WotC Dungeons & Dragons Fans Seek Removal of Oriental Adventures From Online Marketplace

[Ash Mantle]

No one is silencing Kwan. No one is requesting to have his videos taken down.
Apples - Kiwi

I think one of the points is that those who see Kwan et al's call for the removal of OA as censorship, that they themselves can appear in their discussion points to censure Kwan et al's access to free speech.


I personally wouldn't go so far as to remove OA from the shelves, especially since Cook went to the trouble of seeking cultural consultants for the work, that's be to be applauded, and though Wizards has its own issues to work on, their release of a disclaimer due to the sensitivity of such a topic such as this is also something to be applauded. Change isn't easy, but every step counts

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would be more inclined to believe that was the case if people did not refer to him more by name and not as some Asian whose opinions we should doubt because of the monetization of YouTube.

A lot of us are not mentioning peoples names, and instead just talking about the ideas, because we don't want the negativity of the internet directed at anyone, and that sometimes happens in these conversations. I am not interested in calling out individuals for saying something controversial. And many of us have said we have no issue with the conversations these folks are having (in fact I watched all their videos, and even when I disagreed, still found the conversation interesting). For me it is just a matter of when you go from criticizing a product or media, to demanding it be taken down, that crosses the line into censorship (which I oppose on principle). But that doesn't mean I want them silenced. It just means I disagree with something they were advocating for.

And this goes beyond this individual. I disagree with you strongly over this topic, but the last thing I would want would be for you to be silenced or unable to rebut what I am saying here. I sometimes even get annoyed when you make good points that I have to think about, but that is one of the reasons free expression is important. It forces people people to recognize their own bad ideas because people can confront them. So I think if you truly believe in free expression, you shouldn't be trying silence anyone (and that includes the individuals who requested the book come down). There are a lot of interesting games being put out by the people on the their youtube channel for example. I am not going to boycott those games, just because I disagree with them on this issue. I'm actually looking forward a great deal to one of the games in particular. I don't want anyone silenced or driven out of the gaming hobby. I just think it is important to stand against censorship in the hobby. And I can do that without making it a personal issue against anyone.

 

[Sadras]

I would be more inclined to believe that was the case if people referred to him more by name and not as some Asian whose opinions we should doubt because of the monetization of YouTube.

When someone takes 26 hours to get their point across you have to start wondering if the monetization is not the primary factor rather than point itself. And up until now, no one, in either thread that I have seen has provided anything other than 3 words that are the cause of this offense meanwhile plenty has been written to reflect the positives of the book.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When someone takes 26 hours to get their point across you have to start wondering if the monetization is not the primary factor rather than the justifications provided for one's point. And up until now, no one, in either thread that I have seen has provided anything other than 3 words that are the cause of this offense meanwhile plenty has been written to reflect the positives of the book.

I doubt monetization on youtube is why they have so many hours dedicated to the topic. Watching them my impression was this was a topic that he had been thinking about for a long time, and was interested in discussing. The reason the videos are long is simply because of the format they selected (they comb over, page by page and section by section). But I am on youtube, the worst way you could monetize is to have long form analysis of a book like this (monetizing would probably look more like 10-15 minute videos, where they highlight something really egregious in the book and have a click-bait title).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think one of the points is that those who see Kwan et al's call for the removal of OA as censorship, that they themselves can appear in their discussion points to censure Kwan et al's access to free speech.

Ach. No.

If someone is calling for the removal of speech, that's censorship.

If people are speaking out against the removal of speech, that isn't censorship.

No one that I have seen is saying that Mr. Kwan should be banned. Or removed from twitter, or youtube. Just that he's very wrong in his censorship.

To the extent that this is unclear:

When someone is demanding that people not be able to access Beyond Magenta, or that schools not carry it, that is different than people saying that this removal is bad.

But both types of speech are free expression.

Finally, just because someone is protecting the principle of free expression does not mean that they agree with the message. Some time ago, I spoke out in favor of the right of Fred Phelps to spread his horrible message of hatred. I most certainly did not agree with it!

(Of course, I would say that people like Phelps arguably did just as much to advance the cause of LGBTQ rights as anyone else, by showing the world what true hate looks like, but that's a different issue).

I defend the right of Mr. Kwan to try and ban all the books that offend him, even though I will never agree to banning any books.

 

[Panda-s1]

I personally wouldn't go so far as to remove OA from the shelves, especially since Cook went to the trouble of seeking cultural consultants for the work, that's be to be applauded, and though Wizards has its own issues to work on, their release of a disclaimer due to the sensitivity of such a topic such as this is also something to be applauded. Change isn't easy, but every step counts

okay, I'm gonna nitpick because I brought this up earlier (and even made a thread about it): it's a stretch to say Cook went through the trouble of seeking "cultural consultants". those five Japanese guys (remember also this book covers places outside Japan) were credited as "the players" who critiqued and revised the manuscript. there's no explicit mention of cultural consultation either so they might have just been playtesters who might've just been asked "does this feel accurate?".

and before you ask, the same year OA came out a Japanese publisher released the first Japanese language D&D set. given how much correspondence goes into translating and publishing a foreign edition of something it's not a stretch to say they just asked the Japanese publisher if they could find a playtest group for an upcoming book.

 

[Sadras]

I doubt monetization on youtube is why they have so many hours dedicated to the topic. Watching them my impression was this was a topic that he had been thinking about for a long time, and was interested in discussing. The reason the videos are long is simply because of the format they selected (they comb over, page by page and section by section). But I am on youtube, the worst way you could monetize is to have long form analysis of a book like this (monetizing would probably look more like 10-15 minute videos, where they highlight something really egregious in the book and have a click-bait title).

You are right. I'm impressed you got through all of it.
I attempted, but got frustrated with the format and some of the guests - but mostly because it seemed to me the conversation was too loose, too directionless. One moment they complaining about lack of creativity, then next they are complaining about a std 1e D&D mechanic, and the next they are making comparisons to some video game/series/movie, and every once in a while actually make a comment about racism. It was a wishy-washy exercise and to be honest I agreed with one of the comments that the most entertaining thing about it all was watching DM Steve drink and eat.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

okay, I'm gonna nitpick because I brought this up earlier (and even made a thread about it): it's a stretch to say Cook went through the trouble of seeking "cultural consultants". those five Japanese guys (remember also this book covers places outside Japan) were credited as "the players" who critiqued and revised the manuscript. there's no explicit mention of cultural consultation either so they might have just been playtesters who might've just been asked "does this feel accurate?".

It was 1984-85. There was no such thing as a "cultural consultant."

 

[Ash Mantle]

Ach. No.

If someone is calling for the removal of speech, that's censorship.

If people are speaking out against the removal of speech, that isn't censorship.

No one that I have seen is saying that Mr. Kwan should be banned. Or removed from twitter, or youtube. Just that he's very wrong in his censorship.

To the extent that this is unclear:

When someone is demanding that people not be able to access Beyond Magenta, or that schools not carry it, that is different than people saying that this removal is bad.

But both types of speech are free expression.

Finally, just because someone is protecting the principle of free expression does not mean that they agree with the message. Some time ago, I spoke out in favor of the right of Fred Phelps to spread his horrible message of hatred. I most certainly did not agree with it!

(Of course, I would say that people like Phelps arguably did just as much to advance the cause of LGBTQ rights as anyone else, by showing the world what true hate looks like, but that's a different issue).

I defend the right of Mr. Kwan to try and ban all the books that offend him, even though I will never agree to banning any books.

But isn't also calling for something also an act of free speech in itself? While calling for removal can be seen as extreme, the act itself seems to be free speech, as they're articulating their own opinions.

 

[Ash Mantle]

okay, I'm gonna nitpick because I brought this up earlier (and even made a thread about it): it's a stretch to say Cook went through the trouble of seeking "cultural consultants". those five Japanese guys (remember also this book covers places outside Japan) were credited as "the players" who critiqued and revised the manuscript. there's no explicit mention of cultural consultation either so they might have just been playtesters who might've just been asked "does this feel accurate?".

and before you ask, the same year OA came out a Japanese publisher released the first Japanese language D&D set. given how much correspondence goes into translating and publishing a foreign edition of something it's not a stretch to say they just asked the Japanese publisher if they could find a playtest group for an upcoming book.

No worries! A miswording on my part, they seem to fall under an early version of something like a cultural consultant, whatever input they may have had, it's appreciated that Cook did go to the trouble of involving them. Hopefully they were able to give the manuscript a once over , but the late minuteness probably didn't help.