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

Irlo

Hero
Look at it this way: why is individual X's addendum the one to be added? Why is this specific person the one to be granted the right to address the wrongs of the published work?

No, people are not that weak-minded. The entirety of my point. So why is a document, attached to a published work, with a single opinion attached to it, necessary to warn others of the dangers of the published work? Let others make up their own minds about what is right or wrong about the product. If anyone has an opinion about the product, they can create a blog, or find whatever other medium suits them to broadcast that opinion. To take that extra step to place a gate on the product with one's own opinions... that's where I get yikes-ed out.
I understand your perspective.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Thourne

Hero
Perhaps worth noting here that the original poster of the petition has either self-deleted or been punted from ENWorld sometime since yesterday.
Is that why when I saw, in an unrelated thread, their name was in strike through format?
Asking cuz it rather confused me when I saw that.
 



Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I would not call this censorship, because one can assume that:

a) turquoise ball fans can talk about it and presumably can still have their turquoise balls outside of said space
That's like saying China doesn't censor things because those things can be talked about outside of China.
b) they have an opportunity to make their own bowling alley
Bowling alleys are expensive. Such an opportunity cannot be assumed.
c) ... this example comes off as incompete because there hasn't been a reason specified as to why these balls are hated, why there aren't many fans, and what the motivations are?
And this is quite literally irrelevant to censorship. You can have a good reason, bad reason or no reason at all and still censor something.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top