WotC Responds!!!

[KDLadage]

I guess it is pretty obvious how EXTREME your opinion is on the matter and thus retty irrelevant to the rest of the world.

Doc: I see the Sigil's opinion to be more conservative than my own. I fail to see how, by making a personal choice not to partake in such things as being extreme. Could you explain?

Has, for example, the Sigil pickited a 7-11 near your house for selling copies of Playboy or something?

 

[KDLadage]

Originally posted by SemperJase
Let me clarify, I do support the position that AV should be fired.
That is, WotC should fire AV if they do not want themselves to be associated with this kind of material.
....snip....

So let's stop accusing people of infringing other's rights.

Originally posted by DocMoriartty
Do you not see the complete contradiction and hypocrisy of your two statements?

Well, I fail to see it.

He believes that AV should be fired if WotC feels that they do not wish to be associated with the material he publishes. This is in no way a violation of anyone's rights. AV has the freedom of speach (and the freedom to be held accountable for that speach). WotC has a freedom to associate on with thoe people they wish to associate with.

Who's rights are being violated?

Well, some would say that AVs rights are being violated if he is fired for this. I would argue that WotC's rights are being violated if they are FORCED TO MAINTAIN HIS EMPLOYMENT. Thus, this is a wash.

And no, I still do not see how these two statements condradict each other.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What I really want to know is, who wrote that press release? If this was an intentional publicity stunt, which is still unclear, then I find it highly unethical.

More unethical than all the other marketing ploys that use sex to raise controversy and attention..?

Hardly think so...

Hardly. With your little "and/or" you're trying to imply that love and lust can be separated and still qualify as erotic. Bzzzt. Wrong. Indulging in the loving act of doing the dishes for your grandmother after she bakes you some cookies ain't erotic. Not even close.

I'd certainly hope doing grandma's dishes have little to do with sex...

Pornography isn't just a "representation" but a representation meant to arouse. I must admit that posting a definition on the internet only to then contradict it or "tweak" it in a way to serve a point is big pet peeve of mine, so I think its best to just wrap this discussion up.

Hey, you're the one that brought definitions into this. Don't like what that got you, don't whine to me about it. Fact is porn is sex, erotica is sexuality. If your own personal hang-ups force you to not see the difference, than I'd have some sympathy. However, you seem to expect me to except that hang-up as fact and not acknowledge the difference myself, and that's where you're mistaken the most.

From GKestrel on andycollins.net, one of the two authors of the book:

"It's all about good rules, beautiful or evocative images, and creating an atmosphere of sexuality (though flavor text)."

An "atmosphere of sexuality" with beautiful and evocative images. That's not "The Miracle of Life" on Nova, its Playboy with game rules. Porn. How courageous that there are those unashamed to publish this for D&D.

Again, sexuality isn't necessarily sex. Is a woman walking down the street in a tight dress and giving you an inviting look actually engaging in sex at that particular moment, or is she using sexuality to get your attention? To take your extemist view of the matter, the woman is a walking display of pornography.

Actually, now that you mention it...

Toy Story: There is an implied deliance between Bo Peep and Woody... Porn? Well, it's sexuality, so it must be.

Atlantis: When Kita removes her outer robe to go swimming, Milo replies with, "Oh, I can swim pretty girl... Pretty good. I can swim pretty good." He's obviously attracted towards her, so is this now pornography?

The Cosby Show: The Huckstables (sp?) have probably been (and likely will remain) the most sexually active couple on TV. Guess we'll just chauk up their solid relationship, deep rooted love, and mutual attraction to each other as just another example of pornography.

Sorry, Kai. I don't find your stance of sexuality=porn to be even remotely healthy as an outlook.

 

[maddman75]

Re: Listen carefully.

Why don't you just settle down, step away from the keyboard, and wait until you actually have something to criticize before you go bugnuts?

You must be new here.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Doc: I see the Sigil's opinion to be more conservative than my own. I fail to see how, by making a personal choice not to partake in such things as being extreme. Could you explain?

Has, for example, the Sigil pickited a 7-11 near your house for selling copies of Playboy or something?

When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt.

 

[KnowTheToe]

There sure is a lot going on in this thread, so far it has been a pretty good lead.

 

[KDLadage]

When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt.

To many people, whether they be Bible-thumping-in-your-face-you-are-doomed-to-hell extremists, or simply fairly-conservative-personal-choice-I-will-not-consume-material-I-find-objectionable, or even liberal-but-feel-that-the-objectification-of-women-is-bad types can make such a statement.

It is the fact that you have placed the label extreme on someone that could fall under a whole gamut of flavors of "find's playboy objectionable" is what I object to.

I disagree with the Sigil, but I have seen nothing that would indicate that he has an extreme opinion on this matter.

 

[Harlock]

When someone says that a mere Playboy Magazine is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty Bible Belt.

Conversely, when someone doesn't seem to think Playboy is immoral you get the idea that their views are pretty jaded, maybe even desensitized.

Look, everyone, not just Doc here, this is a two way street. People obviously have opinions on one side or the other on this issue with very few people in the middle ground. Why not play nice and recognize that there is diversity on this issue and instead of criticizing peoples' opinions and trying to back it up by representing your own opinions as fact or inherently better than someone elses, simply state your opinion without the obtuse "trying to prove the other guy wonrg" thing we have going on. The one-upsmanship is counter productive to an actual discussion. If you dislike someone's opinion groovy, quit singling them out. Just state yours and move on. That is of course unless someone is intentionally trying to get the thread closed. There's at least two sides to every story so claiming someone is puritanical or lewd is something that shouldn't be debated.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

To many people, whether they be Bible-thumping-in-your-face-you-are-doomed-to-hell extremists, or simply fairly-conservative-personal-choice-I-will-not-consume-material-I-find-objectionable, or even liberal-but-feel-that-the-objectification-of-women-is-bad types can make such a statement.

It is the fact that you have placed the label extreme on someone that could fall under a whole gamut of flavors of "find's playboy objectionable" is what I object to.

I disagree with the Sigil, but I have seen nothing that would indicate that he has an extreme opinion on this matter.

I call them extreme because most of the time people who hold views like this also hold the ideas that since THEY think the product is bad and they are against it no one should be able to see the product.

On the other hand since I have nothing wrong with this product (though I see no need for it in my gaming and no personal interest in it from me) I make no attempts to force other people who dont want to see to see it.

Does that make sense?

 

[Piratecat]

Don't judge people, please. Post about your own feelings and opinions, but it isn't appropriate to post about how you think other people should think or act.

EN World is a community made up of thousands of people from all over the world. We have political liberals and conservatives, sexual liberals and conservatives, and people of many different cultures. Yeah, there are going to be folks who violently disagree with you on a controversial subject. And you know what? That's okay. They're entitled to their own opinion, even when it conflicts with your own, and the same goes for you.

So Eliza has a good point: if something makes you furious, please step away from your keyboard for a few minutes before posting. It'll make the moderators' job a lot easier, and it will mean that people are more willing to respect and listen to your message when it isn't filled with angry hyperbole.

Many thanks.