# DTRPG Says 'Don't criticize us or we'll ban you'



## Waller (Jun 30, 2022)

DriveThruRPG updated its 'publisher conduct guidelines' this week. While they are free to do business with who they want, as a near-monopoly --- well...








			https://onebookshelfpublisherservice.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/227866447-Publisher-Conduct-Guidelines
		




> Release Schedule: We expect that if you create a title that you wish to sell at our store, you will release that title on our store within 24 hours of releasing it elsewhere.




That's not a condition I've ever seen a store insist on, and it's one that only a monopoly could impose. 



> Links: We ask that you put a link to our store on your website. In turn, we offer consumers a link to your website from each of your titles’ product description pages.




The DTRPG link is pretty obscure. I've never seen it, and had to hunt for it while writing this. Yeah, it's there. No, I'm sure it doesn't drive any traffic to anywhere. I guess publishers can bury a link in the cellar too.



> Hostile Marketing: Our policy regarding potentially offensive content (see Product Standards Guidelines) reported by customers is to deactivate such titles while they are being reviewed. Publishers who deliberately court controversy by making public declarations or accusations of censorship resulting from this process in order to draw attention to their products will be considered to use hostile marketing.
> 
> Publishers who direct or support public accusations of impropriety or censorship toward OneBookShelf when their controversial titles are rejected or removed from our marketplace will also be considered to use hostile marketing.
> 
> This behavior will not be tolerated. We have adopted a strict one-warning policy for those who engage in hostile marketing: The first incident will prompt a warning, and after a second incident, their accounts will be removed from our site permanently and immediately.




This is the 'don't criticize us' clause. 'Hostile Marketing' is a term they made up. Not only can you not suggest any impropriety on the part of DTRPG, you can't support it either (what does that mean?)

Look, sure, they can do busniess with who they want, and I'm personally happy when the racists and stuff get booted. But when you're a near-monopoly threatening anybody who dares even talk about that with near industry-wide expulsion it's really problematic.

Boot the racists. Good! But if you're a near-monoply and banning people from even talking about that? That's a different thing. Let's not do that, please.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 30, 2022)

...I think you should re-read the Hostile Marketing section again.


----------



## overgeeked (Jun 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> ...I think you should re-read the Hostile Marketing section again.



I think the "don't criticize us" comment should be directed at the following piece of the new policy. Because that's certainly what it is.

*Social Media Behavior: *We know we are not perfect. When we make mistakes, we hope that our publisher clients will bring it to our attention first. Publishers who make derogatory or defamatory statements on social media about OneBookShelf or our staff may be subject to modification or termination of their publisher account.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

So don't criticize them. 

Seems pretty straightforward.


----------



## Benjamin Olson (Jun 30, 2022)

I think the release schedule rule is pretty hilarious given how many of the site's products are legacy items that missed that 24-hour target by decades.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> So don't criticize them.
> 
> Seems pretty straightforward.



So much for free speech, eh?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So much for free speech, eh?



The thing is, when a venue starts censoring, it censors to its own measure. That's a very simple truth.


----------



## aramis erak (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> The thing is, when a venue starts censoring, it censors to its own measure. That's a very simple truth.



And they've censored for decades now. Just not often and not terribly visible when done.


----------



## Crusadius (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So much for free speech, eh?



Huh? You're not prevented from defaming them, you've just had the consequences spelled out. Reading it what it says is that you should come to them first to discuss the problems, not social media.

And if you are saying derogatory/defamatory things about DTRPG then it should not be surprising that they no longer want you as a customer. Try going into any retailer and start shouting about how their service/products is the worst - I'm sure you'll be asked to leave pretty quick.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So much for free speech, eh?



Free speech is about the government not restricting your political speech, which has no relevance to this discussion.  Your freedom to speak is not violated here.  You can still gin up a Twitter mob against DriveThru if they ban your white supremacist game for violating their content rules and nobody is going to arrest you or even fine you - you just can't expect DriveThru to keep supporting you financially by selling your other games if you choose to do so.  Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech except to prevent the government from imposing consequences on you over it.



Crusadius said:


> And if you are saying derogatory/defamatory things about DTRPG then it should not be surprising that they no longer want you as a customer. Try going into any retailer and start shouting about how their service/products is the worst - I'm sure you'll be asked to leave pretty quick.



The analogy is close but not quite right because these are publisher conduct guidelines, not customer guidelines.  As a customer you can badmouth DTRPG all you want online and they'll continue to take your money happily.  As a publisher if you choose to gin up a social media outrage against the company instead of working through their channels when they delist one of your products, they are saying they might decide to delist all of your other products and cease to have a business relationship with you.  This is more like a publisher posting on their feed  "Bob's Comics and Games sucks" and getting people mad about it and then Bob deciding that he doesn't need to carry that publisher's books anymore.

You're still free to move your sales to another storefront - I'm not sure but I don't believe that itch.io delists anything ever unless it's copyright infringement.  You're also free to complain about DriveThru's policies as much as you want so long as you understand that they might choose to cease doing business with you because of it.  Though if they're delisting your product for content reasons - which is what this policy seems to be about, people complaining about their products being delisted due to content guideline violations - you might want to be exploring other options for selling your products anyway because DriveThru has indicated that as a retailer they don't want to carry them. 

Is this a problem?  Yes it certainly is but it isn't a "free speech" problem, it's a corporate power problem in general.  Balancing the right of businesses to sell what they want to sell and not sell what they don't want to sell against potential monopoly power in a space is a difficult needle to thread.  I'm normally right in the face against corporate power but this one is such a minor example of it that I just can't get outraged over it. DriveThru isn't even close to being a monopoly yet for one thing.  If you're acting in good faith as a publisher you're either not going to trigger this clause because your product has been delisted by mistake or due to some malicious actor outside of DriveThru and you're working through channels to get it fixed (and there's nothing in this policy that says you can't post something like "our product has been delisted due to some customer complaint about content and we're working to get it back into the store", it specifically says "derogatory or defamatory" for a reason). Or DriveThru has indicated that they don't want to sell your product and you should probably take your books to a store that wants to sell it.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> Free speech is about the government not restricting your political speech, which has no relevance to this discussion.



Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so _is_ relevant to this discussion.


Jer said:


> Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences from that speech except to prevent the government from imposing consequences on you over it.



"Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.


Jer said:


> Is this a problem?  Yes it certainly is but it isn't a "free speech" problem, it's a corporate power problem in general.  Balancing the right of businesses to sell what they want to sell and not sell what they don't want to sell against potential monopoly power in a space is a difficult needle to thread.  I'm normally right in the face against corporate power but this one is such a minor example of it that I just can't get outraged over it. DriveThru isn't even close to being a monopoly yet for one thing.



That's highly arguable. While there's no way to measure it that I'm aware of, I'd say that while pay-for-download role-playing game supplements might be an extremely niche market, there's certainly an argument to be made that OneBookShelf has monopoly power within it, even if they don't have an out-and-out monopoly.


----------



## Reynard (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So much for free speech, eh?



::insert Inigo Montoya meme here::


----------



## eyeheartawk (Jun 30, 2022)

We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this. 

Note, the complete lack of surprised pikachu face from anybody by this fact.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

"Publishers who make derogatory or defamatory statements..." is not the same as criticism in general.  That's your first mistake right there.  People are allowed to criticize OBS.  I have in the past.  Still have all my products.  Never got a warning from them.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this.
> 
> Note, the complete lack of surprised pikachu face from anybody by this fact.



Yep.  We have people like Venger to thank for tightening the rules for everyone else.  Just like we're seeing Hasbro/WotC being forced to defend their IP vigorously because of what LaNasa is doing (when they allowed more freedom when Jayson was in charge of TSR).  These jackholes ruin it for everyone.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> "Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.




I'm sorry but if you go around spouting Nazi propaganda and nobody wants to be around you because of it that isn't "blaming the victim" that's "blaming the Nazi for being a Nazi".  Do you really think that if I have an acquaintance who decides to go full-on Nazi I'm obligated to treat them nicely?  I certainly don't.  Their consequence for spouting Nazi dogma near me is going to at a minimum me saying "get out and don't talk to me again" if not a punch in the face.  I also don't purchase products written by Nazis nor would I sell products written by Nazis in my store.  I don't call that blaming the victim at all - it's a consequence of being a Nazi.

But to get to your examples - "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" is a violation of free speech and free association if it's done by the government.  If it's not done by the government then it's criminal activity.  That isn't anywhere near the same as kicking Nazi material off of DriveThru and then banning them if they gin up a Twitter mob against the customer service folks.  And equating rape apologist victim blaming nonsense to kicking someone off of DriveThru for ginning up a Twitter mob is so offensive and disgusting to me I'm pretty close to exercising my own right of association and putting you on my blocked list.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Jun 30, 2022)

Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequence.

Criticism is not Defamation.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 30, 2022)

One thing I _don't_ come onto these threads to read about is politics.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> I'm sorry but if you go around spouting Nazi propaganda and nobody wants to be around you because of it that isn't "blaming the victim" that's "blaming the Nazi for being a Nazi".  Do you really think that if I have an acquaintance who decides to go full-on Nazi I'm obligated to treat them nicely?



It's not a question of "treating them nicely," but rather a question of whether or not it's okay to inflict tangible economic harm on someone because they've expressed an opinion that you find odious, particularly when the entity inflicting said harm has much more economic heft than the person they're punishing.

As much as it might offend conservative and libertarian ideologies, businesses whose degree of influence over the market(s) they cater to – at least once they hit a certain outsized threshold (which can, admittedly, be very hard to delineate) – do (in my opinion) have an obligation to serve the public interest, at least in some regard, rather than only themselves and their stakeholders, which means not being able to cut off access for individuals whom they personally disapprove of.


Jer said:


> But to get to your examples - "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" is a violation of free speech and free association if it's done by the government.  If it's not done by the government then it's criminal activity.  That isn't anywhere near the same as kicking Nazi material off of DriveThru and then banning them if they gin up a Twitter mob against the customer service folks.  And equating rape apologist victim blaming nonsense to kicking someone off of DriveThru for ginning up a Twitter mob is so offensive and disgusting to me I'm pretty close to exercising my own right of association and putting you on my blocked list.



As I noted before, the scale might be different, but the underlying reasoning is the same. "They provoked us" is not an excuse for causing harm, at least when the provocation is "said stuff we don't like" (outside of very specific exceptions such as explicit threats of physical violence, gross violations of personal privacy such as doxxing, etc.). That's true regardless of the level of provocation/retaliation involved, or whether or not you find the original statement(s) provocative yourself.


----------



## aco175 (Jun 30, 2022)

Seems like some people are ready for a good 'ol book burning.  I'll bring marshmallows but not sure if I can bring pointy sticks.


----------



## billd91 (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so _is_ relevant to this discussion.



Wait. There's a broader principle that people shouldn't be held accountable for the things they say? That's not a principle - that's an excuse made by people being held accountable for the things they say.
Now, it may be that people shouldn't be held *unfairly* accountable or held accountable to a degree out of proportion to the offense. But that's a *FAR* cry from being immune to being held accountable.


Alzrius said:


> "Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation. It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you. It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.



*WOW!* That's a seriously offensive comparison.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

billd91 said:


> Wait. There's a broader principle that people shouldn't be held accountable for the things they say? That's not a principle - that's an excuse made by people being held accountable for the things they say.



That's a misinterpretation of what I said: rather, that people shouldn't be punished, including financially, just because they said something someone else doesn't like. "Accountability" is not a blanket excuse to negatively impact someone else's life.

The power dynamics involved are nowhere close to equitable, in the case of DriveThruRPG and most of the publishers who use the platform, and so I'm of the opinion that it falls on DriveThruRPG to act in a way that benefits those publishers even if they don't personally like what some of them say.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

aco175 said:


> Seems like some people are ready for a good 'ol book burning.  I'll bring marshmallows but not sure if I can bring pointy sticks.



I don't think hyperbole helps the discussion.  Venger was going around saying OBS was censoring his rights and defaming them.  They ARE still a private business, so what business is going to engage in a partnership (because that's what we all are who sell things there) with someone who is slandering and defaming them?

It's that simple.  No book burning or oppression going on.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Jun 30, 2022)

Yeah, simply a case of biting the hand that feeds you here. 

Though, given DTRPG's outsize market dominance it's a real sketchy line there between just that and something more odious.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> I don't think hyperbole helps the discussion.  Venger was going around saying OBS was censoring his rights and defaming them.  They ARE still a private business, so what business is going to engage in a partnership (because that's what we all are who sell things there) with someone who is slandering and defaming them?



The very fact that OBS had to update their policies to actually codify a "hey publishers - we expect you to act like a responsible business partner and if you don't we're going to drop you from our site" into them is on the one hand something that shouldn't have to be said but on the other hand is utterly predictable the way that the Internet works.  Especially with guys like Venger.

Ginning up an outraged twitter mob against your retailers is not good business sense, but expecting some of these guys to have good business sense is asking far, far too much.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> The very fact that OBS had to update their policies to actually codify a "hey publishers - we expect you to act like a responsible business partner and if you don't we're going to drop you from our site" into them is on the one hand something that shouldn't have to be said but on the other hand is utterly predictable the way that the Internet works.  Especially with guys like Venger.
> 
> Ginning up an outraged twitter mob against your retailers is not good business sense, but expecting some of these guys to have good business sense is asking far, far too much.



Guys like Venger are the reason why we have "Do Not Eat" labels on urinal cakes.  You'd think it wouldn't be needed, but there's always someone who think they're entitled to push it.

Also, it's not just like he made a comment about them censoring him.  He spammed every social media site and FB group he could, and on a weekly basis, about how horrible OBS is and how unfair and oppressive they are.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> That's a misinterpretation of what I said: rather, that people shouldn't be punished, including financially, just because they said something someone else doesn't like. "Accountability" is not a blanket excuse to negatively impact someone else's life.
> 
> The power dynamics involved are nowhere close to equitable, in the case of DriveThruRPG and most of the publishers who use the platform, and so I'm of the opinion that it falls on DriveThruRPG to act in a way that benefits those publishers even if they don't personally like what some of them say.



As a 1st Amendment superfan, this is a bad take.  The relationship between DTRPG and their customers, both providers and buyers, is contract driven.  And that clause does not implicate the freedom of speech in any way. 

As for your general argument about free speech and consequences, I'm almost 100% positive that you would not support that someone making strident racist remarks must be fully accommodated by a member of the race they are demeaning in all ways, including continuing to associate with them, do business with them, and refraining from saying anything bad about them in return.  This is the outcome you're arguing.

I get your point, though, you think that a big company like DTRPG (heh, big) that has a large footprint in a market should not be able to say things like "don't defame us or we cut you off."  To you, this feels like they're telling you what you can and can't say.  They aren't.  You can still say whatever you want.  But just like you're free to say whatever you want, they are free to end their voluntary association with you.  That you might or might not rely on income based on that voluntary association, or that you might or might not have other viable options for that income, is entirely beside the point.  Your rights do not remove the same rights of others.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Also, it's not just like he made a comment about them censoring him.  He spammed every social media site and FB group he could, and on a weekly basis, about how horrible OBS is and how unfair and oppressive they are.



Right - he's been actively trying to get his "fans" such as they are to mob OBS.  No matter how small that fanbase is it's probably still overwhelming for the customer service folks.  From what I understand OBS has fewer than 50 total employees - somewhere between a dozen and two dozen full time staff is what I last heard.  They don't need to be putting up with that kind of abuse.


----------



## darjr (Jun 30, 2022)

Venger is still talking about about OBS in bad faith, I’m hoping. Also he is  still selling his stuff. His ability to make money isn’t stopped. 

OBS just didn’t want to partake.

Edit: yea, I took out the dumb stuff.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Jun 30, 2022)




----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

Let me put it like this.  Those who think OBS is in the wrong, are you suggesting that ENWorld should allow posters to make hate speech, graphically describe violent sexual assault to women and children, and racism in their posts?  It's the same thing.  Both are private companies deciding what is allowed on their platform.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> As a 1st Amendment superfan, this is a bad take.  The relationship between DTRPG and their customers, both providers and buyers, is contract driven.  And that clause does not implicate the freedom of speech in any way.



Well, I noted before that this isn't related to the First Amendment, which is concerned with the legal principle of the government not restricting freedom of expression, which is neither here nor there where DTRPG is concerned.

Likewise, the contractual nature of the relationship between DTRPG and publishers needs to be viewed, I believe, in the broader perspective of the fact that, in a very real way, OneBookShelf controls access to most of the potential market. While they might have the legal right to therefore exercise that through a clause which demands that anyone who wants to publish on them therefore cannot speak ill of them (i.e. make derogatory comments), I'm of the opinion that doing so doesn't serve the greater public interest...and that they're large enough within their market to where this should be something that they _have_ to take into account, at least within the context of not screening out publishers based on their personal opinions.


Ovinomancer said:


> As for your general argument about free speech and consequences, I'm almost 100% positive that you would not support that someone making strident racist remarks must be fully accommodated by a member of the race they are demeaning in all ways, including continuing to associate with them, do business with them, and refraining from saying anything bad about them in return.  This is the outcome you're arguing.



As I noted above, I'm of the opinion that when a single entity has outsized control over access to a particular market, they assume a burden whereby they're no longer allowed to simply look out for their own interests. In that case, they might very well find themselves obligated to interact with people whom they personally disagree with, don't like, and even find reprehensible. But that doesn't obviate that burden that their outsized influence has put upon them.


Ovinomancer said:


> I get your point, though, you think that a big company like DTRPG (heh, big) that has a large footprint in a market should not be able to say things like "don't defame us or we cut you off."  To you, this feels like they're telling you what you can and can't say.  They aren't.  You can still say whatever you want.  But just like you're free to say whatever you want, they are free to end their voluntary association with you.  That you might or might not rely on income based on that voluntary association, or that you might or might not have other viable options for that income, is entirely beside the point.  Your rights do not remove the same rights of others.



I don't believe that last part, wherein your income is affected, is beside the point. DriveThruRPG's rights aren't being curtailed because they conflict with yours, but because they've accumulated sufficient power within their particular market to where it becomes necessary for them to serve (in certain capacities) the entirety of that market, rather than themselves. At that point, I'm of the opinion that they can't simply cut someone else off for personal reasons, since doing so makes it clear that they're now gatekeeping (most of) that market from those who want to access it.

Now, I know that comes across as hyperbolic, since the downloadable RPG product "market" is puny, and compared to transnational conglomerates and global corporations OneBookShelf is a tiny little company, but the principle stands regardless of the scope it's applied to.

EDIT: That said, I want to take a moment to personally thank you for the erudite and respectful reply. I think that posts like yours are an excellent example of the level of discourse that makes EN World a refreshing change from how these conversations usually go on most of the Internet.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 30, 2022)

I'll be honest, my first impression when I first read this thread is that OBS is just salty about DTRPG being a larger and more successful online distributor than they are.  After reading through the comments and giving it a bit more thought, my impression hasn't changed.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jun 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'll be honest, my first impression when I first read this thread is that OBS is just salty about DTRPG being a larger and more successful online distributor than they are.  After reading through the comments and giving it a bit more thought, my impression hasn't changed.



Huh?  OBS is DTRPG.  They are the same.  DTRPG is part of of OBS


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> I'll be honest, my first impression when I first read this thread is that OBS is just salty about DTRPG being a larger and more successful online distributor than they are.  After reading through the comments and giving it a bit more thought, my impression hasn't changed.



OBS and DTRPG are the same company.  OBS owns all of the DriveThru brands (RPG, Comics, Cards, Fiction) as well as DMsGuild and StorytellerVault.

They're big, though if you're not writing for D&D or Storyteller there are plenty of other places to sell your games through that have content guidelines that are less restrictive than OBS's sites (and even their content guidelines basically boil down to a prohibition on child sexual assault material, sexual assault material, and hate speech.  They're already pretty loose as far as retailers go, it's just that there are some who say they have no restrictions at all - though I'd bet that the child sexual assault material ban is pretty universal whether it's in a posted policy or not).


----------



## CleverNickName (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> OBS and DTRPG are the same company.  OBS owns all of the DriveThru brands (RPG, Comics, Cards, Fiction) as well as DMsGuild and StorytellerVault.



Huh.  I didn't know that.  I guess that explains why the web layouts look so similar.  (I thought they just used the same online web hosting service.)  Thanks for setting me straight.


----------



## darjr (Jun 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Huh.  I didn't know that.  I guess that explains why the web layouts look so similar.  (I thought they just used the same online web hosting service.)  Thanks for setting me straight.



OBS does do some work to brand them differently so it’s kinda what they want anyway.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

CleverNickName said:


> Huh.  I didn't know that.  I guess that explains why the web layouts look so similar.  (I thought they just used the same online web hosting service.)  Thanks for setting me straight.



The weird thing is that I recall that RPGNow (remember RPGNow?) used similar layouts to DriveThru but the two were independent until they merged with DriveThru and the new company became OneBookShelf.  So I can see how you'd think that.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> One thing I _don't_ come onto these threads to read about is politics.



And yet here you are, posting....


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> And yet here you are, posting....



Mm, but not politically.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

South by Southwest said:


> Mm, but not politically.



Just seeking attention?


----------



## Thalllin Vord (Jun 30, 2022)

I boycotted Drivethrurpg for reasons completely seperate to this. This does not make me feel better or worse.


----------



## South by Southwest (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Just seeking attention?



No, trying to encourage adherence to site rules about political posts. Failing, natch, but I gave 'er a go.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Well, I noted before that this isn't related to the First Amendment, which is concerned with the legal principle of the government not restricting freedom of expression, which is neither here nor there where DTRPG is concerned.
> 
> Likewise, the contractual nature of the relationship between DTRPG and publishers needs to be viewed, I believe, in the broader perspective of the fact that, in a very real way, OneBookShelf controls access to most of the potential market. While they might have the legal right to therefore exercise that through a clause which demands that anyone who wants to publish on them therefore cannot speak ill of them (i.e. make derogatory comments), I'm of the opinion that doing so doesn't serve the greater public interest...and that they're large enough within their market to where this should be something that they _have_ to take into account, at least within the context of not screening out publishers based on their personal opinions.



That's a completely different argument than the one you made about speech should not have consequences.  OBS isn't close to a monopoly.  They are by no means the only way to sell or deliver content on the internet.  That's not the service they sell.  The service they sell is advertising -- people come to OBS because it's easy and there are a lot of products there.  That's not a monopoly on the market, it's just having the loudest voice that people want to speak for them.  If I get dumped by OBS, I can still market and sell my files online, I just lose access to OBS using their voice (their freedom of speech) to advertise for me.


Alzrius said:


> As I noted above, I'm of the opinion that when a single entity has outsized control over access to a particular market, they assume a burden whereby they're no longer allowed to simply look out for their own interests. In that case, they might very well find themselves obligated to interact with people whom they personally disagree with, don't like, and even find reprehensible. But that doesn't obviate that burden that their outsized influence has put upon them.
> 
> I don't believe that last part, wherein your income is affected, is beside the point. DriveThruRPG's rights aren't being curtailed because they conflict with yours, but because they've accumulated sufficient power within their particular market to where it becomes necessary for them to serve (in certain capacities) the entirety of that market, rather than themselves. At that point, I'm of the opinion that they can't simply cut someone else off for personal reasons, since doing so makes it clear that they're now gatekeeping (most of) that market from those who want to access it.
> 
> Now, I know that comes across as hyperbolic, since the downloadable RPG product "market" is puny, and compared to transnational conglomerates and global corporations OneBookShelf is a tiny little company, but the principle stands regardless of the scope it's applied to.



Here's the thing.  Your "profits" are not because OBS is the only way to distribute your goods, but rather because you are gaining the advantage of OBS's voice to help sell your product.  I mean, it's pretty clear you can set up your own website and do the things yourself (plenty of other people do this), but rather that if you don't have access to OBS' platform, then you will lose money because you do not have that promotion going for you.  To get this voice, you pay for it -- a percentage of every sale goes to pay for this service OBS provides for you.  You also get to not engage the hassle of figuring out how to do the sale and distribution on your own, so you're buying convenience.  

Neither of these things is a monopoly.  OBS is not pricing out other options with predatory practices.  OBS is not engaged in unfair litigation practices to prevent you from competing the the marketplace.  The reality is that OBS is a thin margin operation in a niche market (although growing) and that's just a hard space to compete in to begin with.  A competing startup has to whether the thin years OBS already has to compete for a smaller slice than OBS has now.  It's not that OBS is a monopoly, or acting like one, it's that they're providing a thin margin service to a niche market and there's really only room for one or two vendors like that in the market to begin with.  You see this all the time in other niche markets.  Etsy is a great example.  The vast majority of products placed on OBS don't move at all.

In this regime, it becomes important for the company to be able to protect itself from attack, especially attacks where they both have to bear the brunt of the attack AND continue to provide the attacker the benefits of their attack.  These clauses are reactions to a predatory scheme where a poster intentionally created controversy about OBS in order to drive more sales to his products _on OBS_.  That's it.  These are pretty measured responses to that -- they don't say no criticism is allowed (which they could do).  

A corollary to your argument would be to say that the local newpaper in a small town that is the sole provider of local information to the town (outside of gossip and talking to friends) cannot enact a policy whereby they will not print advertisements for businesses that are openly racist, or personal ads that have a racist or insulting message.  This is the only place you can get these ads, so by your argument they should not be restricting what's said on their platforms.  This is obviously incorrect.  The argument you're making is one of a slippery slope and one that has a personal moral assignment that doesn't consider other moral assignments or the fundamental rights of the company to choose who they associate with.


Alzrius said:


> EDIT: That said, I want to take a moment to personally thank you for the erudite and respectful reply. I think that posts like yours are an excellent example of the level of discourse that makes EN World a refreshing change from how these conversations usually go on most of the Internet.



I feel like I just saw a unicorn.  Amazed, wonderous, but clearly a figment of my imagination?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2022)

Someone complains about a product.
DriveThruRPG takes the product down while reviewing.
Rather than talk to the store, the Creator goes to social media, and claims they are being unfairly censored when in fact their product is under the standard review process.

If the Creator doesn't wait for actual judgement from the store, they aren't criticizing.  They are _lying about what's going on_ - they have not yet been censored.  That's what makes this defamation, rather than criticism.


----------



## shawnhcorey (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> So don't criticize them.
> 
> Seems pretty straightforward.




No, they said, "Don't be a dick."


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

shawnhcorey said:


> No, they said, "Don't be a dick."



Can you post the quote?

Of course not. But if they had, so what? It's their site.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Can you post the quote?



It was posted earlier in this thread:



> *Social Media Behavior: *We know we are not perfect. When we make mistakes, we hope that our publisher clients will bring it to our attention first. Publishers who make derogatory or defamatory statements on social media about OneBookShelf or our staff may be subject to modification or termination of their publisher account.



That's the longer version of what @shawnhcorey said.

EDIT: I'd argue that it's more like "we expect our publishing partners to behave like professionals, and we'll terminate our business relationship if they don't." But @shawnhcorey 's version is pithier.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a completely different argument than the one you made about speech should not have consequences.  OBS isn't close to a monopoly.  They are by no means the only way to sell or deliver content on the internet.  That's not the service they sell.  The service they sell is advertising -- people come to OBS because it's easy and there are a lot of products there.  That's not a monopoly on the market, it's just having the loudest voice that people want to speak for them.  If I get dumped by OBS, I can still market and sell my files online, I just lose access to OBS using their voice (their freedom of speech) to advertise for me.




I think there is a good argument to be made they are effecting a defacto monopoly. For most publishers, you have to be on their site to have any relevance. And its where the vast majority of PDF sales (increasingly print sales) for RPGs take place. They are very much close to the RPG amazon (yes there is Ebay, there are other online sales platforms but amazon has such an enormous influence because they are so important it actually can shape what gets made). I think with OBS it is similar. 

I don't do print stuff on OBS, but I do rely on my PDF sales there (and I don't even have an exclusive agreement with OBS for that, so I can and have put PDFs up elsewhere: they make pretty much next to zero dollars anywhere else----so I don't even bother anymore). Also OBS acquired several sales sites. Before RPGnow and Drivethru were separate things. 

But I think a lot of this is quibbling over terms. The fact is they are extremely important for publishers. Most publishers won't survive coming off OBS. And you do make a good point about advertising, but I think it is more than that: OBS basically creates the perception for most people of what is available in the RPG world. I don't have my print books on OBS for instance. They are available elsewhere, but I hear from so many customers (including recently from someone who was a very longstanding fan) who have no idea we also sell print books (because they assume if a company has PDFs but no print books on OBS, they must not make print books). I think OBS is arguably the landing page for most RPG consumers. A day on their new releases page gets you more awareness than paid advertising. That is a good arrangement in many ways. And they've managed their power responsibly and with restraint in the past. But I do think the new guidelines are a little concerning if you are publisher


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> So much for free speech, eh?



No private entity is required to give you free speech. Only the Government


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

> It was posted earlier in this thread:




That doesn't mention being or not being a dick at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> OBS and DTRPG are the same company.  OBS owns all of the DriveThru brands (RPG, Comics, Cards, Fiction) as well as DMsGuild and StorytellerVault.
> 
> They're big, though if you're not writing for D&D or Storyteller there are plenty of other places to sell your games through that have content guidelines that are less restrictive than OBS's sites (and even their content guidelines basically boil down to a prohibition on child sexual assault material, sexual assault material, and hate speech.  They're already pretty loose as far as retailers go, it's just that there are some who say they have no restrictions at all - though I'd bet that the child sexual assault material ban is pretty universal whether it's in a posted policy or not).




These policies guidelines are not new I believe (I don't know when they were added). The new guidelines are the ones about publishers and marketing (those just maybe make these guideline more relevant to publishers). But the guidelines are not strictly about sexual assault or child sexual assault. It is also about "overt political agendas" and "depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children" (a hag eating a child would seem to fall under a criminal act of violence against a child for example, though I suspect that isn't the spirit of the wording). There is also rules against racist, homophobic and discriminatory content (as well as repugnant views). I think if they are talking about not having racist screeds, few publishers are even interested in that to begin with. But it could be more of an issue if that were to encompass having an NPC who holds racist views (just like you might have a racist character in a novel where the message of the novel is not racist itself). And given that we've had a lot of threads over things like 'are orcs racist' there is that too. I think though they aren't intending these things as I have never seen them enforce these policies in this way. I do think the change in posture towards publishers in the recent guidelines though reminded people that how these guidelines get enforced could change if attitudes or people behind the scenes at OBS change. 

Here is the actual section from the guidelines:



> Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases, may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.
> 
> Illegal and Infringing content is not allowed. It is the content creator’s responsibility to ensure that their content does not violate laws, or copyright, trademark, privacy, or other rights.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> That's a completely different argument than the one you made about speech should not have consequences.  OBS isn't close to a monopoly.  They are by no means the only way to sell or deliver content on the internet.



They're self-evidently not a monopoly, but I do think that they have monopoly _power_, which isn't the same thing. You don't need to control 100% of a particular market in order to have the ability to regulate (even if only partially) who has access to that particular market.

Now, I don't have any hard-and-fast numbers on this, so I can certainly understand skepticism. But every time I've talked to publishers, they've indicated that DriveThruRPG is by far the largest player where online storefronts for downloadable RPG products are concerned (though, as noted in that link, Kickstarter is by far the larger generator of money, but they aren't a storefront per se in terms of being able to browse a set of wares and buy them at will). Being kicked off of their storefront makes it incredibly difficult for many, if not most, publishers to reach potential customers, and as such I'm of the belief that it is germane to this discussion.

I know that I'm not responding to a lot of additional points that you made, but that's because I feel that the above goes to the heart of this particular area of concern. A business entity does not need to control 100% of a market in order to have the impact, or at least the near-impact, of a monopoly. Strictly speaking, anyone can always set up their own venue and sell their goods that way, but if that's all we consider, then there are no monopolies at all, which is a distinction that doesn't help insofar as practical applications goes.


Ovinomancer said:


> In this regime, it becomes important for the company to be able to protect itself from attack, especially attacks where they both have to bear the brunt of the attack AND continue to provide the attacker the benefits of their attack.  These clauses are reactions to a predatory scheme where a poster intentionally created controversy about OBS in order to drive more sales to his products _on OBS_.  That's it.  These are pretty measured responses to that -- they don't say no criticism is allowed (which they could do).



I think there's a point worth considering here wherein we should question how much a single-person operation, with a limited audience and little money (at least compared to DTRPG) has the ability to "attack" a much larger entity insofar as using "derogatory" language goes (particularly since that particular term, which DTRPG does use in their new conduct guidelines, is ill-defined). I question how much that can be rightfully characterized as "predation" given the sheer disparity in the power dynamics involved.


Ovinomancer said:


> The argument you're making is one of a slippery slope and one that has a personal moral assignment that doesn't consider other moral assignments or the fundamental rights of the company to choose who they associate with.



To be clear, I am considering the rights of the company. I just believe that in this case, the rights of the individual(s) who are adversely affected by these new guidelines should win out in the event of a conflict.


Ovinomancer said:


> I feel like I just saw a unicorn.  Amazed, wonderous, but clearly a figment of my imagination?



Just watch out for the magic unicorn mayonnaise.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> No private entity is required to give you free speech. Only the Government




Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech. There are I think a few things that happen in these discussions. There is the first amendment, which is its own thing. There is the broader principle of free expression in the arts. And then there are gray areas (not in this case but in cases where say a corporation has enough power over a person's life they can effectively infringe on their constitutional rights).


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

UngainlyTitan said:


> No private entity is required to give you free speech. Only the Government



And since the Net is largely ungoverned, complaining about rights is utterly moot.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think there is a good argument to be made they are effecting a defacto monopoly. For most publishers, you have to be on their site to have any relevance. And its where the vast majority of PDF sales (increasingly print sales) for RPGs take place. They are very much close to the RPG amazon (yes there is Ebay, there are other online sales platforms but amazon has such an enormous influence because they are so important it actually can shape what gets made). I think with OBS it is similar.
> 
> I don't do print stuff on OBS, but I do rely on my PDF sales there (and I don't even have an exclusive agreement with OBS for that, so I can and have put PDFs up elsewhere: they make pretty much next to zero dollars anywhere else----so I don't even bother anymore). Also OBS acquired several sales sites. Before RPGnow and Drivethru were separate things.
> 
> But I think a lot of this is quibbling over terms. The fact is they are extremely important for publishers. Most publishers won't survive coming off OBS. And you do make a good point about advertising, but I think it is more than that: OBS basically creates the perception for most people of what is available in the RPG world. I don't have my print books on OBS for instance. They are available elsewhere, but I hear from so many customers (including recently from someone who was a very longstanding fan) who have no idea we also sell print books (because they assume if a company has PDFs but no print books on OBS, they must not make print books). I think OBS is arguably the landing page for most RPG consumers. A day on their new releases page gets you more awareness than paid advertising. That is a good arrangement in many ways. And they've managed their power responsibly and with restraint in the past. But I do think the new guidelines are a little concerning if you are publisher



The relevant question is why.  It's not because the sales service, but rather the advertising one.  And that's only because the structure of paying for the advertising is convenient and relatively inexpensive compared to other options.  You don't have a monopoly because you have a big megaphone to advertise with.  OBS/DTRPG is not using their megaphone to silence competitors or your products not on their site, they're using it to promote their customers.  This is not what a monopoly looks like.  

Neither is the ease and lower cost of using their sales service.  Taking advantage of economies of scale to offer a service at a good price is also not a monopoly.  OBS is not engaged in any of the classic monopolistic behaviors, they are just the big fish in the small pond.

Otherwise, we really need to go after WotC for their monopoly on the RPG market, and how they won't let me put whatever I want into D&D or on DM's Guild.  They're silencing me with their monopoly.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech. There are I think a few things that happen in these discussions. There is the first amendment, which is its own thing. There is the broader principle of free expression in the arts. And then there are gray areas (not in this case but in cases where say a corporation has enough power over a person's life they can effectively infringe on their constitutional rights).



I am a strong support of free speech, but I never got this memo.

I don't see it as an issue at all.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I am a strong support of free speech, but I never got this memo.
> 
> I don't see it as an issue at all.




I heard it all the time growing up around the free speech movement: Corporate censorship - Wikipedia


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> They're self-evidently not a monopoly, but I do think that they have monopoly _power_, which isn't the same thing. You don't need to control 100% of a particular market in order to have the ability to regulate (even if only partially) who has access to that particular market.
> 
> Now, I don't have any hard-and-fast numbers on this, so I can certainly understand skepticism. But every time I've talked to publishers, they've indicated that DriveThruRPG is by far the largest player where online storefronts for downloadable RPG products are concerned (though, as noted in that link, Kickstarter is by far the larger generator of money, but they aren't a storefront per se in terms of being able to browse a set of wares and buy them at will). Being kicked off of their storefront makes it incredibly difficult for many, if not most, publishers to reach potential customers, and as such I'm of the belief that it is germane to this discussion.
> 
> ...



You're hung up on monopolies.  I live in a town with only one farmer's market.  If I want fresh local produce, that's my option.  Local farmers can set up their own tables and stand there an man them and sell to people that drive to their farms (and some do, we have some fairly famous farms where this is their business), but for most farmers, especially small ones, selling to the market is the best way to do it -- they don't want to run their own stores at their own farms.  Is this also a monopoly, or 'monopoly powers'? (I don't know what this means, really, except, "a monopoly but we can't call it a monopoly.")  Should the farmer's market be expected to sell any farmer's products even if that farmer is badmouthing the market to other farmers and customers, or they say things that the market doesn't want to be associated with?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Otherwise, we really need to go after WotC for their monopoly on the RPG market, and how they won't let me put whatever I want into D&D or on DM's Guild.  They're silencing me with their monopoly.




But there are other viable alternatives to WOTC (so much so that it almost looked like Pathfinder had the potential to come out on top prior to 5E). But I can at least think of several large RPG companies making money. There aren't really that many viable alternatives to OBS (maybe there will be soon, perhaps Itch.io becomes more signifiant for example). Yes you can sell your PDFs elsewhere, but they have a very dominant position in the market place. What they say is going to have massive influence on what gets made. I used this example elsewhere but I think it is a good way of showing what i am talking about. If they said tomorrow in their guidelines: no kobolds in any product. You wouldn't see any kobolds except in the few companies that operate without using OBS. Now that might also trigger a justified backlash and they might back down from it if big companies are upset. But I definitely think it's fair to say that their guidelines are likely to have an impact on the content people are willing to make.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I heard it all the time growing up around the free speech movement: Corporate censorship - Wikipedia



Yup, totally a thing.  What's the alternative?  Bonus points if it's anything but the government telling people or corporations what they have to say or who they have to associate with.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You're hung up on monopolies.  I live in a town with only one farmer's market.  If I want fresh local produce, that's my option.  Local farmers can set up their own tables and stand there an man them and sell to people that drive to their farms (and some do, we have some fairly famous farms where this is their business), but for most farmers, especially small ones, selling to the market is the best way to do it -- they don't want to run their own stores at their own farms.  Is this also a monopoly, or 'monopoly powers'? (I don't know what this means, really, except, "a monopoly but we can't call it a monopoly.")  Should the farmer's market be expected to sell any farmer's products even if that farmer is badmouthing the market to other farmers and customers, or they say things that the market doesn't want to be associated with?



Well, I don't believe it's a hangup, but rather an accurate description of a salient point that should be considered with regard to what DriveThruRPG is doing here.

As for a farmer's market, while I don't think that hypotheticals are necessarily conducive to the conversation (which I really want to remain respectful, since I think this is a valuable exchange of viewpoints), I'm not sure how much power a single farmer's market actually _has_ to exclude someone, or at least to do so in a way that has meaningful impact on their economic viability; I mean, can't they set up a stall twenty feet away on days the market is active? That's not the same as being kicked off of DriveThruRPG.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yup, totally a thing.  What's the alternative?  Bonus points if it's anything but the government telling people or corporations what they have to say or who they have to associate with.




It is one of the reasons why these conversations are best done with people not getting overly emotional, and weighing each others opinion without ridicule or assuming bad motives: because as you point to it is a gray area where companies have a legitimate right to not host products or content they find objectionable, while at the same time balancing that out with how much power corporations have over consumers, workers and people who use their platforms. I think there isn't a legal remedy to this issue, it needs to be a cultural remedy where we value free expression enough that corporations are encouraged to keep that line where it benefits free expression in the arts as much as possible. It is also why when you have guidelines like this issued, people should freely weigh in.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But there are other viable alternatives to WOTC (so much so that it almost looked like Pathfinder had the potential to come out on top prior to 5E). But I can at least think of several large RPG companies making money. There aren't really that many viable alternatives to OBS (maybe there will be soon, perhaps Itch.io becomes more signifiant for example). Yes you can sell your PDFs elsewhere, but they have a very dominant position in the market place. What they say is going to have massive influence on what gets made. I used this example elsewhere but I think it is a good way of showing what i am talking about. If they said tomorrow in their guidelines: no kobolds in any product. You wouldn't see any kobolds except in the few companies that operate without using OBS. Now that might also trigger a justified backlash and they might back down from it if big companies are upset. But I definitely think it's fair to say that their guidelines are likely to have an impact on the content people are willing to make.



There are other viable alternative to OBS.  That a business might be so marginal that it cannot survive in the market without using a service like OBS is not a marker of monopolistic power.  That's a mark that OBS enables marginal businesses.  One is not entitled to have a marginal business by requiring other businesses to enable it no matter what.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I heard it all the time growing up around the free speech movement: Corporate censorship - Wikipedia



And yet you made a blanket statement.

In other words, its only an issue to some supporters of free speech.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> There are other viable alternative to OBS.  That a business might be so marginal that it cannot survive in the market without using a service like OBS is not a marker of monopolistic power.  That's a mark that OBS enables marginal businesses.  One is not entitled to have a marginal business by requiring other businesses to enable it no matter what.




We probably won't agree on this point, which is fine. There is a subjective assessment here. Again, I would argue most RPG companies (that is small to mid-sized companies) can't operate successfully without being on OBS. Just my point of view, but I am not seeing real viable alternatives to OBS as a publisher myself. There are alternatives but they aren't viable alternatives. They are mainly going to work out for larger companies, companies with unique levels of reach due to other factors, but your average small to mid-size RPG company is not going to have an easy time outside OBS. And the reason that matters is their content is going to be impacted by whatever policies OBS sets. Which means if you are an RPG consumer, this is very much a question of what kind of RPG content landscape do you want (and I can't answer that for you, everyone is going to have a different view). Personally I would like for publishers to be comfortable with the same degree of creative expression as you have in movies or novels. Because I want to see people making stuff like that. And myself, I don't make anything particularly objectionable. But I occasionally want to throw in serious themes or something shocking in the way you would find in some horror movies. Some of those guidelines do make me second guess many choices I make. 

But if you think there are viable alternatives, and they don't have an outsized impact on things, fair enough, I think it is best to just agree to disagree on that point since we are probably unlikely to arrive at a new understanding from anything you or I say.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is one of the reasons why these conversations are best done with people not getting overly emotional, and weighing each others opinion without ridicule or assuming bad motives: because as you point to it is a gray area where companies have a legitimate right to not host products or content they find objectionable, while at the same time balancing that out with how much power corporations have over consumers, workers and people who use their platforms. I think there isn't a legal remedy to this issue, it needs to be a cultural remedy where we value free expression enough that corporations are encouraged to keep that line where it benefits free expression in the arts as much as possible. It is also why when you have guidelines like this issued, people should freely weigh in.



I think it would be a lot easier and better if people did not go around seeking reasons to be offended. 

There's a great deal of intolerance being practiced in the name of tolerance.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Well, I don't believe it's a hangup, but rather an accurate description of a salient point that should be considered with regard to what DriveThruRPG is doing here.
> 
> As for a farmer's market, while I don't think that hypotheticals are necessarily conducive to the conversation (which I really want to remain respectful, since I think this is a valuable exchange of viewpoints), I'm not sure how much power a single farmer's market actually _has_ to exclude someone, or at least to do so in a way that has meaningful impact on their economic viability; I mean, can't they set up a stall twenty feet away on days the market is active? That's not the same as being kicked off of DriveThruRPG.



Sure, they can set up such a stall, so long as they get the permit from the town to do so, buy and transport the stall themselves, and spend their labor time manning the stall.  All of these costs are rolled into the percentage that the market takes.  Also, people coming to the market would have to notice the stall, walk to it, and find it's selling products at a price and desirability that encourages them to do so.  So fewer chances to make a sale.

Dismissing this toy example as not wanting to engage in hypotheticals is odd, because this is the exact same situations for OBS/DTRPG, I just filed off the numbers and repainted it.  If dealing with this hypothetical is harder, that should provide pause for why you believe what you believe about OBS/DTRPG.  As I said to @Bedrockgames, OBS/DTRPG enable a huge number of marginal products that could not survive without their service.  They've increased the total market.  You don't get to say that since OBS/DTRPG has enabled your otherwise unviable product that they have to support you because... monopoly?  That's not how that works.  A product not being viable without the affordable services and advertising of OBS/DTRPG is not an argument that OBS/DTRPG has a duty to continue to support your product regardless of your behavior.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> And yet you made a blanket statement.
> 
> In other words, its only an issue to some supporters of free speech.




I am not sure what your objection to what I said is.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> We probably won't agree on this point, which is fine. There is a subjective assessment here. Again, I would argue most RPG companies (that is small to mid-sized companies) can't operate successfully without being on OBS. Just my point of view, but I am not seeing real viable alternatives to OBS as a publisher myself. There are alternatives but they aren't viable alternatives. They are mainly going to work out for larger companies, companies with unique levels of reach due to other factors, but your average small to mid-size RPG company is not going to have an easy time outside OBS. And the reason that matters is their content is going to be impacted by whatever policies OBS sets. Which means if you are an RPG consumer, this is very much a question of what kind of RPG content landscape do you want (and I can't answer that for you, everyone is going to have a different view). Personally I would like for publishers to be comfortable with the same degree of creative expression as you have in movies or novels. Because I want to see people making stuff like that. And myself, I don't make anything particularly objectionable. But I occasionally want to throw in serious themes or something shocking in the way you would find in some horror movies. Some of those guidelines do make me second guess many choices I make.
> 
> But if you think there are viable alternatives, and they don't have an outsized impact on things, fair enough, I think it is best to just agree to disagree on that point since we are probably unlikely to arrive at a new understanding from anything you or I say.



Yes.  OBS/DTRPG being the way that a marginal business stays afloat does not create a duty on the part of OBS/DTRPG to always support that marginal business.  There is no right to remain in business.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not sure what your objection to what I said is.



You stated: _Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech_. 

That is not true. It is a long accepted issue for _some people_ who are interested in free speech.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2022)

*Mod Note:*

Folks, I already see repetitive head-butting going on.  Please reconsider your approach to discussing the topic.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yes.  OBS/DTRPG being the way that a marginal business stays afloat does not create a duty on the part of OBS/DTRPG to always support that marginal business.  There is no right to remain in business.




Well it is a two way street, OBS is also in business because small publishers and medium publishers are willing to work with them. If a viable alternative came around that might not be the case. Also OBS didn't always dominate the market and you had small and medium size publishers, but they acquired things like RPGnow, they came to dominate the market more and more, and so many companies find themselves now in the position of having to be on OBS. The issue is if you have one company that powerful and important, it can be a good thing, they could be helping to maintain smaller companies as you point out, but they also can end up having an outsized influence on what kind of art is getting made in the industry. That is where people need to consider things like the impact it has on free expression. Something like Amazon or Walmart can offer a lot of convince, good prices, etc. Things that are good, but their dominance can also lead to bad things (like record companies censoring content because they have to in order to get on walmarts shelves, and int he case of amazon, weird things like bootlegs driving out legitimate copies of movies: something that I saw happen with a lot of marital arts films on that site). I'm not saying we should ignore the positives of OBS. But your point about marginal companies (which I think is not a fair way to frame it because really we are talking about both small and midsized RPG publishers), demonstrates what I am talking about: without being on OBS these companies can't survive. That gives OBS's decisions about things like content guidelines a massive impact on content in the industry as a whole. Even larger companies don't want the headache of not being on OBS, so you could even see it impacting larger RPG companies too.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You stated: _Corporate censorship is a long accepted issue for anyone who is interested in free speech_.
> 
> That is not true. It is a long accepted issue for _some people_ who are interested in free speech.



My point was just it is important if you've followed the free speech conversation over the years (i.e. it comes up a lot)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Well it is a two way street, OBS is also in business because small publishers and medium publishers are willing to work with them. If a viable alternative came around that might not be the case. Also OBS didn't always dominate the market and you had small and medium size publishers, but they acquired things like RPGnow, they came to dominate the market more and more, and so many companies find themselves now in the position of having to be on OBS. The issue is if you have one company that powerful and important, it can be a good thing, they could be helping to maintain smaller companies as you point out, but they also can end up having an outsized influence on what kind of art is getting made in the industry. That is where people need to consider things like the impact it has on free expression. Something like Amazon or Walmart can offer a lot of convince, good prices, etc. Things that are good, but their dominance can also lead to bad things (like record companies censoring content because they have to in order to get on walmarts shelves, and int he case of amazon, weird things like bootlegs driving out legitimate copies of movies: something that I saw happen with a lot of marital arts films on that site). I'm not saying we should ignore the positives of OBS. But your point about marginal companies (which I think is not a fair way to frame it because really we are talking about both small and midsized RPG publishers), demonstrates what I am talking about: without being on OBS these companies can't survive. That gives OBS's decisions about things like content guidelines a massive impact on content in the industry as a whole. Even larger companies don't want the headache of not being on OBS, so you could even see it impacting larger RPG companies too.



If it's a two-way street, then this is even less a marker of monopolistic power.  OBS/DTRPG has to maintain enough goodwill of their customers to continue engaging in their marginal businesses to have enough customers to be in business themselves.  Of course, if OBS/DTRPG fails, then those marginal businesses are in the same boat.  The 'outsized influence' at stake here isn't a curation of products that's disruptive of the possible market but some clear statements about behavior that OBS/DTRPG finds sufficient to terminate a business relationship over.

Let's pose another hypothetical.  Does OBS/DTRPG have the ability to refuse to provide services to a product that they find in poor taste and likely to be broadly offensive?  If so, why is this not an outsized influence on the market?


----------



## MGibster (Jun 30, 2022)

If I felt a business partner of mine was acting in bad faith by telling lies and attempting to turn customers against me, I'd stop doing business with them.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> If dealing with this hypothetical is harder, that should provide pause for why you believe what you believe about OBS/DTRPG.



The hypothetical isn't harder, it's a substantively different example that only presents the appearance of being comparable so as to try and create a "gotcha" attempt, which isn't helpful.

The farmer's market needs to be looked at in terms of whether or not they can meaningfully create a barrier to market access, and the issues you cited don't seem to meet that threshold. They're inconveniences, to be sure, but even for a one-person operation create only minor issues to reaching the same pool of potential customers. This is not the case with DriveThruRPG, as another publisher in this same thread has outlined, and which another publisher said in a link I posted earlier.

You said before that you didn't know what monopoly power was. I posted a link that describes the term, noting that it recognizes the difference between a literal monopoly and a business entity that has gained enough market influence that they have the effective abilities of a monopoly. It's not something that can be easily discounted, any more than being thrown off of Youtube (and its affiliated subsidiaries) can be said to be unimportant to someone who makes their living via video content, since they can still post videos on their personal website.

The farmer's market is a bad analogy, because it doesn't scale properly to what's happening here, nor does it gatekeep access nearly as much. That's why hypotheticals don't work: they distract from the issue at hand by trying to "win" the discussion rather than actually discuss it.

Let's not do that, okay? Let's put that example to bed and focus on what's happened with DriveThruRPG.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> If it's a two-way street, then this is even less a marker of monopolistic power.




Yes but that is contingent on there being a competitive alternative to go to. And in my point I was saying it is a two way street, so if a competitor comes around, they could leave. Right now I don't think it is a realistic option (my point is more that it could change over time).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Does OBS/DTRPG have the ability to refuse to provide services to a product that they find in poor taste and likely to be broadly offensive?  If so, why is this not an outsized influence on the market?



I believe they do. It is in their guidelines, but as I stated earlier int he thread, they have shown tremendous restraint on this front. I think they've largely reserved enforcing those guidelines to truly objectionable content. I think where people got worried with these new guidelines was it seemed to be taking a slightly different posture towards publishers and we were wondering if this signaled a change in how policies in general will be enforced. 

But them showing tremendous restraint, doesn't mean it is an ideal situation. I think we would be better off if there were 3-5 truly viable OBS's than 1.

Keep in mind one of the concerns people are raising is about the process itself. When a product is flagged, it automatically gets taken down for two weeks. So all it takes is someone not liking you or your company and flagging you maliciously and a release date you have carefully timed, gets impacted. That is pretty important for RPGs. Those first two weeks are crucial. Now there are things OBS can do to balance that out on the other side. I don't know if they do or not as I have never had a product taken down for review. From the publisher side, I think them addressing this process would be very helpful because it seems like it is ripe for abuse.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes but that is contingent on there being a competitive alternative to go to. And in my point I was saying it is a two way street, so if a competitor comes around, they could leave. Right now I don't think it is a realistic option (my point is more that it could change over time).



That kind of thing has to be a two way street as well - part of the reason that the available options are not viewed as as good is the lack of network effect.  Publishers who are worried about this sort of thing should consider putting their content up on other sites such as itch and gumroad to try to help those retailers become better known and more widely used by customers looking for ttrpgs.  There's a chicken and egg problem going on and it takes both publishers and retailers to break that cycle and create competition in the space.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> The hypothetical isn't harder, it's a substantively different example that only presents the appearance of being comparable so as to try and create a "gotcha" attempt, which isn't helpful.



Nope.  No gotchas.  The market is providing a service of convenience to the farmer, just like OBS.  That it's actually largely true in my town is a bonus. 


Alzrius said:


> The farmer's market needs to be looked at in terms of whether or not they can meaningfully create a barrier to market access, and the issues you cited don't seem to meet that threshold. They're inconveniences, to be sure, but even for a one-person operation create only minor issues to reaching the same pool of potential customers. This is not the case with DriveThruRPG, as another publisher in this same thread has outlined, and which another publisher said in a link I posted earlier.



DTRPG creates no meaningful barriers to market entry.  You can completely ignore them.  You can ignore the farmer's market.

You are confusing "my business is not viable without using DTRPG" with a barrier to entry.  There's a difference between enabling marginal businesses and being an actual barrier to entry.

If, instead, you mean a barrier to entry in the market of providing the same services to RPG companies?  Again, DTRPG doesn't do this. They have no aggressive practices that burden competition in their field of service.  It's just too small a market to really support competition.  DTRPG didn't acquire OBS in a hostile takeover to secure dominance of the digital indie RPG and small company RPG market.  They consolidated because there wasn't enough market to support both.


Alzrius said:


> You said before that you didn't know what monopoly power was. I posted a link that describes the term, noting that it recognizes the difference between a literal monopoly and a business entity that has gained enough market influence that they have the effective abilities of a monopoly. It's not something that can be easily discounted, any more than being thrown off of Youtube (and its affiliated subsidiaries) can be said to be unimportant to someone who makes their living via video content, since they can still post videos on their personal website.



That's really just defining monopoly.  Monopoly power is not something non-monopolies possess.  The only distinction is between a pure monopoly and an effective monopoly.  However, the market for RPGs is vaster than the segment that DTRPG has any control over.  You have to artificially limit the market to get to where DTRPG has significant sway, and that sway is really in the realm of enabling small and marginal companies the ability to engage in the market at all.  

Let me put it this way.  DTRPG dropping a product does not provide a barrier to entry for that product into the wider RPG market.  If DTRPG did not exist, those products would not become more viable in the marketplace.  DTRPG isn't a monopoly here, because they're enabling businesses that otherwise would not exist.  You can't claim that a choice by DTRPG to not enable a business that otherwise would not exist is providing a barrier to entry.  If anything, they provide a footstool to entry, by bringing to market products that would not otherwise exist.  This isn't a reversable analysis, where you can say that since they bootstrap companies into being viable that failure to bootstrap is creating a barrier to entry.  Like, if there's a fence, and I offer you a ladder to get over it, not offering the ladder is not the same thing as pushing you back off the top of the fence or building the fence higher.


Alzrius said:


> The farmer's market is a bad analogy, because it doesn't scale properly to what's happening here, nor does it gatekeep access nearly as much. That's why hypotheticals don't work: they distract from the issue at hand by trying to "win" the discussion rather than actually discuss it.
> 
> Let's not do that, okay? Let's put that example to bed and focus on what's happened with DriveThruRPG.



Scale is exactly the point, actually.  Looking at a market and the players in it does not care if the market is large or small.  The analysis is the same.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I believe they do. It is in their guidelines, but as I stated earlier int he thread, they have shown tremendous restraint on this front. I think they've largely reserved enforcing those guidelines to truly objectionable content. I think where people got worried with these new guidelines was it seemed to be taking a slightly different posture towards publishers and we were wondering if this signaled a change in how policies in general will be enforced.
> 
> But them showing tremendous restraint, doesn't mean it is an ideal situation. I think we would be better off if there were 3-5 truly viable OBS's than 1.
> 
> Keep in mind one of the concerns people are raising is about the process itself. When a product is flagged, it automatically gets taken down for two weeks. So all it takes is someone not liking you or your company and flagging you maliciously and a release date you have carefully timed, gets impacted. That is pretty important for RPGs. Those first two weeks are crucial. Now there are things OBS can do to balance that out on the other side. I don't know if they do or not as I have never had a product taken down for review. From the publisher side, I think them addressing this process would be very helpful because it seems like it is ripe for abuse.



The harm you're claiming here is one that DTRPG has a duty to you to protect your sales on the DTRPG platform from possible harms that have not materialized.  They have no such duty, especially if it's called out explicitly in the terms of the contract.  What you're proposing means that DTRPG would have to increase staff to constantly monitor and immediately assess claims against a product in real time, which is pretty costly.  I don't imagine DTRPG's staff is particularly large, but the number of products they have is.  So, staffing wise, are you willing to foot the bill in increased percentages to pay for this service you think DTRPG should provide?  The usual answer to this is no, no people are not.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Actually, that's a conflation of the legal definition with the broader principle that someone should not be retaliated against or otherwise attacked for expressing their opinion. That includes (threats of) economic harm or other attempts to financially punish them for saying something that other people don't approve of, and so _is_ relevant to this discussion.



I would call this misrepresentation egregious, were it not immediately followed up by one of the worst misrepresentations I’ve ever seen on this site. 
Attempting to reframe the phrase “freedom of speech” as if there is any broadly agreed upon right to not be told to shut up and get out when you say something inappropriate in the eyes of the private establishment you’re speaking in, is dangerous nonsense. 


Alzrius said:


> "Freedom from speech does not mean freedom from consequences" is simply "blame the victim" dressed up in a more acceptable presentation.



No, it is not. What the phrase in question _actually_ means, and pretty everyone understands this, is that your freedom of speech does not obligate me to put up with you, even in public, but especially not in a private space that I own and/or operate. 

“Take that Nazi trash elsewhere and don’t come back.” In response to someone posting something like a fresh new take on that one old school product that makes tribes of orcs into different indigenous people in the most racist way possible, is not a violation of free speech. 


Alzrius said:


> It holds that if you attack someone, they deserved it because they provoked you.



No, it doesn’t. You’ve simply made that up whole cloth. 


Alzrius said:


> It's historically been used as justification for oppression, ranging from "if they they didn't want us to raid their homes, they shouldn't have given aid to rebels" to "of course she wanted it, look at what she was wearing," and it's no less odious even when the stakes involved are far less serious.



This is outright disgusting.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Nope.  No gotchas.  The market is providing a service of convenience to the farmer, just like OBS.  That it's actually largely true in my town is a bonus.



I disagree. I believe that the farmer's market has only a minor convenience to offer, and has little ability to gatekeep an individual seller from the market. That is not the case with DriveThruRPG.


Ovinomancer said:


> DTRPG creates no meaningful barriers to market entry.  You can completely ignore them.  You can ignore the farmer's market.



The difference being that if you ignore the farmer's market, you can set up a stall a few feet away for marginal time and trouble and reap near-identical rewards. If you want to set up your own sales website for pay-for-download RPG products, you not only need much greater technical skills, but you'll also be unable to effectively reach most of your customers.

DriveThruRPG has created a barrier to entry simply by virtue of its overall success, in other words. By becoming the single largest venue, it has effectively made it more difficult for alternative venues to viably compete, and so discourages publishers to use those other venues, let alone creating new ones. That's far and away more than the farmer's market can do, hence why it's a bad example.


Ovinomancer said:


> You are confusing "my business is not viable without using DTRPG" with a barrier to entry.  There's a difference between enabling marginal businesses and being an actual barrier to entry.



That's a distinction without a practical difference. Either way, you need to engage with DriveThruRPG in order to engage with your potential customer pool. By demanding that publishers adhere to certain conduct guidelines, they're effectively leveraging the barriers they've created (whether intentionally or not) to exclude meaningful market access from people whose behaviors they disapprove of.


Ovinomancer said:


> If, instead, you mean a barrier to entry in the market of providing the same services to RPG companies?  Again, DTRPG doesn't do this. They have no aggressive practices that burden competition in their field of service.  It's just too small a market to really support competition.  DTRPG didn't acquire OBS in a hostile takeover to secure dominance of the digital indie RPG and small company RPG market.  They consolidated because there wasn't enough market to support both.



Anti-competitive practices alone are not the hallmark of a monopoly, nor are they the sole indicator of a barrier to entry. DriveThruRPG might not _mean_ to drive other venues out of business, nor discourage new stores from opening up, but the fact of the matter is that they do simply by virtue of being so successful that they've become, for all intents and purposes, the only game in town.

When a publisher only gets 5% of their storefront sales from Paizo, and 10% from the OpenGamingStore, and the other 85% is DriveThruRPG, that's an indicator that the latter has monopoly power, and so they've achieved a _de facto_ barrier to entry for publishers who don't meet their conduct guidelines.


Ovinomancer said:


> That's really just defining monopoly.  Monopoly power is not something non-monopolies possess.  The only distinction is between a pure monopoly and an effective monopoly.



This is not correct. By this definition, monopolies don't exist, since anyone who could effectively open up a sales venue, no matter how localized or how limits its scope or reach, is always "in competition" with even the largest and most omnipresent corporations. That does not truck with what we can see in the world around us.


Ovinomancer said:


> However, the market for RPGs is vaster than the segment that DTRPG has any control over.  You have to artificially limit the market to get to where DTRPG has significant sway, and that sway is really in the realm of enabling small and marginal companies the ability to engage in the market at all.



I believe this is an inaccurate assessment of the market for pay-for-download digital RPG products, which is the market under discussion here. The small publishers for whom most/all of their products fall under that market are adversely affected by DriveThruRPG's decision to leverage the barrier to entry that they have (and they do have it, even if they didn't seek it out) against publishers who don't meet their conduct guidelines.


Ovinomancer said:


> Let me put it this way.  DTRPG dropping a product does not provide a barrier to entry for that product into the wider RPG market.  If DTRPG did not exist, those products would not become more viable in the marketplace.  DTRPG isn't a monopoly here, because they're enabling businesses that otherwise would not exist.  You can't claim that a choice by DTRPG to not enable a business that otherwise would not exist is providing a barrier to entry.  If anything, they provide a footstool to entry, by bringing to market products that would not otherwise exist.  This isn't a reversable analysis, where you can say that since they bootstrap companies into being viable that failure to bootstrap is creating a barrier to entry.  Like, if there's a fence, and I offer you a ladder to get over it, not offering the ladder is not the same thing as pushing you back off the top of the fence or building the fence higher.



When you're the only ladder in town, and you say that only the people who approve of can climb the ladder, then you are effectively acting as the barrier to entry, even if you say that the fence was already there. All the more so when getting over the fence is the only way to reach the market that's beyond it. The fact of the matter is that just because your own success has made you assume greater responsibilities, doesn't mean that you not wanting to have ever assumed them to begin with is a viable reason for ignoring or otherwise shirking them.

DriveThruRPG is not what enables a business to exist, they're what enables a business to reach the customer pool that they've managed to corner. In so having cornered it, they've gained the ability to regulate who accesses it. That's a responsibility that they need to manage appropriately, with regard to not gatekeeping those publishers.


Ovinomancer said:


> Scale is exactly the point, actually.  Looking at a market and the players in it does not care if the market is large or small.  The analysis is the same.



I disagree. When you get so big that you've managed to be the source of 85% of the market revenue, the analysis is no longer the same.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> My point was just it is important if you've followed the free speech conversation over the years (i.e. it comes up a lot)



I have, and it isn't. My point is, avoid blanket statements, because you don't speak for everyone.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> That kind of thing has to be a two way street as well - part of the reason that the available options are not viewed as as good is the lack of network effect.  Publishers who are worried about this sort of thing should consider putting their content up on other sites such as itch and gumroad to try to help those retailers become better known and more widely used by customers looking for ttrpgs.  There's a chicken and egg problem going on and it takes both publishers and retailers to break that cycle and create competition in the space.



Except that what you are suggesting is bad business.

Diversification of outlets is not automatically good. If consumer focus is primarily aimed at a single provider, and that provider carries your product, you are well-positioned to sell.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> They provoked us" is not an excuse for causing harm, at least when the provocation is "said stuff we don't like" (outside of very specific exceptions such as explicit threats of physical violence,



White supremecist propaganda is a an explicit threat of physical violence against all marginalized people in a community into white that trash is interjected.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> That's a responsibility that they need to manage appropriately, with regard to not gatekeeping those publishers.



Kicking Nazis off the platform is managing your platform appropriately.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Attempting to reframe the phrase “freedom of speech” as if there is any broadly agreed upon right to not be told to shut up and get out when you say something inappropriate in the eyes of the private establishment you’re speaking in, is dangerous nonsense.



I strongly disagree. When a private enterprise has effectively assumed the mantle of being a gatekeeper over a particular market, they have a responsibility to not exclude others based on their personal feelings about them.


doctorbadwolf said:


> No, it is not. What the phrase in question _actually_ means, and pretty everyone understands this, is that your freedom of speech does not obligate me to put up with you, even in public, but especially not in a private space that I own and/or operate.



That's not an accurate definition of what the phrase means. The phrase means that attacking someone else is legitimized if you say their opinions were upsetting to you, which is untrue; someone else's beliefs are, unto themselves, not justification for your attacking them.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Kicking Nazis off the platform is managing your platform appropriately.



That's a very snappy catchphrase that doesn't help with examining the idea that a single venue, when they're the gateway to 85% of a market, is being irresponsible when they gatekeep who can access that market based purely on their own ideology.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> Except that what you are suggesting is bad business.
> 
> Diversification of outlets is not automatically good. If consumer focus is primarily aimed at a single provider, and that provider carries your product, you are well-positioned to sell.



Except you as a supplier are at the mercy of a single seller - and that's bad business 101.  You end up in a Wal*Mart situation where the retailer dictates terms to you if you allow that to happen.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree I believe that the farmer's market has only a minor convenience to offer, and has little ability to gatekeep an individual seller from the market. That is not the case with DriveThruRPG.
> 
> The difference being that if you ignore the farmer's market, you can set up a stall a few feet away for marginal time and trouble and reap near-identical rewards. If you want to set up your own sales website for pay-for-download RPG products, you not only need much greater technical skills, but you'll also be unable to effectively reach most of your customers.
> 
> ...



Yeah, no, you can't redefine a service that enables businesses to participate in the market that would not otherwise be able to participate in the market as creating a barrier to entry in the market if they don't give the leg up.  The analysis here is very simple -- remove DTRPG as an option -- does this suddenly enable more businesses to be able to compete?  No, it doesn't.  It's not a barrier, then.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I strongly disagree. When a private enterprise has effectively assumed the mantle of being a gatekeeper over a particular market, they have a responsibility to not exclude others based on their personal feelings about them.



No, they do not. Full stop. No private entity is obligated to actively facilitate the publication of material they find offensive, much less material directly associated with and written in support of a violent ideology that proposes oppression and genocide of marginalized peoples. 

You know that we are literally discussing this because _an actual neo-nazi_ got kicked off a platform and then defamed the platform for exercising _it’s rights of expression and assembly_, right? 

No platform is obligated to uphold and facilitate literal nazi propaganda. 


Alzrius said:


> That's not an accurate definition of what the phrase means. The phrase means that attacking someone else is legitimized if you say their opinions were upsetting to you, which is untrue; someone else's beliefs are, unto themselves, not justification for your attacking them.



This is an entirely made up definition with no relation to reality.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Yeah, no, you can't redefine a service that enables businesses to participate in the market that would not otherwise be able to participate in the market as creating a barrier to entry in the market if they don't give the leg up.  The analysis here is very simple -- remove DTRPG as an option -- does this suddenly enable more businesses to be able to compete?  No, it doesn't.  It's not a barrier, then.



Except that's not the analysis. The analysis is, if DriveThruRPG kicks someone off their platform, does that suddenly cut that publisher off from the (vast) majority of the customer base? If the answer is yes, then they have monopoly power, and need to be held to the higher burden that entails of them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> That's a very snappy catchphrase that doesn't help with examining the idea that a single venue, when they're the gateway to 85% of a market, is being irresponsible when they gatekeep who can access that market based purely on their own ideology.



Sure it does. Ideologies that propose intolerance and violent oppression are not valid. The Nazis can still publish their worthless trash. Easier than ever in history, in fact. 

No one, not even public entities, is obligated to help them do so, and private entities especially are morally obligated to avoid doing so.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> No, they do not. Full stop. No private entity is obligated to actively facilitate the publication of material they find offensive, much less material directly associated with and written in support of a violent ideology that proposes oppression and genocide of marginalized peoples.



Again, I disagree. There are instances where private entities are, indeed, obligated to not regulate the content that they sell based on their personal feelings as to said content.


doctorbadwolf said:


> You know that we are literally discussing this because _an actual neo-nazi_ got kicked off a platform and then defamed the platform for exercising _it’s rights of expression and assembly_, right?



And this is another issue that quite often gets wrapped up in this: the overstatement of egregiousness and the lessening of criteria by which the label you're using is applied. Posting an anti-choice product, or one that criticizes contemporary progressive politics, does not unto itself warrant what you're saying here.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Sure it does. Ideologies that propose intolerance and violent oppression are not valid. The Nazis can still publish their worthless trash. Easier than ever in history, in fact.
> 
> No one, not even public entities, is obligated to help them do so, and private entities especially are morally obligated to avoid doing so.



When a private entity has gained monopoly power, they are in fact obligated to cease gatekeeping access to a market based solely on whether or not they like the ideology (though it should be noted that neither they, nor you, get to decide what's "valid" or not).


----------



## Gradine (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> As much as it might offend conservative and libertarian ideologies, businesses whose degree of influence over the market(s) they cater to – at least once they hit a certain outsized threshold (which can, admittedly, be very hard to delineate) – do (in my opinion) have an obligation to serve the public interest, at least in some regard, rather than only themselves and their stakeholders, which means not being able to cut off access for individuals whom they personally disapprove of.



This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in _not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. _That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem. These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this, or even better, that story about not allowing nazis in your bar.

I've seen plenty of people try to dismiss these concepts but I've never seen any particularly compelling arguments debunking them


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Except that's not the analysis. The analysis is, if DriveThruRPG kicks someone off their platform, does that suddenly cut that publisher off from the (vast) majority of the customer base? If the answer is yes, then they have monopoly power, and need to be held to the higher burden that entails of them.



No, it doesn't cut them off.  It increases the costs of reaching that customer base to what it would be if DTRPG did not exist -- ie, you have to buy ads and get word out and do all the normal things businesses have to do to reach their customers.  DTRPG does not have a captured customer base that can only access the market through DTRPG.  It's not a mining town where you have to shop at the mining company store and you can't leave.  I bought Blades in the Dark from the publisher.  Same with my copy of Alien RPG.  DTRPG didn't come for me, even though I have bought things there as well.

This claim that DTRPG has completely captured the customer base and the only access to that base is through DTRPG is an extraordinary claim needing some kind of support.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I have, and it isn't. My point is, avoid blanket statements, because you don't speak for everyone.



My statement was just that it was a widely understood term among free speech advocates, which I think is not a very controversial position.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> Huh? You're not prevented from defaming them, you've just had the consequences spelled out. Reading it what it says is that you should come to them first to discuss the problems, not social media.
> 
> And if you are saying derogatory/defamatory things about DTRPG then it should not be surprising that they no longer want you as a customer. Try going into any retailer and start shouting about how their service/products is the worst - I'm sure you'll be asked to leave pretty quick.



Exactly this. 


Alzrius said:


> Again, I disagree. There are instances where private entities are, indeed, obligated to not regulate the content that they sell based on their personal feelings as to said content.



No, there aren’t. 


Alzrius said:


> And this is another issue that quite often gets wrapped up in this: the overstatement of egregiousness and the lessening of criteria by which the label you're using is applied. Posting an anti-choice product, or one that criticizes contemporary progressive politics, does not unto itself warrant what you're saying here.



The fact that you keep trying to reframe literal nazi propaganda as a polite disagreement on particular public policies or something is wildly inappropriate.  



Alzrius said:


> When a private entity has gained monopoly power, they are in fact obligated to cease gatekeeping access to a market based solely on whether or not they like the ideology (though it should be noted that neither they, nor you, get to decide what's "valid" or not).



This kind of “free speech” fanatical absolutism is logically equivalent to claiming that it’s um acceptable to punish someone for pulling the fire alarm in a busy hospital. 

Not even the government is required to _host anyone’s speech. _A business is not obligated to help other businesses make profit, by any stretch of the imagination. Walmart isn’t obligated to carry ads for the local grocery store, and DTRPG is not obligated to carry Venger Satanis’ nazi propaganda.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Gradine said:


> This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in _not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. _That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem.



I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds. "Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's _confrontation_ which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.


Gradine said:


> These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this



The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> The fact that you keep trying to reframe literal nazi propaganda as a polite disagreement on particular public policies or something is wildly inappropriate.



I don't believe that's an accurate representation of the material in question.


doctorbadwolf said:


> This kind of “free speech” fanatical absolutism is logically equivalent to claiming that it’s um acceptable to punish someone for pulling the fire alarm in a busy hospital.



It's neither fanatical, nor is it absolute. I mentioned in a previous post (I'm sure you read it) that it's not okay to post threats, or doxx people, and that there are limits. But saying "I don't like what you're saying, so you can't say it in an area I control" goes too far when you control the only venue.


doctorbadwolf said:


> Walmart isn’t obligated to carry ads for the local grocery store, and DTRPG is not obligated to carry Venger Satanis’ nazi propaganda.



Leaving aside the disagreement as to the characterization, I believe that they are, for reasons outlined upthread.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Gradine said:


> This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in _not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. _That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem. These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this, or even better, that story about not allowing nazis in your bar.



This is exactly correct. Tolerance for the bigots leads to them winning, not to all of us getting along.  That's the paradox of tolerance in a nutshell and why inclusion tends to be a better approach for keeping Nazis out of your bar than some kind of absolutist stance on "tolerance".


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Gradine said:


> This here is the crux of this entire back-and-forth argument, in that it is fundamentally correct except in its conclusion. The public interest is best served in _not allowing nazis and other bigots on their platform. _That this is not self-evident is the biggest problem. These are not the kinds of values that we can allow to act "value-neutral" about. Popper's Paradox covers this, or even better, that story about not allowing nazis in your bar.
> 
> I've seen plenty of people try to dismiss these concepts but I've never seen any particularly compelling arguments debunking them



Damn right. And ya know what, when I was a regular at a punk-leaning bar in a bad part of town, and Nazis got kicked out, _so did the inevitable patron who yelled that it wasn’t right to kick someone out because they “disagree with your politics”_. 

Sorry bud, we can kick you out for literally any reason that isn’t a clear case of discrimination as defined by the law, actually. 

DTRPG could just start curating content, and they’d not be violating anyone’s freedoms.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.




This is a side point, but people should read the entirely of poppers paradox in the context in which it appeared.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

edit: needlessly confrontational.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, it doesn't cut them off.  It increases the costs of reaching that customer base to what it would be if DTRPG did not exist -- ie, you have to buy ads and get word out and do all the normal things businesses have to do to reach their customers.  DTRPG does not have a captured customer base that can only access the market through DTRPG.



Except that they do, in effect, have exactly that. While theoretically those customers can still be accessed elsewhere, that's not the practical impact of what happens if they cut someone off, particularly since smaller publishers lack the resources necessary to make up the difference in scope between themselves and DTRPG.


Ovinomancer said:


> This claim that DTRPG has completely captured the customer base and the only access to that base is through DTRPG is an extraordinary claim needing some kind of support.



Again, I'll point you to the statements made by a publisher in this same thread, and by another one in a link I provided earlier.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Welp, I find your position very strongly immoral, to a degree to which I will no longer be interacting with you.



That's certainly your right, though I disagree emphatically and think that your stance will not serve the goals you're trying to achieve.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds. "Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's _confrontation_ which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.



We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking a dude off a webstore who _purposefully _made a bad taste and controversial module, with the _intent _of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?

Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
Weimar Germany
Mussolini's Italy
Pinochet's Chile
Franco's Spain

If only all those people had finger wagged and tsk'd harder everything would have worked out just fine.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking out a dude who _purposefully _made a bad taste and controversial module, with the _intent _of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?
> 
> Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
> Weimar Germany
> ...



Exactly this.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> We're not talking about kicking people out of their homes for being a proto-fascist or whatever, we're talking about kicking out a dude who _purposefully _made a bad taste and controversial module, with the _intent _of it causing controversy. When then, that controversy happened and DTRPG pulled it to review it like they would any reported item he went on a cynical, bad faith attack to - presumably - drum up publicity. A company can't say "Hey, that ain't me, chief "?



They can certainly say that, I just don't think there's legitimacy in them codifying that this is grounds for permanently kicking someone off of their site; and moreover, I think it's good to remind everyone just how comparatively small the stakes we're all talking about really are.


eyeheartawk said:


> Also, to engage with your point more broadly, I'm just going to list some places in time, okay?
> Weimar Germany
> Mussolini's Italy
> Pinochet's Chile
> ...



Case in point for how that's not really relevant to what we're talking about here. There are some times when discourse will inevitably fail, because there's no good-faith partner to engage with; that shouldn't be the default presumption, however.


----------



## Gradine (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree in the strongest possible terms. Pushing people you disagree with out of the public sphere is ultimately counterproductive, because it hardens opposition and eschews finding ways to actually change minds.



I think the problem here is that what you are talking about is "people with political disagreements" and what I am talking about are "bigots and genocide-supporters". There is nothing worthwhile about this ideology and allowing it a space to fester and flourish makes the space _unwelcome to the people whose genocide they seek_. This is a situation for the "We can disagree and still be friends unless your disagreement is rooted in denying my humanity" aphorism. We had a local dive bar called "Simon Legree's Bar" which is named, for those wondering, after the _slave owner in Uncle Tom's Cabin. _This was a space where white supremacists are welcome, and where white supremacists are welcome, there are countless others who are decidedly _not welcome, _implicitly if not explicitly.


Alzrius said:


> "Talking to people you disagree with doesn't work" is an untruth that's unfortunately become all too popular in contemporary discourse, because it's _confrontation_ which doesn't change minds. Engagement does.



I never said and would never agree with the concept that "talking to people you disagree with doesn't work". We have plenty of examples of it not working but also quite a few examples of it working. What I will say is that "talking to people who deny your right to existence is not a moral obligation." I am Trans. I do not talk with transphobes, because (a) that takes a crap ton of personal and spiritual energy from me, (b) it's not necessarily safe for me to do so, and most importantly (c) _I shouldn't have to_. I know that if there is a space where transphobes are welcome to spread transphobia, it means that I am not welcome.


Alzrius said:


> The problem is that this isn't an area where Popper's Paradox applies. "We can't be intolerant of intolerance, since otherwise they'll take away our right to exist" cannot be extended to instances of, say, letting someone else publish a product on a webstore.



One cannot make an appeal to a greater ideal ("there can be no censorship because it is always bad") and then outright dismiss the answer to that ideal because the situation is too small a scale.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Except that they do, in effect, have exactly that. While theoretically those customers can still be accessed elsewhere, that's not the practical impact of what happens if they cut someone off, particularly since smaller publishers lack the resources necessary to make up the difference in scope between themselves and DTRPG.



Let's walk this through.  DTRPG does not prevent, in any way, access to any customer.  Some companies are only able to effectively reach their customers if they use DTRPG because the costs/effort to do so is not viable.  DTRPG doesn't increase or control the cost to reach customers through any other method.  

This is exactly my argument that there is no barrier created by DTRPG but increased access.  Since DTRPG has zero control over any other method outside of their service, either in access to or cost of, and those costs would remain unaffected however DTRPG conducted it's business, then you cannot conclude that DTRPG has any control whatsoever over the market.  What DTRPG instead provides is a more cost effective means of doing business that enables more otherwise unviable RPG publishers to thrive.


Alzrius said:


> Again, I'll point you to the statements made by a publisher in this same thread, and by another one in a link I provided earlier.



Are they some form of authority on the matter, or are they just saying that they can't survive without the cost benefits that DTRPG provides?


----------



## darjr (Jun 30, 2022)

Nope, I’m done. DTRPG does have it’s problems, and rules can be abused, but kicking that badly written cartoon villain to the curb isn’t one of them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> The harm you're claiming here is one that DTRPG has a duty to you to protect your sales on the DTRPG platform from possible harms that have not materialized.  They have no such duty, especially if it's called out explicitly in the terms of the contract.  What you're proposing means that DTRPG would have to increase staff to constantly monitor and immediately assess claims against a product in real time, which is pretty costly.  I don't imagine DTRPG's staff is particularly large, but the number of products they have is.  So, staffing wise, are you willing to foot the bill in increased percentages to pay for this service you think DTRPG should provide?  The usual answer to this is no, no people are not.




I am not accusing them of harm. And they aren't obligated to do anything. But I do think it is fair for publishers and customers to express opinions on what they think OBS ought to do, given the size of their position in the industry. I am saying this policy seems unwise and I feel like critiquing it is valid. Any report policy that takes the product down for two weeks automatically from a single report, that is bad for publishers once people realize they can exploit (that it hasn't been exploited is frankly stunning to me). I honestly don't know whether the issue has caused any problems or not yet because I don't know how many have or have not been taken down for review. But that is crippling for a publisher, so I think it is more than fair for publishers if they get pulled for two weeks to raise concern about this issue (and it is one of the issues publishers raise as a concern more frequently). Solutions to the bad policy don't require more staff. Something as simple as changing the threshold of reports for having it come down automatically could be a good fix. Or fixing it on the other side (so publishers don't lose out on a big launch)


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Gradine said:


> I think the problem here is that what you are talking about is "people with political disagreements" and what I am talking about are "bigots and genocide-supporters". There is nothing worthwhile about this ideology and allowing it a space to fester and flourish makes the space _unwelcome to the people whose genocide they seek_. This is a situation for the "We can disagree and still be friends unless your disagreement is rooted in denying my humanity" aphorism. We had a local dive bar called "Simon Legree's Bar" which is named, for those wondering, after the _slave owner in Uncle Tom's Cabin. _This was a space where white supremacists are welcome, and where white supremacists are welcome, there are countless others who are decidedly _not welcome, _implicitly if not explicitly.



I personally agree that there's nothing worthwhile with regard to an ideology that doesn't recognize the personhood of other people. However, I believe that treating this ideology as something to be quarantined, by pushing its adherents out of areas of engagement with society, is what gives it the opportunity to fester. Exposing the people who hold those beliefs to other points of view helps to make them realize that what they believe in is bad, and that doesn't happen when you push them out of more diverse and expansive venues.

If you don't allow someone to patronize the local bar, they'll go to a bar that's been started by people who were also kicked out, and now suddenly they're organizing. Far better for them to mingle with people at the same bar who don't think as they do, so that they can meet people who aren't like them and see that their prejudices are unfounded. That's without getting into the issue that, in contemporary rhetoric, there seems to be a lot of conflation between the people you're talking about (i.e. bigots) with people who _aren't_ genocide supporters, but are still notably conservative. This lumping together doesn't help, as it pushes them further into the camp that the truly bad people occupy.


Gradine said:


> I never said and would never agree with the concept that "talking to people you disagree with doesn't work". We have plenty of examples of it not working but also quite a few examples of it working. What I will say is that "talking to people who deny your right to existence is not a moral obligation." I am Trans. I do not talk with transphobes, because (a) that takes a crap ton of personal and spiritual energy from me, (b) it's not necessarily safe for me to do so, and most importantly (c) _I shouldn't have to_. I know that if there is a space where transphobes are welcome to spread transphobia, it means that I am not welcome.



I wasn't attributing that statement to you; I hope that's clear. That said, I'll reiterate that I think it's overbroad to say the people we're discussing are necessarily refusing to acknowledge your personhood. To be clear, some of them are, and that's not something which should ever be considered legitimate, but I'm of the opinion that there's a large number of people who are put under that category who don't actually hold that view.

Now, changing their minds certainly requires a great deal of emotional labor, and if you don't want to take that on it's certainly okay. But there should be an acknowledgment, I think, that opportunities are being lost to _actually_ make things better - via peeling away (potential) supporters of what would otherwise be noxious ideologies - in favor of simply trying to exile them from society, which doesn't work because they still live here and still take part in it. The way to "win" this particular conflict is via changing hearts and minds, which you (in the general sense of "you") can't do if you just say that they're Nazis and deserve to be thrown off of every platform on which they're found.


Gradine said:


> One cannot make an appeal to a greater ideal ("there can be no censorship because it is always bad") and then outright dismiss the answer to that ideal because the situation is too small a scale.



That's not the ideal, nor is Popper's Paradox the answer in this particular instance. The publication of things which mock your value system, unto itself, is not necessarily an attack on your personhood which you must be defended from.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

darjr said:


> Nope, I’m done. DTRPG does have it’s problems, and *rules can be abused,* but kicking that badly written cartoon villain to the curb isn’t one of them.



And when they are abusing their rules I'll be in line to punch them with everyone else.  So far they haven't shown any indication that they're doing that.

But the answer to "rules can be abused" is never "therefore we should have no rules".  They have a policy of what they are and are not willing to sell on their website and if you don't want to conform to it, you should really go sell things elsewhere because they've literally told you that your product isn't wanted.  (A policy, I might add, that was put into place because someone put an OGL "rape tournament" module up for sale - the "no rules because you're all adults" lack of a policy they had before was shown to be insufficient to protect their business from malicious publishers wanting to create sales via controversy years ago, and I've seen no sign that things have gotten better on that front since).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am not accusing them of harm. And they aren't obligated to do anything. But I do think it is fair for publishers and customers to express opinions on what they think OBS ought to do, given the size of their position in the industry. I am saying this policy seems unwise and I feel like critiquing it is valid. Any report policy that takes the product down for two weeks automatically from a single report, that is bad for publishers once people realize they can exploit (that it hasn't been exploited is frankly stunning to me). I honestly don't know whether the issue has caused any problems or not yet because I don't know how many have or have not been taken down for review. But that is crippling for a publisher, so I think it is more than fair for publishers if they get pulled for two weeks to raise concern about this issue (and it is one of the issues publishers raise as a concern more frequently). Solutions to the bad policy don't require more staff. Something as simple as changing the threshold of reports for having it come down automatically could be a good fix. Or fixing it on the other side (so publishers don't lose out on a big launch)



From what I've read of the policy, you're perfectly free to do just that.  I believe you are doing just that.  And that criticism is being met with disagreement, at least on my part.  I don't think DTRPG is being at all unreasonable or threatening businesses, but I further believe that even if they did, they can do that.  I tend to not go to DTRPG because I find the UI to be obnoxious.  I also have plenty of other ways to find out about products.  I'll go to DTRPG if that's the only way to purchase a product, but I'll look for other alternatives, first.  I think I've bought 3 things from DTRPG in the last 10 years?  Maybe four.  So, it's not like I'm saying the things I'm saying because I have any vested interests in DTRPG not being criticized.  I'm saying them because I _disagree with the criticism_.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Let's walk this through.  DTRPG does not prevent, in any way, access to any customer.  Some companies are only able to effectively reach their customers if they use DTRPG because the costs/effort to do so is not viable.  DTRPG doesn't increase or control the cost to reach customers through any other method.



The very fact that they can only effectively reach their customers via DTRPG, as opposed to other venues/companies, means that, to an extent, DTRPG has a greater obligation to not throw up additional barriers to them doing so based on their personal beliefs.


Ovinomancer said:


> This is exactly my argument that there is no barrier created by DTRPG but increased access.  Since DTRPG has zero control over any other method outside of their service, either in access to or cost of, and those costs would remain unaffected however DTRPG conducted it's business, then you cannot conclude that DTRPG has any control whatsoever over the market.



Again, that does not reflect the reality of the situation, which is that DTRPG has become the only vector by which the customers can be reached. Simply because they're not closing off other venues doesn't mean that those venues are viable; that they control the only portal between the publisher and the customers puts a greater burden on them to safeguard it.


Ovinomancer said:


> What DTRPG instead provides is a more cost effective means of doing business that enables more otherwise unviable RPG publishers to thrive.



Except that "more cost effective" in many instances becomes "the only cost effective way."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> But the answer to "rules can be abused" is never "therefore we should have no rules".  They have a policy of what they are and are not willing to sell on their website and if you don't want to conform to it, you should really go sell things elsewhere because they've literally told you that your product isn't wanted.  (A policy, I might add, that was put into place because someone put an OGL "rape tournament" module up for sale - the "no rules because you're all adults" lack of a policy they had before was shown to be insufficient to protect their business from malicious publishers wanting to create sales via controversy years ago, and I've seen no sign that things have gotten better on that front since).



The answer to rules can be abused is to have well phrased and well thought out rules and procedures. They can protect themselves from content everyone agrees they don't want, while also making clear to publishers that they are allowed to engage certain themes or not. The issue when you put together an RPG, it is a big cost for a very narrow margin of profit. So if you find yourself wondering whether something interesting in one of your books might but up against any of the guidelines, it can be a lot easier to just take that out (or go to OBS and directly ask permission: which you can do but then that does put them in a position of actually okaying what is allowed and what isn't). On the issue of the report button. I think we all understand the need to report titles for a variety of issues. I just think having it set so titles automatically come down from a report for two weeks, is asking for abuse. Making that threshold on reporting a little higher, maybe tiering it so that not every title under review gets taken down during the review period, would go a long way to making that less of a concern.


----------



## eyeheartawk (Jun 30, 2022)

Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I just think having it set so titles automatically come down from a report for two weeks, is asking for abuse. Making that threshold on reporting a little higher, maybe tiering it so that not every title under review gets taken down during the review period, would go a long way to making that less of a concern.



The thing is - if products need to be manually reviewed and they have a small staff how do you expect them to handle it?  

I will also bet that what they're giving in the official response is the worst case response time.  Like you I also can't believe that nobody has tried to abuse the reporting system, so I suspect that they have processes in place that expedite the process for publishers they suspect are being maliciously reported and save the two week response window for the publishers whose books they know will need a serious review.  They don't need to share those with us and frankly they shouldn't share them with us because it makes it easier for malicious actors to game their process.

Like I said - if people start coming forth to show that DriveThru is abusing their own rules I'll be the first in line to do whatever I can to support them. But so far I'm not seeing that - I'm seeing DriveThru spanking some malicious actors who really deserve to be removed from their site due to violation of the terms of the site that are pretty clearly spelled out.  I can't get outraged over that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.




Which makes sense, since they should be able to determine from a review if it is a violation of their policy. The issue is the two weeks, because that is two weeks of missed revenue, but more importantly, for new releases that first two weeks is absolutely crucial. People organize all of their ad buying, marketing, etc on those first two weeks and build momentum. A release is part of a  long coordinated effort. If something can come down because a competitor or person who doesn't like you has someone report your book (and if you look at what they said about publishers reviewing one another I think you'll see this is a valid concern), then can really undermine a new RPG (it can break it).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> Just for the record, as far as I can recall when this review procedure was put in place, once a title gets taken down for review and found to be fine and reinstated it will not be taken down for review again because of reports.



That's my understanding as well; it goes on a whitelist, as it were.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Let me put it like this.  Those who think OBS is in the wrong, are you suggesting that ENWorld should allow posters to make hate speech, graphically describe violent sexual assault to women and children, and racism in their posts?  It's the same thing.  Both are private companies deciding what is allowed on their platform.



Determining what is allowed on one's own platform is one thing.  I don't think many if any have a problem with this.

Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> The thing is - if products need to be manually reviewed and they have a small staff how do you expect them to handle it?




My expectation is they don't have it set up so that 1 report automatically triggers a two week review that requires the product to come down. I think a better system would be either you have a much higher threshold of reports. I get that they might be walking a fine rope in terms of how many employees they have and where they can allocate resources. I don't expect them to hire an army to review. 



Jer said:


> I will also bet that what they're giving in the official response is the worst case response time.  Like you I also can't believe that nobody has tried to abuse the reporting system, so I suspect that they have processes in place that expedite the process for publishers they suspect are being maliciously reported and save the two week response window for the publishers whose books they know will need a serious review.  They don't need to share those with us and frankly they shouldn't share them with us because it makes it easier for malicious actors to game their process.
> 
> Like I said - if people start coming forth to show that DriveThru is abusing their own rules I'll be the first in line to do whatever I can to support them. But so far I'm not seeing that - I'm seeing DriveThru spanking some malicious actors who really deserve to be removed from their site due to violation of the terms of the site that are pretty clearly spelled out.  I can't get outraged over that.




But the issue is, without that information, people don't even know if the system is being abused or not. 

I am not saying Drivethru is abusing its own rules. I am saying bad actors can abuse the reporting system. Two things can be true: a person can abuse their reporting system for marketing reasons, and the reporting system itself can be prone to abuse from other people who just want to get things taken down so they can disrupt a publisher's pipeline.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But the issue is, without that information, people don't even know if the system is being abused or not.



Yes we do - publishers need to tell people if it is happening.

And before people say "but DriveThru's policy says they can't talk about it" - no it doesn't.  It says defamatory and derogatory comments not any commentary at all.  letting people know that the reporting system is being abused is not the same as ginning up a Twitter mob to go harass DriveThru's customer support people.



Lanefan said:


> Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.



This is about businesses interacting with other businesses.  I hate to break it to you but businesses choose who they do business with all of the time and bad mouthing another business publicly on social media is a really good way to get them to decide you're not worth the trouble to deal with. The only difference here is that DriveThru is being open about telling people that if they do that they'll drop them as a business partner.

(If they were doing this to _customers_ it would be a different story - but if a business is defaming my business and the people who work for me on social media, I'm not going to be terribly anxious to put their products on my shelf either.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> Yes we do - publishers need to tell people if it is happening.
> 
> And before people say "but DriveThru's policy says they can't talk about it" - no it doesn't.  It says defamatory and derogatory comments not any commentary at all.  letting people know that the reporting system is being abused is not the same as ginning up a Twitter mob to go harass DriveThru's customer support people.




Or they could construct the reporting system so it isn't as vulnerable to abuse


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Or they could construct the reporting system so it isn't as vulnerable to abuse



This is actually impossible - any system can be abused by a malicious actor.  The best you can do is work on the back end to minimize the effects of that abuse. (Edit: And iteratively refine your system as you go to shut down avenues of abuse as you detect them - no system is going to be perfect but it can be iteratively refined to get better.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> This is actually impossible - any system can be abused by a malicious actor.  The best you can do is work on the back end to minimize the effects of that abuse. (Edit: And iteratively refine your system as you go to shut down avenues of abuse as you detect them - no system is going to be perfect but it can be iteratively refined to get better.)




Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> Yes we do - publishers need to tell people if it is happening.
> 
> And before people say "but DriveThru's policy says they can't talk about it" - no it doesn't.  It says defamatory and derogatory comments not any commentary at all.



Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.


Jer said:


> This is about businesses interacting with other businesses.  I hate to break it to you but businesses choose who they do business with all of the time and bad mouthing another business publicly on social media is a really good way to get them to decide you're not worth the trouble to deal with. The only difference here is that DriveThru is being open about telling people that if they do that they'll drop them as a business partner.



OK, I get that and in moderation I don't have a real problem with it - consequences of what one says and all that.

But that said, given the wording they've used what's stopping them from going after dissatisfied customers?  "Derogatory comments" is a _very_ wide net.


Jer said:


> (If they were doing this to _customers_ it would be a different story



As it sits they've left the door wide open for exactly this, the way I read it.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> But that said, given the wording they've used what's stopping them from going after dissatisfied customers?  "Derogatory comments" is a _very_ wide net.



Well, because it's in the publisher's code of conduct for one thing.  They don't have a customer code of conduct. If they add one I'll be the first in line to push back against it.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.



For what it's worth, I don't think that's correct; the new guidelines are with regard to publishers, not customers. You _might_ run into an issue if you make a derogatory comment as a customer and then later start up a publishing company that wants to sell on their storefront, but it's hard to say if they'd hold that against you.


----------



## Lanefan (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> For what it's worth, I don't think that's correct; the new guidelines are with regard to publishers, not customers. You _might_ run into an issue if you make a derogatory comment as a customer and then later start up a publishing company that wants to sell on their storefront, but it's hard to say if they'd hold that against you.



Ah.  I thought it was blanket.

Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.
> 
> OK, I get that and in moderation I don't have a real problem with it - consequences of what one says and all that.
> 
> ...




The policy is for publishers, not customers (though if you view publishers as their customers as well, then that is different). But I don't think any of this applies to people who are simply buying PDFs and POD books at Drivethru. It applies to a  publisher making claims on social media.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.



If they raised that number and said what it was it would just lead to abusers rounding up enough friends or creating enough accounts to reach the threshold that they've published.  Give me a number and you've just created a metric to hit - and with it being online it doesn't make it harder, it just makes it a bit more time consuming.  (I also don't actually believe that a single report does what they say - I suspect all of that is CYA language for legal and PR purposes, but even if it is the difference between 1 report and 10 reports on the anonymous internet is meaningless).


----------



## J.Quondam (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Of course any system can be abused, but you can set up the system so it isn't so easily abused (1 report triggering a 2 week take down for review, is giving people cart blanche to abuse it). If they raised that number to a more reasonable level, that would minimize abuse more.



But sometimes one report _should_ be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.
There is no perfect system, and any system can (and will) be abused. The best one can hope for is that the whoever is implementing the system -- whatever it is -- is doing so in good faith.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Determining what is allowed on one's own platform is one thing.  I don't think many if any have a problem with this.



At least one person ITT seems to have a problem with that, actually. There are several people who get agitate over that every time this sort of thing comes up.


Lanefan said:


> Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.



That isn't what's happening. 
Look, I sell autoparts. If the local Seafoam sales rep started using his position and professional contacts to badmouth my company, my upper management would absolutely be justified in removing Seafoam products from our shelves.


Lanefan said:


> Hypothetical here, as I've never had any dealings of any kind with DTRPG or any similar company that I know of, but the way I read this is that if I as an individual were to post something on this non-DTRPG forum that slammed some aspect or other of DTRPG's operation (hypothetical again e.g. I felt I'd been ripped off and hadn't received what I'd paid for, grumble grumble grumble) they could refuse my business in the future even if my claim later turned out to be correct.



What's stopping them blocking someone from using the service because they find their work annoying? What right does anyone have to tell them they can't curate what is sold in their store?


J.Quondam said:


> But sometimes one report _should_ be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.



I was nodding along until "stolen IP". 

It is actively deleterious to creative endeavors to have "take down first and review later" policies for IP theft. That is a very widely abused type of policy. I would go so far as to say that IP theft should never cause removal _until_ a human has reviewed the work in question. 

Either way, it's not remotely comparable to snuff imagery. Obviously. 

There is no "right" to get your book sold in stores, or even published by a publishing house. You have a right to write it, and to distribute it privately, and to distribute it publicly so long as it is not directly harmful to the public good. And even then, the Anarchist's Cookbook isn't illegal for a reason. 

But you could never win a case that Amazon has to carry it. Not a legal case, nor a discussion on moral philosophy.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> But sometimes one report _should_ be the threshold, though: snuff imagery, CSAM, stolen IP, etc.
> There is no perfect system, and any system can (and will) be abused. The best one can hope for is that the whoever is implementing the system -- whatever it is -- is doing so in good faith.




Sure, but then you have every product being treated as heavily as a snuff RPG. It isn't about the implentors of the system being good faith actors (I think OBS is a good faith actor, they don't want to screw over publishers). But anyone, literally anyone, can report a book as soon as it comes out, for whatever reason, and it gets taken down for two weeks. So it is the bad faith actors on the reporting side I think the system needs to protect against. If they are concerned about illegal content, then by all means have an "Illegal Content" specific report button, but maybe have that come with a stipulation (like if you report something as illegal, and it isn't you lose reporting privileges).


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

J.Quondam said:


> The best one can hope for is that the whoever is implementing the system -- whatever it is -- is doing so in good faith.



You can hope for that but I'll reiterate - the folks who are having to deal with this system (i.e. publishers) have to talk to DriveThru and to each other and to the rest of us when they are getting their titles pulled off for review and it turns out to be a malicious actor doing it.  Whether I trust OBS to be acting in good faith or not if the system is actually broken it won't get fixed if nobody talks about it.  And if malicious reporting is a problem on the site then I'd want to do whatever I can as a customer to put pressure where it needs to be put to fix it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Jer said:


> If they raised that number and said what it was it would just lead to abusers rounding up enough friends or creating enough accounts to reach the threshold that they've published.  Give me a number and you've just created a metric to hit - and with it being online it doesn't make it harder, it just makes it a bit more time consuming.  (I also don't actually believe that a single report does what they say - I suspect all of that is CYA language for legal and PR purposes, but even if it is the difference between 1 report and 10 reports on the anonymous internet is meaningless).




It would at least be harder so one person couldn't do it on a whim. I don't know what the magic number is. Maybe its 20 or 30 reports. Who knows. But if it at least requires coordination for people to abuse, that is better than requiring no coordination at all to abuse (and I still think some measure to prevent coordinated abuse would be handy: like taking away report abilities from accounts that report things that consistently pass review.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> But you could never win a case that Amazon has to carry it. Not a legal case, nor a discussion on moral philosophy.




Not legal, but I do think you could make a moral argument for why amazon should carry something that it doesn't.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Not legal, but I do think you could make a moral argument for why amazon should carry something that it doesn't.



I disagree. Unless amazon becomes _literally_ the only source of books, they have no such obligation at all, ever. 

I'm so anti-corporation I don't believe that they should have any protections under the law, but I still don't see any argument that a business is morally obligated to amplify someone's voice. 

Also, inventing such obligations due to a platform's size is the wrong direction. Break up the platform or otherwise work toward breaking it's effective monopoly. There is no, "if monopoly, then xyz applies", there is only "no monopolies".


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> like taking away report abilities from accounts that report things that consistently pass review.



This is one of those things that I would suspect happens behind the scenes but they don't advertise it.  Because a malicious reporter is not just hurting the publishers it's also hurting DriveThru in lost sales and also in lost time as they have to pay someone to review the books that are reported just to give an all clear, and that person is likely being taken off other projects that are far more important than dealing with a malicious reporter. 

(I also suspect they give more weight to accounts that have purchased the item in question than those that haven't, and also more weight to accounts that have been buying things for a long time than for those that were created more recently.  I certainly would if I were creating a system like that, but again I wouldn't _advertise_ I was doing it that way because that just leads folks to figure out how to game what you're doing quickly and break it.)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Also, inventing such obligations due to a platform's size is the wrong direction. Break up the platform or otherwise work toward breaking it's effective monopoly. There is no, "if monopoly, then xyz applies", there is only "no monopolies".




I disagree but this is probably a bigger issue that gets into politics. All I will say is except platforms don't get broken up anymore. It tends not to happen, and in the case of Amazon, I think they are really on the cusp of being a major issue. Amazon arguably is a monopoly (I do think for a company the size of amazon, especially since they took over Wholefoods and are getting into our refrigerator now), they have a lot of moral responsibility in terms of what products they are willing to carry (beyond books, but including what they stock on their shelves).  Because when a company gets that big, you can have special needs products that people need for say medical or dietary reasons that vanish from the supply chain if a company the size of an amazon is not actively selling them. They also are able to play games with the market because they have so much data on products sales as  a seller (that when they make their own products they are able to put themselves at an unfair advantage).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> The very fact that they can only effectively reach their customers via DTRPG, as opposed to other venues/companies, means that, to an extent, DTRPG has a greater obligation to not throw up additional barriers to them doing so based on their personal beliefs.



No, it doesn't.  DTRPG has no duty to provide the service they provide, and thus has no duty to ensure that they do not limit it.


Alzrius said:


> Again, that does not reflect the reality of the situation, which is that DTRPG has become the only vector by which the customers can be reached. Simply because they're not closing off other venues doesn't mean that those venues are viable; that they control the only portal between the publisher and the customers puts a greater burden on them to safeguard it.



Saying that DTRPG is the only vector doesn't make it true.  Saying that DTRPG makes it affordable for a marginal business to operate is true, but this doesn't impose a duty on DTRPG or make them a monopoly.


Alzrius said:


> Except that "more cost effective" in many instances becomes "the only cost effective way."



Yes.  DTRPG is under no obligation to provide a cost effective way for your business to exist.  This isn't true in any other context.  It's not true here.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 30, 2022)

Here there is an interesting debate about some rather general issues, but I think that it is also important to remember what happened with Venger. He published two products that were purposefully inflammatory, he hoped for this exact outcome, so that he could whine about censorship and try to put himself in the spotlight.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I disagree. Unless amazon becomes _literally_ the only source of books, they have no such obligation at all, ever.




To me this seems a very extreme position. This is a spectrum, surely we are all going to draw the line at different places, but I think saying they are never ever obligated morally to sell something, seems short sighted to me. Obviously even if books are available elsewhere, not being on major platforms like amazon, is going to impact what books actually get made. If amazon says tomorrow, "No books covering sexual orientation or LGTQ issues" I would take issue and say they have a moral obligation to not exclude books on that basis. Because that is going to impact both peoples access to such books and whether such books even get made in the first place (and it is also just a bad reason morally for them not carrying the book). Or if they took down the bible or the Quran I would say the same thing.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jun 30, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Here there is an interesting debate about some rather general issues, but I think that it is also important to remember what happened with Venger. He published two products that were purposefully inflammatory, he hoped for this exact outcome, so that he could whine about censorship and try to put himself in the spotlight.




But most people aren't even commenting on him, they are criticizing the outcome in terms of new policy (which affects all publishers, not just Venger Satanis).


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> No, it doesn't.  DTRPG has no duty to provide the service they provide, and thus has no duty to ensure that they do not limit it.



I disagree. I think that they do have a duty to provide that service insofar as it means not denying it based purely on not liking someone's beliefs.


Ovinomancer said:


> Saying that DTRPG is the only vector doesn't make it true.  Saying that DTRPG makes it affordable for a marginal business to operate is true, but this doesn't impose a duty on DTRPG or make them a monopoly.



On the contrary, it gives them monopoly power, which in turn imposes a greater responsibility on them to utilize that power in a manner that benefits more than just themselves.


Ovinomancer said:


> Yes.  DTRPG is under no obligation to provide a cost effective way for your business to exist.  This isn't true in any other context.  It's not true here.



When they're the _only_ cost-effective way for your business to exist, it becomes true in that context, and so is true here.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> But most people aren't even commenting on him, they are criticizing the outcome in terms of new policy (which affects all publishers, not just Venger Satanis).



Yes, that's clear. I wrote that in my post.


----------



## Jer (Jun 30, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Here there is an interesting debate about some rather general issues, but I think that it is also important to remember what happened with Venger. He published two products that were purposefully inflammatory, he hoped for this exact outcome, so that he could whine about censorship and try to put himself in the spotlight.



Yup.  It's somewhat unfortunate that one bad actor ends up forcing them to come up with a policy to handle him that has to cover everyone because that's how our society works, but that's exactly the dynamic that is going on.  It's the same thing that created the content and reporting policy that he's lying about now in the first place - one bad actor screwing it up for everyone else.

And now non-bad actors have to worry that this policy will be used against them - just like @Bedrockgames worrying about the content reporting policy being used against publishers acting in good faith - because that's what these guys do.  They trash the place and make it a worse place to be than it was before they got there.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 30, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Attempting to control what is said about that platform in places that are not that platform is another thing, however; and that's where the issues arise.




So, you view it as "attempting to control".  I think another very valid way to view it is telling you up front that they will not work with people who treat them poorly in the public arena.

Many appeal to "freedom of speech" here, but seemingly forget that idea comes with an associate - _freedom of association_.  As in, DriveThruRPG has a right to choose who it works with.  And, yeah, if you trash on them in public, they aren't going to want to work with you!  This should surprise exactly nobody.  

And, "You are (relatively, in a small market) successful, so you are ethically bound to take public abuse from those who work with you," seems a very strange position to take.  It seems very easy to apply to someone else, but few, I think, are going to volunteer for being required to stay in business with people who say bad things about them to customers.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree. I think that they do have a duty to provide that service insofar as it means not denying it based purely on not liking someone's beliefs.



You moved the goalposts, but did move them far enough to save your point.  What I said was that there's no duty whatsoever to provide the cost-effective access that allows a publisher to stay afloat.  You've tried to move that to a duty not to refuse business based on expressed beliefs.  But you've broadened the "beliefs" to be anything someone says, and not the actual legal requirement of creed, culture, religion and the like.  That's not how that works, either.  


Alzrius said:


> On the contrary, it gives them monopoly power, which in turn imposes a greater responsibility on them to utilize that power in a manner that benefits more than just themselves.



No, there's no monopoly power because they do not control the market at all.  They provide a service to access that market for publishers that could not otherwise do so, but that's not monopolistic.  That's just offering a service.  If there was no thing like DTRPG, those publishers would still be unable to access the market. The market was not created and is not controlled by DTRPG.


Alzrius said:


> When they're the _only_ cost-effective way for your business to exist, it becomes true in that context, and so is true here.



No, it doesn't.  It means that your business is non-viable without help.  There's no duty to make your non-viable business viable.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> You moved the goalposts, but did move them far enough to save your point.



No, actually those are where they always were. You just didn't correctly summarize my point before.


Ovinomancer said:


> What I said was that there's no duty whatsoever to provide the cost-effective access that allows a publisher to stay afloat.  You've tried to move that to a duty not to refuse business based on expressed beliefs.  But you've broadened the "beliefs" to be anything someone says, and not the actual legal requirement of creed, culture, religion and the like.  That's not how that works, either.



Again, that's not moving it, but rather what I've been saying the entire time. This was never about legal requirements; I've said that since the beginning, back when I was noting that this wasn't a First Amendment issue. It's still not one.


Ovinomancer said:


> No, there's no monopoly power because they do not control the market at all.  They provide a service to access that market for publishers that could not otherwise do so, but that's not monopolistic.  That's just offering a service.  If there was no thing like DTRPG, those publishers would still be unable to access the market. The market was not created and is not controlled by DTRPG.



Monopoly power does not require that they control the market. It doesn't even require that they restrict access to all of the market; you can have monopoly power without having a monopoly, as noted previously. When they're the only ones who can offer that service in an effective manner (e.g. 85% of the customer base, as an example), then they're the only game in town, and other venues would be able to more effectively offer their services insofar as reaching customers goes.


Ovinomancer said:


> No, it doesn't.  It means that your business is non-viable without help.  There's no duty to make your non-viable business viable.



Except the help in question can _only_ come from a single business entity, which puts the onus on them to not refuse help based purely on ideology.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> No, actually those are where they always were. You just didn't correctly summarize my point before.
> 
> Again, that's not moving it, but rather what I've been saying the entire time. This was never about legal requirements; I've said that since the beginning, back when I was noting that this wasn't a First Amendment issue. It's still not one.
> 
> ...



Okay.  Let's do this.  I'll proceed forward with my understanding, and you proceed with yours, and let's see what happens with DTRPG and this whole thing.  I have my money on "it's perfectly legal, no monopoly claims will be made, and everyone will have to deal with it."  What's your guess?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> Okay.  Let's do this.  I'll proceed forward with my understanding, and you proceed with yours, and let's see what happens with DTRPG and this whole thing.  I have my money on "it's perfectly legal, no monopoly claims will be made, and everyone will have to deal with it."  What's your guess?



I'm absolutely sure that it's perfectly legal; I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, unless you read that into my saying that it has monopoly power meant that it was somehow in violation of the law. I just think it's a crappy thing for them to do, and my guess is that they'll get away with it despite that.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I'm absolutely sure that it's perfectly legal; I don't think I ever suggested otherwise, unless you read that into my saying that it has monopoly power meant that it was somehow in violation of the law. I just think it's a crappy thing for them to do, and my guess is that they'll get away with it despite that.



I hope they continue to do so, 100%.  I find your assignment of moral duties to be forced to do business with customers because otherwise they those customers could not afford to have a viable business to be actually harmful and the fastest way to make sure there's no market at all.  Neither you nor I have the right to have a viable RPG publishing business, and DTRPG is certainly under no obligations to see it so if we did.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> I find your assignment of moral duties to be forced to do business with customers because otherwise they those customers could not afford to have a viable business to be actually harmful and the fastest way to make sure there's no market at all.  Neither you nor I have the right to have a viable RPG publishing business, and DTRPG is certainly under no obligations to see it so if we did.



I completely disagree, and think that allowing businesses to do whatever they want after they've captured an exceptionally large section of market access, particularly with regard to letting them pick and choose whom that access is granted to based on their personal feelings about someone else, would be what results in no market at all.


----------



## Irlo (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Except the help in question can _only_ come from a single business entity, which puts the onus on them to not refuse help based purely on ideology.



It’s not based on ideology, though. It’s based on product content that conflicts with the values of the business and its customer base. It’s based on derogatory statements, and defamation.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

Irlo said:


> It’s not based on ideology, though. It’s based on product content that conflicts with the values of the business and its customer base. It’s based on derogatory statements, and defamation.



"Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.


----------



## thirdkingdom (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> "Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.




Just out of curiosity, @Alzrius , are you one of the publishers who potentially will be affected by this updated policy?


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

thirdkingdom said:


> Just out of curiosity, @Alzrius , are you one of the publishers who potentially will be affected by this updated policy?



Nope, though I should add that I try not to be someone who only cares about the things that affect them personally.


----------



## Irlo (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> "Ideology" strikes me as being a viable shorthand for "conflicts with values," since values are typically ideological in nature. Or at least, insofar as the conversational vernacular goes.



Oh, I see. I would distinguish between the ideology of a content creator and any particular expression of that ideology in a product or in public discourse. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs. 

I’m not a huge DTRPG customer — I’ve spent < $200 there in the last 10 years — but if the site was a minefield of misogyny and racism and other offensive content, I wouldn’t browse there at all. Those content creators who got some of my money can thank the site’s curation for that.


----------



## thirdkingdom (Jun 30, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Nope, though I should add that I try not to be someone who only cares about the things that affect them personally.




Ah. I'm one of those publishers, and the staff has been pretty clear about these updated policies. A lot of them have been in place for years and are part of the contract you sign when applying to sell stuff through their platform. The specific instances that seem to have people riled up is a specific response to a _very small_ number of bad actors who are being either abusive or manipulating the system for their own benefit. They posted a clarification today that further explains their decision, and you might find it helpful to read.

I don't want to speak for all publishers, but my experiences with Drivethru's staff -- as a publisher and purchaser both -- have been nothing but positive. I think they go out of their way to be as helpful and clear as possible.


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 30, 2022)

thirdkingdom said:


> I don't want to speak for all publishers, but my experiences with Drivethru's staff -- as a publisher and purchaser both -- have been nothing but positive. I think they go out of their way to be as helpful and clear as possible.



Of that I have no doubt; I don't think that DriveThruRPG is trying to be an ogre about this, and I'm equally certain that they're trying to do right by as many people as they can. I just think that there are also points of legitimate criticism that can be made with regard to some of their policies (both old and new), and that there's merit in bringing them up, at least when the exchange can be held frankly and respectfully with regard to the different philosophies involved.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jun 30, 2022)

eyeheartawk said:


> We have our old friend Venger Satanis to blame for this.




Not just him. Several publishers who run in that circle manufacture outrage to sell their products by defaming (no, not merely criticizing) DTRPG.


----------



## dragoner (Jun 30, 2022)

jdrakeh said:


> Not just him. Several publishers who run in that circle manufacture outrage to sell their products by defaming (no, not merely criticizing) DTRPG.



I'm not sure if it better or worse for them to have the stated policy. People such as him, could still be refused service, however.

Sort of like the OGL, I know lawyers have posted various places that the power of it is only for the use of the trademarks, and nothing else is enforceable.

Overall though, as a publisher, I have found dtrpg to be helpful and nice.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jun 30, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I disagree but this is probably a bigger issue that gets into politics. All I will say is except platforms don't get broken up anymore. It tends not to happen, and in the case of Amazon, I think they are really on the cusp of being a major issue. Amazon arguably is a monopoly (I do think for a company the size of amazon, especially since they took over Wholefoods and are getting into our refrigerator now), they have a lot of moral responsibility in terms of what products they are willing to carry (beyond books, but including what they stock on their shelves).



That's kind of my point. Yelling at the monopoly to monopolize more ethically is...wasted effort. They won't, unless they happen to be personally amenable to it and it doesn't cost them significantly to do so. 

The solution is to start bullying the federal government to actually regulate monopolies again, which it seems like hasn't happened much since Microsoft got broken up. DTRPG is a _much_ less monopolized force. Any creator can crowdfund the first printing and use that drum up notoriety. Being the biggest player doesn't make them the only game in town. 

And again, even if they were, they wouldn't be obligated to carry inflammatory works that run counter to their morals and those of their customer base.



Bedrockgames said:


> Because when a company gets that big, you can have special needs products that people need for say medical or dietary reasons that vanish from the supply chain if a company the size of an amazon is not actively selling them. They also are able to play games with the market because they have so much data on products sales as  a seller (that when they make their own products they are able to put themselves at an unfair advantage).



All of which relates to monopolies and the purpose of laws restricting them, not to the supposed obligation of a venue to publish literally any speech handed to it, regardless of it's content.


Bedrockgames said:


> To me this seems a very extreme position. This is a spectrum, surely we are all going to draw the line at different places, but I think saying they are never ever obligated morally to sell something, seems short sighted to me. Obviously even if books are available elsewhere, not being on major platforms like amazon, is going to impact what books actually get made. If amazon says tomorrow, "No books covering sexual orientation or LGTQ issues" I would take issue and say they have a moral obligation to not exclude books on that basis. Because that is going to impact both peoples access to such books and whether such books even get made in the first place (and it is also just a bad reason morally for them not carrying the book). Or if they took down the bible or the Quran I would say the same thing.



I generally assume that readers can be relied upon to apply basic assumptions like "except in case of discrimination against protected classes" just like I assume alzurius doesn't think DTRPG has to publish stuff that explicitly makes specific threats of violence or other illegal material, without needing them to say that. (they may have done, actually, I don't recall at this point)


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> That's highly arguable. While there's no way to measure it that I'm aware of, I'd say that while pay-for-download role-playing game supplements might be an extremely niche market, there's certainly an argument to be made that OneBookShelf has monopoly power within it, even if they don't have an out-and-out monopoly.



Considering they've bought up at least two competitors... with RPGNow having been the big one

they have a few notable competitors remaining...
Paizo's webstore (Which sells more than just Paizo products)
e23/warehouse 23 (SJG's web store; it also carries many non-SJG products)
Indie Press Revolution (which seems less relevant every year)
itch.io (which seems an increasingly relevant store every month).
pigames.net (Precis Intermedia Games, formerly Politically Incorrect Games)

It's worth noting that PIG has bought up a number of orphaned¹ IPs and put them up in PDF... like WEG's Masterbook line.

A number of publishers support their own webstores as well, but only their own products, or in a few cases, a partner company's. Or, like Chaosium, 3rd party licensees of their systems.

Amazon has a number of game designers releasing through Kindle. Still pretty trivial.

while it pains me to say it, the monopoly element of DTRPG is that people think it a monopoly and don't look elsewhere.

-=-=-=-=-=-​1: orphaned games: their parent company has died/gone out of business, and the rights holder doesn't want to try again, despite small vocal intense fanbases.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

Jer said:


> Except you as a supplier are at the mercy of a single seller - and that's bad business 101.  You end up in a Wal*Mart situation where the retailer dictates terms to you if you allow that to happen.



Getting your product to the customer's attention is the ultimate goal. And in a niche field such as RPGs, getting a majority of customers to a single venue is the best way to do it.

I used to publish novels on Smashwords. Lovely people to work with. I have since switched to Amazon, who are interesting to work with, but their aggressive market share means that my sales went up by a factor of ten. Yes, there are a LOT more rules and restrictions, but it is worth it.

I also own Wal Mart stock, and cheer them on with great enthusiasm. 

Of the endless 'business 101s' out there: changing with the market is high on the list.


----------



## grankless (Jul 1, 2022)

I'm trying to  determine where the concept that DTRPG has a moral and/or legal obligation to host Nazis is coming from. Obviously they can not host that stuff if they want to; there's no reason to ever host that kind of thing.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

grankless said:


> I'm trying to  determine where the concept that DTRPG has a moral and/or legal obligation to host Nazis is coming from. Obviously they can not host that stuff if they want to; there's no reason to ever host that kind of thing.



The main reason would be a commitment to freedom of speech. In the USA it is not a crime to promote, support, believe in, or speak in favor of any political creed, so long as it does not have as its goal the overthrow of the US government by unlawful means.

I personally do not understand the big deal, myself. Is there that great of fear that reading pro-Nazi material would generate that many converts? Making something taboo often increases, rather than decreases, interest.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 1, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> The main reason would be a commitment to freedom of speech. In the USA it is not a crime to promote, support, believe in, or speak in favor of any political creed, so long as it does not have as its goal the overthrow of the US government by unlawful means.



I personally wouldn't want to make money off of being a peddler of pro-Nazi garbage.  I also wouldn't support a company that was a peddler of pro-Nazi garbage.  I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, but that doesn't obligate me to support any platform peddling pro-Nazi garbage.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2022)

grankless said:


> I'm trying to  determine where the concept that DTRPG has a moral and/or legal obligation to host Nazis is coming from. Obviously they can not host that stuff if they want to; there's no reason to ever host that kind of thing.



Can’t say where anyone here got the idea, but I do know there are people spreading the idea in order to muddy these kinds of discussions.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

MGibster said:


> I personally wouldn't want to make money off of being a peddler of pro-Nazi garbage.  I also wouldn't support a company that was a peddler of pro-Nazi garbage.  I'm a big believer in freedom of speech, but that doesn't obligate me to support any platform peddling pro-Nazi garbage.



Sure.

But the question was why anyone would argue in favor of letting such material be posted.

Personally, my thinking would be to allow it, as familiarity strips away mystique. Banning ideas tends to strengthen the idea.


----------



## grankless (Jul 1, 2022)

No it doesn't, lol. Making something easily accessible is what encourages its spread. Much like homeopathic medicine, that doesn't work like that. Are you saying that ENWorld's forums should also be hosting hate speech?


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

grankless said:


> No it doesn't, lol. Making something easily accessible is what encourages its spread. Much like homeopathic medicine, that doesn't work like that. Are you saying that ENWorld's forums should also be hosting hate speech?



You really think that if a web site allowed pro-Nazi material on it, that it would win significant numbers of converts?

You don't think much of your fellow man.


----------



## Irlo (Jul 1, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You really think that if a web site allowed pro-Nazi material on it, that it would win significant numbers of converts?
> 
> You don't think much of your fellow man.



It's not a matter of conversion. It's a matter of acceptance and normalization. People aren't attracted to hateful ideologies by mystique. They're attracted and encouraged because the hateful ideas are present, promulgated, and stamped with society's approval (if only tacit approval by silence).

No, a web-site allowing pro-Nazi material won't convert many people. But it would drive away others of the community, and it would send a message to those others that they are not valued.

IMO, of course.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

Irlo said:


> It's not a matter of conversion. It's a matter of acceptance and normalization. *People aren't attracted to hateful ideologies by mystique.* They're attracted and encouraged because the hateful ideas are present, promulgated, and stamped with society's approval (if only tacit approval by silence).
> 
> No, a web-site allowing pro-Nazi material won't convert many people. But it would drive away others of the community, and it would send a message to those others that they are not valued.
> 
> IMO, of course.



I agree with everything but the part in bold. A lot of people at certain stages in life are attracted to edgy, fringe movements as a way of demonstrating their independence, drawing attention, etc. And a lot of fringe groups of every possible stripe draw from those people who feel rejected, left out, abandoned, or excluded.

Myself, I think allowing general politics of any type is a bad idea for a forum devoted to RPG gamers, simply because that's not the purpose of the forum, just as it would be a bad idea to encourage discussion of bowling or shooting snooker.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 1, 2022)

SandraT said:


> Don't be shy now, just admit you would like to support Nazi and the KKK.



It would be difficult, given that I'm not white.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 1, 2022)

SandraT said:


> Don't be shy now, just admit you would like to support Nazi and the KKK.



*Mod Note:*

Mind-reading is a rare ability.  Your “second sight” needs corrective lenses.

Until your third eye gets cataract surgery, please refrain from accusing people of _extreme _positions and engaging in personal attacks (like in your _other_ post, above) on ENWorld.  

Address the issue in the post; don’t attack the poster.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 1, 2022)

In case anyone cares, Venger said in his email after the latest product was pulled (before the policy change) that is was not OBS that pulled it, it was due to a complaint and that he felt bad for them for the extra work and generally the released what was complained about within 2 weeks. He specifically praised OBS and blamed others who immediately report anything he posts.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> In case anyone cares, Venger said in his email after the latest product was pulled (before the policy change) that is was not OBS that pulled it, it was due to a complaint and that he felt bad for them for the extra work and generally the released what was complained about within 2 weeks. He specifically praised OBS and blamed others who immediately report anything he posts.



Why would anyone care what Venger has to say?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why would anyone care what Venger has to say?




I'm more curious to know how somebody knows the contents of his (presumably) private email. Also, he has _definitely_ been very salty over DTRPG banning products in the past.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 1, 2022)

jdrakeh said:


> I'm more curious to know how somebody knows the contents of his (presumably) private email. Also, he has _definitely_ been very salty over DTRPG banning products in the past.



I’m guessing there is a mailing list that the other poster is part of?


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m guessing there is a mailing list that the other poster is part of?




I hadn't thought of that. Having said that, that's not an email list I'd want any part of (and I've been assured he is still playing the victim card elsewhere online).


----------



## Lanefan (Jul 1, 2022)

Umbran said:


> So, you view it as "attempting to control".  I think another very valid way to view it is telling you up front that they will not work with people who treat them poorly in the public arena.



Which to me seems much the same as companies attempting to suppress bad reviews (even if such reviews are warranted) be it by deleting them, denying service to those who post them, or even in rare cases issuing groundless legal threats and-or C&Ds; all of which makes the entire review system suspect at best and near-fraudulent at worst.  It's simply corporations trying to control what people say about them, and this seems to me like more of the same.

A corporation is not a person and does not have feelings, and thus in theory cannot take offense over what someone says/writes about it unless it crosses the legal line into libel and-or defamation.  We have courts for that, and due process.

And sure, there's freedom of association.  I get that; and I also get that if one corporation says something bad about another there could-will be consequences at the corporate level.  Fine.

It's the blanket not-so-subtle pre-emptive threat in that policy that bothers me.


Umbran said:


> And, "You are (relatively, in a small market) successful, so you are ethically bound to take public abuse from those who work with you," seems a very strange position to take.  It seems very easy to apply to someone else, but few, I think, are going to volunteer for being required to stay in business with people who say bad things about them to customers.



Even though it's under my quote this must be in response to someone else (maybe someone who has me blocked?), as I did not present this argument.


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 1, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> It's the blanket not-so-subtle pre-emptive threat in that policy that bothers me.



That's the world we live in. Because you'd get someone taking DTRPG to court for removing their extremely offensive nazi misogynic rpg because the terms and conditions didn't say that that DTRPG would do that if someone complained. Hence such things being included in the terms and conditions, and why such terms and conditions don't spell out exactly what is offensive because there would be exploitable loopholes.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> while it pains me to say it, the monopoly element of DTRPG is that people think it a monopoly and don't look elsewhere.



Strictly speaking, I've noted before that I don't think they _are_ a monopoly, but rather have monopoly _power_, which is different (e.g. you don't need to control 100% of a market to have a massive influence over it). Other outlets certainly exist, but when publishers reach something like 85% of their customers via that one platform (to use a number that one publisher estimated), that makes the presence of alternative venues a lot less important in reality than they might otherwise look on paper.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Strictly speaking, I've noted before that I don't think they _are_ a monopoly, but rather have monopoly _power_, which is different (e.g. you don't need to control 100% of a market to have a massive influence over it). Other outlets certainly exist, but when publishers reach something like 85% of their customers via that one platform (to use a number that one publisher estimated), that makes the presence of alternative venues a lot less important in reality than they might otherwise look on paper.



The article you linked used monopoly power as the test to determine what a monopoly is under the British law.  There wasn't any difference.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Ovinomancer said:


> The article you linked used monopoly power as the test to determine what a monopoly is under the British law.  There wasn't any difference.



The first paragraph outlines the difference:



> A pure monopoly is defined as a single supplier. While there only a few cases of pure monopoly, monopoly ‘power’ is much more widespread, and can exist even when there is more than one supplier – such in markets with only two firms, called a duopoly, and a few firms, an oligopoly.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I assume alzurius doesn't think DTRPG has to publish stuff that explicitly makes specific threats of violence or other illegal material, without needing them to say that. (they may have done, actually, I don't recall at this point)



To be absolutely clear: I _don't_ think that there's any moral impetus on DriveThruRPG to publish stuff that makes specific threats of violence, or is otherwise illegal (quite the opposite, I think they have a moral impetus to take such stuff down as soon as they become aware of it).


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why would anyone care what Venger has to say?



Why would anyone care what you would have to say, if being dismissive of other’s views is your motif?

I only mentioned it because of mention early in the thread of this being due to Venger. However, his reaction to the item being pulled was to say he thought that OBS’ system was fair. Does not seem like “hostile marketing” to me.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 1, 2022)

My views on OBS’ policy is that they are a private business and it is their right to carry what goods they want. I don’t think that that they such a tiny business as they are dismissed as, 40 full time employees is pretty large in the RPG space, they basically are the Valve/Steam of the RPG industry and within it they have a large influence. I don’t think it would be that hard to compete via a platform like Shopify as the tools to make such a digital file holding website are much more available today. Not sure it is worth the effort to.

Their digital exclusivity policy is pretty broad - it does not say don’t sell the same pdf elsewhere, it says don’t sell a digital version anywhere. So no Amazon ebook if you sell your pdf here. Probably no computer game version of you sell your item here. That restriction is by choice of the publisher in return for a small reduction of the OBS fee. You can choose a non-exclusive relationship if you want. This has outsized impact on smaller publishers. A good example is that if you list your PDF and take the extra 5%, then you cannot sell a VTT version elsewhere.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 1, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Which to me seems much the same as companies attempting to suppress bad reviews (even if such reviews are warranted) be it by deleting them, denying service to those who post them, or even in rare cases issuing groundless legal threats and-or C&Ds; all of which makes the entire review system suspect at best and near-fraudulent at worst.  It's simply corporations trying to control what people say about them, and this seems to me like more of the same.



I don't think they're similar at all.  I'm really confused about why you think so.  This is just them saying "If you defame us in public as a marketing tactic instead of working with us as business partner, we reserve the right to reserve service to you".  Which is perfectly fair and totally within their rights, and the only reason they even had to say it was because one or more bad-faith actors were engaged in exactly this kind of misbehavior.



Lanefan said:


> A corporation is not a person and does not have feelings, and thus in theory cannot take offense over what someone says/writes about it unless it crosses the legal line into libel and-or defamation.  We have courts for that, and due process.



The courts are for seeking and enforcing a criminal or civil penalty.  They're not talking about suing or prosecuting people.  Just about exercising their freedom of association not to do business with a publisher who talks naughty word about them in public and/or encourages their fans to abuse DT's customer service.  



Lanefan said:


> It's the blanket not-so-subtle pre-emptive threat in that policy that bothers me.



It's not a pre-emptive threat.  It's a policy statement to clarify how they're going to respond, or may respond, to certain bad and deleterious business practices, which they're only making because one or more jerks already engaged in those hostile practices.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 1, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> I’m guessing there is a mailing list that the other poster is part of?











						Update 41: Rainbow Crystal Utopia · Cha'alt: Chartreuse Shadows
					

Normally, I might have used Kickstarter to fund my latest Cha'alt adventure.  Because I haven't fulfilled all the rewards (I'm stilling waiting on a shipping date, should have more news next week), KS has told me I can't run another crowdfunding campaign on their platform. I probably should have...




					www.kickstarter.com
				




Not private.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 1, 2022)

Not sure if already posted, but James Raggi's response.

Figured it was worth posting since his work is both popular and likely to be affected by the new policy.

Have to run to work, but will edit with a TL;DW when I get back.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Not sure if already posted, but James Raggi's response.
> 
> Figured it was worth posting since his work is both popular and likely to be affected by the new policy.
> 
> Have to run to work, but will edit with a TL;DW when I get back.



Why do these guys always insist on doing videos shirtless?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Strictly speaking, I've noted before that I don't think they _are_ a monopoly, but rather have monopoly _power_, which is different (e.g. you don't need to control 100% of a market to have a massive influence over it). Other outlets certainly exist, but when publishers reach something like 85% of their customers via that one platform (to use a number that one publisher estimated), that makes the presence of alternative venues a lot less important in reality than they might otherwise look on paper.



All your posts in this thread are based on this premise. Unfortunately, you're mistaken; DTRPG doesn't have close to 85% of the market in terms of dollar value. Kickstarter does. You've got the wrong company.

Now if Kickstarter kicks you off their platform, you've got real problems.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree. I think that they do have a duty to provide that service insofar as it means not denying it based purely on not liking someone's beliefs.
> 
> On the contrary, it gives them monopoly power, which in turn imposes a greater responsibility on them to utilize that power in a manner that benefits more than just themselves.
> 
> When they're the _only_ cost-effective way for your business to exist, it becomes true in that context, and so is true here.



No- no one is _entitled _to perform business in a certain manner through a certain means. Welcome to capitalism.

If people don't like DTRPG there is Indie Press Revolution, Tabletop Library, Etsy, Open Gaming Store, The Indie RPGs Un-Store, developing your own website, or getting a bunch of friends together with some money and starting your own business. DTRPG may be the easiest or most convenient resource, but they are by far not the only one. Expend some marketing effort.

They are not a monopoly _by any definition_.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> All your posts in this thread are based on this premise. Unfortunately, you're mistaken; DTRPG doesn't have close to 85% of the market in terms of dollar value. Kickstarter does.



In terms of raw dollar value, I have no doubt. But I meant only with regard to other digital storefronts; Kickstarter doesn't have a listing of products that I can browse through and purchase at my leisure, redownload later, or otherwise keep in "stock" (insofar as that can be used with regard to digital products). Compared to other venues that _do_ have such a setup, are you saying that DTRPG isn't far and away bigger than, say, Paizo or the OpenGamingStore?


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> No- no one is _entitled _to perform business in a certain manner through a certain means. Welcome to capitalism.



I disagree, I think that when a singular business entity comes to control access to an overwhelming percentage of the market, simply because no other such entity can reach most of that market, that does impose a responsibility on them to stop acting purely in their own self-interest.


Baron Opal II said:


> If people don't like DTRPG there is Indie Press Revolution, Tabletop Library, Etsy, Open Gaming Store, The Indie RPGs Un-Store, developing your own website, or getting a bunch of friends together with some money and starting your own business. DTRPG may be the easiest or most convenient resource, but they are by far not the only one. Expend some marketing effort.
> 
> They are not a monopoly _by any definition_.



Again, you don't need to be a monopoly to have monopoly power. If we go by the idea that "anyone who starts a storefront can compete," then there are no monopolies at all, ever, because anyone can potentially go into business against a much larger company. That's a nice theory, but it's not very useful in terms of reality.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 1, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> No- no one is _entitled _to perform business in a certain manner through a certain means. Welcome to capitalism.
> 
> If people don't like DTRPG there is Indie Press Revolution, Tabletop Library, Etsy, Open Gaming Store, The Indie RPGs Un-Store, developing your own website, or getting a bunch of friends together with some money and starting your own business. DTRPG may be the easiest or most convenient resource, but they are by far not the only one. Expend some marketing effort.
> 
> They are not a monopoly _by any definition_.



Not to mention Amazon...It's very easy to host digital and POD files at Amazon.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> In terms of raw dollar value, I have no doubt. But I meant only with regard to other digital storefronts; Kickstarter doesn't have a listing of products that I can browse through and purchase at my leisure, redownload later, or otherwise keep in "stock" (insofar as that can be used with regard to digital products). Compared to other venues that _do_ have such a setup, are you saying that DTRPG isn't far and away bigger than, say, Paizo or the OpenGamingStore?



Sure. And compared to other RPG companies with red logos based out of Southampton run by somebody whose name begins with an R, EN Publishing’s storefront has 85% of the market. You can define the market any way you want but any definition which excludes Kickstarter is basically nonsense. DTRPG doesn’t have the dominant clout you claim it has. 

Now, if it did, I actually agree that those with monopolistic power over the market have an ethical obligation beyond their own business interests. But DTRPG isn’t the company in that position right now.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Sure. And compared to other RPG companies with red logos based out of Southampton run by somebody whose name begins with an R, EN Publishing’s storefront has 85% of the market. You can define the market any way you want but any definition which excludes Kickstarter is basically nonsense. DTRPG doesn’t have the dominant clout you claim it has.



Again, that's true if you look at where the bulk of the money comes from, but that's comparing short-term preorders (which is what Kickstarter offers) to pay-for-download of "in-stock" digital products. I have no doubt that you made most of your money for _Level Up_ off of Kickstarter when you were producing it; but if I wanted to buy it off of Kickstarter right now, could I? Not to mention that most publishers can't, and don't, use Kickstarter for the majority of their products (not even close, really), and so Kickstarter isn't a factor for them the way DTRPG is.

Kickstarter isn't a storefront, in other words, which is what's being discussed in this thread. You can say that cuts out most of the money involved, and that's not wrong, but that's a different revenue stream (i.e. preorders versus immediate retail fulfillment).


Morrus said:


> Now, if it did, I actually agree that those with monopolistic power over the market have an ethical obligation beyond their own business interests. But DTRPG isn’t the company in that position right now.



I think it's important to reiterate that the market that's being discussed here is with regard to perpetual retail sale, rather than a limited period of preorders. You don't shop for stuff on Kickstarter the way you do on DTRPG, Amazon, Paizo, etc., and the degree to which Kickstarter necessarily competes with those venues is arguable.

That said, I'm glad there's someone else agreeing that companies with a large degree of power over a market assume an obligation to act beyond what's best for them.


----------



## Irlo (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I disagree, I think that when a singular business entity comes to control access to an overwhelming percentage of the market, simply because no other such entity can reach most of that market, that does impose a responsibility on them to stop acting purely in their own self-interest.



You seem to be arguing that DTRPG must act in the interest of other businesses which are themselves acting _against_ DTRPG’s interest.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Irlo said:


> You seem to be arguing that DRRPG must act in the interest of other businesses which are themselves acting _against_ DTRPG’s interest.



When the disparity between the two is so vast, to the point where those "other businesses" have (at best) an extremely limited ability to adversely affect DTRPG's interests, that characterization loses a lot of its implications.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Again, that's true if you look at where the bulk of the money comes from, but that's comparing short-term preorders (which is what Kickstarter offers) to pay-for-download of "in-stock" digital products. I have no doubt that you made most of your money for _Level Up_ off of Kickstarter when you were producing it; but if I wanted to buy it off of Kickstarter right now, could I? Not to mention that most publishers can't, and don't, use Kickstarter for the majority of their products (not even close, really), and so Kickstarter isn't a factor for them the way DTRPG is.
> 
> Kickstarter isn't a storefront, in other words, which is what's being discussed in this thread. You can say that cuts out most of the money involved, and that's not wrong, but that's a different revenue stream (i.e. preorders versus immediate retail fulfillment).
> 
> ...



Eh. That non-true Scotsman! We sell much more on our own site than on DTRPG. You’re not talking from a position of data. If you want to maintain that DTRPG has monopoly power over the market, you do that. But I’ll reiterate one last time, from the position of a publisher who actually sells into the market, that it doesn’t have, for the benefit of those reading. Nobody has, but the most dominant player is Kickstarter.


----------



## GreyLord (Jul 1, 2022)

I am going to agree with those saying that DTRPG technically have a monopoly over PDF RPG sales over the internet that you can keep on your account and download over and over again.

HOWEVER, I ALSO THINK that they should be allowed to use whatever policies they want as long as it is non-discriminatory over the general typical lines of thought (so, equality along gender, racial, ethnic, sexual, religious, age, disability, etc). 

They are not a government.  They are not a public utility.  They are a business and what is on their property is ON PRIVATE PROPERTY that the business owns.  They ALSO have RIGHTS and can exercise them.  They do not have to put up with things on their OWN PRIVATE PROPERTY that they do not want to put up with. 

It is the same thing I saw over the pandemic where people feel that they can simply disregard a store's policies towards masks and social distancing.  They never stopped to consider that the store itself was private property.  Sure, it may be a public business, but it still the private property of the business itself.  It is NOT your Government property or anything else in that line.  Screaming at employees, abusing the others there, and other aggressive actions against them is not necessarily a right you are granted.

In addition, if you declare you hate their products or their store, level lawsuits, etc and they don't like you, as it IS their private property, I do not see why they should not be allowed to ban you from their property. 

I think this is more a property rights issue than anything else.  As long as it is their private property, I feel they should be allowed to do what they want (within reason of course, following the laws of whichever land or nation they are in) with their own private property under the hold of the business that possesses it.

I love that there are sites which allow us the freedom to discuss things (once again, normally within reason, but they allow a LOT of freedom in their with their discussions, such as ENWorld), but that doesn't mean we can just go willy nilly and do what we want with others property.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Eh. You’re not talking from a position of data. If you want to maintain that DTRPG has monopoly power over the market, you do that. But I’ll reiterate one last time, from the position of a publisher who actually sells into the market, that it doesn’t have, for the benefit of those reading.



On the contrary, I do have data: yours. It's just that we're defining the market in question differently, with you saying (if I'm understanding you correctly) that it involves all profits based on digital tabletop RPG products sales, whereas I'm talking about venues that stock (and immediately fulfill) pay-for-download products in perpetuity, as opposed to limited-time preorders that Kickstarter doesn't themselves fulfill.

In other words, we're not so much disagreeing as talking past each other.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> whereas I'm talking about venues that stock (and immediately) pay-for-download products in perpetuity, as opposed to limited-time preorders that Kickstarter doesn't personally fulfill.



That’s a meaningless subset of the market. Who cares? You could equally say “I’m just talking about companies with blue logos”.

Sure, I agree that you can define a subset of the market which proves your point, as can anybody. But your point just isn’t relevant or interesting to people actually in business in that market.



> In other words, we're not so much disagreeing as talking past each other.




No, we’re disagreeing. You’re wrong. You are not familiar with the TTRPG market, and you’re digging in despite that.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That’s a meaningless subset of the market. Who cares? You could equally say “I’m just talking about companies with blue logos”.
> 
> Sure, I agree that you can define a subset of the market which proves your point, as can anybody. But your point just isn’t relevant or interesting to people actually in business in that market.



I personally disagree that it's meaningless; it's certainly a _niche_ market, but I'm guessing that for publishers who, say, have a not-inconsiderable catalogue of products but haven't run a Kickstarter for any of them (which, if you look at how many publishers are on DTRPG, is more than a few) it's not an unimportant distinction.

On a semi-related note, I wanted to ask you something: I'm not sure if this applies to any of the Kickstarters that you've run, but for KS projects where digital fulfillment is handled by DTRPG, do they (that is, DTRPG) make any sort of profit from that?


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I personally disagree that it's meaningless; it's certainly a _niche_ market, but I'm guessing that for publishers who, say, have a not-inconsiderable catalogue of products but haven't run a Kickstarter for any of them (which, if you look at how many publishers are on DTRPG, is more than a few) it's not an unimportant distinction.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Jul 1, 2022)

No, it doesn't.


Alzrius said:


> Again, you don't need to be a monopoly to have monopoly power. If we go by the idea that "anyone who starts a storefront can compete," then there are no monopolies at all, ever, because anyone can potentially go into business against a much larger company. That's a nice theory, but it's not very useful in terms of reality.




There are several other outlets for said product, which I listed above. It takes marketing effort, but _you are not entitled to force another company to carry your product._ DTRPG is not a monopoly, there are many other avenues to market a product. DTRPG is not obligated in any way to take every product someone wants to sell. You're saying it is "close" or "just like" a monopoly is easily refuted.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> There are several other outlets for said product, which I listed above. It takes marketing effort, but _you are not entitled to force another company to carry your product._ DTRPG is not a monopoly, there are many other avenues to market a product. DTRPG is not obligated in any way to take every product someone wants to sell. You're saying it is "close" or "just like" a monopoly is easily refuted.



Those outlets don't reach the majority of the customer base, and I find myself doubtful that advertising can make up for missing out on such a large swathe of the potential market.

That said, there's an important distinction to be made here: it's not that anyone is forcing anyone else to do anything (I'm not sure how that would even work). Rather, it's that once monopoly power is acquired, the way DTRPG has acquired it (even if they're not a monopoly), they then have an ethical obligation to serve interests beyond their own, even if that's unenforceable.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 1, 2022)

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the process for selling a self-published RPG book on Amazon?


----------



## Umbran (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> In terms of raw dollar value, I have no doubt. But I meant only with regard to other digital storefronts;




But Morrus' point still stands - if that digital storefront model _isn't how RPG revenue is realized_ these days then DriveThruRPG doesn't have significant power over creators or the market. 

Being the tallest halfling doesn't make you a giant, in other words.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> once monopoly power is acquired, the way DTRPG has acquired it .



Just for those reading, I’ll quickly reiterate again that this statement is untrue, no matter how many times it is repeated in the face of contradictory information, and that as a premise, conclusions based on it are invalid.


----------



## Baron Opal II (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Those outlets don't reach the majority of the customer base, and I find myself doubtful that advertising can make up for missing out on such a large swathe of the potential market.



Irrelevant. You want to business with someone? Make an agreement, stand by it, and don't "defecate where you eat". You don't like the terms and conditions? Re-negotiate or find another venue.

The people that made poor toilet-to-kitchen choices have only themselves to blame.


----------



## Jer (Jul 1, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone know the process for selling a self-published RPG book on Amazon?



As far as I know the only POD that Amazon does is through their Kindle Direct program.  Everyone thinks of it as ebooks but they will do paperbacks and hardcovers POD.

(I don't know anyone who has used it for RPGs.  I do know some folks who have explored it for self publishing novels, which is how I even know it exists, but I think they went with other options in the end.)


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Umbran said:


> But Morrus' point still stands - if that digital storefront model _isn't how RPG revenue is realized_ these days then DriveThruRPG doesn't have significant power over creators or the market.



That's certainly true if you define the market as being digital products for tabletop RPGs, but insofar as this discussion goes I believe that there's merit in considering the narrower, more niche market that I mentioned previously, for the reasons noted before: there are many publishers with quite a few products who don't use Kickstarter.


Umbran said:


> Being the tallest halfling doesn't make you a giant, in other words.



In a land of liliputians it does.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 1, 2022)

Jer said:


> As far as I know the only POD that Amazon does is through their Kindle Direct program.  Everyone thinks of it as ebooks but they will do paperbacks and hardcovers POD.
> 
> (I don't know anyone who has used it for RPGs.  I do know some folks who have explored it for self publishing novels, which is how I even know it exists, but I think they went with other options in the end.)




The Basic Fantasy RPG is available in print via Amazon POD (it's also available via Lulu POD).


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Out of curiosity, does anyone know the process for selling a self-published RPG book on Amazon?



Yep!


Jer said:


> As far as I know the only POD that Amazon does is through their Kindle Direct program.  Everyone thinks of it as ebooks but they will do paperbacks and hardcovers POD.
> 
> (I don't know anyone who has used it for RPGs.  I do know some folks who have explored it for self publishing novels, which is how I even know it exists, but I think they went with other options in the end.)



We used to use it. The margins aren’t great and it’s a PITA to work with.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Just for those reading, I’ll quickly reiterate again that this statement is untrue, no matter how many times it is repeated in the face of contradictory information, and that as a premise, conclusions based on it are invalid.



I should likewise take a moment to refute this, as it's based on a different topic to what's being discussed in this thread (i.e. the context of online retail storefronts for pay-for-download products that are stocked in perpetuity).

In other words, we're not discussing all revenue regarding digital TTRPG products; we're discussing a particular type of sales venue.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 1, 2022)

Jer said:


> As far as I know the only POD that Amazon does is through their Kindle Direct program.  Everyone thinks of it as ebooks but they will do paperbacks and hardcovers POD.
> 
> (I don't know anyone who has used it for RPGs.  I do know some folks who have explored it for self publishing novels, which is how I even know it exists, but I think they went with other options in the end.)



Stave Jackson Games has a huge catalog of GURPS PODs available through Amazon.

www.sjgames.com/gurps/ondemand/


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Baron Opal II said:


> Irrelevant. You want to business with someone? Make an agreement, stand by it, and don't "defecate where you eat". You don't like the terms and conditions? Re-negotiate or find another venue.



No, I believe it's entirely relevant, and that when one party has vastly unequal power dynamics when compared to another, it's overly reductive to say it's just about making an agreement.


----------



## Jer (Jul 1, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> Stave Jackson Games has a huge catalog of GURPS PODs available through Amazon.
> 
> www.sjgames.com/gurps/ondemand/



That's interesting because I knew they did POD through DriveThru now as well - meaning they use both retailers as printers. I wonder what the difference in quality is between the two...

(Also I could have sworn that Steve Jackson only sold their stuff through Warehouse 23 at one point. I remember running across them on DriveThru and being a bit surprised that they were even there.)


----------



## Morrus (Jul 1, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> I should likewise take a moment to refute this, as it's based on a different topic to what's being discussed in this thread (i.e. the context of retail storefronts for pay-for-download products that are stocked in perpetuity).
> 
> In other words, we're not discussing all revenue regarding digital TTRPG products; we're discussing a particular type of sales venue.



No True Scotsman. 

You’ve been told you’re wrong and you’re attempting to frame the topic in a manner which makes you right.

At some point, you need to accept that sometimes people know more than you. And in this case, you’re digging in against somebody who has worked in this industry for 20 years and still insisting you’re right. I’m as close to an expert on this exact topic as there is in the world.

I know not only more than you about this, I know more than _most_ people about this. I’ve more titles on DTRPG than almost anybody in the industry. I’ve more successful Kickstarters under my belt than almost anybody in the industry. I have my own storefront.

You’re wrong. There’s no way around that. Just back down, man. This isn’t a topic you know about.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 1, 2022)

Jer said:


> That's interesting because I knew they did POD through DriveThru now as well - meaning they use both retailers as printers. I wonder what the difference in quality is between the two...




I've never used the Amazon option, so I can't comment on its quality.


Jer said:


> (Also I could have sworn that Steve Jackson only sold their stuff through Warehouse 23 at one point. I remember running across them on DriveThru and being a bit surprised that they were even there.)



That used to be the case, but at some point they figured they could increase their sales by expanding on other platforms.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 1, 2022)

Almost all kickstarters that deliver PDF files to me have been through Drivethru. I always imagined that there is some charge to the IP owners for those discount codes.

Enworld does have a large megaphone - this site. I think a large number of IP owners are much more dependent on DTRPG, but I also figure a lot of them have not seriously tried other ways.


----------



## Alzrius (Jul 1, 2022)

Morrus said:


> No True Scotsman.
> 
> You’ve been told you’re wrong and you’re attempting to frame the topic in a manner which makes you right.



That's the frame that was being discussed from the beginning though. I've never said that your point isn't valid, just that it's not the one that's being discussed in this conversation.


Morrus said:


> You’re wrong. There’s no way around that. Just back down, man.



You yourself granted the premise that I was making when you acknowledged that I was referring to what you called a "subset" of the market. The difference is that you think it's meaningless, and I pointed out that it isn't meaningless to the publishers for whom that subset is their entire business model. To which you...posted an emoji.

Again, I want to be absolutely clear: you're right that Kickstarter is by far the larger revenue-generator where digital TTRPG products as a whole are concerned. I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that's a different model than the one used by DriveThruRPG, Paizo, OpenGamingStore, and similar venues.

McDonald's and Domino's Pizza are both fast food places. But one is dine-in/carry-out, while the other is delivery. Saying "but they're both fast food, and one is much bigger than the other" is true, but if I'm just talking about delivery, that's not really relevant to what's being discussed.

(Though I suppose there might still be some dine-in Domino's places out there, maybe?)

*EDIT:* Having said that, I can see that tempers are beginning to flare, and I really do want this to remain a civil discussion. To that end, I'm going to voluntarily withdraw from this thread. I've made my points as clear as I can, and I believe that they have merit, but I don't want to contribute to getting the discussion locked. Hopefully no one comes away from this with any hard feelings, as I believe that different philosophies, opinions, and beliefs are good, as are talking about them publicly.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 1, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> Enworld does have a large megaphone - this site. I think a large number of IP owners are much more dependent on DTRPG



I also have the impression that Drivethru is very important to the many small publishers.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 1, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> I also have the impression that Drivethru is very important to the many small publishers.




Putting aside the whole monopoly discussion (which I think both sides have laid out their arguments for exhaustively). The big advantage of sites like OBS and other online sales platforms and other POD arrangements, is if you can scrape together enough money to cover the costs of the art, editing, etc; if you spend you budget wisely, you can put out something pretty easily. OBS also has a big advantage in term of giving you access to a large audience. When you first put up a book it is on the first page as a new release for a bit (which I find more helpful than buying banners or doing interviews: but that could be largely due to having a small marketing budget). And OBS is where most gamers seem to get their impression of what is out there and available. Just as an example, I sell print books elsewhere. So all my PDFs that are on Drivethru, can be purchased as print books on other platforms (but not on OBS itself). One of the most common questions I get is when we are going to release our games in print (because they see we have PDFs on OBS and assume if the prints are not also there, they must not exist). 

Something like Kickstarted is not anything I can comment on because I haven't used it myself. But it is a very different set up where you need to get enough initial backers (though I think the main advantage is many Publishers find they can generate more money for production value that way: and they basically know how many sales they have). 

Both models are clearly good for the hobby. Both allow smaller operations to compete more. They make publishing more accessible in a very niche industry. I think there is a valid question, because they are such important platforms, what 'oughts' there are in terms of what these companies should be avoiding and doing so they aren't abusing that position (but that isn't a legal question as much as a moral one, and we are going to have to accept people arrive at different conclusions about that: as they do in most debates about ethics and morality because you often are trying to balance competing values, competing rights, etc).


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 1, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why do these guys always insist on doing videos shirtless?



I have no idea. It's the reason I hyperlinked instead of just embedding the video though, lol.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 2, 2022)

To follow up on Raggi's long and weird video...

It seems he takes issue specifically with:


> Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases, may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; *overt political agendas or views;* depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material *without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.*




Mainly the bolded text from what I can tell because what is considered an "overtly political agenda or view" can vary wildly from person to person and also current day politics can serve as important inspiration for artistic works. Also, this probably wont be an issue with left-leaning agendas or views.

The other bolded part he takes issue with because it allows the company to play favorites by handing out "free passes" and muddies what is and what isn't allowed. And how is this suppose to work? Does he call them up every time he writes a sentence he feels might be "edgy"?

As for the rest, he feels what falls under these guidelines will certainly change overtime, and retroactively pulling product to "stay current" is a terrible idea.

He then goes on to explain why the issue is especially personal because growing up the only way marginalized voices were heard was through independent media with independent distribution.

There's a bit more, but I think this covers it. Hope it contributes to the discussion in some way.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 2, 2022)

Jer said:


> As far as I know the only POD that Amazon does is through their Kindle Direct program.  Everyone thinks of it as ebooks but they will do paperbacks and hardcovers POD.
> 
> (I don't know anyone who has used it for RPGs.  I do know some folks who have explored it for self publishing novels, which is how I even know it exists, but I think they went with other options in the end.)



It is wonderful for novels. I've been using their services since 2012. 

It would not work well for RPGs, as the formatting options are not really there.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 2, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> Why would anyone care what you would have to say, if being dismissive of other’s views is your motif?



Venger is an intentionally inflammatory troll with neo-nazi leanings. 


Myrdin Potter said:


> Update 41: Rainbow Crystal Utopia · Cha'alt: Chartreuse Shadows
> 
> 
> Normally, I might have used Kickstarter to fund my latest Cha'alt adventure.  Because I haven't fulfilled all the rewards (I'm stilling waiting on a shipping date, should have more news next week), KS has told me I can't run another crowdfunding campaign on their platform. I probably should have...
> ...



Okay? Who said it was?


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 2, 2022)

Sacrosanct said:


> Why do these guys always insist on doing videos shirtless?




Aww... I wish you hadn't said this. I had to look. Now I need some sort of eye bleach to get that image out of my head.


----------



## darjr (Jul 2, 2022)

I turned away from the video... egad!

What was the green screen for?

Wait... do. not. tell. me.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 2, 2022)

darjr said:


> I turned away from the video... egad!
> 
> What was the green screen for?
> 
> Wait... do. not. tell. me.




I also wondered what the green screen was for. I assumed it was just where he put his swastikas for his Only Fans. But now I have to assume it's for that and... other... things.


----------



## grankless (Jul 2, 2022)

So glad that all the dudes who are mostly famous for being chuds are coming out to oppose this policy.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 2, 2022)

@grankless thanks, I learned a new word - chud. heheheh.


----------



## darjr (Jul 2, 2022)

grankless said:


> So glad that all the dudes who are mostly famous for being chuds are coming out to oppose this policy.



Kinda leaves little wiggle room doesn’t it?


----------



## South by Southwest (Jul 2, 2022)

Are we now talking about wiggly chuds in this thread? I don't why, but that sounds.....disturbing.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 2, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Venger is an intentionally inflammatory troll with neo-nazi leanings.



Dismiss other views and call them Nazis.

I went to his blog site. More praise for them approving the recent one that was pulled to be examined. Found their review fair and reasonable. And the staff professional.

I have found his marketing persona childish but a decent amount of his actual RPG work to be interesting and really in the gonzo spirit.


----------



## MGibster (Jul 2, 2022)

Lanefan said:


> Which to me seems much the same as companies attempting to suppress bad reviews (even if such reviews are warranted) be it by deleting them, denying service to those who post them, or even in rare cases issuing groundless legal threats and-or C&Ds; all of which makes the entire review system suspect at best and near-fraudulent at worst. It's simply corporations trying to control what people say about them, and this seems to me like more of the same.
> 
> A corporation is not a person and does not have feelings, and thus in theory cannot take offense over what someone says/writes about it unless it crosses the legal line into libel and-or defamation. We have courts for that, and due process.




It's odd that you would argue in one paragraph that a corporation is "trying to control" what people say and in the next paragraph argue that a corporation can't have its feelings hurt.  In the first paragraph you treat the corporation as if it's a person and in the next you deny that its a person.  Which is fine, a corporation is a ficticious person for legal convenience, but odd.  I think we all know that a corporation can't really feel anything because it's not a real person just like we know it can't really do something for the same reason.  But a corporation is made up of people, some of whom might take offense.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 2, 2022)

James Raggi is an odd duck for sure, but I think most of us OSR fans have at least one of his books on our shelves...


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 2, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> I also wondered what the green screen was for. I assumed it was just where he put his swastikas for his Only Fans. But now I have to assume it's for that and... other... things.



This is an exaggeration right? I don't recall him ever being a racist...


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 2, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> This is an exaggeration right? I don't recall him ever being a racist...



Second person to call others Nazis in this thread. I called the other on it and they blocked me.

Tiresome - don’t like them, must be Nazis. 

There are a whole bunch of people that at least market that they are at different extremes of views (hard to figure out if this is just an attempt at marketing or their real personalities shining through).

Raggi got caught up in the Zac S. debacle and is a target now. He has consistently been advocating for the right to publish some what edgy (sexist/overly sexual) material for as long as I have seen him as a publisher.

I agree that OBS “overtly political” wording is pretty out there, but they basically are saying don’t make it easy to drag us into your political fights and don’t be so gross that it is embarrassing to carry your work.

There is nothing that says this is for any specific spectrum of political speech. 

I can see how come they don’t want that type of attention directed at them. Waste of resources when Twitter warriors get riled up and start mass reporting content. 

I have found that DTRPG has always leaned towards being more permissive than less permissive with the mature category.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 2, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Those outlets don't reach the majority of the customer base, and I find myself doubtful that advertising can make up for missing out on such a large swathe of the potential market.



MCDM seems to be doing fine selling through their own storefront without using DTRPG. And that's a dude who started doing Youtube videos and then publishing stuff based on the thoughts and ideas from those videos, and expanded from there. There's nothing Matt Colville has done that couldn't be done by someone else with the same skills and talents.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 2, 2022)

Staffan said:


> MCDM seems to be doing fine selling through their own storefront without using DTRPG. And that's a dude who started doing Youtube videos and then publishing stuff based on the thoughts and ideas from those videos, and expanded from there. There's nothing Matt Colville has done that couldn't be done by someone else with the same skills and talents.




Just something to consider here (and I this isn't so much about monopolies and OBS but just making sure people have a clear sense of what is viable should they want to get into RPG publishing): very few people have Matt Colville's natural charisma on camera, his reach and audience, and success on a platform like youtube. Those are certainly things people do have, but those are some of the major reasons he can  operate with his own store front (if I recall he essentially already had built up a potential customer base with his channel). And kudos to him. He is very talented and insightful. But if you just leap into publishing like that, and all you have is some initial funding and maybe a youtube channel, that isn't an outcome most people should expect. For most people having that kind of reach and audience on youtube or a blog is going to be hard to reach and maintain. The marketing side is probably the hardest part of RPG publishing after design itself.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Just something to consider here (and I this isn't so much about monopolies and OBS but just making sure people have a clear sense of what is viable should they want to get into RPG publishing): very few people have Matt Colville's natural charisma on camera, his reach and audience, and success on a platform like youtube. Those are certainly things people do have, but those are some of the major reasons he can  operate with his own store front (if I recall he essentially already had built up a potential customer base with his channel). And kudos to him. He is very talented and insightful. But if you just leap into publishing like that, and all you have is some initial funding and maybe a youtube channel, that isn't an outcome most people should expect. For most people having that kind of reach and audience on youtube or a blog is going to be hard to reach and maintain. The marketing side is probably the hardest part of RPG publishing after design itself.



Sure. It's harder. And if you're not Matt Colville*, DTRPG can help you reach more people. But they are not *obligated* to. It is clearly possible to reach success outside of the DTRPG ecosystem which makes it hard to argue that they have any sort of "monopoly power".

* Also if you *are* Matt Colville. I'm sure he could reach more people via DTRPG, but perhaps not enough of them to accept their terms.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 2, 2022)

Staffan said:


> Sure. It's harder. And if you're not Matt Colville*, DTRPG can help you reach more people. But they are not *obligated* to. It is clearly possible to reach success outside of the DTRPG ecosystem which makes it hard to argue that they have any sort of "monopoly power".
> 
> * Also if you *are* Matt Colville. I'm sure he could reach more people via DTRPG, but perhaps not enough of them to accept their terms.



Like I said, I think the monopoly debate has run its course. I’ve put my two cents on that one and people have weighed in with alternate positions. I don’t see much value in making the same points again. I said this not to bring up that debate again but do people understand the realities of achieving what Colville has (mainly for thosecontemplating jumping into Publudhing).


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 2, 2022)

Why are we giving so much oxygen to people protect abusers that have worked for them (Raggi) and have alt-right and white supremecist associations and leanings (Satanis), and think they speak for the OSR, causing many nerds to associate those behaviors much too strongly with the OSR as it is?


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 2, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Why are we giving so much oxygen to people protect abusers that have worked for them (Raggi) and have alt-right and white supremecist associations and leanings (Satanis), and think they speak for the OSR, causing many nerds to associate those behaviors much too strongly with the OSR as it is?



As someone who buys Lamentation products: because not everyone is into boycotting art just because the artist is a flawed jerk?

Using your logic, Spotify would be 10% is current size, haha.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 2, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> very few people have Matt Colville's natural charisma on camera, his reach and audience, and success on a platform like youtube.



Well, aside from the personal aspects, most of that is stuff he built over a period of years. He also didn't have his reach and audience, and success on a platform like youtube at first. Don't mistake the product of hard work for mere luck.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 2, 2022)

Morrus said:


> Well, aside from the personal aspects, most of that is stuff he built over a period of years. He also didn't have his reach and audience, and success on a platform like youtube at first. Don't mistake the product of hard work for mere luck.




To be clear, I wasn't reducing his success to luck. I just was making the point that there is a lot behind a success like that.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 2, 2022)

The question being asked is about supposed “alt right leanings” etc. The question is - where do you draw the line on not carrying vs. not buying. 

I don’t buy Venger’s really weak attempts at satire because I think they are not interesting RPG material and based on other similar things he has done they are written at like a 10 year old level. Plus the persona around it turns me off.

So I don’t buy it. My choice.

Campaigning to make them unavailable at all on one of the big platforms? Not going to agree with that.

And OBS (brother of original white wolf guy) has always been willing to be pretty broad in what they carry. They just don’t want increased an unprofitable hassle directed at them.


----------



## doctorbadwolf (Jul 2, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> As someone who buys Lamentation products: because not everyone is into boycotting art just because the artist is a flawed jerk?
> 
> Using your logic, Spotify would be 10% is current size, haha.



Feel free to break down what “logic” you think I’m proposing that leads to people not listening to music because the artist sucks. 

Meanwhile, “giving oxygen to” does not mean “consuming media made by”. For that, I’d have said something that actually indicates that.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 2, 2022)

doctorbadwolf said:


> Meanwhile, “giving oxygen to” does not mean “consuming media made by”. For that, I’d have said something that actually indicates that.



Oh, I guess I misunderstood, haha?

So consuming media of bad people okay, just don't talk about them around you?


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 2, 2022)

It is not that “xxx” does not like it. If they don’t like it, no one can. For reasons. And xxx will keep talking about it and point attention towards what they don’t like. Which is most of the point why a few people try that silly marketing style.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 3, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> This is an exaggeration right? I don't recall him ever being a racist...



 That video is the first time I ever heard of the guy. 

And since he seems to be motivated to defend a neo-nazi troll I feel free to mock him accordingly. He wants to avoid being associated with neo-nazis he should be more judicious about whom he leaps to defend.

Now if I wanted to be really petty and needlessly personal I would have said something about a misshapen potato with a greasy mullet. But I didn't. I took the high road.

Side bar: so, DTRPG's policy is basically a response to actions carried out by someone who actually calls himself Venger Satanis. I mean, like, in public. Even at the age of 12 I would have considered that name too embarrassing to use for anything  except a comedy villain sidekick. But this numpty uses it in the real world...


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 3, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> The question being asked is about supposed “alt right leanings” etc. The question is - where do you draw the line on not carrying vs. not buying.



I ignore the political leanings of people whose sole purpose in life is to entertain me, be they actors, directors, artists, musicians, or RPG material creators.

I'll never meet any of them, nor do I want to meet them. 

A good example for me is Zweihander/Flames of Freedom. The prime author of that material is not a person I respect. 

But the game system is excellent, and I run it how I feel it should be run, throwing out or ignoring anything I do not like. I know that the three pdfs I've purchased will not materially affect his net worth. 

So I really don't see a need for a line.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 3, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> That video is the first time I ever heard of the guy.
> 
> And since he seems to be motivated to defend a neo-nazi troll I feel free to mock him accordingly. He wants to avoid being associated with neo-nazis he should be more judicious about whom he leaps to defend.
> 
> ...



You don’t know who Raggi is, but you immediately call him a Neo-Nazi troll. Because he was defending himself, so you know he is a Neo-Nazi troll.

I don’t think he even mentioned the “hostile marketing” policy. His video was on the need permission in advance to state personal views in public policy.

Raggi has been publishing, hit and miss, a wide variety of new voices in RPG writing and when a lot of official modules were pablum he had a much more adult product out there. Not all the products hit the mark, but a lot of his writers have been quite good.

You also went right to body shaming. Always a great way to prove a point.

Now, I agree with you that the name of the other person you took a swipe at (Vengir) seems pretty juvenile to me, but my taste is not everyones’.

Based on Venger’s marketing posts over the years, I am sure he likes the extra attention. I can assure you they he is not the first or only one playing the “we got censored” game. To say the new hostile marketing policy is all due to him I am sure makes him quite pleased with himself.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 3, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I ignore the political leanings of people whose sole purpose in life is to entertain me, be they actors, directors, artists, musicians, or RPG material creators.
> 
> I'll never meet any of them, nor do I want to meet them.
> 
> ...



I think you certainly do have a line. I know of very, very few people that would want to open an RPG work and be confronted with something like child pornography.

My personal views on politics and art/entertainment I enjoy are also pretty broad and there are lots of writers that I probably would not like but I enjoy their books quite a bit.

I think that the hostile marketing policy from OBS is pretty much common sense - don’t insult us and cause a fuss just because we need to look at your work.

The policy on conduct is pretty badly written but the spirit is obvious. If you want to be extreme in your views in public and draw negative attention to yourself so the risk that it spill over to us is there, then don’t be surprised if we kick you off our platform.

My actions as a buyer just effect me. The people that run larger selling sites have a different task in front of them.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 3, 2022)

Did Daniel Fox get up to something? I hadn't heard anything...


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 3, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Did Daniel Fox get up to something? I hadn't heard anything...



I am only aware of his over-the-top promotion of his games that has put many people offside.


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 3, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> His video was on the need permission in advance to state personal views in public policy.



I personally have never worried about having to ask permission before stating personal views about public policy. Because I figure my views aren't abhorrent enough to get booted from forums such as this if I stated them.

For example if I talked about support for women to choose to get an abortion, or voting rights, or support for black lives matters and I ended up being banned from the platform I was on at the time? That's on the platform, not me, and I'm better not being there.

So when someone frets about such things enough to create a video? You have to wonder... what do they really want to say (or publish).


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 3, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> I think you certainly do have a line. I know of very, very few people that would want to open an RPG work and be confronted with something like child pornography.



Yeah, but that is a matter covered by criminal law.  Not to mention by allowing onto a site would make the owners of the site criminally liable. That's hardly in line with the discussion at had.


Myrdin Potter said:


> My personal views on politics and art/entertainment I enjoy are also pretty broad and there are lots of writers that I probably would not like but I enjoy their books quite a bit.
> 
> I think that the hostile marketing policy from OBS is pretty much common sense - don’t insult us and cause a fuss just because we need to look at your work.



I agree.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 3, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> So when someone frets about such things enough to create a video? You have to wonder... what do they really want to say (or publish).



People create videos all the time; YouTube and TikTok are full of them. There are people who have scores of videos how to repair home appliances, or discussing the variables of the Remington Model 700 over the years, for example. 

In this day and age, creating a video really isn't proof of anything but a certain about of technical skill.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 3, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> I ignore the political leanings of people whose sole purpose in life is to entertain me,



Just for the record, nobody’s sole purpose in life is to entertain you.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 3, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Did Daniel Fox get up to something? I hadn't heard anything...



I know not everyone is happy with him getting a certain archive of "free" RPG PDFs taken down. Think Metallica vs Napster.

Some think this goes against his Communist/Marxist (I really don't remember which one he claimed) principals. And for others, the fact he makes money off stolen rules further makes him a hypocrite.

To be clear, *I *don't have these issues; just what I've seen on other forums. I think Zweihänder is an amazing product.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 3, 2022)

Alzrius said:


> Strictly speaking, I've noted before that I don't think they _are_ a monopoly, but rather have monopoly _power_, which is different (e.g. you don't need to control 100% of a market to have a massive influence over it). Other outlets certainly exist, but when publishers reach something like 85% of their customers via that one platform (to use a number that one publisher estimated), that makes the presence of alternative venues a lot less important in reality than they might otherwise look on paper.



Extant case law in the US shows that 70% is plenty for being declared in violation of the monopoly laws... See also Microsoft's being declared an effective monopoly on OS's with (at the time) about 70% market share, not counting their chunk of investment into their largest competitor at the time (Apple). So I think of monopoly being functionally the power itself, not the absolute monopoly of, say, Ma Bell in the 60's.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 3, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> I think Zweihänder is an amazing product and could care less Fox is a jerk, haha.



Could we not use this forum for namecalling, please. Thanks.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 3, 2022)

DrunkonDuty said:


> That video is the first time I ever heard of the guy.
> 
> And since he seems to be motivated to defend a neo-nazi troll I feel free to mock him accordingly. He wants to avoid being associated with neo-nazis he should be more judicious about whom he leaps to defend.



No idea who you're referring to, but if its Venger:







DrunkonDuty said:


> Side bar: so, DTRPG's policy is basically a response to actions carried out by someone who actually calls himself Venger Satanis. I mean, like, in public. Even at the age of 12 I would have considered that name too embarrassing to use for anything  except a comedy villain sidekick. But this numpty uses it in the real world...



Just wanted to point out Venger is taken from the D&D Cartoon series. I really don't think he's trying to be serious.


----------



## darjr (Jul 3, 2022)

Oh Venger. Like RPGPundit is also saying things like that. They have supported each other and defended each other and may still be doing so. I think they show up in each other’s videos too, didn’t they?

But as to Nazis and rpgpundit, I’m not sure I trust what he says anymore. 


Same with Satanis, actually.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 3, 2022)

darjr said:


> Oh Venger. Like RPGPundit is also saying things like that. They have supported each other and defended each other and may still be doing so. I think they show up in each other’s videos too, didn’t they?




Funny, from the Twitter thread I found RPGPundit was one of the ones giving him a hard time:




Maybe he's learned better since that last quote?


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 3, 2022)

Back to Drive-Thru's new guidelines...

I'm playing through the old Baulder's Gate games for the first time and realizing it breaks a few of the rules and would be considered unsuitable. Kind of funny considering the popularity of it.


----------



## darjr (Jul 3, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Funny, from the Twitter thread I found RPGPundit was one of the ones giving him a hard time:
> View attachment 252567
> 
> Maybe he's learned better since that last quote?



I sure would cheer that. But I think you'd be foolish to believe him now.

Has he ever said he's abandoned the idea he'd gladly march with Nazis?


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 3, 2022)

darjr said:


> I sure would cheer that. But I think you'd be foolish to believe him now.
> 
> Has he ever said he's abandoned the idea he'd gladly march with Nazis?



No idea, but I don't think it makes him a Nazi?

Like it's okay to be pro-Ukraine despite the issues of the Azov Regiment right?

Not trying to come up with a "gotcha", legitimately been thinking about what you posted and deciding if that's really the truth of things...

Thankfully this isn't something I have to worry about on a personal basis thanks to never knowing an actual Nazi...


----------



## darjr (Jul 3, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> No idea, but I don't think it makes him a Nazi?
> 
> Like it's okay to be pro-Ukraine despite the issues of the Azov Regiment right?
> 
> Not trying to come up with a "gotcha", legitimately been thinking about what you posted and deciding if that's really the truth of things...



Here, that screen cap is from this video. It’s long and it’s intro is looong. And I don’t have any waypoints to give you on it. But I think it’d be worth your time.


And I do mean it. I do not trust pundit or satanis at all, but if they abandoned being nice to Nazis I’d cheer that.

Still I’d not trust them after nor want anything to do with either if it was just that.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 3, 2022)

This thread doesn’t seem to be about DTRPG any more and more about debating who is and isn’t a Nazi. Either steer it back on topic or it’ll get closed. Thanks folks!


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 3, 2022)

That is the problem with the politics rule that was posted.

You can post a very strong free speech belief and then get pegged as a Nazi afterwards even if that is not what you said.

There are a lot of people whose views I strongly disagree with or hate. In the very narrow context of free speech, I would say the government should not censor them. I may want to punch them, though.

To say I do not want the government to shut them down does not mean I am one of them. The inability to hold two thoughts that do not contradict each other at the same time and argue in absolutes is why such discussions in the internet are tiresome.

I was in the punk scene in the 80’s and I know how I reacted to Neo-Nazi skinheads then (not all skinheads were that but some were). My views are the same today as they were there.

I really feel sorry at times for the mods here because so many of us don’t dial back and disengage and argue in ridiculous ways …


----------



## thirdkingdom (Jul 3, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> No idea who you're referring to, but if its Venger:
> 
> View attachment 252548
> 
> Just wanted to point out Venger is taken from the D&D Cartoon series. I really don't think he's trying to be serious.




Venger Satanis claims to be the founder and high priest of the Cult of Cthulhu. Over a decade ago he was banned from one of the larger rpg discussion forums for casting spells on users. He may have chosen the name "Venger" as a tongue-in-cheek nod to the cartoon, but he's either been running a decade-long prank on _everyone_ or he's serious. My bet is on the latter.


----------



## Sacrosanct (Jul 3, 2022)

Back on topic, for some transparency, there are my sales #s from DTRPG.  Highlighted are products released in the past 6-10 months, others are as old as 5-8 years (and several have been discontinued for a long time).  These are the only ones where people paid money, so any $0 pay what you want, or at-cost discount links are not included.   Needless to say, while none of these are #s to brag home to mom about, they are fairly significant for an indie-hobby publisher.  If I got kicked off DTRPG, while I could use Amazon or other sources, it would be a hit to me.  So no wonder why Venger is complaining.  The thing is, is that he pretty much asked for it by his behavior.  Sort of how LaNasa asked for WotC to go after him by suing them.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 4, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Funny, from the Twitter thread I found RPGPundit was one of the ones giving him a hard time:
> View attachment 252567
> 
> Maybe he's learned better since that last quote?




The Pundit tends to classify everyone he does not like or who disagrees with him harshly, applying buzzwords with great abandon.


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 4, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Back to Drive-Thru's new guidelines...
> 
> I'm playing through the old Baulder's Gate games for the first time and realizing it breaks a few of the rules and would be considered unsuitable. Kind of funny considering the popularity of it.



That is the main problem for sites like Driv-Thru: RPGs tend to to be violent (Very violent in many cases), and have stereotypes built in that can be objectionable if examined too literally.

And that's _before _GMs get their hands on them. A perfect example: Flames of Freedom is filled with snippets urging the GM to run a campaign with a gender-fluid society, racial equality, and specifically prohibits GMs from involving slavery in their campaign. Tuesday my FoF campaign starts, and besides ripping out the secret societies and occult (because the players have access to the core book) and replacing them with my stuff, my campaign will be built on the historical 1776, warts and all.

What my _players _do in the campaign will certainly be even worse, based on PC backgrounds and what happened in the Zweihander campaign we just finished.

Gaming is a hobby where there are few hard-and-fast rules in practice across the spectrum. It lacks the had-and-fast rules that characterize other hobbies, such as bowling, softball, etc.


----------



## mythago (Jul 4, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> That is the problem with the politics rule that was posted.
> 
> You can post a very strong free speech belief and then get pegged as a Nazi afterwards even if that is not what you said.




It's not a "very strong free speech belief" to argue that a private company, merely by virtue of being popular or successful, is morally obligated to continue do business with vendors who attack the company's financial well-being by publicly disparaging them - even if the public attacks on that company are untruthful or are intended to gin up attacks on social media.


----------



## Myrdin Potter (Jul 4, 2022)

mythago said:


> It's not a "very strong free speech belief" to argue that a private company, merely by virtue of being popular or successful, is morally obligated to continue do business with vendors who attack the company's financial well-being by publicly disparaging them - even if the public attacks on that company are untruthful or are intended to gin up attacks on social media.



There were more updates to their policy than just the hostile marketing one. My statement is in regard to their policy on posting strong political views in public without their written permission.

It has zero to do with attacking them or encouraging others to attack them.


----------



## mythago (Jul 4, 2022)

Myrdin Potter said:


> There were more updates to their policy than just the hostile marketing one. My statement is in regard to their policy on posting strong political views in public without their written permission.
> 
> It has zero to do with attacking them or encouraging others to attack them.




Where in their policy does it say “if you post strong political views in public without DTRPG’s written permission we may kick you off DTRPG”? 

I find it interesting that the deep concerns about free speech gloss right over OBE’s review policy, which prohibits anyone connected professionally to the author from leaving a review (even if they disclose that relationship).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 4, 2022)

mythago said:


> Where in their policy does it say “if you post strong political views in public without DTRPG’s written permission we may kick you off DTRPG”?




That isn't the exact phrasing but the portion of the guidelines around this that people are discussing is actually from a guideline that I think has been in place for a bit (I am not sure when it went up; I could be wrong on the timing, especially since I haven't released something on there in two years and am a bit rusty and behind). But it is part of the product guidelines (which is linked to in the Publisher Conduct Guidelines page on Drivethru): 



> *Product Content
> 
> Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases*, may contain racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; *overt political agendas or views*; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material *without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.*


----------



## Morrus (Jul 4, 2022)

That refers specifically to material promoting a title on DTRPG. It doesn't mean, as some people seem to be interpreting it, that you can't post political views anywhere. I think it could be phrased a little more clearly, but I feel the intention is clear.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 4, 2022)

Morrus said:


> That refers specifically to material promoting a title on DTRPG. It doesn't mean, as some people seem to be interpreting it, that you can't post political views anywhere. I think it could be phrased a little more clearly, but I feel the intention is clear.




I tend to agree with your interpretation. I just posted it so that the relevant text was there (sometimes in these discussions people start debating other peoples interpretations of texts or a posts, so I thought it would be beneficial to repost the original text). I do think it is a little unclear as you say, and I think there is a gray area here as well. You could argue for example that a publishers blog page is always promoting books they have on Drivethru (i.e. any time you post about anything it is feeding the overall marketing) or that their twitter account is always doing so, and if they interpreted their own guidelines very broadly, it might be applies to any post a publisher makes on a platform that is part of their marketing efforts. But I don't see any evidence that this is how they are intending the guidelines to be used. I think it would be good if they revised it though for clarity. 

Also because I think a little mercy on this one would be a good idea. I can easily foresee something like a publisher making an appeal to a political issue that heats up and they feel emotional over, and then mention one of their books or say they will be donating all proceedings from that book to a cause (we saw that with some recent events in US politics for example). I wouldn't want to see those individuals punished by Drivethru for that. 

I think the bigger problem with this one is it basically says you can't make an overtly political RPG. I am not sure that is a good thing for anyone (one any side of the political aisle). Because it isn't just about the marketing: it says the work itself in the intro. Personally I am not into RPGs that are trying to advance political agendas. Just my opinion and preference. But I think that is a valid form of expression in the medium and probably important to a lot of creators and fans to have. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing this, so maybe it is just weirdly phrased, and not really the guidelines. But if that is the case, again, I think changing the wording would go a long way to help clarify what is allowed.


----------



## mythago (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> That isn't the exact phrasing but the portion of the guidelines around this that people are discussing is actually from a guideline that I think has been in place for a bit (I am not sure when it went up; I could be wrong on the timing, especially since I haven't released something on there in two years and am a bit rusty and behind). But it is part of the product guidelines (which is linked to in the Publisher Conduct Guidelines page on Drivethru):




And those product guidelines don't say "you cannot post anything political in public without our written permission".  They don't say anything remotely like it. They are referring to what you can put up on DTRPG.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think the bigger problem with this one is it basically says you can't make an overtly political RPG. I am not sure that is a good thing for anyone (one any side of the political aisle). Because it isn't just about the marketing: it says the work itself in the intro. Personally I am not into RPGs that are trying to advance political agendas. Just my opinion and preference. But I think that is a valid form of expression in the medium and probably important to a lot of creators and fans to have. It doesn't seem like they are enforcing this, so maybe it is just weirdly phrased, and not really the guidelines. But if that is the case, again, I think changing the wording would go a long way to help clarify what is allowed.




No, it says that DTRPG may refuse to give you a venue to sell RPGs that are, in management's view, "overtly political". It doesn't say a thing about what games you can make; it doesn't prohibit someone from posting their 'non-political' games for sale on DTRPG and selling their 'overtly political' games elsewhere, like at itch.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

mythago said:


> No, it says that DTRPG may refuse to give you a venue to sell RPGs that are, in management's view, "overtly political". It doesn't say a thing about what games you can make; it doesn't prohibit someone from posting their 'non-political' games for sale on DTRPG and selling their 'overtly political' games elsewhere, like at itch.



this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know


----------



## Gradine (Jul 5, 2022)

The problem here is the phrase "politics", and who we let define it. Some refer to calls for or acts of inclusion "politics"; other's call hatred and bigotry and other acts of exclusion "politics". Both are categorically wrong. The former is basic human decency and latter are garbage individuals not fit for polite society. Neither is "political" unless we accept that all things personal are political, which may very well be true but it makes cries against "politics" all the more ineffectual.

I oppose a blanket ban on "politics" because it is moral cowardice, a both-sides-ist Rorschach test masquerading as a stand. I think there are plenty of appropriate and interesting ways to address politics (even modern politics!) without creating anything objectionable (or at least not objectionable by non-trash individuals), and if we entertain that inclusivity OR bigotry are politics then it is the height of hypocrisy to declare its opposite apolitical. Either both or neither are.

Quite frankly the only truly moral stance is an acceptance (if not outright embrace) of inclusion and a fully throated and consistently upheld exclusion of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry. The only truly moral society is one that gives all those who go out of their way to attack, belittle, dismiss, and dehumanize others merely for who they are, absolutely no quarter. No platform to publish or share their toxic views. No where to feel comfortable or supported in their barbaric treatment of others. No safe spaces. No peace. Never for them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

mythago said:


> And those product guidelines don't say "you cannot post anything political in public without our written permission".  They don't say anything remotely like it. They are referring to what you can put up on DTRPG.




I didn’t say it did. I posted it for clarity so you would have the text to work off instead of the other poster’s synopsis

But do note the portion at the beginning where it talks about marketing (which would include marketing off of DTRPG for products that are up on Drivethru)


----------



## Jd Smith1 (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know



You waffle a great deal.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Jd Smith1 said:


> You waffle a great deal.




Not sure where you are getting this. I don't believe I am waffling at all. I was speaking very generally in casual language, the intent of my words was misunderstood, so I clarified. When I said "You can't make an overtly political RPG" I think it is obvious I didn't mean that OBS is going to reach out and stop you if you make one and publish it elsewhere. But that you can't make one and have it go up on OBS (which I think because of OBS's position in the market, if this rule were strictly enforced, would mean very few overtly political RPGs would be made). Of course there is the question of how strictly this rule is itself enforced. Which it doesn't seem to be. Personally I think a rule against overtly political RPGs is probably not a good rule (especially with the whole one report gets a book automatically taken down for two weeks thing).

I think with the guidelines in questions there is a lot of room to debate what the terms actually mean because some of them of the language is very broad and there appears to be a gulf between the exact wording of the guidelines and the way the guidelines have been enforced.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> this is what I meant: that their guidelines say you can’t put up an overtly political RPG on drivethru without their express written permission. Obviously you can make whatever game you want abd sell elsewhere but in terms of what the policy says regarding their site, it appears to preclude overtly political rpgs. Now note what I stated after that: they don’t seem to be enforcing this rule literally, so I tend to think Morrus’ interpretation is correct: it’s just oddly worded or unclear. Still clarity of language if that is the case would be good I think so publishers know



The interesting part is that it implies you CAN get permission.

And Wizards has gotten said permission... the A series modules (Consolidated version: _Against the Slave Lords_) from AD&D are available via DTRPG.
Triple Ace has, too, with _Ubiquity Guide to Elite Nazi Units_.
I can't even see the produt page of Scorched Urf Studios' _Black Tentacle: Chastity & Depravity_. (Nor do I want to.)
Jim Lot dba LotFP has a lot of adult and questionable art on DTRPG.

Griefers like Venger are apparently unwilling to play ball and agree to content warnings &/or restricted listing, preferring to stir the excrement stew.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> The interesting part is that it implies you CAN get permission.
> 
> And Wizards has gotten said permission... the A series modules (Consolidated version: _Against the Slave Lords_) from AD&D are available via DTRPG.
> Triple Ace has, too, with _Ubiquity Guide to Elite Nazi Units_.
> ...




I don't believe the content warnings of the Wizards products has to do with the guidelines (I believe those arose out of a series of discussions around content in their older material online and that WOTC voluntarily put up the content warning in response to fans online: possible I am wrong here but that is my memory)). Being available doesn't mean permission was given. It just means it hasn't been taken down due to a report or due to OBS enforcing that element of the guidelines. I suppose it is possible companies have put in requests and received permission. But what you are seeing in most of these discussions is confusion among publishers around how narrowly these guidelines are enforced (this is why some people have suggested OBS providing a list of products that have been taken down). As written it would seem to mean to put such products up, you would need permission. But as Morrus and others have pointed to, the language doesn't really seem to match what their intentions are with the guidelines and lots of publishers have put up content that hasn't been taken down that might, if you strictly and literally applied the guidelines.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> I can't even see the produt page of Scorched Urf Studios' _Black Tentacle: Chastity & Depravity_. (Nor do I want to.)
> Jim Lot dba LotFP has a lot of adult and questionable art on DTRPG.
> 
> Griefers like Venger are apparently unwilling to play ball and agree to content warnings &/or restricted listing, preferring to stir the excrement stew.




Restricted listing is a whole other matter. That is a judgement call on the part of the publisher, and a pretty gray area. If you don't restrict something that ought to be for adult content, it can come down and have to be put on the restricted list. But that ins't really what this discussion concerning the guidelines is about. 

With the adult stuff they have pretty clear advice to help companies navigate that (because sometimes you put something out that isn't adult but maybe deals with more mature themes and you are on the fence about it). 

This is their guidelines on the adult filter: 



> Caveat: "Adult" Setting​Because the OneBookShelf sites attract customers of a wide variety of ages and backgrounds, not all products will be suitable for all customers at all times. Customers may be shopping from computers in public areas, or the customers themselves may be young people. In these (and possibly other) cases, certain products with mature themes are inappropriate.
> 
> OneBookShelf has provided an "Adult" filter which will block that material from the view of any customers who do not opt-in for mature content. Publishers have the responsibility to mark their products as "Adult" when appropriate, using the check box near the bottom of the product entry/editing form.
> 
> ...


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I don't believe the content warnings of the Wizards products has to do with the guidelines (I believe those arose out of a series of discussions around content in their older material online and that WOTC voluntarily put up the content warning in response to fans online: possible I am wrong here but that is my memory)). Being available doesn't mean permission was given. It just means it hasn't been taken down due to a report or due to OBS enforcing that element of the guidelines. I suppose it is possible companies have put in requests and received permission. But what you are seeing in most of these discussions is confusion among publishers around how narrowly these guidelines are enforced (this is why some people have suggested OBS providing a list of products that have been taken down). As written it would seem to mean to put such products up, you would need permission. But as Morrus and others have pointed to, the language doesn't really seem to match what their intentions are with the guidelines and lots of publishers have put up content that hasn't been taken down that might, if you strictly and literally applied the guidelines.



It reads more as "Get permission, then upload" and the complaints are things not labeled suitably being taken down. I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning - OBS has to have the exception for wizards lest wizards decide to become competition. But if they provide an exception route for Wizards, they need to for others. And Jim Lot's stuff definitely falls into the "posted after the warning policy went live"...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It reads more as "Get permission, then upload" and the complaints are things not labeled suitably being taken down. I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning - OBS has to have the exception for wizards lest wizards decide to become competition. But if they provide an exception route for Wizards, they need to for others. And Jim Lot's stuff definitely falls into the "posted after the warning policy went live"...




My point was I don't think many companies are asking permission. I don't have a window into WoTC and OBS's interactions, so maybe they've been getting permission or been granted exceptions, but that isn't my impression. I think most companies have just had a pretty relaxed take on the guidelines. Just based on discussions I've seen online, most publishers seem to think that the guidelines aren't strictly precluding stuff like this from being put up on OBS, that it is more written broadly so it can be applied to extreme cases. Again that portion of the guidelines has been around for a bit, but this discussion has resurrected some of the earlier concerns about it, and I think the stauncher stance in the two new guidelines they issued, made some folks, myself included, wonder if these other parts of the guidelines would be more rigidly enforced.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Also, this probably has already been posted here, but this is the OBS clarification on the new guidelines (which provides more clear context in terms of when different guidelines were put into effect):


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> I'm aware a lot of older items are kept with a warning -



This warning had nothing to do with OBS was my point. There was controversy when some of these older products were put up, and WOTC was responding to fans who expressed concern about the content (there were a bunch of discussions about that here when this happened).


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> This warning had nothing to do with OBS was my point. There was controversy when some of these older products were put up, and WOTC was responding to fans who expressed concern about the content (there were a bunch of discussions about that here when this happened).



It's on OBS. It's not just WotC/TSR.  It also isn't just the "times were differet when written" either one. 

I'm pretty certain that if Venger were to, hat in hand, language kept civil, ask for permission for his politicalized game material, get it put up with a "The views expressed in this product are not endorsed by OBS" warning. Now if it includes rape, violence towards children, etc, that's less likely to fly... but some fo the Pugmire material is very politically challenging... The included adventure in Monarchies of Mau is very much drawn from the Black/White sociopolitical drama playing out over the last 5 years... and no warning on DTRPG that I recall. It was quite a shocker to my players...


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It's on OBS. It's not just WotC/TSR.  It also isn't just the "times were differet when written" either one.



I understand it is up on OBS, but I meant that I don't believe they asked permission to put it up because of anything that might have been in the guidelines. Again, I could be wrong here. I don't know what discussions went on between them. But from the outside that statement appeared to go up following concerns about legacy products that were a part of a larger conversation on forums, twitter and facebook. Again my contention here could be incorrect. I am just not aware of anyone who has asked permission to put up content that was 'overly political' for example, because, I think most companies have read that guideline as being intended for extreme political views. There are a lot of RPGs on Drivethru that have poltical messages for example. If any of them have contacted OBS for permission, I would certainly be interested in knowing that. I just am not under the impression that many people are doing so. 

I might not be following what you are saying so I apologize if I am missing something. I am only aware of the statement that WOTC put on their legacy products which was the blanket statement covering the concerns some fans had about the older content. Did they put another statement up on the products as well?


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I understand it is up on OBS, but I meant that I don't believe they asked permission to put it up because of anything that might have been in the guidelines. Again, I could be wrong here. I don't know what discussions went on between them. But from the outside that statement appeared to go up following concerns about legacy products that were a part of a larger conversation on forums, twitter and facebook. Again my contention here could be incorrect. I am just not aware of anyone who has asked permission to put up content that was 'overly political' for example, because, I think most companies have read that guideline as being intended for extreme political views. There are a lot of RPGs on Drivethru that have poltical messages for example. If any of them have contacted OBS for permission, I would certainly be interested in knowing that. I just am not under the impression that many people are doing so.
> 
> I might not be following what you are saying so I apologize if I am missing something. I am only aware of the statement that WOTC put on their legacy products which was the blanket statement covering the concerns some fans had about the older content. Did they put another statement up on the products as well?



ONLY TSR stuff was _initially _addressed - but they've applied it beyond TSR, and beyond just old stuff.

Also - anything overtly Pro-/Anti-LGBTQA+* *is political in the US*. More so now than any point in the last 20 years. I'm scared for my daughters.

Note: both my daughters identify on the LGBTQA spectrum. I'm good with that. I'm not good with rights being revoked by SCOTUS.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> ONLY TSR stuff was _initially _addressed - but they've applied it beyond TSR, and beyond just old stuff.




Okay but the question is, was that just something WOTC did voluntarily or was that something they were required to do by OBS (I haven't heard that it was  the latter)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> Also - anything overtly Pro-/Anti-LGBTQA+* *is political in the US*. More so now than any point in the last 20 years. I'm scared for my daughters.
> 
> Note: both my daughters identify on the LGBTQA spectrum. I'm good with that. I'm not good with rights being revoked by SCOTUS.




I don't think that OBS would treat LBTQ stuff as political, but I think anti-LBTQ stuff would probably get triggered by their rules against homophobic content. But I do think a rule against overtly political content itself is way too broad. There are plenty of issues I have seen publishers address in games, that are political, but in my opinion fair game for a designer to explore in an RPG. Again, I don't think they are applying this overtly political rule as the text is written (I could be wrong, this is one reason I think them releasing a list of what has come down and why would be clarifying). So it may just be an issue with the wording (but if that is the case, I think changing the wording would be a good idea)




> Neither your Work, description, nor any promotional material, including blog posts or press releases, may contain* racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views*; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material without the express written permission of OneBookShelf.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay but the question is, was that just something WOTC did voluntarily or was that something they were required to do by OBS (I haven't heard that it was  the latter)



That was purely a WotC initiative, spurred mainly by the controversy about Oriental Adventures and some old modules. OBS had nothing to do with it.


----------



## Morrus (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Okay but the question is, was that just something WOTC did voluntarily or was that something they were required to do by OBS (I haven't heard that it was  the latter)



I can't imagine OBS being able to require WotC do anything.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Morrus said:


> I can't imagine OBS being able to require WotC do anything.




I can't either (unless WOTC starting doing something crazy like putting illegal content in their PDFs)


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Nikosandros said:


> That was purely a WotC initiative, spurred mainly by the controversy about Oriental Adventures and some old modules. OBS had nothing to do with it.




This was my memory as well


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> Also, this probably has already been posted here, but this is the OBS clarification on the new guidelines (which provides more clear context in terms of when different guidelines were put into effect):



Well that all sounds entirely reasonable to me. Thanks for posting an update.

And considering they still have LotFP material up despite Raggi's meltdown, I think they mean what they say.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Well that all sounds entirely reasonable to me. Thanks for posting an update.




The one thing I will note is it doesn't fully address some of the concerns people have raised (it clarifies what the new guidelines mean and how they intend to enforce things). And while the other guidelines are older, and it doesn't seem they have enforced them in this way, one of the questions publishers have raised is what kind of content the product guidelines actually prohibit. Raggi's video brings up a couple of these. I think the question of things like 'can you have a racist NPC as a character' is a valid one. Or can you have hags who eat children in your monster chapter? These are content concerns that might impact a lot of products. Just to give a clear example, I am working on a book now and want to include something from folklore about witches (which is that they created a flying ointment from a mixture of ingredients that included baby fat). That is straight out of a horror movie like the witch or out of European and New England folklore. I think it would probably be okay. But I wouldn't want to have my book pulled over it and would at least want to know in advance if that sort of thing is permissible. It isn't essential to the game but that sort of thing has a big impact on tone and atmosphere.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> The one thing I will note is it doesn't fully address some of the concerns people have raised (it clarifies what the new guidelines mean and how they intend to enforce things). And while the other guidelines are older, and it doesn't seem they have enforced them in this way, one of the questions publishers have raised is what kind of content the product guidelines actually prohibit. Raggi's video brings up a couple of these. I think the question of things like 'can you have a racist NPC as a character' is a valid one. Or can you have hags who eat children in your monster chapter? These are content concerns that might impact a lot of products. Just to give a clear example, I am working on a book now and want to include something from folklore about witches (which is that they created a flying ointment from a mixture of ingredients that included baby fat). That is straight out of a horror movie like the witch or out of European and New England folklore. I think it would probably be okay. But I wouldn't want to have my book pulled over it and would at least want to know in advance if that sort of thing is permissible. It isn't essential to the game but that sort of thing has a big impact on tone and atmosphere.



Agree those thing are important, but I don't think they'll be giving out any specifics. 

For one, any statement from a company saying you condone products with those things is a bad look. 

Second, lots of edgelord creators would use those specifics against you when it came down to needing to delist a product. Imagine giving Varg the exact guidelines he needs to put his racist products on the platform.

 Much better to stay vague in both instances.

This puts a lot of power in the hands of Drive-Thru of course, but as you pointed out, they've done a pretty good job of wielding it, so I'm not going to fuss anymore about it until something worthwhile actually gets banned, haha.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Second, lots of edgelord creators would use those specifics against you when it came down to needing to delist a product. Imagine giving Varg the exact guidelines he needs to put his racist products on the platform.




I think you could solve that by not allowing someone like Varg to put content on the platform. You can have edgy content available but draw the line at someone like Varg


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 5, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Agree those thing are important, but I don't think they'll be giving out any specifics.
> 
> For one, any statement from a company saying you condone products with those things is a bad look.
> 
> ...




I look at it two ways: in terms of what I need to know as a publishers which is one thing, and concern over free expression in the hobby, which is another. For the former, I just think the language makes me uneasy about what I am actually allowed to do. And I don't have enough clarity on how this has been enforced and how it will be enforced. I am also concerned that with the existing language, any change behind the scenes could suddenly make the standards enforced more strictly (so if you have a number of products up that aren't even edgy---none of mine are particularly edgy IMO---but deal in the kinds of themes you see in genre literature or movies, or even certain myths and fairytales). I have sent queries over matters like this in the past and received solid information in return. 

On the free expression, I think its important for everyone to weigh in and give their view. I don't expect everyone to hold my position. I worry about the language (and have when it has come up in the past) because I think the ideal state for the hobby on a platform like this (where again people will disagree, not trying to relitigate, but IMO OBS is very powerful and important in terms of what books get made) to allow for the most wide range of content possible. I especially worry that things with nuance, irony, etc could get swept up in these guidelines, and I worry that different people will have very different takes on what constitutes a violation (i.e. the whole are orcs racist thing). That said, whatever the terms are, I am a publisher and have to abide by them (which again is why I always make a point of giving my opinion when the subject comes up). Here I would echo a point in my previous paragraph to about worrying where this goes in the future.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 5, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Quite frankly the only truly moral stance is an acceptance (if not outright embrace) of inclusion and a fully throated and consistently upheld exclusion of intolerance, hatred, and bigotry.



Does this carry over to the fictional works too or are you strictly talking about IRL?

Like say, The Witcher setting where there is cruel, racial (human, dwarf, elf) prejudice. Would you want that removed?


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 5, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you could solve that by not allowing someone like Varg to put content on the platform. You can have edgy content available but draw the line at someone like Varg



I see what you mean, but I think their goal isn't so much a line, but a large fuzzy "might get banned" gradient so the content doesn't even approach Vargs, lol.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 5, 2022)

@Bedrockgames
I think your concerns are valid. Only time will tell though.

In the mean time, you can see what content is already being offered (especially if a best seller) and get an idea of what's allowed. Just knowing you can be as politically vocal as Pundit or create as depraved content as Raggi means you're probably going to be safe uploading there.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 5, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Does this carry over to the fictional works too or are you strictly talking about IRL?
> 
> Like say, The Witcher setting where there is cruel, racial (human, dwarf, elf) prejudice. Would you want that removed?



Absolutely not. Fiction can be great way to explore the ways in which we can confront the very real evils that plague us in the real world, including all matter of prejudice and hatred.

On the other hand, I would draw the line at fiction (or any other work) that _glorifies _and/or _promotes _these evils. Such works are not so much valueless as they are value-_negative, _and there is a moral, if clearly not a legal, imperative to prevent the spread of such an odious ideology. This is especially true for those who maintain and manage platforms for the spread of shared human creativity.

If you have the power to prevent the spread of bigoted propaganda on your platform, and you refuse to use that power, then that is an abject moral failure.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 6, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Absolutely not. Fiction can be great way to explore the ways in which we can confront the very real evils that plague us in the real world, including all matter of prejudice and hatred.
> 
> On the other hand, I would draw the line at fiction (or any other work) that _glorifies _and/or _promotes _these evils. Such works are not so much valueless as they are value-_negative, _and there is a moral, if clearly not a legal, imperative to prevent the spread of such an odious ideology. This is especially true for those who maintain and manage platforms for the spread of shared human creativity.
> 
> If you have the power to prevent the spread of bigoted propaganda on your platform, and you refuse to use that power, then that is an abject moral failure.



Oh, cool. Understandable.

I don't think I'm quite as critical though. I'm thinking of my time as a kid role-playing The Coalition from Rifts (military faction obsessed with the destruction of all non-humans). What started off as fun being a "fascist-bro" stomping clearly evil monsters became quite the learning experience once more "grey" situations arose (I think we had to clear out a sewer of D-Bees who more or less was just trying to survive), which led to us breaking away and attempting to thwart them "form the inside".

How do you feel about material like that in a game?

Picture to get an idea of how the character classes were portrayed in the art:


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 6, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> How do you feel about material like that in a game?



I think your misconstruing the intention of the policy.

RaHoWa and its ilk are likely games that would fall under its auspices.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 6, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> I think your misconstruing the intention of the policy.




That's part of the issue. The policy doesn't voice the intent. Many rules and policies don't do that. Intent usually doesn't survive implementation. Over time, as leadership changes or it's politics do, how will the policy be used as a written rule independent of the intent behind it? 

In other words, we're all happy to see Venger gone. What happens when it's Evil Hat's Thirsty Sword Lesbians? It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation. What happens when they turn into Facebook? It's not like they've had much competition sweeping in to capture their market. It's worth thinking about or recognizing that it may happen.


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation.



When DTRPG stop having progressive moderation, do you think they’ll stick to whatever guidelines they’ve set up for themselves?

And note that one of the “complaints” is that its progressive moderation causes problems for some people.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 6, 2022)

Changes in corporate leadership can lead to a changes in corporate policy. In fact, they frequently do. It's how the new management justifies its existence. 

There's no point saying "sometime in the future this thing that is being managed in a reasonable way may be managed in an unreasonable way."


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Jul 6, 2022)

Also, what Crusadius said.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 6, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> I think your misconstruing the intention of the policy.



I was curious of @Gradine thoughts of how they (@Gradine) would handle Rifts, that's all.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 6, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> When DTRPG stop having progressive moderation, do you think they’ll stick to whatever guidelines they’ve set up for themselves?




They don't need to change them when all they need to do is rely on the ambiguity of the term "disparaging". The point of linking the Facebook story is to point out that they haven't changed their content policies or moderation policies, either. They just selectively enforce it, so they still appear to be reasonable.

What happens when Hasbro buys DTRPG? Or Amazon buys it? Or Elon Musk? Or Tencent?

What happens when DTRPG decides they want 80% of the sale price? Can I complain about that on Twitter? What if I want to complain about the DMs Guild restrictions, or talk about how they negatively affect the market or my business. Can I do that?

The point is that a lot of people see stuff like this and say, "I am not alarmed by this policy because I agree the outcome is desirable in this example." That is letting ends justify means. It's worthwhile to question the means. Did DTRPG need to make this policy change just to throw Venger and his ilk off the platform? I don't think so given the already existing content guidelines. So what is the goal? To just warn some people they won't be welcome? Well, we should consider how that might be used to manipulate things.

It's a bit like telling every customer that comes in your store that you've got a bat under the counter and you're not afraid to use it on unruly customers. Okay? That seems like something you don't need to explicitly point out.


----------



## jdrakeh (Jul 6, 2022)

I think the policy in question is to address situations such as a publisher of a product called "Tournament of Rapists" and other publishers in their circle of friends throwing tantrums (accusing DriveThru of violating the constitutional right to free speech) when said product was removed from sale on DriveThru. And, of course, DriveThru was violating nothing of the sort. And, no, this is not a hypothetical situation.


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> It's a bit like telling every customer that comes in your store that you've got a bat under the counter and you're not afraid to use it on unruly customers. Okay? That seems like something you don't need to explicitly point out.



It's like having a sign on the store door that says "unruly customers will be ejected" and some people are getting upset over such a sign.


----------



## Gradine (Jul 6, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> I was curious of @Gradine thoughts of how they (@Gradine) would handle Rifts, that's all.



Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice? Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized? I'm only slightly more familiar with Warhammer 40k, but the idea there is that the Imperium is pretty explicitly bad, but also generally the least awful option available. There's a hint of parody there too (CIAPHAS CAIN, f'rex).

I realize I may have sounded rather extreme earlier but frankly I set that bar pretty low. WH40k would easily clear it. Trash like Racial Holy War doesn't. That WoD product from a few years back, the one with all the Nazi dogwhistles? That's about where the line is.


----------



## Davies (Jul 6, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice?



This is a definite no. There are much more heroic factions than the Coalition.


Gradine said:


> Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized?



This not so definite, but still no.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> That's part of the issue. The policy doesn't voice the intent. Many rules and policies don't do that. Intent usually doesn't survive implementation. Over time, as leadership changes or it's politics do, how will the policy be used as a written rule independent of the intent behind it?
> 
> In other words, we're all happy to see Venger gone. What happens when it's Evil Hat's Thirsty Sword Lesbians? It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation. What happens when they turn into Facebook? It's not like they've had much competition sweeping in to capture their market. It's worth thinking about or recognizing that it may happen.



For the record, they haven't kicked Venger off.  Nor have they kicked off LotFP, despite Raggi's dramatics.

As Morrus pointed out, Kickstarter is actually a much larger share of the general RPG sales market; DTRPG hasn't, in reality, captured a majority share of the market.  While they do have a large share of the POD and PDF sales market, the idea that they don't have competition is simply mistaken.  Itch.io, Lulu, Amazon, and individual company stores like Paizo's and Steve Jackson Games' are also substantial, and could definitely pick up greater market share if DTRPG/OBS were to become more restrictive and less easy to work with.

Facebook is huge, but let's also not forget that Twitter still exists. And that before Facebook, MySpace seemed unchallengable.   



Gradine said:


> Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice? Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized? I'm only slightly more familiar with Warhammer 40k, but the idea there is that the Imperium is pretty explicitly bad, but also generally the least awful option available. There's a hint of parody there too (CIAPHAS CAIN, f'rex).
> 
> I realize I may have sounded rather extreme earlier but frankly I set that bar pretty low. WH40k would easily clear it. Trash like Racial Holy War doesn't. That WoD product from a few years back, the one with all the Nazi dogwhistles? That's about where the line is.



No, the Coalition is pretty much the only explicitly fascist faction, and while they are available option for playing PCs, they're more commonly used as antagonists.  And yeah, they lampshade/push the parodic level of the Coalition a bit, what with the Maximum Skulls All the Time aesthetic, although I don't think as much so as GW traditionally did.  I don't think Palladium had the same trademark British sense of irony.  They played it a bit more straight.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 6, 2022)

@Gradine 
Appreciate you sharing your thoughts, thanks.

I think Rifts came to mind as an example because when they ported it over to Savage Worlds I was bummed playing the Coalition was no longer an option. I guess despite the hundreds of other class options, they felt it was something they didn't feel comfortable with.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 6, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> For the record, they haven't kicked Venger off.  Nor have they kicked off LotFP, despite Raggi's dramatics.




Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and _then_ the policy was updated. That's my fault.

That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and _then_ the policy was updated. That's my fault.
> 
> That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.



Here's Venger saying he made a couple of minor content changes and his new book is expected to be back up for general sale shortly, though according to commentors both the new and old versions are still available for download to folks who already bought it before it was pulled for review:









						Rainbow Bound
					

I have some good news, which may or may not surprise folks out there in RPG land. Aside from just a few minor changes that need to be made...




					vengersatanis.blogspot.com


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> Oh, I was misinformed as to the events then. I'd seen them complaining to high heaven -- or rather seen people complaining that they were complaining -- and was led to believe that it was because people had been banned and all their content removed and _then_ the policy was updated. That's my fault.
> 
> That completely changes things in my mind, then. Now the policy change looks like a last warning; a public reminder that DTRPG will practice freedom of association.




As far as I know he was not banned, that they require him to have stuff reviewed before it goes up now, but I could be wrong on that.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 6, 2022)

Bedrockgames said:


> As far as I know he was not banned, that they require him to have stuff reviewed before it goes up now, but I could be wrong on that.



I don't think it's even that.  I think he's just subject to stuff getting pulled for review if it gets x number of complaints (x being an undisclosed number, probably to help prevent people gaming it), like everyone else.  

Of course, his stuff is deliberately controversial, so presumably is more likely to get complaints.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Jul 6, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I don't think it's even that.  I think he's just subject to stuff getting pulled for review if it gets x number of complaints (x being an undisclosed number, probably to help prevent people gaming it), like everyone else.
> 
> Of course, his stuff is deliberately controversial, so presumably is more likely to get complaints.




Like I said I could be wrong on that, I seem to recall reading that somewhere, but the information could have been wrong or I could have misread what was stated.


----------



## mythago (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> In other words, we're all happy to see Venger gone. What happens when it's Evil Hat's Thirsty Sword Lesbians? It's naive to expect DTRPG to always have progressive moderation. What happens when they turn into Facebook? It's not like they've had much competition sweeping in to capture their market. It's worth thinking about or recognizing that it may happen.




If that happens, then people will make decisions about whether they want to buy from DTRPG rather than itch.io, KS, directly from the publisher, or some other DTRPG competitor that might arise in that situation.



Bacon Bits said:


> It's a bit like telling every customer that comes in your store that you've got a bat under the counter and you're not afraid to use it on unruly customers. Okay? That seems like something you don't need to explicitly point out.




I want to make sure I am understanding your argument and not overstating it. You believe that it is unnecessary and threatening for a commercial online platform to post written guidelines that spell out circumstances under which it will stop hosting certain content or creators - just like a bartender announcing she has a baseball bad under the register is making an unnecessary, threatening announcement?


----------



## dragoner (Jul 6, 2022)

That one guy is living in everyone's head, rent free. 

Thing about businesses, they either keep themselves relevant or they do not. Such as what was mentioned up-thread, tomorrow Amazon buys them, then it is Amazon's rules. The first most basic rule is that businesses reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, while there are "protected classes" unless litigated by an aggrieved party, it's unlikely to matter too much what the boiler plate says.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 6, 2022)

mythago said:


> I want to make sure I am understanding your argument and not overstating it. You believe that it is unnecessary and threatening for a commercial online platform to post written guidelines that spell out circumstances under which it will stop hosting certain content or creators - just like a bartender announcing she has a baseball bad under the register is making an unnecessary, threatening announcement?




I had the timeline of events completely wrong. I misunderstood.

I thought some people had had their content removed after it had been reviewed and approved. Then other creators complained about it on social media. Then DTRPG removed _all _their content (in apparent retaliation?). Then the social media complaints turned into attacks on DTRPG. Then possibly more people were removed from DTRPG(?). Then and only then did DTRPG update their policy. All of this was basically completely backwards or incorrect, it seems, although maybe I'm still wrong.

Instead, it looks like the real timeline is closer to: if content was removed it was under existing review policies for customer reported issues under the existing content policies. Then people complaint about DTRPG on social media over it. Then DTRPG updated their policy to say, basically, that they'll consider completely ending business relationships with creators who try to litigate complaints over social media.

To be clear: I think DTRPG is actually within their rights in _both_ cases -- they never give up their freedom of association -- but the former was a lot more concerning because it kept sounding like they were acting outside of their explicitly stated policies. Then they changed policies after the fact, either to excuse their behavior or to, yes, threaten others who were still criticizing them on social media. It turns out that no, that doesn't seem to be what happened. In short, I thought it was closer to the Roll20 2018 controversy, but instead it seems to be a pretty normal response by DTRPG.

I do think there are larger and more general issues with platform vs publisher vs customer that haven't been addressed yet -- there's a reason YouTube creators made Nebula -- but I don't think this is an example of that problem coming up any more.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> Instead, it looks like the real timeline is closer to: if content was removed it was under existing review policies for customer reported issues under the existing content policies. Then people complaint about DTRPG on social media over it. Then DTRPG updated their policy to say, basically, that they'll consider completely ending business relationships with creators who try to litigate complaints over social media.



Even more than this, the "Hostile Marketing" provision seems to also have been invoked in reference to someone apparently deliberately submitting material which they knew was in violation of the content policies, then using it being pulled as an excuse to stoke anger at DTRPG and drive up direct sales for themselves (with no cut to DTRPG) using the controversy.  

But yeah, overall it seems like you've got it now.


----------



## Bacon Bits (Jul 6, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> Even more than this, the "Hostile Marketing" provision seems to also have been invoked in reference to someone apparently deliberately submitting material which they knew was in violation of the content policies, then using it being pulled as an excuse to stoke anger at DTRPG and drive up direct sales for themselves (with no cut to DTRPG) using the controversy.
> 
> But yeah, overall it seems like you've got it now.




Ah, that explains why there was so much hubub about it, and why there were so many conflicting stories. It was all about stirring the pot precisely to get social media involved.


----------



## Maxperson (Jul 6, 2022)

Reynard said:


> ::insert Inigo Montoya meme here::



If you insist!


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 6, 2022)

Bacon Bits said:


> Ah, that explains why there was so much hubub about it, and why there were so many conflicting stories. It was all about stirring the pot precisely to get social media involved.




Do you realize that the pot in this scenario is you?  Venger Satanis didn't come to this thread and proselytize the danger of commercial moderation, apocalyptic "what ifs" about the future of the industry, or threats in the form of corporate guidelines.  But he convinced someone to do it for him.  Whether you intended to support him or not, you did exactly what he wanted you to do.

Please don't take this as an attack.  I think it's great that you realized a few posts back that this was manufactured outrage, and that you were able to turn it off.  Being able to re-analyze the situation and actually change your mind puts you in a class above most of the internet.  I just want to point out that the "hubbub" or "angry internet mob" isn't always some distant muddled mass.  Sometimes it's us.  Individually.  I've been there myself.


----------



## billd91 (Jul 6, 2022)

Deset Gled said:


> I just want to point out that the "hubbub" or "angry internet mob" isn't always some distant muddled mass.  Sometimes it's us.  Individually.  I've been there myself.


----------



## Reynard (Jul 6, 2022)

Maxperson said:


> If you insist!
> 
> View attachment 252806



Wrong one. It's the OTHER meme.


----------



## pantsorama (Jul 7, 2022)

Why do so many free speech absolutists not understand that freedom of association is part of free speech. Barring discriminating against a protected class, I need no reason to disassociate myself from someone, nor does any individual or group.

Full stop.  That is part and parcel of free speech.  One doesn't get to use my resources to say things I don't like.  To do so is a violation of my free speech.

If there are consequences that one does not like, then work it out like adults.  Don't insist that unilaterally one has a right to use my status/ infrastructure/ hard work to get notice for any behavior I don't want to be around.


----------



## mythago (Jul 7, 2022)

pantsorama said:


> Why do so many free speech absolutists not understand that freedom of association is part of free speech. Barring discriminating against a protected class, I need no reason to disassociate myself from someone, nor does any individual or group.
> 
> Full stop.  That is part and parcel of free speech.  One doesn't get to use my resources to say things I don't like.  To do so is a violation of my free speech.
> 
> If there are consequences that one does not like, then work it out like adults.  Don't insist that unilaterally one has a right to use my status/ infrastructure/ hard work to get notice for any behavior I don't want to be around.




Because they're not really free speech absolutists. They're followers of the Preferred First Speaker Doctrine - not coincidentally, because they often are the ones rushing in to speak their minds first.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 9, 2022)

Gradine said:


> Honestly I'm not at all familiar with Rifts. I guess the point is, are playing the fascists the only choice? Are they presented as the "good" option; are their ideologies lionized? I'm only slightly more familiar with Warhammer 40k, but the idea there is that the Imperium is pretty explicitly bad, but also generally the least awful option available. There's a hint of parody there too (CIAPHAS CAIN, f'rex).



They are, at least initially, the primary setting. And the protagonists. It's not crystal clear in the core whether or not one is expected to play as one, or to play as those fighting them, but they are clearly the source of the best tech in the early release era of Rifts. The Coalition is noted for protection of humanity from the DBs (extra*d*imensional *b*eings), and being effective at doing so, but also being extremely speciesist, toxic, and going after those in their service who decide to help DBs even a little. 



Gradine said:


> I realize I may have sounded rather extreme earlier but frankly I set that bar pretty low. WH40k would easily clear it. Trash like Racial Holy War doesn't. That WoD product from a few years back, the one with all the Nazi dogwhistles? That's about where the line is.



The 40K line is pretty clearly a parody. Joke names, and all.

The Rifts line is presented straight. The Coalition States are an Empire, not a republic. It's got strong fascist overtones. And it's explicitly intended to be used as either/both good guys or bad guys (RUE, p. 230). But RUE lacks other antagonists besides dragons, and they are similarly not cast as one role...


----------



## dragoner (Jul 9, 2022)

Midwesterner humor can be sort of dry (and weird), Siembieda is from Detroit, Michigan; so like Chicago, is even more of somewhere to poke fun at. Chi-town is even regular slang for the place, it is all sort of a gonzo parody, played straight, if that makes sense, sort of like the Yoopers being the last bastion of civilization.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 9, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> The Rifts line is presented straight. The Coalition States are an Empire, not a republic. It's got strong fascist overtones. And it's explicitly intended to be used as either/both good guys or bad guys (RUE, p. 230). But RUE lacks other antagonists besides dragons, and they are similarly not cast as one role...



I like that it does that though. Do you?

Every new book I buy that has to specify what's "bad" and/or instructs me the "moral" way to play the game puts me off.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 10, 2022)

dragoner said:


> Midwesterner humor can be sort of dry (and weird), Siembieda is from Detroit, Michigan; so like Chicago, is even more of somewhere to poke fun at. Chi-town is even regular slang for the place, it is all sort of a gonzo parody, played straight, if that makes sense, sort of like the Yoopers being the last bastion of civilization.




As someone from Michigan, can you explain this a bit? I'm not as familiar with Rifts, so I'm confused by what this actually references.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 10, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> I like that it does that though. Do you?



not really. I like my parody silly in tone and engaging in wordplay... 
Spaceballs. Galaxy Quest.  Robin Hood: Men in Tights. Monte Python and the Holy Grail (Movie and stage). Monte Python's Life of Brian. Star Trek Discovery¹. 


Jahydin said:


> Every new book I buy that has to specify what's "bad" and/or instructs me the "moral" way to play the game puts me off.



Rifts hits the same mindset space for me as TORG, and I prefer TORG's mechanics to Rifts'. I also prefer TORG's setup for the genre mix-n-match.



dragoner said:


> Midwesterner humor can be sort of dry (and weird), Siembieda is from Detroit, Michigan; so like Chicago, is even more of somewhere to poke fun at. Chi-town is even regular slang for the place, it is all sort of a gonzo parody, played straight, if that makes sense, sort of like the Yoopers being the last bastion of civilization.



Most of my dad's family are in greater Detroit Metro...  which is 100+ distinct communities in search of a common identity....  
Many of my wife's family, as well.  Making blanket statements about Detroit having a uniform ANYTHING is problematic. 

I agree, however, that Rifts is intended as parody. But it's not labeled as such, and given its serious tone, that it's parody is a thing the Siembieda would have been better mentioning in the disclaimer. 

t's very easy to look at the Rifts Corebook and miss that it's parody. Several of my former students have....

-=-=-=-=-​1: Yes, I'm accusing ST Discovery of being a Star Trek Parody, not real Trek. Even if I do enjoy it. Orville and Strange New Worlds are both better Trek, IMO.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 10, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> As someone from Michigan, can you explain this a bit? I'm not as familiar with Rifts, so I'm confused by what this actually references.



In game setting. Chicago is the big and horrible empire, and the upper peninsula is the last bastion of civilization.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 12, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> I agree, however, that Rifts is intended as parody. But it's not labeled as such, and given its serious tone, that it's parody is a thing the Siembieda would have been better mentioning in the disclaimer.
> 
> t's very easy to look at the Rifts Corebook and miss that it's parody. Several of my former students have....



I definitely think the parodic element is left pretty dry, but the core book certainly presents the Coalition primarily as villains, rather than the most likely faction players will be from.  Even though multiple Coalition character classes are offered as options.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 12, 2022)

Mannahnin said:


> I definitely think the parodic element is left pretty dry, but the core book certainly presents the Coalition primarily as villains, rather than the most likely faction players will be from.  Even though multiple Coalition character classes are offered as options.



It provides nowhere else to be from in the core. The coalition OCCs are pretty much the Coalition military; the rest in the core are pretty much everyone else in the CS.


----------



## Mannahnin (Jul 12, 2022)

aramis erak said:


> It provides nowhere else to be from in the core. The coalition OCCs are pretty much the Coalition military; the rest in the core are pretty much everyone else in the CS.



Not Tolkeen, Lazlo, the Federation of Magic or Lone Star?  The CS is definitely offered as an option (and given the most detail, as I recall) but if you set your game there, they're still expected to be bad guys, like the Empire in Star Wars.  But there are also other places they don't control where you can set your game.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 13, 2022)

dragoner said:


> In game setting. Chicago is the big and horrible empire, and the upper peninsula is the last bastion of civilization.




That's fine and I caught that. Just... what's parodic about it? Like, I'm from the area and don't see it actually mocking or making fun of something. That just seems to be _reference, _which is fine.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't really see a _joke: _a fascist empire from Chicago doesn't really strike anything to me other than "Hey, I've been there before", but it's not really making a point or a joke in it unless there's something deeper in the text that people haven't mentioned yet. Rifts to me has never really come off as a parody as much as a kitchen-sink setting with a bit of 80's edginess to it.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 14, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> That's fine and I caught that. Just... what's parodic about it? Like, I'm from the area and don't see it actually mocking or making fun of something. That just seems to be _reference, _which is fine.
> 
> I suppose what I'm saying is that I don't really see a _joke: _a fascist empire from Chicago doesn't really strike anything to me other than "Hey, I've been there before", but it's not really making a point or a joke in it unless there's something deeper in the text that people haven't mentioned yet. Rifts to me has never really come off as a parody as much as a kitchen-sink setting with a bit of 80's edginess to it.



No exaggeration, nothing comedic?


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (Jul 14, 2022)

dragoner said:


> No exaggeration, nothing comedic?



It _might_ be comedic if the emperor was a lich-ified Richard J. Daley.  _Might._


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 14, 2022)

dragoner said:


> No exaggeration, nothing comedic?




What's the exaggeration of? Like, just having the UP be a staging post for civilization isn't necessarily a joke, nor having an ultra-fascist Chicago. LHonestly, there's nothing really comedic about those things in _those places, _and I say this as a guy from the area where KS is from.



Cordwainer Fish said:


> It _might_ be comedic if the emperor was a lich-ified Richard J. Daley.  _Might._




Make it so that Chicago is an undead democracy, and we have something of a joke!


----------



## dragoner (Jul 14, 2022)

Cordwainer Fish said:


> It _might_ be comedic if the emperor was a lich-ified Richard J. Daley.  _Might._



Why is that?


----------



## dragoner (Jul 14, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> What's the exaggeration of? Like, just having the UP be a staging post for civilization isn't necessarily a joke, nor having an ultra-fascist Chicago. LHonestly, there's nothing really comedic about those things in _those places, _and I say this as a guy from the area where KS is from.
> 
> 
> 
> Make it so that Chicago is an undead democracy, and we have something of a joke!



What's it not an exaggeration of? Chicago totally has Dead boy armored troops in flying skull carriers, right? 100% completely normal. Same as the UP being a bastion of civilization.


----------



## Deset Gled (Jul 14, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> What's the exaggeration of? Like, just having the UP be a staging post for civilization isn't necessarily a joke,




I'm not familiar with the Palladium lore, but I've spent time in the UP. I even met Hoolie once. I can see the joke.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 14, 2022)

I live just south of Chicago, I think there is some sort of subtext going on.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 14, 2022)

dragoner said:


> What's it not an exaggeration of? Chicago totally has Dead boy armored troops in flying skull carriers, right? 100% completely normal.




Just having wild stuff doesn't make it a *parody. *There has to be a *joke* there. What you are describing isn't a joke, it's an aesthetic. An exaggerated one, a pastiche, but just that, and not one that has anything to really do with *Chicago*. There's nothing necessarily being made fun of, especially given that the skull-o-mania aesthetic can be done unironically: just look at 40K, which may have started out using that aesthetic ironically but over time morphed into using it rather unironically.



dragoner said:


> Same as the UP being a bastion of civilization.




Just making a place that is rural and backwoods into a thriving industrial power doesn't necessarily mean it's a _*parody*_, unless they are actually making fun of the area. Like, do they have a pasty on their flag or something, because from what I can find I don't think it's actually making fun of it.

To give an example, OCP in the Robocop series is a parody of corporate culture, but you can't just have an evil corporation that only cares about the bottom line and nothing else; there's no _*parody*_ in that. It becomes a parody when you have the CEO looking down from a balcony on his new crack-powered police robot with the brain of a druglord massacring innocent civilians and cops and his only response it to calmly say "This could look bad for OCP, Johnson. Scramble the best spin team we have."

This whole thing started with the idea that "Midwestern humor is really dry" and I went "No, I grew up a drive down 696 and a turn onto 275 away from KS and I don't really see any unique Michigan humor here". If you wanted something like that, he'd make a magical healing elixir with a ginger taste that cures all minor aliments.

That's not to say Rifts has _no _parody, but I just don't see it here and I don't think it's because it's some sort of regional humor thing.


----------



## dragoner (Jul 14, 2022)

Parody being exaggeration for comedic intent, definitely Chi-town and the UP are, it is just done in a dry style. Parody doesn't mean it has to be slapstick, or silly. WH40K is definitely a parody.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 14, 2022)

dragoner said:


> Parody being exaggeration for comedic intent, definitely Chi-town and the UP are, it is just done in a dry style. Parody doesn't mean it has to be slapstick, or silly. WH40K is definitely a parody.




I mean, yes and no. So exaggeration can be parody, but it has to have something to it. 40K _can _be parody, but it can also be completely straight-faced (and was for quite a while). In particular, the skull aesthetic became less parody and more a stylistic choice given how the Imperium and its story became more of a serious thing. You need something more there to make it a joke beyond the aesthetic because skull stuff might not work as a joke on its own. To me, when I look at Rifts, all the skull stuff comes off more 1970's-1980's heavy metal-esque stuff.

I suppose my bigger point is that as someone from the area, I don't see those things as particularly parodic. Maybe the UP is, but I just find it kind of a very lame joke (especially when we in the right hand can probably make some better ones about those in the left hand). With the Coalition, I don't see anything that really relates to Chicago beyond calling it Chi-town. Like, I do find stuff like _this _funny:







But I don't think that's really "dry" as it's just ridiculous (and great, as someone who isn't a fan of Rifts). But outside some stuff like this, I don't think the Coalition and them as fascists are really meant to be a joke. I just thought they were meant to be the villain faction of the setting. 

Also *huge *missed opportunity to not call the Lower Peninsula "Troll Country".


----------



## Cordwainer Fish (Jul 14, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> Also *huge *missed opportunity to not call the Lower Peninsula "Troll Country".



I understood that reference.


----------



## Crusadius (Jul 14, 2022)

I don't think the Coalition/Chi-Town is a parody. But I do think it might be a homage to movies like Mad Max with a post apocalypse setting and the villain runs a town. Instead of half-naked bikies who haven't had a bath in years you have armored soldiers wearing skull helmets riding/flying vehicles with skulls.


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 14, 2022)

Crusadius said:


> I don't think the Coalition/Chi-Town is a parody. But I do think it might be a homage to movies like Mad Max with a post apocalypse setting and the villain runs a town. Instead of half-naked bikies who haven't had a bath in years you have armored soldiers wearing skull helmets riding/flying vehicles with skulls.




I figured general fascist imagery along with healthy doses of heavy metal skull/_2000 AD_/Terminator inspirations.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 17, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> Not sure if already posted, but James Raggi's response.
> 
> Figured it was worth posting since his work is both popular and likely to be affected by the new policy.



He's the third name that comes to mind on "likely to be affected"... 
RIght after Zac and RPG Pundit.


Sacrosanct said:


> Why do these guys always insist on doing videos shirtless?



Quite possibly due to temperatures and not being able to afford A/C...
To be honest, makes me think "Ted Nugent"...
Heck, one of my 3 videos on Youtube was done shirtless... but you only see my hands, so it's irrelevant. It was quite warm when I shot it.


----------



## aramis erak (Jul 17, 2022)

Irlo said:


> You seem to be arguing that DTRPG must act in the interest of other businesses which are themselves acting _against_ DTRPG’s interest.



The US has that aspect enshrined in law. The Sherman act, aka The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
It doesn't actually require monopoly, just being a sufficiently large share that competition is disadvantaged by the Trust/Monopoly's ability to shape pricing and availability.
The very act of trying to obtain a monopoly can be, if it involves any cooperation at all with direct competitors, a potentially criminal act in the US.



			
				Gov.UK said:
			
		

> In the UK anti-competitive behaviour is prohibited under Chapters I and II of the Competition Act 1998 (the Act) and may be prohibited under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty. These laws prohibit anti-competitive agreements between businesses and the abuse of a dominant position in a market.
> 
> Competing fairly - GOV.UKhttps://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk ›



Looks like it can be under UK law, too.

Kickstarter denies being a point of sale; while it is a huge factor in the games industry, in terms of long term market for any given product, KS isn't a competitor to DTRPG. In terms of new releases? Well... that's complicated. My last four participation in backing kickstarters have resulted in the materials being delivered via DTRPG, sand DTRPG is getting a cut (not certain how much) of that. All said and done, DTRPG is functioning as a partner to KS, whether or not there's an actual agreement or arrangement between DTRPG/OBS and Kickstarter.

That relationship exists because of KS's customers. Hint: Most of us on the boards are not. We're customers of the real customers: the creators. Same is true for OBS, dba Drive Thru RPG, Wargames Vault, Drive Thru Comics, etc.

Are they big enough to exert monopolistic effect? Technically, that's for a court to decide, but from the layman point of view, yes, they seem to be.



Jahydin said:


> James Raggi is an odd duck for sure, but I think most of us OSR fans have at least one of his books on our shelves...



Only the Free RPG Day ones for me, And the free version of LotFP.  Just to see what the hype was.
Still, he's making a valid point about the retroactivity, the lack of identification of who will be doing the vetting, and that it's likely to be merely to hammer down those few who are drawing complaints.


			
				Jim Raggi said:
			
		

> My voice is more important than your money.



I get his point of view. Don't quite share it, don't think the following expletives were needed, but yeah, I get his point of view.

19 pages and climbing...
But it doesn't look like OBS is pushing it hard. Only time will tell.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 17, 2022)

@Justice and Rule 
That picture of the Dog Boys is really well done. What book is it from?


----------



## Justice and Rule (Jul 17, 2022)

Jahydin said:


> @Justice and Rule
> That picture of the Dog Boys is really well done. What book is it from?




I dunno. Found it online.


----------



## Jahydin (Jul 19, 2022)

Justice and Rule said:


> I dunno. Found it online.



Oh man, did some digging and I guess it was for a Rifts Boardgame that never saw the light of day.

Too bad. For a second there I thought maybe they were getting their art back to the quality of those early days.


----------

