TSR Who's running the TSR3 social media accounts?

Ernie Gygax (before he and Stephen Dinehart accused the whole affair of being orchestrated by WotC and then deleted their Twitter accounts) indicated that Justin LaNasa was running the social media accounts for TSR3, Giantlands, and Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum.

After a full week of insults, barbed exchanges, and problematic statements from all three accounts, the following has been posted by somebody who identified themselves as "Michael", perhaps suggesting that Justin LaNasa is no longer with the company (which seems unlikely), leaving many on social media to question whether "Michael" exists. The new TSR3 was founded by LaNasa, Stephen Dinehart, and Ernie Gygax, and despite the acrinomious social media activity, the former two founders' names have largely escaped much of the criticism.

UPDATE -- the below tweets now appear to have been deleted.

​

Around the same time, the header above the available events at the Dungeon Hobby Shop Museum website was altered to read: "Most role playing games will be played in old school fashion so if you're easliy offended or Rude ! DO NOT PLAY !" (sic)

​

So who is TSR3 co-founder Justin LaNasa? He was an American politician who ran for office in 2014 and 2020, and who was involved in a minor scandal during the latter campaign.

​

 

[RFB Dan]

Wait, what?

View attachment 139868

Any time the response has the word "actually" I instantly hear it in a smug voice.

"ACK-shuu-ah-leeeee"

 

[darjr]

Just to complete the circle Tim Kask invented and named the bulette.

Is this TSR intentionally thumbing their nose at him? Lamely?

 

[Steampunkette]

Any time the response has the word "actually" I instantly hear it in a smug voice.

"ACK-shuu-ah-leeeee"

You're going to love this...

 

[CleverNickName]

Wait, what?

View attachment 139868

 

[Sir Brennen]

So, there's a problem with using this model here - Ernie is not innocent or isolated. Ernie is part of his own network, which we can see when we look at his business partners on social media. By the model of the paper, that network commits harassment.

His statements were a marketing attempt to tap into that network. If he suffered harm (we have no confirmation that this really hurt him), it is because he tried to profit off of harm.

I think the bolded part is key to why this particular tangent feels a bit like a bucket of fish for certain pinnipeds on display at Sea World.

 

[Dausuul]

TSR used copyrighted logos already on their merchandise, right? It's entirely possible that WotC legal said to them, "This is what you're going to do if you don't want us to sue you. You're going to sign it. And there's a confidentiality clause in it so you don't talk."

I just don't see how they have the leverage to make such a threat stick. NuTSR has maybe sold a few hundred dollars' worth of merch. Wizards could sue them for it, sure; but to dictate terms (including a confidentiality clause) to a combative guy like LaNasa, you want a legal threat with nasty sharp pointy teeth, and a few hundred bucks ain't that.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know if it's possible for Wizards to sue for reputational damage at this point. It seems like a stretch, though, and even if they could, I still can't imagine it would be a very potent threat right now.

 

[Maxperson]

I just don't see how they have the leverage to make such a threat stick. NuTSR has maybe sold a few hundred dollars' worth of merch. Wizards could sue them for it, sure; but to dictate terms (including a confidentiality clause) to a combative guy like LaNasa, you want a legal threat with nasty sharp pointy teeth, and a few hundred bucks ain't that.

Not being a lawyer, I don't know if it's possible for Wizards to sue for reputational damage at this point. It seems like a stretch, though, and even if they could, I still can't imagine it would be a very potent threat right now.

Confidentiality clauses are pretty standard these days. Kind of like when the government gets a corporation to settle for billions, but the corporation never has to admit that they did anything wrong. Some things just go into certain kinds of agreements.

Edit: I also wouldn't be surprised if it was in the thousands at this point, and TSR has to worry about legal fees in fighting such a lawsuit, so the potential monetary loss isn't inconsiderable.

 

[imagineGod]

So, there's a problem with using this model here - Ernie is not innocent or isolated. Ernie is part of his own network, which we can see when we look at his business partners on social media. By the model of the paper, that network commits harassment.

His statements were a marketing attempt to tap into that network. If he suffered harm (we have no confirmation that this really hurt him), it is because he tried to profit off of harm.

The social media attacks that specifically singled out Ernie for attack through multiple retweets fit within the academic paper"s premise of network harassment.

Whether Ernie is guilty of another crime is irrelevant to him bring a target of network harassment. The focus of the paper is how that is not a healthy social model, not the innocence or guilt of the victim.

 

[Ancalagon]

Why does he keep saying it's the first fantasy post-apocalyptic rpg on the market? No it's not. Heck, 15 years ago I put out Bleeding Sky which is exactly that, and I'm positive fantasy post-apoc rpgs have been out since the 80s.

Also, increasing %s reduced by armor % isn't new either. I briefly did the same thing in the 90s before realizing the math was too cumbersome (adding and subtracting double digit numbers in every case was just too slow and felt like work).

View attachment 139854

The shanara stories were post-apoc, and these settings keep getting made. Recently I got UVG, which is excellent, and I am sure there are dozens others.

 

[Ancalagon]

The social media attacks that specifically singled out Ernie for attack through multiple retweets fit within the academic paper"s premise of network harassment.

Whether Ernie is guilty of another crime is irrelevant to him bring a target of network harassment. The focus of the paper is how that is not a healthy social model, not the innocence or guilt of the victim.

You've been brining up this paper a lot, but I feel like you are using it to say something you aren't saying yourself. Hoping others will read between the line is a great way to be misunderstood. What is your message here?