One Book Shelf: Censorship Warfare

[Secondhand Revenant]

All I have to say is if you ban one thing because someone finds it offensive you better damn well ban everything someone finds offensive or it'll look like you're taking a side. Are you prepared to do that One Book Shelf?

And as for why the escapist hasn't covered it? I think they're still nursing their black eye from backing GG/AGG type issues without doing their homework. I expect a lot of that particular type of controversy is going to magically slip through the cracks so they just don't have to deal with it.

Is there some reason they just can't take a side?

They're hosting the discussion, which at this point is pretty much taking a side. It would be hard to argue that the GG content of this forum represents anything worth protecting except in the abstractly ideological sense after all.

All I have to say is if you ban one thing because someone finds it offensive you better damn well ban everything someone finds offensive or it'll look like you're taking a side. Are you prepared to do that One Book Shelf?

And as for why the escapist hasn't covered it? I think they're still nursing their black eye from backing GG/AGG type issues without doing their homework. I expect a lot of that particular type of controversy is going to magically slip through the cracks so they just don't have to deal with it.

Is there some reason they just can't take a side?

Yes, the staff, espeically those at the top, lean more in one direction, but that's also the direction whose opponents have a record of attacking, DDoSing, calling in bomb threats pretty consistently and having a general "attack the person, not their arguments" type. Openly being neutral is about as good of a position as they can take on the matter.

Also doesn't help that many of their competitors are openly aliened with the group who they don't lean towards, so that could potentially make matters worst if they did openly take a stand.

He said One Book Shelf would appear to be taking a side if they didn't ban everything anyone found offensive. Aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement I was asking why they couldn't just take a side. I get the impression you guys thought I was talking about the Escapist. Which was probably a bit unclear on reflection.

 

[Something Amyss]

Why do people think that businesses shouldn't the right to choose what they stock?

It gets even weirder since most of these "censorship" topics come from the free market/vote with your wallet crowd. I've danced the other side of the vote with your wallet dance with a lot of the people upset over this (as well as things like Hatred), and it only seems to be a problem when it's something they want or something they can use to push a further agenda (complaining about the left here)

Also, monopoly doesn't apply here in a meaningful sense. They are the biggest storefront, but they are not the only ones. More importantly, they're not engaged in anti-competitive practices to my knowledge, which means they aren't preventing others from taking hold in the market.

We do use the term more loosely, yes. We also use the word "literally" to mean "figuratively. But in a practical, realistic sense, we're not talking a monopoly. Is it right what they did? That's debatable. But it's within their rights.

All I have to say is if you ban one thing because someone finds it offensive you better damn well ban everything someone finds offensive or it'll look like you're taking a side. Are you prepared to do that One Book Shelf?

Nobody's banned anything.

And as for why the escapist hasn't covered it? I think they're still nursing their black eye from backing GG/AGG type issues without doing their homework. I expect a lot of that particular type of controversy is going to magically slip through the cracks so they just don't have to deal with it.

Hasn't stopped The Escapist from sounding off since then.

Could it be that this simply isn't that noteworthy except to the people directly involved?

 

[Sarge034]

Is there some reason they just can't take a side?

Two reasons. First, they're a niche business. They can't afford to ostracize a large chunk of their market and just stop stocking all games that violate the parameters they stated. If they were to take one side, say... "Similarly, no matter how one feels about Gamergate, it is likewise too current, too emotionally frought, and too related to violence to be an appropriate subject for satire. Additionally, we considered that the violent element of the Gamergate issue has a basis in misogyny. For these reasons, we felt that this card game title was not welcome for sale on our site." was their new party line. That means ANY game someone complained about on those grounds or your internal censors thought violated that would be pulled. How many games does that leave? How many DnD-esq games don't have misogyny or realistic depictions of violence in relation to women? Second, they'll kill their reputation as a fair distributer. This will drive those companies trying to sell games they frown upon to their competitor. IE, I don't go to Target for my outdoors/sporting goods needs because as a part of their Liberal party line they don't have an outdoor/sporting goods section. So my only other option to do my all in one shopping is Walmart.

But as a side note, banning something and then not releasing their moral standards when devs ask for it is pretty scummy. Stay classy one Book Shelf, I'll sure as hell never shop with you.

 

[Something Amyss]

He said One Book Shelf would appear to be taking a side if they didn't ban everything anyone found offensive. Aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement I was asking why they couldn't just take a side.

And if they can't take a side, people should start disclosing where they stood on Chick Fil-a.

 

[Sarge034]

Nobody's banned anything.

It has been banned from the store, no? Or did I miss something and they're still selling it?

Hasn't stopped The Escapist from sounding off since then.

Could it be that this simply isn't that noteworthy except to the people directly involved?

Very rarely, and only in a "song and dance" kindda way. They're taking great pains to try and get away from it.

Could it be that it's gaming news and this is a gaming news outlet? How many other stories, especially non-gaming related ones, have had that same qualifier, "isn't that noteworthy except to the people directly involved".

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Is there some reason they just can't take a side?

Two reasons. First, they're a niche business. They can't afford to ostracize a large chunk of their market and just stop stocking all games that violate the parameters they stated. If they were to take one side, say... "Similarly, no matter how one feels about Gamergate, it is likewise too current, too emotionally frought, and too related to violence to be an appropriate subject for satire. Additionally, we considered that the violent element of the Gamergate issue has a basis in misogyny. For these reasons, we felt that this card game title was not welcome for sale on our site." was their new party line. That means ANY game someone complained about on those grounds or your internal censors thought violated that would be pulled. How many games does that leave? How many DnD-esq games don't have misogyny or realistic depictions of violence in relation to women? Second, they'll kill their reputation as a fair distributer. This will drive those companies trying to sell games they frown upon to their competitor. IE, I don't go to Target for my outdoors/sporting goods needs because as a part of their Liberal party line they don't have an outdoor/sporting goods section. So my only other option to do my all in one shopping is Walmart.

But as a side note, banning something and then not releasing their moral standards when devs ask for it is pretty scummy. Stay classy one Book Shelf, I'll sure as hell never shop with you.

Lol no it doesn't mean that anyone who complained on those grounds would get it pulled. It doesn't say they believe any accusation. You seem to Purposefully be taking the most extreme and unrealistic interpetation. Suuure they'll totally get rid of all those DnDesque games. Lets wait and see if they do then we'll know who is right

Kill their rep with some people. Forgive me if I don't find you representative.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

He said One Book Shelf would appear to be taking a side if they didn't ban everything anyone found offensive. Aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement I was asking why they couldn't just take a side.

And if they can't take a side, people should start disclosing where they stood on Chick Fil-a.

Good point. There we have a business taking an explicit 'fuck you' side to plenty of potential customers.

 

[Redryhno]

Why do people think that businesses shouldn't the right to choose what they stock? The usual justifications about it being a monopoly doesn't fly since its a digital storefront. With net neutrality, all storefronts are equal to one another in terms of accessibility. Popularity of the business is irrelevant so long as you can get a product for a reasonable price through reasonable means. Nothing is stopping them from selling it on a different storefront or distributing it themselves. Plenty of indie developers already do that and have done it for years, successfully, the developers of these games can do that too.

Nobody really thinks that. But when the guy in charge is getting rid of something because "HE KNOWS IT WHEN HE SEES IT", you sorta stop having any kind of goodwill flowing towards you. Hell, I can think of a dozen PnP RPGs that are out right now that are probably on that site that are just full of unsavory characters being presented as the good guys, not because the main antagonists are worse, but because they're not double plus good. You can see the problem people have with that reasoning right?

Hell, you saw what happened with Arkham Knight and Hatred, this is much the same in alot of ways.

 

[Sarge034]

He said One Book Shelf would appear to be taking a side if they didn't ban everything anyone found offensive. Aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement I was asking why they couldn't just take a side.

And if they can't take a side, people should start disclosing where they stood on Chick Fil-a.

This is actually a great point. Chick-Fil-A took a stand as a Christian organization and said they were for marriage between a man and a woman. Fallout ensued, ect, ect. What if they'd just kept their damn mouths shut and acted like a business? We don't give a damn which sex you like to get with, we sell damn good food so you should buy some. It's almost like personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of a lawful business. Else you'd all be ok with openly gay/GG/AGG/(insert your group here) folks being told to leave stores because stores reserve the right to not serve anyone they choose.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Why do people think that businesses shouldn't the right to choose what they stock? The usual justifications about it being a monopoly doesn't fly since its a digital storefront. With net neutrality, all storefronts are equal to one another in terms of accessibility. Popularity of the business is irrelevant so long as you can get a product for a reasonable price through reasonable means. Nothing is stopping them from selling it on a different storefront or distributing it themselves. Plenty of indie developers already do that and have done it for years, successfully, the developers of these games can do that too.

Nobody really thinks that. But when the guy in charge is getting rid of something because "HE KNOWS IT WHEN HE SEES IT", you sorta stop having any kind of goodwill flowing towards you. Hell, I can think of a dozen PnP RPGs that are out right now that are probably on that site that are just full of unsavory characters being presented as the good guys, not because the main antagonists are worse, but because they're not double plus good. You can see the problem people have with that reasoning right?

Hell, you saw what happened with Arkham Knight and Hatred, this is much the same in alot of ways.

Going by the first sentence of the OP's second to last paragraph it actually looks like some people do think that.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

He said One Book Shelf would appear to be taking a side if they didn't ban everything anyone found offensive. Aside from the sheer absurdity of the statement I was asking why they couldn't just take a side.

And if they can't take a side, people should start disclosing where they stood on Chick Fil-a.

This is actually a great point. Chick-Fil-A took a stand as a Christian organization and said they were for marriage between a man and a woman. Fallout ensued, ect, ect. What if they'd just kept their damn mouths shut and acted like a business? We don't give a damn which sex you like to get with, we sell damn good food so you should buy some. It's almost like personal feelings shouldn't get in the way of a lawful business. Else you'd all be ok with openly gay/GG/AGG/(insert your group here) folks being told to leave stores because stores reserve the right to not serve anyone they choose.

It's almost as if you think your "Money makes right" view is the only reason people might object to a business discriminating against customers lol

 

[Sarge034]

Lol no it doesn't mean that anyone who complained on those grounds would get it pulled. It doesn't say they believe any accusation. You seem to Purposefully be taking the most extreme and unrealistic interpetation. Suuure they'll totally get rid of all those DnDesque games. Lets wait and see if they do then we'll know who is right

Oh I know they won't, and that's my point. They're actively targeting one thing and leaving everything else that has the same qualifiers alone because those things are the golden goose as it were. They're being hypocritical bastards.

Kill their rep with some people. Forgive me if I don't find you representative.

I know, people roll over and take it from corporations all the time. Were I representative of the consumer population this would be a much more consumer friendly world. Shame really.

EDIT-

It's almost as if you think your "Money makes right" view is the only reason people might object to a business discriminating against customers lol

In business, money is the driving factor. So as a BUSINESS your job is to maximize profits. Yu don't do that by brining in personal views and ostracizing you customers.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Lol no it doesn't mean that anyone who complained on those grounds would get it pulled. It doesn't say they believe any accusation. You seem to Purposefully be taking the most extreme and unrealistic interpetation. Suuure they'll totally get rid of all those DnDesque games. Lets wait and see if they do then we'll know who is right

Oh I know they won't, and that's my point. They're actively targeting one thing and leaving everything else that has the same qualifiers alone because those things are the golden goose as it were. They're being hypocritical bastards.

Right and your proof they find both just as objectionable and only target one due to money is...?

You *claiming* the others are equally objectionable isn't proof btw. That you think they are wouldn't prove that they do.

Kill their rep with some people. Forgive me if I don't find you representative.

I know, people roll over and take it from corporations all the time. Were I representative of the consumer population this would be a much more consumer friendly world. Shame really.

Yes because I am sooooo screwed over by not being able to buy this book I don't want.

EDIT-

It's almost as if you think your "Money makes right" view is the only reason people might object to a business discriminating against customers lol

In business, money is the driving factor. So as a BUSINESS your job is to maximize profits. Yu don't do that by brining in personal views and ostracizing you customers.

Except you were talking about people who object to businesses discriminating. You said it's because we agree with you that personal feelings should be left out. That's not true. Some of us believe in civil rights and don't worship money. I think your apparent inability to understand this just goes to show how hollow your claims of hypocrisy are. You aren't very good at putting yourself into the mindset of others

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Why do people think that businesses shouldn't the right to choose what they stock? The usual justifications about it being a monopoly doesn't fly since its a digital storefront. With net neutrality, all storefronts are equal to one another in terms of accessibility. Popularity of the business is irrelevant so long as you can get a product for a reasonable price through reasonable means. Nothing is stopping them from selling it on a different storefront or distributing it themselves. Plenty of indie developers already do that and have done it for years, successfully, the developers of these games can do that too.

The problem is that there are no rules given for what choices they are making about stocking and why. So far they've pressured Tournament of Rapists into leaving for it's content, but nobody knows how far they'll go with that.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a famous grindhouse horror D&D clone, with lots of graphic images of women specifically being ripped apart. That author is known for courting controversy, and he's been vocal about how, despite nearly all of revenue for the past 6 years coming through DriveThru, he'll take all his products down if one is removed. That's a cult following, so while it will hurt OBS' rep they can survive financially.

Compare that with Montreal by Night, the most infamous sourcebook for OWoD. It has a special place in my heart for telling me exactly what company White Wolf (now Onyx Path) is, when I opened it up at a store to see why the kids were so excited about Vampire and saw a lovely picture of

Spoiler: trigger warning

a woman lying bleeding in a urinal, clearly having just been held down and raped by the vampires in the foreground, one of whom is lovingly shown with her strap-on still dripping blood.

I mean, if anything was going to be flagged for misogyny and violence towards women, you'd imagine that would do it. But instead you can buy it for $9. If they start taking down other games, but leave up their White Wolf/Onyx Path stuff, it's a clear sign that Wieck is allowing big companies to get away with stuff that he is coming down hard on indies for because the latter are not as valuable.

Also, monopoly doesn't apply here in a meaningful sense. They are the biggest storefront, but they are not the only ones. More importantly, they're not engaged in anti-competitive practices to my knowledge, which means they aren't preventing others from taking hold in the market.

It's hard to prove anti-competitive practises in this case, but there is a lot of rumour that OBS signs deals with major publishers to prevent their products from being sold for less anywhere else. There's a lot of talk about market concentration which is tricky to judge without objective numbers (that no one will release), but it's true that DriveThru has a great business relationship with many publishers, and tends to offer things for the cheapest price/earliest/making bundle deals with multiple products that normally wouldn't fly elsewhere.

 

[Secondhand Revenant]

Why do people think that businesses shouldn't the right to choose what they stock? The usual justifications about it being a monopoly doesn't fly since its a digital storefront. With net neutrality, all storefronts are equal to one another in terms of accessibility. Popularity of the business is irrelevant so long as you can get a product for a reasonable price through reasonable means. Nothing is stopping them from selling it on a different storefront or distributing it themselves. Plenty of indie developers already do that and have done it for years, successfully, the developers of these games can do that too.

The problem is that there are no rules given for what choices they are making about stocking and why. So far they've pressured Tournament of Rapists into leaving for it's content, but nobody knows how far they'll go with that.

Lamentations of the Flame Princess is a famous grindhouse horror D&D clone, with lots of graphic images of women specifically being ripped apart. That author is known for courting controversy, and he's been vocal about how, despite nearly all of revenue for the past 6 years coming through DriveThru, he'll take all his products down if one is removed. That's a cult following, so while it will hurt OBS' rep they can survive financially.

Compare that with Montreal by Night, the most infamous sourcebook for OWoD. It has a special place in my heart for telling me exactly what company White Wolf (now Onyx Path) is, when I opened it up at a store to see why the kids were so excited about Vampire and saw a lovely picture of

Spoiler: trigger warning

a woman lying bleeding in a urinal, clearly having just been held down and raped by the vampires in the foreground, one of whom is lovingly shown with her strap-on still dripping blood.

I mean, if anything was going to be flagged for misogyny and violence towards women, you'd imagine that would do it. But instead you can buy it for $9. If they start taking down other games, but leave up their White Wolf/Onyx Path stuff, it's a clear sign that Wieck is allowing big companies to get away with stuff that he is coming down hard on indies for because the latter are not as valuable.

Also, monopoly doesn't apply here in a meaningful sense. They are the biggest storefront, but they are not the only ones. More importantly, they're not engaged in anti-competitive practices to my knowledge, which means they aren't preventing others from taking hold in the market.

It's hard to prove anti-competitive practises in this case, but there is a lot of rumour that OBS signs deals with major publishers to prevent their products from being sold for less anywhere else. There's a lot of talk about market concentration which is tricky to judge without objective numbers (that no one will release), but it's true that DriveThru has a great business relationship with many publishers, and tends to offer things for the cheapest price/earliest/making bundle deals with multiple products that normally wouldn't fly elsewhere.

Well that OWoD thing sounds pretty bad but I think it's unfair to compare an image included in a product to the entire concept of a product.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

snip

Well that OWoD thing sounds pretty bad but I think it's unfair to compare an image included in a product to the entire concept of a product.

I will say that oWoD can be unapologetically offensive in a myriad of ways because that's just how WW is/was.