Anthony Valterra vs. Tracy Hickman

[Bendris Noulg]

Telling store owners that they will lose your buisness if they carry D20 softporn books is perfectly justified and fine in my book. That isn't censorship or telling others what they can use at thier table. It's telling a shop owner than you are uncomfortable and unwilling to suport stores that sell material of a kind that you found offensive. If the retailer gets enough of those kinds of complaints that they find that losing that buisness overrides the benefits of selling such books they will not carry them. You will have to buy them somewhere else. That's exercising your right to let your views be heard.

Ah, but it is censorship. It is actively attempting to reduce the available outlets of the material. This in turn reduces the opportunity for this material to be used at other people's tables. Thus, while folks claim it isn't censorship or telling others what they can use at their table, it very much is just that.

Like it or not.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Claiming to influence what is available on the market that others may enjoy is pandering one's own self-importance.

Indeed, stating that one will not entreat a store that sells this product is about as effective as me stating that I'll not shop in a store that doesn't carry it.

I never claimed it would be effective, just tha tit si a variation on free speach. I hear way too often people say X is against free speach when all X did was voice their contradicotry opinon. Boycots are a activist level of contraditory opinion. while not always effective they are still free speach. I'm only bothered when the goverent steps in and says no, like in the case of anarchist cookbook style books. (though I think it was the hitman's bible that got the governemt rolling if I rememebr my cases right)

 

[King_Stannis]

I would just like to hear the opinions of the folks here that regularly dump on Avalanche Press for their covers. How are they going to feel when they see the spritely breasts of "Moonshadow" presented "tastefully". I just hope that consistency rules the day, because the same tactic is being used to schill a product - sex.

Personally, I don't really care either way. If someone wants to use sex to sell their product (As with this Erotic Fantasy Book as well as with Avalanche), then by all means go ahead. But there better be some substance to the pretty package or it is not going to have a long life. But it's a time honored tactic. Naked bodies of beautiful women will always get attention from young men. I will certainly give those lovely pictures a look, lecherous male that I am, and then I'll see if it has any potential use in my campaign.

As for Tracy...he has every right to his opinions. He had some valid points about the BoVD. He is not trying to physically prevent people from buying any product, even if he wishes that product did not exist. I would be surprised if he comments on this product like he did on the BoVD, but if he does he is just doing what everyone here does - giving his honest opinions. Amazing how some folks seem to be genuinely angry about that. The fact that he is a "big-name" and is willing to put his convictions out there for everyone to see only raises his stock in my eyes. Even moreso when those convictions are not "popular" with alot of gamers.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Ah, but it is censorship. It is actively attempting to reduce the available outlets of the material. This in turn reduces the opportunity for this material to be used at other people's tables. Thus, while folks claim it isn't censorship or telling others what they can use at their table, it very much is just that.

Like it or not.

Fine its censorship. But (maybe a bold here)censorship done through free speach voices effecting a market outcome are infinetly better than a stand against the free speach that caused the censorship.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Ah, but it is censorship. It is actively attempting to reduce the available outlets of the material. This in turn reduces the opportunity for this material to be used at other people's tables. Thus, while folks claim it isn't censorship or telling others what they can use at their table, it very much is just that.

Like it or not.

In the US I have the right to speak my mind and base my buying decisions based on what retailers policies are. If they carry something I find offensive enough to make me shop elsewhere that's what I'll do. If they offend me by not carrying a product based on it's content I'll go elsewhere to get it. The shop owner is in the right by catering to his clientel by carrying or not carrying certain books. I'm in the right when I tell him if he values my buisness he won't carry that sort of stuff. You are in the right to do the opposite. As long as the Government isn't telling the what they can produce for D&D and what they can't it's not illegal censorship. If most stores won't carry it then it's a message that most of the gaming community doesn't want that kind of material and maybe it's best sold direct online. If so then people can still buy the books and people can still take thier kids into gaming stores.

If that is censorship then I guess I'm not against all forms of censorship.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Fine its censorship. But (maybe a bold here)censorship done through free speach voices effecting a market outcome are infinetly better than a stand against the free speach that caused the censorship.

Free speech is saying "I don't like this product." Not shopping in a store that carries it is an attempt at "Censorship via Boycott." These are not the same thing, since the later is a pursuit of pushing your free speech into what I am or am not allowed to do (when such action has absolutely no effect on what you do).

Consider: Does a store carrying this product in any way, shape or form effect the availability of other material that you'd find as being more palpable and child-friendly (in so far as a game that uses comic-book justification for genecide, murder and theft can get, that is)? No, of course not. However, some folks seem to have a haughty opinion about what should be available for use at a gaming table even though your personal freedom allows you to completely ignore it.

Primarily, I ask this: If your local bookstore (like Walden's or B. Dalton) has an adult section in their magazine rack (which would include Erotic Fantasy periodicals like Heavy Metal), do you still go there for the latest book release or to browse the Fantasy/Sci-Fi section? If the answer to this is "Yes", than you should seriously consider why it is that you'd espouse the opposite behavior in regards to stores that carry RPG products (which, consequently, include the two book stores I mention above).

After all, if The Joy of Sex is the modern-day instruction manual for sex in real life, how can having a book for sex in RPGs really be that bad?

And here's another question: If you're all so willing to boycott stores for carrying this product, why do you still frequent ENWorld when the GUCK conversion is being done right here, in public, where anyone with a mouse can get to it for free and with absolutely no safety-measures to prevent access by minors? Seems rather hypocritical that you'd continue to hang-out and support this site but you'd push your views onto your FLGS.

 

[King_Stannis]

After all, if The Joy of Sex is the modern-day instruction manual for sex in real life, how can having a book for sex in RPGs really be that bad?

I hope you realize that, on a certain level, that sounds kind of silly. In fact, it sort of illustrates how silly the whole concept is - a manual for imaginary sex. It's not so much that it's bad, it's just kind of unnecessary - or at least superfluous. Still, they have every right to try their hand at it. And I'll take a look.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I hope you realize that, on a certain level, that sounds kind of silly.

On a certain level, yes.

However, my point remains: "Why do we need rules for this when it can just be handled on-the-fly" is almost synonomous with "Why do we need an instruction manual for what is an entirely natural, instinctive act?"

The answer is obvious: To handle it in a manner that isn't clumsy, half-hearted, inconsistant or unpleasurable (and, as a d20 product, isn't unbalanced or unfair to players... Really, how many of your characters regularly "go wenching"? Without rules, your DM can easily have dozens of illegitament children poping up one day! Yes, rules are better than arbitrary in this matter...).

 

[kenjib]

Free speech is saying "I don't like this product." Not shopping in a store that carries it is an attempt at "Censorship via Boycott." These are not the same thing, since the later is a pursuit of pushing your free speech into what I am or am not allowed to do (when such action has absolutely no effect on what you do).

Censorship is driven by law, not free market forces. Boycott is part of capitalism. It is the most important power that the consumer has against the tremendous power of the producer in today's world. Just as I am free to boycott, you are free to patronize the same stores.

Are you saying that someone should be forced to patronize a store that has policies that morally offend them when there is an alternative available that does not offend me?

I'm not going to boycott any stores, but I will adamantly defend someone else's right to do just that.

Yes, business that do not properly reflect the needs of their market go out of business. Products that people do not like are not successful in the marketplace. The consumer works to make this happen by being informed and concientously choosing what and where to buy. If anything, our society is more damaged by people not fully excercising this right than by people excercising it. This is capitalism, not censorship.

In any case, I find your objections to be a bit strange when such a statement of boycott by one or two people in all likelihood will have no practical real world impact on any retailer. People spout out boycott on message boards every day and it never makes a dent unless it becomes an organized drive with a moneyed group backing it. Yet at the same time you seem upset in other threads that people are getting all worked up over nothing about the most likely negligable impact this book will have on the reputation of D&D. I guess it's a nice argument when it's convenient to your purposes...

 

[Tiefling]

We all understand that a boycott is free and protected speech. The issue is whether it is the right thing to do. I have the right to say a lot of bigotted things, but that doesn't mean it's ethical to do so. You have the right to boycott the BoEF and therefore limit its availability to people who actually want it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

If you think something is immoral, it seems only natural to not support it, i.e. boycott it. So the question certain people have to ask themselves is why is the publication of this book immoral? I have seen several less-than-convincing arguments why the BoEF is a bad idea, but that's different from immorality. I thought New Coke was a bad idea but that was no reason to boycott the entire Coca-Cola company or its distributors.

So why is it immoral?