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

[Jd Smith1]

It's not a matter of conversion. It's a matter of acceptance and normalization. People aren't attracted to hateful ideologies by mystique. They're attracted and encouraged because the hateful ideas are present, promulgated, and stamped with society's approval (if only tacit approval by silence).

No, a web-site allowing pro-Nazi material won't convert many people. But it would drive away others of the community, and it would send a message to those others that they are not valued.

IMO, of course.

I agree with everything but the part in bold. A lot of people at certain stages in life are attracted to edgy, fringe movements as a way of demonstrating their independence, drawing attention, etc. And a lot of fringe groups of every possible stripe draw from those people who feel rejected, left out, abandoned, or excluded.

Myself, I think allowing general politics of any type is a bad idea for a forum devoted to RPG gamers, simply because that's not the purpose of the forum, just as it would be a bad idea to encourage discussion of bowling or shooting snooker.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Don't be shy now, just admit you would like to support Nazi and the KKK.

It would be difficult, given that I'm not white.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Don't be shy now, just admit you would like to support Nazi and the KKK.

Mod Note:

Mind-reading is a rare ability. Your “second sight” needs corrective lenses.

Until your third eye gets cataract surgery, please refrain from accusing people of extreme positions and engaging in personal attacks (like in your other post, above) on ENWorld.

Address the issue in the post; don’t attack the poster.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

In case anyone cares, Venger said in his email after the latest product was pulled (before the policy change) that is was not OBS that pulled it, it was due to a complaint and that he felt bad for them for the extra work and generally the released what was complained about within 2 weeks. He specifically praised OBS and blamed others who immediately report anything he posts.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In case anyone cares, Venger said in his email after the latest product was pulled (before the policy change) that is was not OBS that pulled it, it was due to a complaint and that he felt bad for them for the extra work and generally the released what was complained about within 2 weeks. He specifically praised OBS and blamed others who immediately report anything he posts.

Why would anyone care what Venger has to say?

 

[jdrakeh]

Why would anyone care what Venger has to say?

I'm more curious to know how somebody knows the contents of his (presumably) private email. Also, he has definitely been very salty over DTRPG banning products in the past.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm more curious to know how somebody knows the contents of his (presumably) private email. Also, he has definitely been very salty over DTRPG banning products in the past.

I’m guessing there is a mailing list that the other poster is part of?

 

[jdrakeh]

I’m guessing there is a mailing list that the other poster is part of?

I hadn't thought of that. Having said that, that's not an email list I'd want any part of (and I've been assured he is still playing the victim card elsewhere online).

 

[Lanefan]

So, you view it as "attempting to control". I think another very valid way to view it is telling you up front that they will not work with people who treat them poorly in the public arena.

Which to me seems much the same as companies attempting to suppress bad reviews (even if such reviews are warranted) be it by deleting them, denying service to those who post them, or even in rare cases issuing groundless legal threats and-or C&Ds; all of which makes the entire review system suspect at best and near-fraudulent at worst. It's simply corporations trying to control what people say about them, and this seems to me like more of the same.

A corporation is not a person and does not have feelings, and thus in theory cannot take offense over what someone says/writes about it unless it crosses the legal line into libel and-or defamation. We have courts for that, and due process.

And sure, there's freedom of association. I get that; and I also get that if one corporation says something bad about another there could-will be consequences at the corporate level. Fine.

It's the blanket not-so-subtle pre-emptive threat in that policy that bothers me.

And, "You are (relatively, in a small market) successful, so you are ethically bound to take public abuse from those who work with you," seems a very strange position to take. It seems very easy to apply to someone else, but few, I think, are going to volunteer for being required to stay in business with people who say bad things about them to customers.

Even though it's under my quote this must be in response to someone else (maybe someone who has me blocked?), as I did not present this argument.

 

[Crusadius]

It's the blanket not-so-subtle pre-emptive threat in that policy that bothers me.

That's the world we live in. Because you'd get someone taking DTRPG to court for removing their extremely offensive nazi misogynic rpg because the terms and conditions didn't say that that DTRPG would do that if someone complained. Hence such things being included in the terms and conditions, and why such terms and conditions don't spell out exactly what is offensive because there would be exploitable loopholes.