View attachment 276589
You can ask, sure. But if that consent is given (which it won't be,
Hi Ulorian, here you are not respecting the [+] parameters laid out in the OP.
Saying:
"This petition will not succeed. Hasbro will not consent to it." How is that within ENWorld's [+] positive thread policy?
Neither you nor I are magical seers who can definitely see into the future.
One thing is certain: if no one asks and makes an effort, then it certainly will not happen. I understand you wouldn't shed a tear about that!
we are now forced to look at a published work through the lens of a single individual.
Hi, you are misrepresenting the clear statements of my Petition. My Petition calls for a Hasbro (which is not a single individual) to:
"Commission one or more external cultural consultants with real academic credentials, to comb through the book and make a report of the exact nature of its wrongs." (The educational PDF)
AND
"Commission one or more culturally informed designers (who are either themselves experts in the World of Mystara, or in collaboration with aficionados of that world) to write at least a short (e.g. 1-to-3-page) re-imagining of the Broken Lands of Thar, whereby the racist crudities found in GAZ10 are revealed to be totally false propaganda by enemies of the peoples of Thar." (The fictive reframing PDF)
It sounds like you have a very strong aversion to the voice of a single individual. Would you prefer that the academic consulting be a team of 2 or more? And that the designers of the fictive reframing document (1-to-3 pages) likewise be a team of 2 or more? Great! That possibility was included in the Petition from the start.
Or maybe you feel concerned that the "academic consultant" would be me.
Let it be known, that from the start, I never called on Hasbro to just take my Research Document as use it for that purpose. For two reasons: 1) I do not have a Masters degree; 2) I'm not a professional cultural consultant.
However, when folks exclaim that it would be prohibitively expensive to commission a credentialed academic to comb through the work, I do point out that they would be welcome to take my 48-page document as a starting point! Thus saving the commissioned person (or team) much time, and saving Hasbro much expense.
Or maybe the evidence I give in the 48-page Research Document just doesn't feel solid to you. I certainly tried to make it pretty air-tight, pretty solid. But I'm open to hearing where there's a detail amiss, etc. (I'm aiming to address The Glen's and Guachi's in-world points in moment.)
Or are you saying that there is nothing objective in my 21 points? That everything in my Research Document is a subjective individualized opining? If so, I wonder if anyone could ever say anything critical in regard to racial and cultural portayals in pop cultural works that would satisfy your amazingly high standards!
So my point is: if one asks, and the only positive outcome to the asker results in/sets a precedent for a problematic situation for the well-being of society as a whole, what is the point in asking?
Wow, I did not know that calling for a PDF Web Enhancement (educational + additive story reframing) for a toy made for "Ages 10 and Up" would shake the foundations of global democracy!
Hopefully you can see the difference between criticism of a work and what the OP is asking for? Criticism is welcome and in fact should be the norm. It is part of what makes a society democratic.
Are you saying that as long as folks just write out their thoughts (in a blog, but not in a petition), and but nothing actually comes it, then democracy is safe?
It sounds to me like you just throw the word "democratic" out as a "all-powerful" meaningless "flavor word." Who can be against DEMOCRACY? Certainly not I!
But seriously, I hear that you are very very keen advocate for the sanctity of textual transmission, as a library science. (I work in a library.) I can respect that. I do find it baffling though, that a proposal to keep the actual GAZ10 text untouched, to keep it available (and to lower the cost of viewing it), to bundle an educational PDF with it authored by a credentialed professional (not I), and to bundle it with an in-world story frame which actually honors the words which are printed in GAZ10, but, yeah, explains the problematic aspects (e.g. the "scalping" and dumb names: "Chief Sitting Drool") to be gross misrepresentations--that you find this proposal to be "reprehensible." That's pretty strong language, my friend.
Are you also a very very keen defender of the canonicity of all events which have been published in the D&D Multiverse so far? Well, as you may know, TSR and Hasbro have, many many times, re-framed events from a previous publication, using an additive in-world story. E.g Bruce Heard's drastic re-framing of the Mentzerian world map (so that what we thought were countries from the Master Set map, were actually, like, coffee stains or creases on the map or something) to the entire 5E Continuity itself, which is explicitly (as stated by J. Crawford and C. Perkins) actually a distinct timeline from the reality of all other editions, even in regard to its historical and prehistoric events. And within the 5E timeline, the re-framing comments by Volo.
What is your feeling towards those? Is it okay if re-framing stories are done by a salaried design team within a game corporation, then it's okay and sacrosanct, but if suggested by a consumer and educated advocate (
re: "random person"), and which, if were to come to pass, would still of course be "vetted" by the salaried design team...then it's a REPREHENSIBLE threat to DEMOCRACY itself?
The sort of editorialising that is being proposed, thought, ventures into Orwellian territory.
Ulorian, the adjective "Orwellian" is not respectful of the [+] laid out in the OP:
NEGATIVE: Stating or implying that bundling an educational/research PDF and a fictive re-framing PDF with the GAZ10 PDF (with that GAZ10 text itself left unchanged) is [...] "1984"
I can be grateful for your helpful boundary pushing...I just added the word "Orwellian" to the OP.
