D&D General Why a PETITION: Stop Hasbro's hurtful content is a Bad Idea

[Hussar]

At some point you need to ask yourself, what’s important?

It appears that appending extra material, section 7 of the petition, seems to be causing the most pushback. It doesn’t appear that the other sections are much of an issue.

So how important is part seven? Is the petition an absolute, all or nothing? Is there no room for any compromise?

As it seems, trying to ram this first petition down everyone’s throats and refusing to budge one inch is not accomplishing anything besides hardening opposition.

Perhaps revising the petition for more achievable goals might be more productive.

 

[Irlo]

At some point you need to ask yourself, what’s important?

It appears that appending extra material, section 7 of the petition, seems to be causing the most pushback. It doesn’t appear that the other sections are much of an issue.

So how important is part seven? Is the petition an absolute, all or nothing? Is there no room for any compromise?

As it seems, trying to ram this first petition down everyone’s throats and refusing to budge one inch is not accomplishing anything besides hardening opposition.

Perhaps revising the petition for more achievable goals might be more productive.

Maybe it's a strategy of asking for more than you expect to get so that you can get something.

I'm not saying it's an effective strategy ... .

 

[Justice and Rule]

At some point you need to ask yourself, what’s important?

It appears that appending extra material, section 7 of the petition, seems to be causing the most pushback. It doesn’t appear that the other sections are much of an issue.

Is it? Right now we're in an argument as to whether or not adding a disclaimer an affront to free speech. I feel like, in general, people just don't want to talk about this thing or do anything.

So how important is part seven? Is the petition an absolute, all or nothing? Is there no room for any compromise?

I dunno, I think you could get away without tying new material to the thing if you got much of everything else. Getting outright new material published would be the most difficult thing of the entire petition, but if you got them to actually look at their back catalog and go through it, that'd be an incredible victory.

As it seems, trying to ram this first petition down everyone’s throats and refusing to budge one inch is not accomplishing anything besides hardening opposition.

Perhaps revising the petition for more achievable goals might be more productive.

I mean, I don't really think anyone is ram it down anyone's throat, given that people can just sort of walk on by. The bigger problem is that I think the opposition are just dedicated to not doing anything and have basically said as such given the argument against disclaimers alone.

 

[Irlo]

You are not actually listening to what I am saying. I have literally been telling you to use your voice to express your displeasure. What I am saying is that attempting to make your singular voice the only or primary voice that people see (by chaining it to a singular published work), is wrong. That is the opposite of free speech, in America, and anywhere else. So express your displeasure in a way that does not stifle freedom of expression.

If the petition were to be successful, that would mean it was not a singular voice. It would be a lot of voices along with the voice of the copyright holder who implemented the change.

That's what petitions are all about -- demonstrating that you are not one voice.

 

[Hussar]

I’m honestly not seeing as much pushback regarding disclaimers. After all, we already have disclaimers and not many seem to have a problem with it. So disclaimers in general seem to be fine.

So what is it about this specific disclaimer that’s causing problems?

The problem I really see here is there are two (and possibly more) streams of the conversation. One that is focusing on this specific work and this specific petition and another that’s off in theory land wanting to pontificate greater truths about the world.

Perhaps you can tell which one I think is more productive?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I’m honestly not seeing as much pushback regarding disclaimers. After all, we already have disclaimers and not many seem to have a problem with it. So disclaimers in general seem to be fine.

So what is it about this specific disclaimer that’s causing problems?

That apparently it's Orwellian because by asking for disclaimer you are making yourself the primary, singular, and only voice on it, thus squelching out all other ones. This is an affront to freedom of speech and makes all other opinions on the topic thought-crimes.

So uh, I dunno. Seems like a heck of a circle to square with some people.

The problem I really see here is there are two (and possibly more) streams of the conversation. One that is focusing on this specific work and this specific petition and another that’s off in theory land wanting to pontificate greater truths about the world.


Perhaps you can tell which one I think is more productive?

I mean, I like actually talking about the petition and such and would be glad to! It feels like so much pushback is based not around what the petition is talking about, but what people thought it was talking about initially. I thought that would be a simple correction, but apparently not.

 

[Hussar]

Have you considered the possibility that you might be mistaken? That your interpretation is not the only way things could be interpreted and perhaps either rewording things or accepting that your interpretation isn’t necessarily the only one and working with alternative interpretations instead of shouting at everyone who interprets things differently than you might be a more productive approach to convincing people of your point of view?

IOW, telling people who disagree with you that they are just wrong is unlikely to get the results you want.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Have you considered the possibility that you might be mistaken? That your interpretation is not the only way things could be interpreted and perhaps either rewording things or accepting that your interpretation isn’t necessarily the only one and working with alternative interpretations instead of shouting at everyone who interprets things differently than you might be a more productive approach to convincing people of your point of view?

What, about the whole thing on "rewrites"? I mean, it's stated in the petition itself. I'm okay with discussing the thing, but can you admit it is not rewriting or touching the text of GAZ10?

IOW, telling people who disagree with you that they are just wrong is unlikely to get the results you want.

I don't think people telling me this is Orwellian were exactly winnable in the first place.

 

[Hussar]

What, about the whole thing on "rewrites"? I mean, it's stated in the petition itself. I'm okay with discussing the thing, but can you admit it is not rewriting or touching the text of GAZ10?
.

And this is exactly my point. I disagree that this is not rewritting the text. That is the express purpose of the retcon - that’s what retcon means.

And we are not going to agree on this.

But the difference is, I’m not trying to convince you to do anything. You are. Which means that just telling me that I’m wrong and I must agree with you is not going to get you anywhere.

I will not agree with your interpretation.

 

[LordEntrails]

People here* have indicated that the petition is bad in part because if it gained traction WotC would likely pull the PDF from on-line publication, and that pulling the PDF from publication would be undesirable.

If I understand what's going on in our mini thread...
1) you asked a theoretical
2) I responded with a generic
3) and now you are reacting as if my response (#2) had something to do with the petition?

Is that correct? Or did I misunderstand the relevance of your statement I replied to?