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

For the record, they haven't kicked Venger off. Nor have they kicked off LotFP, despite Raggi's dramatics.

Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and then the policy was updated. That's my fault.

That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and then the policy was updated. That's my fault.

That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.
Here's Venger saying he made a couple of minor content changes and his new book is expected to be back up for general sale shortly, though according to commentors both the new and old versions are still available for download to folks who already bought it before it was pulled for review:

 

Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and then the policy was updated. That's my fault.

That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.

As far as I know he was not banned, that they require him to have stuff reviewed before it goes up now, but I could be wrong on that.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
As far as I know he was not banned, that they require him to have stuff reviewed before it goes up now, but I could be wrong on that.
I don't think it's even that. I think he's just subject to stuff getting pulled for review if it gets x number of complaints (x being an undisclosed number, probably to help prevent people gaming it), like everyone else.

Of course, his stuff is deliberately controversial, so presumably is more likely to get complaints.
 

I don't think it's even that. I think he's just subject to stuff getting pulled for review if it gets x number of complaints (x being an undisclosed number, probably to help prevent people gaming it), like everyone else.

Of course, his stuff is deliberately controversial, so presumably is more likely to get complaints.

Like I said I could be wrong on that, I seem to recall reading that somewhere, but the information could have been wrong or I could have misread what was stated.
 

mythago

Adventurer
In other words, we're all happy to see Venger gone. What happens when it's Evil Hat's Thirsty Sword Lesbians? It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation. What happens when they turn into Facebook? It's not like they've had much competition sweeping in to capture their market. It's worth thinking about or recognizing that it may happen.

If that happens, then people will make decisions about whether they want to buy from DTRPG rather than itch.io, KS, directly from the publisher, or some other DTRPG competitor that might arise in that situation.

It's a bit like telling every customer that comes in your store that you've got a bat under the counter and you're not afraid to use it on unruly customers. Okay? That seems like something you don't need to explicitly point out.

I want to make sure I am understanding your argument and not overstating it. You believe that it is unnecessary and threatening for a commercial online platform to post written guidelines that spell out circumstances under which it will stop hosting certain content or creators - just like a bartender announcing she has a baseball bad under the register is making an unnecessary, threatening announcement?
 

dragoner

solisrpg.com
That one guy is living in everyone's head, rent free.

Thing about businesses, they either keep themselves relevant or they do not. Such as what was mentioned up-thread, tomorrow Amazon buys them, then it is Amazon's rules. The first most basic rule is that businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, while there are "protected classes" unless litigated by an aggrieved party, it's unlikely to matter too much what the boiler plate says.
 

I want to make sure I am understanding your argument and not overstating it. You believe that it is unnecessary and threatening for a commercial online platform to post written guidelines that spell out circumstances under which it will stop hosting certain content or creators - just like a bartender announcing she has a baseball bad under the register is making an unnecessary, threatening announcement?

I had the timeline of events completely wrong. I misunderstood.

I thought some people had had their content removed after it had been reviewed and approved. Then other creators complained about it on social media. Then DTRPG removed all their content (in apparent retaliation?). Then the social media complaints turned into attacks on DTRPG. Then possibly more people were removed from DTRPG(?). Then and only then did DTRPG update their policy. All of this was basically completely backwards or incorrect, it seems, although maybe I'm still wrong.

Instead, it looks like the real timeline is closer to: if content was removed it was under existing review policies for customer reported issues under the existing content policies. Then people complaint about DTRPG on social media over it. Then DTRPG updated their policy to say, basically, that they'll consider completely ending business relationships with creators who try to litigate complaints over social media.

To be clear: I think DTRPG is actually within their rights in both cases -- they never give up their freedom of association -- but the former was a lot more concerning because it kept sounding like they were acting outside of their explicitly stated policies. Then they changed policies after the fact, either to excuse their behavior or to, yes, threaten others who were still criticizing them on social media. It turns out that no, that doesn't seem to be what happened. In short, I thought it was closer to the Roll20 2018 controversy, but instead it seems to be a pretty normal response by DTRPG.

I do think there are larger and more general issues with platform vs publisher vs customer that haven't been addressed yet -- there's a reason YouTube creators made Nebula -- but I don't think this is an example of that problem coming up any more.
 

Mannahnin

Scion of Murgen (He/Him)
Instead, it looks like the real timeline is closer to: if content was removed it was under existing review policies for customer reported issues under the existing content policies. Then people complaint about DTRPG on social media over it. Then DTRPG updated their policy to say, basically, that they'll consider completely ending business relationships with creators who try to litigate complaints over social media.
Even more than this, the "Hostile Marketing" provision seems to also have been invoked in reference to someone apparently deliberately submitting material which they knew was in violation of the content policies, then using it being pulled as an excuse to stoke anger at DTRPG and drive up direct sales for themselves (with no cut to DTRPG) using the controversy.

But yeah, overall it seems like you've got it now.
 

Even more than this, the "Hostile Marketing" provision seems to also have been invoked in reference to someone apparently deliberately submitting material which they knew was in violation of the content policies, then using it being pulled as an excuse to stoke anger at DTRPG and drive up direct sales for themselves (with no cut to DTRPG) using the controversy.

But yeah, overall it seems like you've got it now.

Ah, that explains why there was so much hubub about it, and why there were so many conflicting stories. It was all about stirring the pot precisely to get social media involved.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
::insert Inigo Montoya meme here::
If you insist!

inigo-networking.jpg
 

Ah, that explains why there was so much hubub about it, and why there were so many conflicting stories. It was all about stirring the pot precisely to get social media involved.

Do you realize that the pot in this scenario is you? Venger Satanis didn't come to this thread and proselytize the danger of commercial moderation, apocalyptic "what ifs" about the future of the industry, or threats in the form of corporate guidelines. But he convinced someone to do it for him. Whether you intended to support him or not, you did exactly what he wanted you to do.

Please don't take this as an attack. I think it's great that you realized a few posts back that this was manufactured outrage, and that you were able to turn it off. Being able to re-analyze the situation and actually change your mind puts you in a class above most of the internet. I just want to point out that the "hubbub" or "angry internet mob" isn't always some distant muddled mass. Sometimes it's us. Individually. I've been there myself.
 



pantsorama

Explorer
Why do so many free speech absolutists not understand that freedom of association is part of free speech. Barring discriminating against a protected class, I need no reason to disassociate myself from someone, nor does any individual or group.

Full stop. That is part and parcel of free speech. One doesn't get to use my resources to say things I don't like. To do so is a violation of my free speech.

If there are consequences that one does not like, then work it out like adults. Don't insist that unilaterally one has a right to use my status/ infrastructure/ hard work to get notice for any behavior I don't want to be around.
 
Last edited:

mythago

Adventurer
Why do so many free speech absolutists not understand that freedom of association is part of free speech. Barring discriminating against a protected class, I need no reason to disassociate myself from someone, nor does any individual or group.

Full stop. That is part and parcel of free speech. One doesn't get to use my resources to say things I don't like. To do so is a violation of my free speech.

If there are consequences that one does not like, then work it out like adults. Don't insist that unilaterally one has a right to use my status/ infrastructure/ hard work to get notice for any behavior I don't want to be around.

Because they're not really free speech absolutists. They're followers of the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine - not coincidentally, because they often are the ones rushing in to speak their minds first.
 

aramis erak

Legend
Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice? Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized? I'm only slightly more familiar with Warhammer 40k, but the idea there is that the Imperium is pretty explicitly bad, but also generally the least awful option available. There's a hint of parody there too (CIAPHAS CAIN, f'rex).
They are, at least initially, the primary setting. And the protagonists. It's not crystal clear in the core whether or not one is expected to play as one, or to play as those fighting them, but they are clearly the source of the best tech in the early release era of Rifts. The Coalition is noted for protection of humanity from the DBs (extradimensional beings), and being effective at doing so, but also being extremely speciesist, toxic, and going after those in their service who decide to help DBs even a little.

I realize I may have sounded rather extreme earlier but frankly I set that bar pretty low. WH40k would easily clear it. Trash like Racial Holy War doesn't. That WoD product from a few years back, the one with all the Nazi dogwhistles? That's about where the line is.
The 40K line is pretty clearly a parody. Joke names, and all.

The Rifts line is presented straight. The Coalition States are an Empire, not a republic. It's got strong fascist overtones. And it's explicitly intended to be used as either/both good guys or bad guys (RUE, p. 230). But RUE lacks other antagonists besides dragons, and they are similarly not cast as one role...
 

dragoner

solisrpg.com
Midwesterner humor can be sort of dry (and weird), Siembieda is from Detroit, Michigan; so like Chicago, is even more of somewhere to poke fun at. Chi-town is even regular slang for the place, it is all sort of a gonzo parody, played straight, if that makes sense, sort of like the Yoopers being the last bastion of civilization.
 

Jahydin

Adventurer
The Rifts line is presented straight. The Coalition States are an Empire, not a republic. It's got strong fascist overtones. And it's explicitly intended to be used as either/both good guys or bad guys (RUE, p. 230). But RUE lacks other antagonists besides dragons, and they are similarly not cast as one role...
I like that it does that though. Do you?

Every new book I buy that has to specify what's "bad" and/or instructs me the "moral" way to play the game puts me off.
 

Midwesterner humor can be sort of dry (and weird), Siembieda is from Detroit, Michigan; so like Chicago, is even more of somewhere to poke fun at. Chi-town is even regular slang for the place, it is all sort of a gonzo parody, played straight, if that makes sense, sort of like the Yoopers being the last bastion of civilization.

As someone from Michigan, can you explain this a bit? I'm not as familiar with Rifts, so I'm confused by what this actually references.
 

The Weather Outside Is Frightful!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top