What do you think WotC "owes" gamers?

[jdrakeh]

I don't recall making the argument that morality was the primary attribute that would generate success in business. I only said it was one attribute that generally contributed to success. And that is aside from the fact that, whether or not a business is profitable or not, it can still act in ways that are moral or immoral. I believe there are some things so immoral no business should do them, at any profit. Human slavery is one issue many people feel that way about.

Now you're equating something as innoculous as failure to provide a game supplement that fans want to see published to human slavery? Seriously, when you feel capable of discussing this topic without resorting to such wild hyperbole, I might consider resuming this conversation. Until then, I think we're pretty much done here.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

Actually they do owe us something. They and every other company. Quality products.

If a company keeps screwing up they keep losing customer. Mayber the loss is too great maybe it's nothing but a mild breeze that ruffles a few feathers. But the facts are companies go out of business all the time and they go out of business because they dont have enough money to keep going (anyother reason such as beign shut down by the government or whatever is not as common as the money reason).
And why dont they have enough money? Because they failed to deliver to the customers and thus the cusomters owed them nothing for what the company failed to deliver and that is what they owe us, quality products.
I for a fact wont shop at Carnivale Food, Sears, ebay, because they didnt deliver the goods of what was promised.
I have many friends and family members who do the same for even dumber reasons than the ones i have, and sure we may not be much but enough of us get together and a company will go down or at least get bought out.
Same thing can and will happen to WOTC if they do not satisfy customers enough to stay in business.

As far as morality goes, companies can and do act in ways society would consider immoral, but so do people. We just dont know about it. Should that determine whether or not we should buy from them? depends. My very religious grandparents boycotted Waldens for years for selling Porn. Ok fine they consider it immoral but at the time they had good deals so i didnt care, i shopped anyway to save a buck even though i think its immoral too. On the other hand had Waldens out in the open been working 10 years old kids all day with no breaks for food or water, i would have had a problem with that.

 

[pawsplay]

Now you're equating something as innoculous as failure to provide a game supplement that fans want to see published to human slavery? Seriously, when you feel capable of discussing this topic without resorting to such wild hyperbole, I might consider resuming this conversation. Until then, I think we're pretty much done here.

I wasn't making a moral comparison between the two. I was simply pointing out that business cannot ignore morality. There was nothing hyperbolic about my post; I simply used a very easy to understand example to make one specific point.

Obviously, the fans will not get everything they want.

I'm just reminded of the time I bought a vacuum cleaner, new, and a little over a year later, the manufacturer stopped making air filters for it. While I realize that $6 air filters are not a very profitable item, I felt that the vacuum cleaner manufacturer owed me, as long as they were in the vacuum cleaner business, a reasonable opportunity to purchase air filters for the life of the product.

 

[jdrakeh]

Actually they do owe us something. They and every other company. Quality products.

Again, as others have said, it would be in their best interest to provide these things, but they have no obligation to do so -- they don't "owe" quality to consumers. If this were true, companies that didn't produce high quality products wouldn't stay in business, but thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of them do.

The idea that a company owes (i.e., is obligated to provide) only extremly high quality product is a fallacy. It's true that many consumers expect such a thing, but just because consumers expect something doesn't mean that companies are obligated to deliver it -- only that it would be in their best interest to do so.

 

[pawsplay]

The idea that a company owes (i.e., is obligated to provide) only high quality product is a fallacy. It's tru that many consumers expect such a thing, but just because consumer expect doesn't mean that companies are obligated to deliver it -- only that it would be in their best interest to do so.

Imagine for a second they could produce two products of a similar purpose. Imagine they are equally profitable, but one will satisfy their customers more. Are you suggesting they have ZERO moral obligation to choose one over the other, to help their customers?

If they have some obligation, however slight, then their obligation has a value which can be weighed against other obligations. If you believe they have ZERO, absolutely no obligation, then we don't exist in the same moral universe.

 

[jdrakeh]

There was nothing hyperbolic about my post; I simply used a very easy to understand example to make one specific point.

Hyperbole means "exagerrating for effect", which is exactly what you were doing with the reference to slavery. Why else would you use a potentially offensive and very controversial thing such as slavery to make a point about the ethics of RPG publishers? The two things are tangentically related at best. You were exaggerating for effect.

Similarly, your earlier example of publishers going broke because consumers order from wholesalers was hyperbole (it deliberately exaggerated the detriment to the publisher in order to lend weight to your argument).

And, again, until you can make your argument without resorting to such deliberate misrepresentation or resort to hypothetical strawmen, I really must refrain from further discussion with you.

 

[Glyfair]

Hyperbole means "exagerrating for effect", which is exactly what you were doing with the reference to slavery. Why else would you use a potentially offensive and very controversial thing such as slavery to make a point about the ethics of RPG publishers? The two things are tangentically related at best. You were exaggerating for effect.

Well, it's often hard to draw a clear "immoral" comment without going to lengths on the internet because someone will disagree about whether something is immoral. For example, I could point out that a RPG company might be found to be dealing drugs in order to finance their operations (not too farfetched, if unlikely) and someone would argue that doing so isn't immoral. In order to avoid silly diversions (like this one), you often need to pick an exaggerated example.

 

[Nyaricus]

Y'know, when I saw this title, I thought "wow, isn't that a flamefest waiting to happen." It only took 11 posts for a trollish comment... musta been a record, or something :\

 

[pawsplay]

Hyperbole means "exagerrating for effect", which is exactly what you were doing with the reference to slavery. Why else would you use a potentially offensive and very controversial thing such as slavery to make a point about the ethics of RPG publishers? The two things are tangentically related at best. You were exaggerating for effect.

What's controversial about slavery? I went out of my way to pick something that at least 95% of the board would agree is immoral, at the very least in the terms of a business in the modern world. I wasn't claiming RPG companies engage in slavery, so I wasn't exaggerating.

You seem to be saying that I must give an example of an unethical business practice which is not offensive. I don't see how, and I don't see why.

Similarly, your earlier example of publishers going broke because consumers order from wholesalers was hyperbole (it deliberately exaggerated the detriment to the publisher in order to lend weight to your argument).

I wasn't describing any kind of industry trend. Coercion can happen in a business setting. A non-hypothetical example, if you're interested, would be Wal-Mart versus Vlassic and Levi's. Google if you're curious.

And, again, until you can make your argument without resorting to such deliberate misrepresentation or resort to hypothetical strawmen, I really must refrain from further discussion with you.

I haven't misprepresented anything, in fact, I have represented very little, except my vacuum cleaner woes, which I assure you are factual.

A strawman would be a representation of an argument which I would then demolish for effect. I have not characterized anyone else's argument, so I do not believe strawman is what you are searching for. Perhaps you are thinking of reductio ad absurdum, and feeling that you are somehow exempt from such a line of discussion?

 

[Wayside]

What's controversial about slavery? I went out of my way to pick something that at least 95% of the board would agree is immoral, at the very least in the terms of a business in the modern world. I wasn't claiming RPG companies engage in slavery, so I wasn't exaggerating.

You seem to be saying that I must give an example of an unethical business practice which is not offensive. I don't see how, and I don't see why.

He's saying that your example was wildly hyperbolic because it exaggerated the facts toward some rhetorical end. How did it exaggerate the facts? By being wildly hyperbolic, of course. In other words he's begging the question.

My rule of thumb is to ignore posts using the phrase "straw man," especially when they're hyperbolically exaggerated toward some rhetorical end with nonsense modifiers like "hypothetical."