One Book Shelf: Censorship Warfare

[Zontar]

That maybe a parent browsing the site's library of titles looking for books to buy their child interested in the hobby would come across one titled TOURNAMENT OF RAPISTS and go "OH HELL NO!" as that would look really, REALLY bad and that some people would rightly not want that title to be associated with their hobby and that some publishers would rightly not want their works to be associated with that title?

Given what the company already sells on that website as the standard of what it provides, any parent who would go on the site to find something for their kids is either 1) new to the site and unaware of what it is they are in the business of selling (it's like being surprised at finding porn in a store with three large "X"s on their door) or 2) is fully aware of what they sell, and so wouldn't even be phased by the title (though I have no idea what type of parent would knowingly use that site to buy things for kids).

Plus, doesn't everything you say go against that age old proverb we teach all children about judging books by their covers?

 

[Redryhno]

I'm kind of wondering, to all the people who argue "well this book or that book is just as bad as 'TOURNAMENT OF RAPISTS' is! Why didn't they pull those books too? HYPOCRISY! INCONSISTENCY! FAVORITISM!" did any of you stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the title of the fucking book had something to do with their decision to pull that particular book but not those other ones? That maybe a parent browsing the site's library of titles looking for books to buy their child interested in the hobby would come across one titled TOURNAMENT OF RAPISTS and go "OH HELL NO!" as that would look really, REALLY bad and that some people would rightly not want that title to be associated with their hobby and that some publishers would rightly not want their works to be associated with that title?

If that were the case, then maybe this guy could've come up with a better answer than "I can't tell you guidelines and general rules of what will be rejected, you have to send it in first and then maybe I'll decide"? I mean, I took it into account in like three of my posts here dude. Not to mention it already has an adults only sticker on it and you can't even look at the damn thing unless you verify that you're old enough on the site...

If that were the answer, don't you think he could've given that one? Or at the very least said they were going to be going for more family-friendly stuff in the future? I'm pretty sure alot of people would be miffed still, but there'd actually be an answer and reasoning behind this...

 

[Therumancer]

Censorship is when someone else without permission or knowledge of the creator, alters the works to conform to some moral or civil code. It is typically an act of government. A Book store chain refusing to sell a book is not censorship. A Government banning the sale of a book could be considered censorship.

You're addressing the legal definition of censorship. There is a secondary, more colloquial application of the word.

cen·sor·ship
ˈsensərˌSHip/
noun
noun: censorship

the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts.

This usage of the term...almost so broad as to be useless...is the one popularly applied around here whenever someone gets a burr in their underpants about diversity bogeymen because someone somewhere didn't sell something, or someone somewhere caught flack for a joke, etc, etc. "This is censorship!" they scream. "No not that dangerous legal one, the other really mundane one!"

For example...petitioning Obsidian to remove a poem from their game was "censorship". So was petitioning them to put it back in, and thus removing its replacement. Calling for Pro-GG people to be silenced was censorship. So was calling for Anti-GG people to be fired. You'll find pretty much every person on these forums who is "anti-censorship" is actually pretty loud proponents of it when it suits their purposes.

Take the OP for example (sorry OP, nothing personal, just an illustration). OP was earlier today calling for The Escapist to "deal with its SJW problem" (whatever the fuck those are meant to be by OP's definition). He claims the sight is "slanted towards the left wing", and calls for site management to impose authority and balance out the political perspective of its members by force. There is no way to accomplish this ASIDE from censorship...literally removing voices from the discussion until the "mix" suits the OP's preference. This is a literal cry for censorship from a governing/overseeing entity. Alas, as OP was sage enough to point out:

Nobody sees themselves as the bad guy or the problem so to speak.

And this is what 99.9% of our conversations about "censorship" boil down to. "More of what I like, please, less of what I don't like". They will attempt to establish the specter of tyranny of the majority, usually by invoking terrifying slippery slope scenarios involving dystopian futures where no one can make a joke or express a dissenting thought if we don't immediately put our boots on the necks of these disagreeable assholes they've identified for our censure.

And that's....fine?...really, because it's pretty NORMAL for humans to behave this way. You'll note when the subject of confirmation bias comes up, people will say "OMG I see that all the time" but never "OMG I do that all the time", even though everyone does. We're hard-wired to prefer our own perspectives and believe ourselves to be in the right, whether we're progressive liberals or clamp-jawed conservatives or neo-facists.

We can discuss confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance until we're blue in the face, I'm simply saying the behavior is wrong and needs to be dealt with. It should be noted that despite being lumped in with the right wing I dislike true ultra conservatives myself and feel they are just as bad when given the free reign SJWs have been given. The importance of everyone being able to speak freely (yes including people I disagree with) is that no one side can be allowed to control discourse no matter how "righteous" they might see themselves.

This is why even though I am towards the right, I'm actually a believe in semi-socialized control of communications platforms and distribution networks. Right now I find it a problem that in a society reliant on mass communications private citizens who control those networks can choose to engage in censorship and oppression without any repercussions since the laws protecting free speech and the like only apply to the government. The current situation has also lead to the government involved in indirect censorship due to the increasingly incestuous relationship between private and public interests via PACs and the like.... not something I expect many people here to agree with, but it is my thoughts on the subject.

While not directed at me one minor point I will disagree with you on is the demands to fire people in Gamersgate wasn't so much over censorship but because they were in positions requiring impartiality and the people whose firings were demanded were those sleeping with someone they were responsible for reporting on. That's a problem for someone in a position that relies on impartiality. The question was less about their ability to speak, but what position they can speak from. If they wanted to praise Zoe to the moon, more power to them, but under those circumstances they should not be doing it from alleged watchdog positions. Say what you want, but when you pull something like this expect your integrity to be questioned. We can argue this back and forth in the context of the principle above and take days doing it so I won't really bother since it will go nowhere, especially seeing as I have mixed opinions about the situation that sparked Gamersgate, I'm far more interest in the liberal media bias throughout gamerdom that it uncovered, as well as the media control being exerted by left wing elements including mass bans and such to crush dissenting opinions and keep them out of platforms where they could represent a serious challenge. Human nature yes, but still wrong. Society and laws exist to reign in human nature.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I'm kind of wondering, to all the people who argue "well this book or that book is just as bad as 'TOURNAMENT OF RAPISTS' is! Why didn't they pull those books too? HYPOCRISY! INCONSISTENCY! FAVORITISM!" did any of you stop to think that maybe, just maybe, the title of the fucking book had something to do with their decision to pull that particular book but not those other ones? That maybe a parent browsing the site's library of titles looking for books to buy their child interested in the hobby would come across one titled TOURNAMENT OF RAPISTS and go "OH HELL NO!" as that would look really, REALLY bad and that some people would rightly not want that title to be associated with their hobby and that some publishers would rightly not want their works to be associated with that title?

You have to log in and turn on an option to view adult content, which Tournament of Rapists was marked as.

I remember when this picture was used to deride this concept...

 

[Redryhno]

If that were the case, then maybe this guy could've come up with a better answer than "I can't tell you guidelines and general rules of what will be rejected, you have to send it in first and then maybe I'll decide"?

Well, considering his answer was actually "We've only had to pull 2 items from our inventory out of thousands upon thousands in our entire history of operations, so coming up with specific guidelines for such an extremely rare occurrence seems like a waste of time because this isn't going to be any more common of an occurrence simply because this is the first time in our history we've felt the need to do this" it seems to me like you and others are just blowing the issue completely out of proportion and engaging in needless fear mongering.

Either way, it seems like there are numerous reasons as to why they decided to remove those two items that combined to justify them doing so, reasons that other works which people are trying to compare to the items removed do not possess to a sufficient degree to warrant their removal, so all the doom saying and cries of censorship and inconsistency are completely without merit.

Again, if it's such a rare occurrence, they could say EXACTLY why they were pulled. It honestly saves alot more time on both their part, and the creator hoping for a bit of store space to be cleared out for them.

 

[IceForce]

The question was less about their ability to speak, but what position they can speak from.

In which case you've just shot your own argument in the foot.

"I'm happy with these journalists speaking, just not from the platforms they were speaking from."

... is exactly the same as:

"I'm happy with Tournament of Rapists being sold, just not from the platform it was being sold on."

And yet, only one of these examples counts as 'censorship' and not the other? How very curious.

 

[Therumancer]

Apologies for not putting up links. I probably should have done so. I'll admit part of the problem is I upgraded to "Windows 10" and for whatever reason I can't make this "Microsoft Edge" thing they replaced Internet Explorer with open multiple browser sessions so I can just have a separate window to search and copy links from which is how I used to do it. I'd pretty much have to write them down singly.

I also wanted to bring up another point, and part of why this is a big deal. As far as the library at OBS goes "Tournament Of Rapists" by all accounts isn't all that bad. Let's take one of my guilty pleasures for example the "Hot Chicks RPG" which is a satire about this incredibly hostile universe of sex maniacs (demons, monsters, aliens, etc...) that love to victimize "Hot Chicks" and in this world the "Hot Chicks" are fighting back. The system is quite playable, but it's mostly amusing to read what they came up with and see some of the crude "poser" artwork. This has rape (by things that aren't even normal), furries, a whole bad guy based around Vore (called unsubtly Doctor Vore), and other things. Most of their products are just under $5 and all of it is satire of a sort, one of them for example is called "The Last Ghost Hunt" which isn't even their worst product which tells the tale (complete with artwork) of a group of paranormal investigators based on "The Scooby Gang" unleashing supernatural evil and getting raped by ghosts (which presumably the more heroic "Hot Chicks" will confront and defeat). Not to everyone's tastes, humor varies, and of course this brand of total ridiculousness (it has a very specific vibe to it) offends SJWs. On the other hand the company "Dakkar Ltd." (I believe that's the name) has released dozens of these supplements and a lot of them are copper+ sellers on OBS. Other writers like Rafael Chandler specialize in irreverent gross outs and again some of his work like "Teratic Tome" are among the top sellers on the site.

Now to be honest most people don't sit there and call their products "Tournament of Rapists" they include a basic description so you know what your getting, usually a warning, and there is of course an adult filter. All of these developers, mostly indies, are now threatened by the censorship since they rely on OBS as a distributor.

It should also be noted this is NOT a business decision, and let's be honest, backing down to pressure from SJWs and such would still be wrong if it was, but it's not. The site has run for 14+ years with just an adult filter, and a lot of the products threatened by this are among the better sellers on the site. It's no secret this stuff was there (the site has an adult filter) and until organized complaints by people looking to get offended, nobody really gave much of a crap.

One of the more vocal critics of the complaint are the guys doing "Lamentations Of The Flame Princess" which is a dark fantasy RPG, which at it's core is a very basic D&D clone, but it specializes in dark fantasy and has some rather disturbing imagery and artwork that seems like someone actually visualized some of the things vintage authors like Michael Moorcock hinted at during their heyday. By definition however given that some of this is meant to be disturbing, the new policies render these products vulnerable, and like it or not LotFP and it's products is a 2% seller (ie in the top 2% of all publishers on the site including the big guys). Over a few years LoFP grossed over $100,000 which was largely due to the distribution on OBS. I know this because on the OBS blog the guys from that company has said how much they make.

It should also be noted that the new policies which come from threats by SJWs this includes broad proclaimations about racism, genocide, and other politically incorrect material. So this means even D&D clones can be in trouble. I mean if you have a race of Dwarves that want to annihilate all orcs down to the last one, technically this could be considered genocide and would be worthy of reporting and complaint. Ditto for suggestive names like say "Vandarr Orcslayer". As some reports have shown on the blog (by people's responses) some SJWs out there who are vocal on the general subject even take exception to terms like "Barbarian" because it's exclusionary and implies superiority over whomever is being talked about.

The current plan is to put up a report feature and establish no guidelines, or protection for existing companies and products. It's entirely a matter of "censorship is a moral imperitive, I shall know offense when I see it and smite accordingly" which represents a problem. It could also be taken as saying that if enough people complain about a product your going to get pulled, opening the door for people who do nothing but run around finding things to get offended over simply digging through the site and products to see what they can get outraged over this week. As I myself keep pointing out "Masks Of Nylarthotep" which is a legendary adventure, having undergone tons of reprints and multi-generational play, had a bit where you have monsters raping women provided by cultists, the same exact logic that causes offense over "Tournament of Rapists" means that would be pulled.

Some of what I'm saying here is redundant, but it presumably makes the point.... and don't even get me started on some of the crap in White Wolf books. I still remember an illustration in "Montreal By Night" of a dominatrix vampires with a bloody hook standing in front of a room where her victim, a woman bleeding through her vagina, is tied to a urinal in the background. Horror is horrific and really, even big publishers could get slammed here.

This is entirely capitulation under duress, there is no business logic behind it at all. Maybe this will even kill the site, but at the end of the day half the problem is people need the site which is why this is an issue. It's very much the indie press version of STEAM.

 

[Redryhno]

Again, if it's such a rare occurrence, they could say EXACTLY why they were pulled. It honestly saves alot more time on both their part, and the creator hoping for a bit of store space to be cleared out for them.

You may believe that, but clearly, they do not, and considering it is their business, not yours, it's their decision. You're free to disagree with that, but they're just as free to ignore you and go about their business in the way they choose. And, personally, I believe that's exactly the way it should be, because the alternative is far more of an infringement upon and denial of freedom than any spurious claims of censorship made to argue for said alternative.

Dude, you've really haven't been involved in a business, have you? Especially one as personal as these often are? People submit stuff to them to sell. The least they DESERVE is to be told, and for everyone to know EXACTLY why things were taken off. If it's the title, it has an adult sticker already on it, if it was because of complaints, that sets a pretty shitty precedent that opens up quite a few bullshit scenarios. There's alot of questions that the guy's announcement failed to cover.

Not to mention, would you REALLY be ok with the same thing happening with a product you were ok with the premise of?

 

[Therumancer]

The question was less about their ability to speak, but what position they can speak from.

In which case you've just shot your own argument in the foot.

"I'm happy with these journalists speaking, just not from the platforms they were speaking from."

... is exactly the same as:

"I'm happy with Tournament of Rapists being sold, just not from the platform it was being sold on."

And yet, only one of these examples counts as 'censorship' and not the other? How very curious.

Not even remotely when taken in context. One situation has to deal with people sleeping with a person their job requires them to remain impartial to. The other has to deal with a platform engaging in censorship. Two very different situations. Though I suppose if one speculates the CEO of OBS was having sex with the guys from Scorched Urf (the guys making the Tournament Of Rapists Module) you could argue he's incapable of making an impartial decision regarding their product, but I've never seen any hint of that.... though since you seem intent on trying to cause chaos here, maybe you could take the show on the road and ask if this is a lovers spat.

There are exceptions to every rule, but that does not mean the rules can be judged or interpeted entirely by the exception. A (serious) point to consider whenever in a debate, trying to play "gotcha" this was is foolish and does no one a service.

Also to be honest I confess I'm not following you to an extent because I never said I had a problem with the platform ToR was being sold on. I've actually been saying OBS should continue to carry the product and not engage in censorship.

 

[Therumancer]

If that were the case, then maybe this guy could've come up with a better answer than "I can't tell you guidelines and general rules of what will be rejected, you have to send it in first and then maybe I'll decide"?

Well, considering his answer was actually "We've only had to pull 2 items from our inventory out of thousands upon thousands in our entire history of operations, so coming up with specific guidelines for such an extremely rare occurrence seems like a waste of time because this isn't going to be any more common of an occurrence simply because this is the first time in our history we've felt the need to do this" it seems to me like you and others are just blowing the issue completely out of proportion and engaging in needless fear mongering.

Either way, it seems like there are numerous reasons as to why they decided to remove those two items that combined to justify them doing so, reasons that other works which people are trying to compare to the items removed do not possess to a sufficient degree to warrant their removal, so all the doom saying and cries of censorship and inconsistency are completely without merit.

Again, if it's such a rare occurrence, they could say EXACTLY why they were pulled. It honestly saves alot more time on both their part, and the creator hoping for a bit of store space to be cleared out for them.

To be fair they did say. The title was offensive and got attention, and in reading the adventure (a synopsis was provided) it was deemed to be offensive due to the idea of evil entities possessing people and forcing them to commit rapes (these rapists being the enemies confronted by the PCs). The problem is that if this is now considered to be offensive enough to get something pulled it opens the door for tons of other products on the site to get pulled as well. In addition the CEO's statement made it clear this policy is being extended to things like racism, genocide, etc... your basic SJW watch list. On top of this a new report situation is being put up so people can easily flag products as offensive.

The exact way it was stated this has put thousands of products in jeopardy, and under literal interpretation it means a SJW could effectively make a case against your average fantasy game on grounds of things like racism and genocide. "The only good orc is a dead orc!" ooops well, looks like the good aligned dwarven king is advocating genocide which comes too close to things going on IRL, and it's presented positively, just imagine if this was being inserted on other "subhuman" races IRL based on the color of their skin (vile Greenskins!). Being good this is presented as a positive thing so unleash duh Banhammer!

Basically if the policy was good enough for 14 years there is no reason for censorship to become a sudden moral imperative on the site. That's the problem, the very situation is bad, and people are upset. The right solution is to do nothing. Especially seeing as that module does nothing that should be an issue other than it's title. I mean seriously, are we supposed to freak out every time a Succubus or other creature with seductive/erotic mind control powers shows up because using a "Charm" spell to elicit sex to make demon babies (Marquis/Cambion or others) it's an insensitive depiction of rape? Succibi/Incubi, Erinyes, Nymphs, Dryads, Satyrs (in some games they can charm/seduce), Nixies, Sirens,... all evil rape metaphors by this logic and by this ruling bannable... and I'm not reading into that as a reactionary.

Sure calling a module "Tournament Of Rapists" was a bit much, but the entire reaction is overboard. The reaction should have been a simple "well if you don't like it, don't buy it. If your easily offended put your adult filter back on".

 

[Mazinger-Z]

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/24103/Prototype-Pimp-Daddy?it=1

Being a Pimp Daddy is all about being seen, being cooler than cool, being the stylish cat rolling through town in a limo with a jacuzzi in the back, your two best hos in the tub with you, and twenty more hos out there walking the streets for you. You want to call yourself a Pimp Daddy, you better live up to the job. You better show up in gold and furs, sporting a diamond grill, Ingram Mac 10 one hand and a tall glass of Crunk Juice in the other. You?re going to need a girl for each arm, a good pair of fists and an even better line on your lips at all time, and enough green to buy a small island. The new feats created in this sourcebook are intended to be compatible with the standard rules for D20 Modern, and you can easily integrate them in to your local game. In this Sourcebook there are:

[ul][li]Blackmail: Nobody wants you angry, because they?re afraid of what you know, and what you?ll say.[/li]
[li]Dress to Impress: You wear only big name designers and multi-thousand dollar jewels, and always look your best.[/li]
[li]Local Hero: You are a local celebrity, extremely well known in a specific city or neighborhood.[/li]
[li]Sexual Healin?: Marvin Gaye said it best. Sometimes you just need a little bit of sexual medicine.[/li]
[li]Street Dealer: Your product is widely regarded as the best shit on the street; your reputation as a drug chemist is unquestioned.[/li][/ul]

Shhhhhhh, no one let the No Fun Police know that this made it past their internal review process.

Seriously, the entirety of White Wolf's "Black Dog" series being up for grabs, which in some cases intricately details sexual violation for the purposes of 'wyrm-taint'

Also this: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/56643/HOT-CHICKS-The-Roleplaying-Game?src=also_purchased&filters=100_0_44827_0_0&manufacturers_id=1

Check out the preview. There are some interesting pictures in it.

All this hand-wringing, and for what? Because as near as I can tell it was WORDS that offended people. Not necessarily content.

Because if it were content, there'd be a pretty big burning across the entirety of the site, but I can find far more offensive things that just didn't make the radar to the Offendatrons of the Internet.

 

[Therumancer]

Not to mention, would you REALLY be ok with the same thing happening with a product you were ok with the premise of?

Yep, I would be. Again, their business, their decision. You can doom and gloom all you want, but I actually value freedom, and freedom to control your property and what happens on your property is paramount to maintaining actual freedom. I mean, I'd much prefer if most restaurants sold Pepsi products instead of Coke, but I'm not about to go demanding that they sell Pepsi. If a store decides not to carry a product I want, I'll go somewhere that does. I really don't understand your guys' insistence that businesses should conduct themselves only in ways you want them to and sell whatever products you want them to and only make changes to their products that you want them to and not make any changes to their products that you don't want them to all under the guise of "we're anti-censorship!"

HOWEVER Freedom of Speech is a basic human right, one person's ability to take that away from someone else is a problem. The Freedom Of Speech was written at a time when it was believed only the government could effectively engage in censorship. As time has gone on and communications and distribution platforms have developed we've created an environment where private citizens can wield unparalleled power over the expression of others, far in excess of legitimately elected officials. What's more as things like PACS have developed and private and public powers get into bed with each other it's become increasingly blurred as to who is doing the censoring anyway.

Engineering appropriate laws will be a headache, since there are a lot of things to consider, but it needs to be done. At the end of the day this is one of the few areas I depart from my generally right wing sentiments, and believe the government should intrude on private industry to protect the right to free speech and expression. In a case like this it's tantamount to book burning, except we have private citizens doing it, and nazi-like SJWs standing around cheering, when at the end of the day nobody should be able to declare something "offensive" this way and simply dispose of it which is what we're seeing through private control of necessary distribution channels. In the modern world there is no viable way to distribute this work without the usage of a private network like this, and it becomes even more complicated when someone holds a virtual monopoly the way OBS does. It's not like "Tournament Of Rapists" can viably enter the market just by quietly being put on a private website nowadays.

But as I said, engineering appropriate laws is going to be a headache, but I see this as one of the biggest challenges of the civilized world in the modern age, and solutions go well beyond the context of this discussion.

I'll also say flat out, I listen to people I disagree with all the time, I do not believe freedom of speech is only the freedom to say what I agree with (unlike SJWs). Without proper controls conservatives are just as bad as liberals, liberals are simply the problem at the moment. This all gets well off topic from OBS however.

 

[Redryhno]

Not to mention, would you REALLY be ok with the same thing happening with a product you were ok with the premise of?

Yep, I would be. Again, their business, their decision. You can doom and gloom all you want, but I actually value freedom, and freedom to control your property and what happens on your property is paramount to maintaining actual freedom. I mean, I'd much prefer if most restaurants sold Pepsi products instead of Coke, but I'm not about to go demanding that they sell Pepsi. If a store decides not to carry a product I want, I'll go somewhere that does. I really don't understand your guys' insistence that businesses should conduct themselves only in ways you want them to and sell whatever products you want them to and only make changes to their products that you want them to and not make any changes to their products that you don't want them to all under the guise of "we're anti-censorship!"

Sigh...this isn't going anywhere.

Anyways, talk about yourself wanting "freedom", but you and I both know there's more than a bit of difference here. You can get Pepsi at every third store in the world. This RPG stuff? OBS has the same kind of monopoly that Steam has on video games, in that if you don't have Steam-cred, your game is going to sell a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of what you could get with Steam. Even worse, it's going to get that same fraction of knowledge that it exists. I mean, if this situation maybe involved WW, WOTC, Wizkids, the Pathfinder guys, then you might actually have a point.

And I have no problem with the game being unavailable, provided there's an actual answer that doesn't open up bullshit to abuse the storefront, so would you maybe mind NOT doing that little narrative you've got spinning for half your paragraph?

Also, would you maybe mind talking TO me instead of AT me if you decide to continue this conversation? Be a bit of a nice change of pace and might actually surprise me.

 

[Therumancer]

http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/24103/Prototype-Pimp-Daddy?it=1

Being a Pimp Daddy is all about being seen, being cooler than cool, being the stylish cat rolling through town in a limo with a jacuzzi in the back, your two best hos in the tub with you, and twenty more hos out there walking the streets for you. You want to call yourself a Pimp Daddy, you better live up to the job. You better show up in gold and furs, sporting a diamond grill, Ingram Mac 10 one hand and a tall glass of Crunk Juice in the other. You?re going to need a girl for each arm, a good pair of fists and an even better line on your lips at all time, and enough green to buy a small island. The new feats created in this sourcebook are intended to be compatible with the standard rules for D20 Modern, and you can easily integrate them in to your local game. In this Sourcebook there are:

[ul][li]Blackmail: Nobody wants you angry, because they?re afraid of what you know, and what you?ll say.[/li]
[li]Dress to Impress: You wear only big name designers and multi-thousand dollar jewels, and always look your best.[/li]
[li]Local Hero: You are a local celebrity, extremely well known in a specific city or neighborhood.[/li]
[li]Sexual Healin?: Marvin Gaye said it best. Sometimes you just need a little bit of sexual medicine.[/li]
[li]Street Dealer: Your product is widely regarded as the best shit on the street; your reputation as a drug chemist is unquestioned.[/li][/ul]

Shhhhhhh, no one let the No Fun Police know that this made it past their internal review process.

Seriously, the entirety of White Wolf's "Black Dog" series being up for grabs, which in some cases intricately details sexual violation for the purposes of 'wyrm-taint'

Also this: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/56643/HOT-CHICKS-The-Roleplaying-Game?src=also_purchased&filters=100_0_44827_0_0&manufacturers_id=1

Check out the preview. There are some interesting pictures in it.

All this hand-wringing, and for what? Because as near as I can tell it was WORDS that offended people. Not necessarily content.

Because if it were content, there'd be a pretty big burning across the entirety of the site, but I can find far more offensive things that just didn't make the radar to the Offendatrons of the Internet.

Hot Chicks is a guilty pleasure of mine so I've mentioned it a few times (in this thread not long ago I believe) and yeah, it goes much further than anything I've heard about from "Tournament Of Rapists". The most noteworthy thing to take a look at though is that this is a "Best Seller" as are some of the supplements for it.

Basically if your going to condemn ToR your going to condemn "Black Tokyo" the "hardcore" Japanese Anime RPG which it is for, and if your going to condemn that your going to condemn "Hot Chicks" and if your going to condemn that you might as well axe Rafael Chandler's stuff too (Starship From Hell, Teratic Tome, Slaughtergrid) for similar reasons, and then if your holding to these standards you might as well get started on the Call Of Cthulhu stuff which can be pretty "evil and rapey", and other than main CoC you have "Cthulhutech" (basically giant mechs fighting Lovecraftian monsters in the far future, think of Pacific Rim's Jaegers intercepting R'leth and the Deep Ones) because that has the Deep Ones running entire rape programs to breed hybrids... and it just goes on.

The scary thing though is this isn't just about the sex though, the CEO's statements open the door for racism and genocide and complaints by people who have problems with the word "Barbarian" as a discriminatory term (poor Conan, his feelings will be hurt...). I mean nobody should be allowed to roleplay wanting to exterminate "Greenskins" from a world because that's just wrong and sets the wrong tone. Dwarves and Elves should get along and not hate each other... etc... I mean sorry, think about that some time. I can't wait until some SJW decides to dig into Fantasy Flight's "Warhammer 40k" games.... "yes, we know it's partially satirical, but these are subjects that should not be made fun of, the witches shouldn't be evil, and all the factions should get along... though we do like how it pokes fun at organized religion".

You seem to be the first one to mention White Wolf besides me, I'm not a big WW fan, but yeah... WW products are in big trouble over this, and not just the Black Dog ones. Various forms of mind control (with "erotic" themes), ultra-violence, a few different factions trying to genocide each other, and even non-Black Dog titles are infamous for pushing the limits and they crying "It's all Art". It's amusing at times... but yeah, this is one of my concerns about this, not even the big publishers are safe. Honestly White Wolf is probably worse than "Hot Chicks" because despite all the adult elements and weird rape it can be somewhat light hearted and tongue in cheek at the same time (as odd as that sounds) and half the time they seem to be making fun of the hentai genera. White Wolf on the other hand can be quite nasty and mean spirited since it's going more for outright horror. Besides in Hot Chicks half the point is the PCs are usually pretty tough and tend to become increasingly tougher, they aren't victim material usually which is part of the point, I believe one of the supplements mentioned that in actual play they once had to ponder how much damage it would take to shatter the planet. In White Wolf everything is much bigger than you, your usually the servant of much more powerful forces which might not even like you, and as supernatural as you might be your still quite capable of becoming a victim, especially early on. That said I'd expect WW is too big a target for most SJWs, and besides it probably also gets a lot of good will for being publically in support of LGBT stuff when most RPGs wouldn't touch it, Hot Chicks is too, but wasn't as early and is a generally easier target. I can virtually guarantee if these policies stay in force SJWs are going to try and jump on Hot Chicks.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yep, I would be. Again, their business, their decision. You can doom and gloom all you want, but I actually value freedom, and freedom to control your property and what happens on your property is paramount to maintaining actual freedom. I mean, I'd much prefer if most restaurants sold Pepsi products instead of Coke, but I'm not about to go demanding that they sell Pepsi. If a store decides not to carry a product I want, I'll go somewhere that does. I really don't understand your guys' insistence that businesses should conduct themselves only in ways you want them to and sell whatever products you want them to and only make changes to their products that you want them to and not make any changes to their products that you don't want them to all under the guise of "we're anti-censorship!"

Yeah! Like Freedom to ban gay authors from stores! Freedom to refuse to stock books that counter the word of a specific deity! Freedom to not sell women's contraceptives! Freedom to displace poor people, by only selling expensive goods in your small monopoly!

And if anyone asks why, we'll just refuse to give an answer why we're doing these things!

Yes, "Freedom".

Let me guess, these instances are different, right?

It seems more you're talking about a fair-weathered freedom that only covers your specific views and opinions rather than an overall freedom that allows people to do whatever they want.

 

[Luminous_Umbra]

I think several people in this thread would do well to remember the phrase, "Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should."

Yes, they are allowed to remove these games from their store. That is completely their legal right.

What's arguable is the morality in how and why they chose to do so. And you can repeat "Companies have no morals, they care about money" all you want, but I think we all know that the world hasn't quite reached that point uniformly yet.

And honestly, is it really that difficult to understand the concept of "clear guidelines for submissions"? I guarantee there is at least one game that will not be on OBS as a result of this, especially if an alternate service eventually emerges.