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

[Bacon Bits]

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.

 

[Mannahnin]

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:

Rainbow Bound

I have some good news, which may or may not surprise folks out there in RPG land. Aside from just a few minor changes that need to be made...

vengersatanis.blogspot.com

 

[Bedrockgames]

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]

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.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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]

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.

 

[Bacon Bits]

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.