WotC Responds!!!

[KDLadage]

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.

Two seperate issues: (1) Should AV be fired for producing this? and (2)Trying to control what is/is not published.

(1) -- The idea that AV should or should not be fired has little to do with the issue at hand (is this book moral or immoral) and so, I consider this a Red Herring. However, as I have stated before, looking at this, WotC is well within their rights to fire him if they wish. They are also well within their rights to maintain his employment. They can fire him because he characterized the book as being compatible with "D&D" without obtaining a license (assuming, of course, he does not have one). They can fire him because he represents an image they do not want to have associated with their company. This is their right. And it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If I, as a private citizen feel that AV should be fired (I don't, but being hypothetical), this is also my right. And anyone telling me that I do not have a right to that opinion, a right to express that opinion, or some such, is missing the point of free speach. To show a parallel line of reasoning: I feel, for example, that the Basketball Coach for Iowa State should be fired for behaving in a way that brings discredit upon the University he is being paid by. This does not mean that I am an extremist that thinks Alcohol should be banned.*

(2) Trying to control what is published.... who? WotC? The people stating they will not purchase the product? I am not following this one at all.

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.

How is saying that I will not purchase the "Book of Book of Bardic Clowns" (or what ever) telling you that it should not be available to you? How is my wishing that the publishers of that book would not make it infringing upon their rights to make it anyway, or keeping you from purchasing a copy when it hits the shelves?

Sorry, Doc. I still do not see it.

* - The coach was going to frat parties after away games, getting stinking drunk and hitting on freshmen girls. He is married and has two daughters that are nearly the ages of the girls he was hitting on. It is a rather touch topic in Iowa right now.

 

[Mallus]

Second, an underage audience is a natural part of the demographic. Valar is at best naive if they deny underage audiences would be attracted to this book.

Boy I get hooked into these silly debates...

SJ, the very same argument can be made about SF and fantasy literature. I'd wager the majority of the people here got into reading through SF/F.

So since SF/F has a strong appeal to younger readers, should SF/F novels that contain graphic that's innapropriate for children, heck that can be construed as perverse and pornographic {such as Dhalgren by Samuel R. Delany, one of my all time favorite books, its SF's Finnegan's Wake/Ullyses, for better or worse} be taken off the bookstore/library shelves. Should authors and publishers refrain from writing/making available these works in the first place?

Oh, sorry that I called your argument silly a few thousand post back. I still think it was, but I'm still posting in these dambed threads, so how much sense can I have??

 

[Harlock]

I'm still posting in these dambed threads, so how much sense can I have??

I feel ya!

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Two seperate issues: (1) Should AV be fired for producing this? and (2)Trying to control what is/is not published.

(1) -- The idea that AV should or should not be fired has little to do with the issue at hand (is this book moral or immoral) and so, I consider this a Red Herring. However, as I have stated before, looking at this, WotC is well within their rights to fire him if they wish. They are also well within their rights to maintain his employment. They can fire him because he characterized the book as being compatible with "D&D" without obtaining a license (assuming, of course, he does not have one). They can fire him because he represents an image they do not want to have associated with their company. This is their right. And it has nothing to do with the issue at hand.

If I, as a private citizen feel that AV should be fired (I don't, but being hypothetical), this is also my right. And anyone telling me that I do not have a right to that opinion, a right to express that opinion, or some such, is missing the point of free speach. To show a parallel line of reasoning: I feel, for example, that the Basketball Coach for Iowa State should be fired for behaving in a way that brings discredit upon the University he is being paid by. This does not mean that I am an extremist that thinks Alcohol should be banned.*

(2) Trying to control what is published.... who? WotC? The people stating they will not purchase the product? I am not following this one at all.

How is saying that I will not purchase the "Book of Book of Bardic Clowns" (or what ever) telling you that it should not be available to you? How is my wishing that the publishers of that book would not make it infringing upon their rights to make it anyway, or keeping you from purchasing a copy when it hits the shelves?

Sorry, Doc. I still do not see it.

It is pretty obvious to me.

The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation. They do not want their hobby to go in a direction they do not like. To this end they want someone fired who is making that direction an option.

The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial. What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.

What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation. you dont think AV would be intimidated if it was "hinted" to him one day that releasing this book means WOTC will use the first justifiable reason to fire him? Jobs are hard to come by in todays economy this is more so in the gaming community when there is so much competition. I doubt AV wants to lose his job at WOTC over this.

 

[Bendris Noulg]

What is being advocated is an attempt at censorship via intimidation.

Yep. Nor is it the first time this has come up in this conversations. The first time was the use of financial intimidation to push store owners to not sell the product, thus making it unavailable (or at least difficult to obtain) despite being published.

All in the name of Free Speech.

 

[Dr. Harry]

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.

Consider how some of your own posts on another "spew" an atmosphere of hostility. Are you trying to force your opinions on others?

When you describe Heavy Metal as a "tale" and Weis & Hickman material as "poorly-written" are you trying to force people not to read Weis & Hickman?
It does not seem so to me, but I don't see how that logic differs from the logic you use in your post.

Harry

 

[Gothmog]

Originally posted by DocMoriartty:

The talk about firing AV is entirely based around intimidation.

Yep, you hit the nail on the head. Its simple thuggery and heavy-handedness to get what a minority want.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Yep. Nor is it the first time this has come up in this conversations. The first time was the use of financial intimidation to push store owners to not sell the product, thus making it unavailable (or at least difficult to obtain) despite being published.

All in the name of Free Speech.

More like in the name of MORAL SUPERIORITY since the people in question generally make insulting generalizations about the "type" of people who would be interested in these products.

I was asked to be more polite after saying "Bible Belter" and calling people "extreme".

How about the number of times "deviant" has been thrown around?

 

[JacktheRabbit]

Consider how some of your own posts on another "spew" an atmosphere of hostility. Are you trying to force your opinions on others?

When you describe Heavy Metal as a "tale" and Weis & Hickman material as "poorly-written" are you trying to force people not to read Weis & Hickman?
It does not seem so to me, but I don't see how that logic differs from the logic you use in your post.

Harry

One is an insulting description of people one is an insulting description of a product.

The two are vastly different things. One is a personal attack the second is a personal opinion. Note he never said Weis and Hickman were poor writers.

 

[smetzger]

The fact that he may get hired someone else is really immaterial. What is material is the unspoken fact that even though the OGL says one thing IF you produce a product that WOTC doesnt like they will fire you even if you did nothing wrong legally.

Actually from the information we have it appers that AV has done something illegal. What we know:
1) AV is producing a d20/OGL supplement and says it is compatable with D&D.

2) If you say your d20/OGL product is compatable with D&D you _must_ have a separate agreement with WOTC, like Kalamar has. The licenses specifically prohibit you from claiming compatability with D&D.

3) WOTC has come forth publicly saying that they do not approve of this product.

If AV did in fact _not_ get permission from WOTC, then the press release is in violation of the terms of the OGL. But we are not privy to all the details, so we'll just have to wait and see how this all plays out.