DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'

[doctorbadwolf]

We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking out a dude who purposefully made a bad taste and controversial module, with the intent of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?

Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
Weimar Germany
Mussolini's Italy
Pinochet's Chile
Frano's Spain

If only all those people had finger wagged and tsk'd harder everything would have worked out just fine.

Exactly this.

 

[Alzrius]

We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking out a dude who purposefully made a bad taste and controversial module, with the intent of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?

They can certainly say that, I just don't think there's legitimacy in them codifying that this is grounds for permanently kicking someone off of their site; and moreover, I think it's good to remind everyone just how comparatively small the stakes we're all talking about really are.

Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
Weimar Germany
Mussolini's Italy
Pinochet's Chile
Franco's Spain

If only all those people had finger wagged and tsk'd harder everything would have worked out just fine.

Case in point for how that's not really relevant to what we're talking about here. There are some times when discourse will inevitably fail, because there's no good-faith partner to engage with; that shouldn't be the default presumption, however.

 

[Gradine]

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds.

I think the problem here is that what you are talking about is "people with political disagreements" and what I am talking about are "bigots and genocide-supporters". There is nothing worthwhile about this ideology and allowing it a space to fester and flourish makes the space unwelcome to the people whose genocide they seek. This is a situation for the "We can disagree and still be friends unless your disagreement is rooted in denying my humanity" aphorism. We had a local dive bar called "Simon Legree's Bar" which is named, for those wondering, after the slave owner in Uncle Tom's Cabin. This was a space where white supremacists are welcome, and where white supremacists are welcome, there are countless others who are decidedly not welcome, implicitly if not explicitly.

"Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's confrontation which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.

I never said and would never agree with the concept that "talking to people you disagree with doesn't work". We have plenty of examples of it not working but also quite a few examples of it working. What I will say is that "talking to people who deny your right to existence is not a moral obligation." I am Trans. I do not talk with transphobes, because (a) that takes a crap ton of personal and spiritual energy from me, (b) it's not necessarily safe for me to do so, and most importantly (c) I shouldn't have to. I know that if there is a space where transphobes are welcome to spread transphobia, it means that I am not welcome.

The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.

One cannot make an appeal to a greater ideal ("there can be no censorship because it is always bad") and then outright dismiss the answer to that ideal because the situation is too small a scale.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Except that they do, in effect, have exactly that. While theoretically those customers can still be accessed elsewhere, that's not the practical impact of what happens if they cut someone off, particularly since smaller publishers lack the resources necessary to make up the difference in scope between themselves and DTRPG.

Let's walk this through. DTRPG does not prevent, in any way, access to any customer. Some companies are only able to effectively reach their customers if they use DTRPG because the costs/effort to do so is not viable. DTRPG doesn't increase or control the cost to reach customers through any other method.

This is exactly my argument that there is no barrier created by DTRPG but increased access. Since DTRPG has zero control over any other method outside of their service, either in access to or cost of, and those costs would remain unaffected however DTRPG conducted it's business, then you cannot conclude that DTRPG has any control whatsoever over the market. What DTRPG instead provides is a more cost effective means of doing business that enables more otherwise unviable RPG publishers to thrive.

Again, I'll point you to the statements made by a publisher in this same thread, and by another one in a link I provided earlier.

Are they some form of authority on the matter, or are they just saying that they can't survive without the cost benefits that DTRPG provides?

 

[darjr]

Nope, I’m done. DTRPG does have it’s problems, and rules can be abused, but kicking that badly written cartoon villain to the curb isn’t one of them.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The harm you're claiming here is one that DTRPG has a duty to you to protect your sales on the DTRPG platform from possible harms that have not materialized. They have no such duty, especially if it's called out explicitly in the terms of the contract. What you're proposing means that DTRPG would have to increase staff to constantly monitor and immediately assess claims against a product in real time, which is pretty costly. I don't imagine DTRPG's staff is particularly large, but the number of products they have is. So, staffing wise, are you willing to foot the bill in increased percentages to pay for this service you think DTRPG should provide? The usual answer to this is no, no people are not.

I am not accusing them of harm. And they aren't obligated to do anything. But I do think it is fair for publishers and customers to express opinions on what they think OBS ought to do, given the size of their position in the industry. I am saying this policy seems unwise and I feel like critiquing it is valid. Any report policy that takes the product down for two weeks automatically from a single report, that is bad for publishers once people realize they can exploit (that it hasn't been exploited is frankly stunning to me). I honestly don't know whether the issue has caused any problems or not yet because I don't know how many have or have not been taken down for review. But that is crippling for a publisher, so I think it is more than fair for publishers if they get pulled for two weeks to raise concern about this issue (and it is one of the issues publishers raise as a concern more frequently). Solutions to the bad policy don't require more staff. Something as simple as changing the threshold of reports for having it come down automatically could be a good fix. Or fixing it on the other side (so publishers don't lose out on a big launch)

 

[Alzrius]

I think the problem here is that what you are talking about is "people with political disagreements" and what I am talking about are "bigots and genocide-supporters". There is nothing worthwhile about this ideology and allowing it a space to fester and flourish makes the space unwelcome to the people whose genocide they seek. This is a situation for the "We can disagree and still be friends unless your disagreement is rooted in denying my humanity" aphorism. We had a local dive bar called "Simon Legree's Bar" which is named, for those wondering, after the slave owner in Uncle Tom's Cabin. This was a space where white supremacists are welcome, and where white supremacists are welcome, there are countless others who are decidedly not welcome, implicitly if not explicitly.

I personally agree that there's nothing worthwhile with regard to an ideology that doesn't recognize the personhood of other people. However, I believe that treating this ideology as something to be quarantined, by pushing its adherents out of areas of engagement with society, is what gives it the opportunity to fester. Exposing the people who hold those beliefs to other points of view helps to make them realize that what they believe in is bad, and that doesn't happen when you push them out of more diverse and expansive venues.

If you don't allow someone to patronize the local bar, they'll go to a bar that's been started by people who were also kicked out, and now suddenly they're organizing. Far better for them to mingle with people at the same bar who don't think as they do, so that they can meet people who aren't like them and see that their prejudices are unfounded. That's without getting into the issue that, in contemporary rhetoric, there seems to be a lot of conflation between the people you're talking about (i.e. bigots) with people who aren't genocide supporters, but are still notably conservative. This lumping together doesn't help, as it pushes them further into the camp that the truly bad people occupy.

I never said and would never agree with the concept that "talking to people you disagree with doesn't work". We have plenty of examples of it not working but also quite a few examples of it working. What I will say is that "talking to people who deny your right to existence is not a moral obligation." I am Trans. I do not talk with transphobes, because (a) that takes a crap ton of personal and spiritual energy from me, (b) it's not necessarily safe for me to do so, and most importantly (c) I shouldn't have to. I know that if there is a space where transphobes are welcome to spread transphobia, it means that I am not welcome.

I wasn't attributing that statement to you; I hope that's clear. That said, I'll reiterate that I think it's overbroad to say the people we're discussing are necessarily refusing to acknowledge your personhood. To be clear, some of them are, and that's not something which should ever be considered legitimate, but I'm of the opinion that there's a large number of people who are put under that category who don't actually hold that view.

Now, changing their minds certainly requires a great deal of emotional labor, and if you don't want to take that on it's certainly okay. But there should be an acknowledgment, I think, that opportunities are being lost to actually make things better - via peeling away (potential) supporters of what would otherwise be noxious ideologies - in favor of simply trying to exile them from society, which doesn't work because they still live here and still take part in it. The way to "win" this particular conflict is via changing hearts and minds, which you (in the general sense of "you") can't do if you just say that they're Nazis and deserve to be thrown off of every platform on which they're found.

One cannot make an appeal to a greater ideal ("there can be no censorship because it is always bad") and then outright dismiss the answer to that ideal because the situation is too small a scale.

That's not the ideal, nor is Popper's Paradox the answer in this particular instance. The publication of things which mock your value system, unto itself, is not necessarily an attack on your personhood which you must be defended from.

 

[Jer]

Nope, I’m done. DTRPG does have it’s problems, and rules can be abused, but kicking that badly written cartoon villain to the curb isn’t one of them.

And when they are abusing their rules I'll be in line to punch them with everyone else. So far they haven't shown any indication that they're doing that.

But the answer to "rules can be abused" is never "therefore we should have no rules". They have a policy of what they are and are not willing to sell on their website and if you don't want to conform to it, you should really go sell things elsewhere because they've literally told you that your product isn't wanted. (A policy, I might add, that was put into place because someone put an OGL "rape tournament" module up for sale - the "no rules because you're all adults" lack of a policy they had before was shown to be insufficient to protect their business from malicious publishers wanting to create sales via controversy years ago, and I've seen no sign that things have gotten better on that front since).

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am not accusing them of harm. And they aren't obligated to do anything. But I do think it is fair for publishers and customers to express opinions on what they think OBS ought to do, given the size of their position in the industry. I am saying this policy seems unwise and I feel like critiquing it is valid. Any report policy that takes the product down for two weeks automatically from a single report, that is bad for publishers once people realize they can exploit (that it hasn't been exploited is frankly stunning to me). I honestly don't know whether the issue has caused any problems or not yet because I don't know how many have or have not been taken down for review. But that is crippling for a publisher, so I think it is more than fair for publishers if they get pulled for two weeks to raise concern about this issue (and it is one of the issues publishers raise as a concern more frequently). Solutions to the bad policy don't require more staff. Something as simple as changing the threshold of reports for having it come down automatically could be a good fix. Or fixing it on the other side (so publishers don't lose out on a big launch)

From what I've read of the policy, you're perfectly free to do just that. I believe you are doing just that. And that criticism is being met with disagreement, at least on my part. I don't think DTRPG is being at all unreasonable or threatening businesses, but I further believe that even if they did, they can do that. I tend to not go to DTRPG because I find the UI to be obnoxious. I also have plenty of other ways to find out about products. I'll go to DTRPG if that's the only way to purchase a product, but I'll look for other alternatives, first. I think I've bought 3 things from DTRPG in the last 10 years? Maybe four. So, it's not like I'm saying the things I'm saying because I have any vested interests in DTRPG not being criticized. I'm saying them because I disagree with the criticism.

 

[Alzrius]

Let's walk this through. DTRPG does not prevent, in any way, access to any customer. Some companies are only able to effectively reach their customers if they use DTRPG because the costs/effort to do so is not viable. DTRPG doesn't increase or control the cost to reach customers through any other method.

The very fact that they can only effectively reach their customers via DTRPG, as opposed to other venues/companies, means that, to an extent, DTRPG has a greater obligation to not throw up additional barriers to them doing so based on their personal beliefs.

This is exactly my argument that there is no barrier created by DTRPG but increased access. Since DTRPG has zero control over any other method outside of their service, either in access to or cost of, and those costs would remain unaffected however DTRPG conducted it's business, then you cannot conclude that DTRPG has any control whatsoever over the market.

Again, that does not reflect the reality of the situation, which is that DTRPG has become the only vector by which the customers can be reached. Simply because they're not closing off other venues doesn't mean that those venues are viable; that they control the only portal between the publisher and the customers puts a greater burden on them to safeguard it.

What DTRPG instead provides is a more cost effective means of doing business that enables more otherwise unviable RPG publishers to thrive.

Except that "more cost effective" in many instances becomes "the only cost effective way."