WotC Responds!!!

[JacktheRabbit]

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.

Is that not how most of the negative people here are posting though? It was the same with BOVD.

People who think the book is wrong and say they do not want it invariably say the book should not be published at all.

They go beyond living their morals to trying to force the res of us to live their morals.

 

[KDLadage]

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.

OK... perhaps I missed it -- after all, I have skimmed some people's posts in the multi-threaded discussion that the BoEF has generated... but I do not recall seeing the Sigil claim that you should not be able to see the book. I have seen him state that (in his opinion) the book is immoral, and so he will not be purchasing it. I may have missed the "and you should not be alloed to purchase it" post, so if you could point me in that direction, I would appreciate it.

[edit]: Just to be clear, I do not see statements as "I do not think the book should be published" as falling into the catagory of forcing an opinion on the world. I see it as a simple desire; an expression of how the person feels. Forcing an opinion on the world would be more akin to "I hope, if they publish this, they are arrested" or other such comments.

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.

Just to be clear (although I am fairly positive this is not what you mean), I never claimed that you would force others to see it. What I am asking is where the Sigil has claimed that he would force you to not be able to see it.

This is my problem with this whole line of discussion. We have many, many more than two sides on this issue. We have:

1. Those that would like to see this book.
2. Those that have no objection to it, and may or may not look at it.
3. Those that have no objection to it, and just do not see what the fuss is about.
4. Those that object to it, but are not going to force that opinion on others.
5. Those that object to it, and will try to force that opinion on others.

And a whole slew of areas that fall inbetween these. Unfortunately, labeling someone "extreme" just because they feel that Playboy crosses the line is akin (in my opinion) to seeing this as a two-seded discussion with each side seeing the other as a completely negative thing:

1. The Prudes
2. The Perverts

I have no objection to the book. I may or may not look at it, depending upon how tastefully donw it is. I will not ram this opinion down anyone's throat. I am not offended by Playboy.

My father, on the other hand, is offended by Playboy. He hates the objectification of women. He, also, is not about to ram that opinion down anyone's throat.

However, your characterization of "objects to playboy = bible-belt-extremist" would place my father into a catagory I simply do not, can not, and will not see.

Does that make sense?

To be honest, no.

 

[Dr. Harry]

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?

Force?

Skipping the parts that I feel were well answered by KDLadage and Harlock, I don't feel that I have a moral obligation to spend money preferentially at a store that glorifies or concentrates attention on something I find offensive just so some people (*not* including, as far as I am aware, the author of the post I am responding to) won't try to warp my position into "spewing censorship" or something.

I do think that given a choice between two or more stores, if one store most closely represents what the person wants to see, or portrays their interests/hobbies as that person wishes them to be portrayed, then that person should shop preferentially at that store. In a sense, this is the inspiration behind the "Support your local gaming store" push.

Harry

 

[Dr. Harry]

...

5 Those that object to it, and will try to force that opinion on others.

I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.

Harry

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Force?

Skipping the parts that I feel were well answered by KDLadage and Harlock, I don't feel that I have a moral obligation to spend money preferentially at a store that glorifies or concentrates attention on something I find offensive just so some people (*not* including, as far as I am aware, the author of the post I am responding to) won't try to warp my position into "spewing censorship" or something.

I do think that given a choice between two or more stores, if one store most closely represents what the person wants to see, or portrays their interests/hobbies as that person wishes them to be portrayed, then that person should shop preferentially at that store. In a sense, this is the inspiration behind the "Support your local gaming store" push.

Harry

Yet people here who siggest that AV should be fired for this are trying to control what is published and thus control what products are available.

That is tantamount to saying that only the products HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.

Harry

Really?

I have read dozens of posts by certain individuals who are suggesting that AV be fired for doing this. Their reasoning has nothing to do with his possible mis-use of the ODL and D20 licenses though some of them cloak their statements in that excuse.

Just to be clear when I say dozens I mean dozens of posts. I am not suggesting that there are dozens of people here on ENWorld or at other sites saying this.

 

[KDLadage]

I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.

Nither have I; I am sure they are out there someplace though. My point in listing them was to contrast the fact that there are many who object that do not reach that level that I would personally call "extreme."

 

[Dr. Harry]

Yet people here who siggest that AV should be fired for this are trying to control what is published and thus control what products are available.

That is tantamount to saying that only the products HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.

Aaah ... The way that I look upon that is a a way of WotC to conclusively demonstrate that this is not a WotC shadow project, as AV is a very promenent employee of Wizards. It would take someone advocating that WotC start going after people who did *not* work for them to make me think that they had exceeded their corporate rights or responsibilities that I would think a line had been crossed. Most companies for which public relations are important reserve the right to dismiss someone for how they affect the perceived company image.

I do not think that AV *should*, necessarily, be fired, but if it happens, I don't think that's forcing an opinion on someone else.

I do not think that consumer pressure is forcing an opinion on someone else.

If company A told a distributor or store that "If you carry brand B, we won't allow you to carry our stuff", that, I feel, would clearly be crossing the line.

Harry

 

[Bendris Noulg]

I have not actually seen this position advocated, though there are a lot of threads.

Consider this: When someone indicates that this material will only attract the gigglers, the immature, the maladjusted, the perverse, those living in their parents basements, and several other negative connotations, when they imply that the material is elf-porn, sleazy, and low-class, they are doing more than stating that they find the material objectionable. They are instead making reference that those that like such material are as the above, and thus sets an atmosphere of hostility towards those that would be interested in this book or others are somehow lesser people not worth any degree of recognition or respect.

Is my game any less valid because it plays out more like a Heavy Metal graphic-tale than it does a poorly written H&W novel? That's what's implied by such comments. And attempts to discuss the matter with such folks have proven that they are extremist: They are unwilling to consider that their views aren't the only possible views, having made a pre-judgement of the material based on nothing but their own morals and bias, categorizing me and anyone else that would like such material.

So yes, it's there, and it's pretty undeniable.

 

[Harlock]

Yet people here who siggest that Ken Hitchcock should be fired for this are trying to control what kind of hockey is played and thus control what styles of hockey are available for me to watch and enjoy.

That is tantamount to saying that only the hockey HE or SHE deem "appropriate" should be available to me. That is forcing his or her opinion on someone else.

For your information Ken Hitchcock is a hockey coach. He did get fired last year because the Dallas Stars didn't make the playoffs. He now coaches Philadelphia, who happen to be in the playoffs this year, as does Dallas under their new head coach.

What's my point? AV getting fired from WotC will have about as much impact on your gaming as does Ken Hitchcock getting canned. He can still put books out under Valar and the OGL. Other people can still put out the Book of Absolute Disgutsing Acts or d20 guide to Bigotry. WotC firing AV (which I think is highly improbable at this point, but hey, stranger things have happened) will have as much impact on your game and availability of this kind of material for your game as Ken Hitchcock getting fired: You'll simply seem him with another team. That style of play will still be available for you. Calling for AV to be fired isn't forcing that opinion on you unless your being forced to email WotC against your will, which I hope you aren't. If so don't be conspicuous, just knock on the keyboard spacebar three times fast and one time slow.