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

[DrunkonDuty]

Changes in corporate leadership can lead to a changes in corporate policy. In fact, they frequently do. It's how the new management justifies its existence.

There's no point saying "sometime in the future this thing that is being managed in a reasonable way may be managed in an unreasonable way."

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Also, what Crusadius said.

 

[Jahydin]

I think your misconstruing the intention of the policy.

I was curious of @Gradine thoughts of how they (@Gradine) would handle Rifts, that's all.

 

[Bacon Bits]

When DTRPG stop having progressive moderation, do you think they’ll stick to whatever guidelines they’ve set up for themselves?

They don't need to change them when all they need to do is rely on the ambiguity of the term "disparaging". The point of linking the Facebook story is to point out that they haven't changed their content policies or moderation policies, either. They just selectively enforce it, so they still appear to be reasonable.

What happens when Hasbro buys DTRPG? Or Amazon buys it? Or Elon Musk? Or Tencent?

What happens when DTRPG decides they want 80% of the sale price? Can I complain about that on Twitter? What if I want to complain about the DMs Guild restrictions, or talk about how they negatively affect the market or my business. Can I do that?

The point is that a lot of people see stuff like this and say, "I am not alarmed by this policy because I agree the outcome is desirable in this example." That is letting ends justify means. It's worthwhile to question the means. Did DTRPG need to make this policy change just to throw Venger and his ilk off the platform? I don't think so given the already existing content guidelines. So what is the goal? To just warn some people they won't be welcome? Well, we should consider how that might be used to manipulate things.

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.

 

[jdrakeh]

I think the policy in question is to address situations such as a publisher of a product called "Tournament of Rapists" and other publishers in their circle of friends throwing tantrums (accusing DriveThru of violating the constitutional right to free speech) when said product was removed from sale on DriveThru. And, of course, DriveThru was violating nothing of the sort. And, no, this is not a hypothetical situation.

 

[Crusadius]

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.

It's like having a sign on the store door that says "unruly customers will be ejected" and some people are getting upset over such a sign.

 

[Gradine]

I was curious of @Gradine thoughts of how they (@Gradine) would handle Rifts, that's all.

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).

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.

 

[Davies]

Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice?

This is a definite no. There are much more heroic factions than the Coalition.

Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized?

This not so definite, but still no.

 

[Mannahnin]

That's part of the issue. The policy doesn't voice the intent. Many rules and policies don't do that. Intent usually doesn't survive implementation. Over time, as leadership changes or it's politics do, how will the policy be used as a written rule independent of the intent behind it?

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.

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

As Morrus pointed out, Kickstarter is actually a much larger share of the general RPG sales market; DTRPG hasn't, in reality, captured a majority share of the market. While they do have a large share of the POD and PDF sales market, the idea that they don't have competition is simply mistaken. Itch.io, Lulu, Amazon, and individual company stores like Paizo's and Steve Jackson Games' are also substantial, and could definitely pick up greater market share if DTRPG/OBS were to become more restrictive and less easy to work with.

Facebook is huge, but let's also not forget that Twitter still exists. And that before Facebook, MySpace seemed unchallengable.

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).

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.

No, the Coalition is pretty much the only explicitly fascist faction, and while they are available option for playing PCs, they're more commonly used as antagonists. And yeah, they lampshade/push the parodic level of the Coalition a bit, what with the Maximum Skulls All the Time aesthetic, although I don't think as much so as GW traditionally did. I don't think Palladium had the same trademark British sense of irony. They played it a bit more straight.

 

[Jahydin]

@Gradine
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, thanks.

I think Rifts came to mind as an example because when they ported it over to Savage Worlds I was bummed playing the Coalition was no longer an option. I guess despite the hundreds of other class options, they felt it was something they didn't feel comfortable with.