Anthony Valterra vs. Tracy Hickman

[kenjib]

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?

I don't think it's immoral according to my own personal criteria. I dislike the printing of this book on different grounds. I think D&D should be kid-friendly. My most fond memories of playing D&D were and always will be those games I played when I was in grade school. A BoVD and a BoEF probably won't effect this, but how much more will we see? Valar seems like it intends to publish an entire line of products. I think they have every right to do so, but I also think it's a shame that the game is growing up and moving toward a different audience than to the one with which I associate all of my best memories of the game.

Now, I want to get my kids into gaming. Doing this, I know that they will visit game stores and they might see this product. If I say nothing, it has been implicitly endorsed by me through my support of the industry. If I say something it becomes taboo and exciting and they just get that much more interested. If it is an entire sub-genre of the game it becomes unavoidably linked to D&D and they will check it out no matter what I do. Why do I want to bother with putting myself in that position if I don't have to?

Furthermore, if such products continue to expand in marketshare, it will indeed effect the reputation of the D&D brand. Let's be honest here. For many people, the reputation of White Wolf game players is quite different from D&D players. I have seen comments on this board, others, and talking to people. Whether or not this is right doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me is that I do this for fun, not as a way of life. I also don't care about making a political statement in support of my hobby. Like I said, it's recreation not a way of life, and I don't want people to think of the "other kind of roleplay" when I tell them I play roleplaying games. If the game turns into a big hassle and embarassment for me, and I have to defend myself to in-laws, or worry that my co-workers think I'm into BSDM, then it's no longer fun and I stop playing. There are more important things in life for me to make a political stand on, things that effect life, liberty, death, justice, and the like. Sorry, but D&D is not my battleground.

That's why, despite the fact that I will defend the rights to publish, I really do hope that materials like this do not succeed and proliferate. In all likelihood, nothing will come of it and even the things I worry about will be no big deal. That's fine. I still think that the threat exists though and it makes me uncomfortable. I am opposed to my (fun, remember?) hobby making me uncomfortable. I am opposed to the contents of this press release and by extension pre-disposed against the book as well.

 

[The Sigil]

Can you agree that as long as potentially objectionable/outright risque material isn't prominently displayed that people should, on general principle, focus on their own interests/purchases rather than those of their neighbors?

Yes. Again, see my previous post.

But I reserve the right to shout back at my neighbors when they start trumpeting how good this is.

--The Sigil

 

[ragefearmadness]

PREMISE: Pornography is immoral
PREMISE: This book likely will contain pornography.
CONCLUSION: Therefore, this book will likely be immoral.

You may not agree with the premises, but please agree that these are premises that can tenably be held by others.

--The Sigil

Sigil,

You are right, I do NOT believe in anything that you said above. Not one word. But, that is to be expected when the only 2 creeds one subscribes to are "An it Harm None, do what thou wilt" and "Seek ye pleasure where ye may". As this book is doing no harm and may, in fact, be pleasurable to those that purchase it, I am all for it. I agree with you that others may hold these premises and I weep for them.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

This post is much better. Keep calling it "boycott" instead of "censorship" and I'm pretty sure this whole line of argument will end completely. It's a semantic detail, sure, but an important one. Censorship is a highly inflammatory word in Western culture and it is often mis-used to slander people, prematurely ending conversation rather than encouraging a free and open debate.

Semantics. Check. Fragile sensibilities ("boycott for product removal" is much more PC than "censored"). Check.

I also suggest that you tone down your rhetoric in order to encourage intelligent discussion. e.x. "This kinda crap is starting to spew all over this thread, which I find interesting at best and laughable at worst." I don't think a statement like that encourages a frank and meaningful discussion.

Crap by any other name is still crap. Really, though, there are countless pages on this topic now. The folks that would rather pressure their FLGS to "selectively stock" gaming products don't want to listen to reason or discuss the matter. They'd much rather pretend they stand the moral high-ground, much as has been done with BoVD, and imply that this product lacks any degree of merit than admit otherwise. The spew this "so long as you agree" rhetoric when that is exactly how they are treating this product and those interested in it.

Yes, I do find the stance of many in these thread hypocritical. Shame, too... I respected many of them.

 

[Tiefling]

Carry? No, I don't boycott them. Remember, I only boycott stuff that's trying to "shove the edgy stuff down my throat." There was one comic store that I used to frequent that DID have all their edgy stuff up front by the door and front counter so you had to "run the gauntlet" just to get to the non-edgy stuff. I *do* boycott that store now.

...

--The Sigil

Gotcha. I was under the impression that you would boycott a store based on the book's mere presence. Maybe I got you confused with someone else, I'm to lazy to go back and check.

Kenjib - Cool. I disagree that this book or any other will have a noticeable affect on public perceptions of the hobby. And I don't hold it against anyone that they casually hope that the product will fail. I only hold it against them if they threaten people with financial harm for stocking the product.

 

[drnuncheon]

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.

Speaking as one of the "folks here that regularly dump on Avalanche Press for their covers", I probably won't buy the Big Bad Book of d20 Sex either. If I want porn, I'll go to the Internet.

J
...on the other hand, at least they'll be using sex to sell a book that's about sex...

 

[The Sigil]

You are right, I do NOT believe in anything that you said above. Not one word. But, that is to be expected when the only 2 creeds one subscribes to are "An it Harm None, do what thou wilt" and "Seek ye pleasure where ye may". As this book is doing no harm and may, in fact, be pleasurable to those that purchase it, I am all for it. I agree with you that others may hold these premises and I weep for them.

And they may well weep for you. Perhaps we can all comiserate with each other, saddened that the other's viewpoint is so limiting.

--The Sigil

 

[Dinkeldog]

...on the other hand, at least they'll be using sex to sell a book that's about sex...

Can I get an "Amen"?

And with that Amen, can we please not discuss each others' religions and the relative merit thereof? Thank you.

 

[Mallus]

But I reserve the right to shout back at my neighbors when they start trumpeting how good this is.

Sure thing... I wouldn't want it any other way

And even though this has gone on long enough, I just wanted to say I really enjoyed your post a few virtual reams back about boycott != censorship.

I still don't agree with you. I'm not sure how "negative demand" fits into a pure free market supply and demand equation. I see it as a little anticompetitive.

I think exerting negative economic pressure on a retailer for {onobtrusive} content is censorious, if not strictly censorship.

 

[EricNoah]

And just to add on to Dinkledog's warning... I also would like to see the rhetoric toned down. Calling other people's ideas or opinions "crap" is just rude.