TSR TSR3.5 Launches IndieGogo Campaign to "Stop" WotC

The latest in the TSR3 saga, which has gone quiet for a while, is a new IndieGoGo campaign launched to "stop Wizards of the Coast". They cite wrongful bullying of TSR, and refusal to answer requests that WotC show TSR "proof of their claims" (although the campaign page doesn't mention what those claims are).

The IndieGoGo campaign was launched yesterday and has so far raised $675 (at the time of writing).

The action TSR seeks is a "Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership" which is a court declaration about the status of something in dispute.

TSR has launched a campaign to stop Wizards of the Coast

Become a Champion of TSR and Support TSR’s campaign against Wizards of the Coast!

TSR is taking a stand against Wizards of the Coast (“WOTC”) and its wrongful bullying of TSR, our trademarks, and its public libeling and slander of all those who helped create TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and products.

Wizards of the Coast has continually bullied TSR regarding TSR’s legally owned Trademarks. Wizards of the Coast has refused to answer all of TSR's repeated requests that they show any proof of their claims. Wizards of the Coast has the vast resources behind them and is implying to bring them to bear down on TSR.


The new TSR suffered widespread pushback when it launched, which they blamed on WotC, claiming that they were under a "coordinated assault across various channels being mounted.... by [WotC]" The company announced itself earlier this year, having acquired the TSR trademark after the previous holder accidentally let it lapse. It was run by Ernie Gygax, Justin LaNasa, and Stephen Dinehart. After several weeks of controversy, the company split into two -- Wonderfilled (Stephen Dinehart), and TSR (Ernie Gygax and Justin LaNasa).


zw5pyzcqtfqc7xu2.jpg


The page also indicates an intention to "fight to have WotC's legacy product disclaimer removed" from older products (that's the disclaimer on the older books available on DMs Guild which indicates that those books are products of their time) by claiming that the disclaimer portrays the creators of those older products as "as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products".


TSR will also Fight to Have the WOTC Legacy Disclaimer Removed

TSR is suing WOTC for Trademark Declaratory Judgement of Ownership . TSR will also pursue in the near future having WOTC remove the legacy content disclaimer placed on TSR based Dungeons & Dragons and other products, and retractions of any other libel and slander which alleges that racism and other heinous beliefs are incorporated into those products.

This disclaimer attempts to make a statement of fact argument, and therefore paints all of the writers, editors, artists and consumers of those products as supporting those alleged prejudices, stereotypes and bigotry, wrongfully claimed to be part of those products. This statement by Wizards of the Coast opens the possibility for the producers and players of these "Legacy Products" to face ridicule, and face the labeling as "bigots", "racists", "misogynists", and worse Cyber & Physical Attacks!

Wizards of the Coast legacy content disclaimer.

"We (Wizards) recognize that some of the legacy content available on this website does not reflect the values of the Dungeons & Dragons franchise today. Some older content may reflect ethnic, racial, and gender prejudice that were commonplace in American society at that time. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. This content is presented as it was originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed. Dungeons & Dragons teaches that diversity is a strength, and we strive to make our D&D products as welcoming and inclusive as possible. This part of our work will never end".


TSR3's Justin LaNasa spoke about the campaign in a YouTube video.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
"The majority of corporate types are clinically narcissistic/sociopathic..."


I'll need you to cite a source for that.

via this book


CEOs are the number 1 profession that contains the most psychopaths/sociopaths. But, I mean, is that really shocking?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


via this book


CEOs are the number 1 profession that contains the most psychopaths/sociopaths. But, I mean, is that really shocking?
The claim was that the MAJORITY of the people in that rather broad category (corporate management types) were psychopaths or sociopaths. Yes, psychopaths/sociopaths do well in corporate America; anyone with a passing interest in the subject is familiar with the research. The claim that MOST people in the corporate world are like that is, quite frankly, nonsense.
 

Sir Brennen

Legend

via this book


CEOs are the number 1 profession that contains the most psychopaths/sociopaths. But, I mean, is that really shocking?
I immediately thought of similar articles I'd read several years ago. The now since removed poster probably did too, but misremembered the specifics in order to apply the idea to his own world view. Apparently they didn't bother to do a quick Google search to refresh their memory and check their accuracy.

Here's a few with statistics (and more importantly, citations):


Doesn't support the claim that "most corporate types" are psychopaths, as the highest estimate is 20% of CEOs. Not "corporate types" in general, and not even "most" CEOs.

So again, one of many unsupported arguments by that poster.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
Publisher
If someone says "we don't like racism" and you feel personally attacked by that, it says a lot more about you than it does about the other person.
To be fair, that's not what's happening. The argument being made is "WotC is saying the older editions that we like to play are racist, inferring that we are racists for liking them."

Now, that's not an argument I agree with at all*, but that's the one being made.

* As an old school gamer who loves old school TSR, I took the disclaimer to mean exactly what it says "Some of those older materials were products of their time and had some problematic depictions." Which is true, and doesn't mean they are calling me a racist at all.
 

UngainlyTitan

Legend
Supporter
On the sociopathy of Corporate types; I would note that people respond to incentive structures and often do not see or notice bad outcomes of decisions. Especially if the bad outcome does not come directly from the decision and the blame cannot be attributed to a particular individual or decision.
The upshot of this, is that corporations are often sociopathic actors in society, simply by what they do and their incentive structures, with out any ill intent on the part of anyone in the corporation.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
On the sociopathy of Corporate types; I would note that people respond to incentive structures and often do not see or notice bad outcomes of decisions. Especially if the bad outcome does not come directly from the decision and the blame cannot be attributed to a particular individual or decision.
The upshot of this, is that corporations are often sociopathic actors in society, simply by what they do and their incentive structures with out any ill intent on the part of anyone in the corporation.
An interesting book that discusses this idea in more detail is Scott Veitch's Law and Irresponsibility.
 


Gradine

Final Form (they/them)
Most lawsuits these days are stupid.
Fun fact! The basis for this attitude (ie, that most lawsuits are frivolous and are abused for bad actors) is a disinformation campaign spread by big-money corporate law firms involving dragging a poor old lady permanently disfigured by excessively hot coffee through the mud because she was the public face of a class action lawsuit that brought massive consequences to a company who willfully brought harm to hundreds of people.

Or to quote Adam Conover: "This was an incredibly rare case where a working-class victim actually beat a huge team of corporate lawyers and made the world a better place!"
 

Irlo

Adventurer
Fun fact! The basis for this attitude (ie, that most lawsuits are frivolous and are abused for bad actors) is a disinformation campaign spread by big-money corporate law firms involving dragging a poor old lady permanently disfigured by excessively hot coffee through the mud because she was the public face of a class action lawsuit that brought massive consequences to a company who willfully brought harm to hundreds of people.

Or to quote Adam Conover: "This was an incredibly rare case where a working-class victim actually beat a huge team of corporate lawyers and made the world a better place!"
And she was not awarded nearly as much money as most people believe.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
The upshot of this, is that corporations are often sociopathic actors in society, simply by what they do and their incentive structures, with out any ill intent on the part of anyone in the corporation.

I would add, separately from incentives, that the structure of consequences also has significant impact on behavior.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
And she was not awarded nearly as much money as most people believe.
But because she demonstrated that a working-class victim can win a legal case against a huge corporation, they needed to make an example out of her to discourage others from doing likewise. Corporations got nervous, so they started all those rumors about frivolous lawsuits, foolish customers, and "obviously coffee is hot," etc., to make everyone else think twice about standing up to them ever again. "Only a fool would challenge us, we'll ruin your life even if you win" was the prevailing message they wanted people to remember. It worked.
 
Last edited:



If someone says "we don't like racism" and you feel personally attacked by that, it says a lot more about you than it does about the other person.

Usually the response to that is "This isn't racism; you responding to it like it is is the problem."

In other words, they'll claim they don't like racism either, while clinging to a narrow definition that means they don't have to acknowledge any problematic elements to the material they like.
 

Gradine

Final Form (they/them)
Usually the response to that is "This isn't racism; you responding to it like it is is the problem."

In other words, they'll claim they don't like racism either, while clinging to a narrow definition that means they don't have to acknowledge any problematic elements to the material they like.
I actually think this is too generous; in my experience the more typical response is some admonishment in re: "sensitivity"
 


Fun fact! The basis for this attitude (ie, that most lawsuits are frivolous and are abused for bad actors) is a disinformation campaign spread by big-money corporate law firms involving dragging a poor old lady permanently disfigured by excessively hot coffee through the mud because she was the public face of a class action lawsuit that brought massive consequences to a company who willfully brought harm to hundreds of people.

Or to quote Adam Conover: "This was an incredibly rare case where a working-class victim actually beat a huge team of corporate lawyers and made the world a better place!"
Uh no. My experience with the attitude predates that lawsuit.
 




Related Articles

Visit Our Sponsor

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top