Anthony Valterra vs. Tracy Hickman

[Bendris Noulg]

Sigil, by merit of your statement "I'll defend your right to print/read/use such material, should you so choose", you're actually more on the left on this than the right.

My problem isn't with people that don't like the material and choose not to use it. It's the people that don't like it and sneer down on those that do actually use it. Statements like "I won't use it" are just fine. Opinion is opinion, taste is taste, so on and so forth. However, a statement like, "these rules shouldn't exist" is actually saying that the opinion of that individual should have an over-riding precidence as to what may or may not be produced as gaming material.

Whether someone is worth discussing the matter with is based on their acceptance of other possibilities. Someone that believes that they don't like it but others can use it (like yourself) is fine. Someone that believes (regardless of how many posts to the contrary) that the material can only be used gratuitously and those that use it have a "blood and booby" fetish, and thus make judgement of others regardless of the facts, are guilty of no less than bigotry and prejudice based on their opinion and taste.

So it's not a matter of sharing a different line; It's an acknolegement that the line is "my line" and "your line", not "the line". Those whose opinions is based on the later do nothing to prove their point; They only prove themselves close-minded and not open to discussion, espoucing "their line" as a social constant that all others must adhere to unless they're some kind of freak.

 

[barsoomcore]

*...wanders into thread...

...waves to The Sigil...

...waves to Bendris...

...points to wax seal on mouth...

...wanders out of thread...*

Good to see you guys. Rock steady.

The internet is better because people like you debate the way you do.

 

[The Sigil]

Sigil, by merit of your statement "I'll defend your right to print/read/use such material, should you so choose", you're actually more on the left on this than the right.

My problem isn't with people that don't like the material and choose not to use it. It's the people that don't like it and sneer down on those that do actually use it. Statements like "I won't use it" are just fine. Opinion is opinion, taste is taste, so on and so forth. However, a statement like, "these rules shouldn't exist" is actually saying that the opinion of that individual should have an over-riding precidence as to what may or may not be produced as gaming material.

Don't know if this'll push be back to the right or not (like it matters), but I feel, "people should be ALLOWED to print/read/use such material" but "they shouldn't CHOOSE to print/read/use such material."

In my mind, the right have a choice outweighs the consideration of what I feel the proper choice is. I don't want to force anyone to comply with my beliefs, though I would hope they would choose to do so (since I think my value system is the best one - if I didn't I'd have switched to the one I *did* think was best LOL). In other words, I think it's more important to give you a choice and hope you'll choose as I would - even if you don't - than it is not to give you a choice at all and force you to comply with my way of thinking.

Hence, I hope for self-censorship based on the hope that companies will choose not to publish stuff that I wouldn't choose to read. I'm also aware it's an unrealistic hope. LOL.

Whether someone is worth discussing the matter with is based on their acceptance of other possibilities. Someone that believes that they don't like it but others can use it (like yourself) is fine. Someone that believes (regardless of how many posts to the contrary) that the material can only be used gratuitously and those that use it have a "blood and booby" fetish, and thus make judgement of others regardless of the facts, are guilty of no less than bigotry and prejudice based on their opinion and taste.

So it's not a matter of sharing a different line; It's an acknolegement that the line is "my line" and "your line", not "the line". Those whose opinions is based on the later do nothing to prove their point; They only prove themselves close-minded and not open to discussion, espoucing "their line" as a social constant that all others must adhere to unless they're some kind of freak.

For the record, I don't think those who use the BoVD of necessity have a "B&B" fetish. However, I'm also not convinced that there is a possible mature use of the material therein (I'm also not convinced that there is NOT - I'm undecided).

So, yes - we have different lines. Who in this virtual "room" is surprised?

*looks around*

*sees no hands*

*grins*

I know my line is NOT a social constant, no matter how much I wish it were - NOBODY's line is always going to be the social constant in all situations, I think. And since I value freedom of choice above "where I draw the lines," you'll see me continuing to attempt to persuade - but not force - people to come around to my mode of thinking about where the line is... so that hopefully the social norm line eventually matches my own - and I expect everyone else to be doing that, too. I'm not hopeful that the social norm will ever match my line, but hey, I have to dream, right?

Thanks, BTW, for a nice, mature, flame-free discussion. It's all too rare on "mature material" threads.

--The Sigil

 

[kenjib]

After all, I know how the material is being used in my game, and it's far from gratuitous. But do any of the "blood & booby" detractors have any proof that the material is being used otherwise? Not a shred, in fact. Yet their perception that this material is in bad taste, can't be used maturely, and would only be desired by those who are immature seems to be a recurring theme that, despite unpteen threads to the contrary, seems to never go away, and is often portrayed as truth without any suportive facts beyond personal opinions.

After all, read over all the threads about "mature" material since BoVD was released. They are full of assumptions and accusations. Not once have I seen a thread that states "I was in a game where the DM used the BoVD and it was so gross I had to quit..." Instead, it's slammed on by people that have either (A) seen the material but not been in a game with the material being used or (B) have not seen the material and have based their opinions on the statements made by Group A.

Both of these are, fundamentally, the well spring from which ignorance flows.

Many of the arguments were based on personal preference and personal distaste. In fact, I think I'm the person who coined the "blood and boobies" term and I can tell you for a fact that I don't care at all what you do with the book. I've also advocated the right to publication and, as much as I think this new book looks awful I still advocate the right to publish. I just don't this stuff in my house around my 2 year old kids and I don't want to hide stuff from them either. Furthermore, I think that D&D would benefit from recapturing some of the younger audience that it has lost since the old 1e days. I even think lots of the rule content in BoVD is useful, but there was a bunch of extra stuff thrown in that I found to be unecessary, not very useful, and a bit alienating. Heck, I'd even be fine with playing in a campaign where a DM used some of the material in the BoVD - depending on how he used it. Why do I have to have proof of what someone else does or doesn't do with the book to have my own opinion and make my own decisions?

Be careful with flippant accusations of ignorance applied toward a large swath of people in your online community.

You said: "Yet their perception that this material is in bad taste, can't be used maturely, and would only be desired by those who are immature..."

I am one of the "Blood and Boobies" people. I have never said this. I would never say this. I completely disagree with this. To the best of my knowledge, I also never put words in other people's mouths or assumed actions on their behalf as you claim I did. Who is *really* making assumptions and accusations?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I have never said this. I would never say this. I completely disagree with this. To the best of my knowledge, I also never put words in other people's mouths or assumed actions on their behalf as you claim I did. Who is *really* making assumptions and accusations?

You are. Being that you never said it, you have nothing to defend, but you are assuming that you do.

Please step back and let the people that did so defend themselves for their own ignorance instead of letting you do it for them.

 

[Aaron2]

My problem isn't with people that don't like the material and choose not to use it. It's the people that don't like it and sneer down on those that do actually use it. Statements like "I won't use it" are just fine. Opinion is opinion, taste is taste, so on and so forth. However, a statement like, "these rules shouldn't exist" is actually saying that the opinion of that individual should have an over-riding precidence as to what may or may not be produced as gaming material.

Whether someone is worth discussing the matter with is based on their acceptance of other possibilities. Someone that believes that they don't like it but others can use it (like yourself) is fine.

I'm going to have to disagree with this in pricipal. If someone prints something you don't like, are you actually limited to only being able to say "I won't use it" and any other stronger statement is, somehow, "close-minded and not open to discussion". I just don't see it that way.

Let say, that this book is truly bad. I basically have a few choices on what to do. If I'm am only mildly offended, I can just say to myself "not for me" and skip over it. I could, depending on how I feel, call or write to the company that put it out and tell them I will won't buy the book or anything else they publish. Finally, if I'm really POed, I can go to my FLGS and tell them that if they sell the book I will never buy from them again.

All three choices are me expressing my right to free speech; nobody's rights have been violated. Those things above are my -only- choice in responding to said book. How can I be considered close-minded just for expressing my outrage -legally-. No one is suggesting that whomever wrote the book should be arrested.

In short, the people decide through their spending. If so many people are so pissed that they choose to shop in another store that better reflects their tastes (I don't think that will be so in this case), then gameshop owners will have to decide if the market for said book is large enough to risk alienating their customers. That's democracy in its rawest form.


Aaron

 

[Wayside]

Nobody will realize that it's a matter of opinion and neither one can really "take the other out behind the woodshed" when you're arguing OPINION instead of COLD LOGICAL FACT.

That's basically it. Still, I hope Hickman says something. I don't consider him to be a giant in any industry, and I love to see him overestimating his own intellectual faculties every chance I can. Really though, does anybody not think the idea of this book is ridiculous? Ridiculously ridiculous even? I still disbelieve.

 

[WayneLigon]

I don't think there will be a complaint or response either way. I thought the whole BVD 'blow up' was silly, anyway, and that just made it laughable.

I don't think the book is a joke, no. Actually, I'm kind of surprised we didn't see this the first year.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I'm going to have to disagree with this in pricipal. If someone prints something you don't like, are you actually limited to only being able to say "I won't use it" and any other stronger statement is, somehow, "close-minded and not open to discussion". I just don't see it that way.

First, to tell me that I shouldn't even want rules for something is to indicate that your tastes should dictate what is proper at my table. It is not for someone else to deside what material I should want or not want.

Second, there is nothing to indicate what this book will actually contain. The only sure indicator is the term "Erotic Fantasy", which can imply anything from orgasm rules to creating a campaign where sex isn't taboo (which is what Erotic Fantasy is generally known for). Yet, people are already happy to condemn it without any definate knowledge of what it contains or how it would be applied.

I just find it laughable that a bunch of people would sneer down on the book and Anthony Valterra without having any real knowledge of what the book is going to be. They have effectively prejudged this book. And we all know what that's called.

Heck, even your own example of three things you'd do indicate that you'd do them after reviewing the contents of the book.

Now, I've already stated that the last thing needed is another Nymphology (this thread or the other, I can't remember). If the book is crap, I won't be buying it either. On the other hand, I am more hopeful, based on the author and his stance on other related matters.

Believe it or not, that only means I'll be more upset than the people railing against it now if it does suck.

 

[kenjib]

You are. Being that you never said it, you have nothing to defend, but you are assuming that you do.

Please step back and let the people that did so defend themselves for their own ignorance instead of letting you do it for them.

Point taken, but are you getting upset over what maybe one or two people said then? I don't think it's a big deal, really. Anyway, I assumed you were talking about me because you referred to the "blood and boobies" people, and I think I was the one who first used that term. I see you meant it in a different context now though.