot help their bad faith.

If you read the article I linked to, you will see that the solution proposed by the article writer is pretty much what you suggest - keep the original text, but add "questions" to encourage the reader to think about the issues raised.

 

[Morrus]

I appreciate that @Umbran addressed this. And I note the later apology and words of good faith; which is something:

Yet, for future reference, I do have a question for the ENWorld moderators:
What is to stop hecklers from coming to a thread, posting one explicit, incisive thread-dump each (knowing that the Moderator will just say a stern word or two), and then apologizing. Resulting in a supposedly [+] positive thread which is riddled with explicit thread-dumps.

Please take questions like this to Meta, like I literally just asked you to. We do do not discuss moderation in-thread. As this is the third red-text response to yo uin the last hour or so, this thread is perilously closed to being closed due to the actions of its starter.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Asking someone to do a bit before posting seems good.

Thank you!

Hoping they'll hit search on a long document before asking or saying something about an easily searchable thing seems aspirational. Trying to require folks to read 48 pages before responding because it's a + thread seems ... ill conceived.

"Ill conceived" and "aspirational" are negative thread dumps. If you are just "agreeing" with the Moderators' clarification of the [+] parameters, please direct such Meta statements to the Moderators outside of the thread.

Good luck.

Thank you!

 

[Dungeonosophy]

If you read the article I linked to, you will see that the solution proposed by the article writer is pretty much what you suggest - keep the original text, but add "questions" to encourage the reader to think about the issues raised.

I did read what I thought was the whole article; yet I was thrown off by how the article appeared to end with just saying that both versions (the original and the revised) will now be available. I didn't see that there was a "continue reading" link. (The cookie-blocker sorta obscured the bottom of the page.)

And now I do see that the article went on to suggest something similar to my petition's approach. Not identical to my suggestion, but similar. It's different in that what Virginia Mendez suggests is having questions (e.g. about the words "fat" and "ugly") printed in the original text, but otherwise keeping the original text. Presumably the questions would be printed in the margins or appendix.

The "keeping the original text" part is the same as my petition. But my petition would not require a re-formatting of the text to include questions within the GAZ10 text (which is a labor intensive/expensive undertaking). Rather, the questions / critical research would be bundled as a separate PDF.

And furthermore, the reimagined fictive re-framing story would be a separate PDF in the bundle as well. This is different than the "revised Dahl" text, because this wouldn't just be a bland "insert nice word here", it would be an additive in-world re-framing. Where the problematic aspects are explained in-character to be false propaganda by some outside agency, enemies of the peoples of Thar.

But yes, I see there are positive similarities. Thank you. I retract my misunderstanding of what you shared there.