Search results

I know right? Arguments can become pretty heated sometimes, but (I think and hope that) everyone at least tries to stay civil on this site.

Not unfounded. There is a number of people that want OA removed. Just take a look at Daniel Kwan's twitter account, or the current most-liked thread on this forum.

People aren't 'asking' for a removal, they are 'boycotting' (or trying to) WotC. Kwan has stopped using 5e for his livestream in favor of Quest. I couldn't care less what he does or doesn't play, since that is entirely up to him. And about one of his previous tweets, by the way: "I refuse to pay...

... and Kwan is not amused: The disclaimer isn't even visible on a full-screen web page. "Thanks for giving us money! If you scroll all the way down, you'll see that we feel real bad about it." Now that I think about it, 40k Orcs being compared to fungi is even worse than the old 'Jewish...

It was not written question, but I thought that the question that it implied was obvious. By stating that Tolkien based the Orcs on 'repulsive Mongols', I am implying that he held racist beliefs to some extent. And since Tolkien's influence on both the fantasy genre as well as D&D and other RPGs...

You're right. Removing OA would only enforce the current precedent. People already know that heated discussions on social media have consequences, such as the cancellation of a D&D livestream, or banning people from attending GenCon.

So you would find it weird if you found out that Roman Catholics weren't consulted, regardless of the actual content of the book? No, the end result is creating a precedent. And common law is all about precedents, if I'm not mistaken.

Do I really need to debase myself to the level of giving you the drawing of a timeline? OA was published in 1985, CoS in 2016, ToA in 2017. The last 2 are still part of WotC's current organised play. So you expect me to answer to your comparison between La Gioconda and OA, while you yourself...

(1) More attention at time of release (explicity stated in my post). A publisher/author can not predict how the public will respond to their work in 35/80/... years from now. But they should be smart enough to understand when something is controversial today. (2) Yes. As I said, Disney was...

Since a bag of holding contains enough air to allow 1 creature to breathe for 10 minutes, I would think that there's a difference between putting a live creature or a corpse in the bag. If you put a corpse in the bag, there is still 10 minutes of air available. Enough for aerobic organisms to...

Pretty poor counter-argument. But yes, Songs of the South doesn't compare to OA. Songs received a lot of criticism in newspaper reviews, and organisations such as the NAACP. In 1946, when the movie was released. As opposed to OA, which was part of an 80's 'Culture Chop Suey'. As Snarf already...

Not really a good example, since it was already controversial when it was released. To the extent that they are incensed by Kwan's campaign for removal. And racist books in the public domain can still be sold for profit, by multiple publishers.

As previously stated (barely 10 posts earlier), not all reasons to stop printing something hold the same merit. Profit is one: it would be absurd to expect a company to keep something in print if they would do so at a loss. Another reason is copyright. I'm not familiar with the Warcraft RPG, so...

No one is saying that they are entitled to OA. I'm saying that no one should be entitled to forbid WotC to sell me the book. You're twisting arguments. No one says they're entitled to it for cheap. I REALLY want a first edition of Dracula. That ain't cheap, but I still have the option to read...

You're both right. A lot of people don't mean offence when asking this question. But perhaps the question could be less offensive if it is posed in a different way? Just brainstorming here, but how about 'where do you live?' instead of 'where are you from?'. As stated before in this thread (not...

Hence me stating in post #195 (which you conveniently decided to overlook) that removing legal online access will negatively influence the price of physical copies, and thus limit the public's access to the book.

You either want everyone to stop selling it (since WotC still gets payed if a customer buys it from another online store), or don't want OA to be removed. There is no inbetween.

As if banning the book's digital version isn't going to influence the price of the existing physical copies. And since there isn't hardly any difference (in profit) between WotC selling it and another online store selling it: are you're suggesting that we need to resort to piracy?

The earlier publication date doesn't make the depiction ok, but you suggest denying that it ever existed in the first place. Because if you remove something, with the explanation that it was insensitive, than I have no other option but to take your word for it. People should have the option to...

That's what I liked about The Loud House. Clyde's parents were gay. Period. No 'look how progressive we are' from the writers. How can an author convince people who don't think this is normal, that it in fact IS normal, when the author is making such a big deal about it?