This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Absolutely, just because I think WOTC should be able to do x, doesn't mean I think they are right to do so. I don't think they should be able to retrospectively change contracts/licenses. That's a separate issue for which I will not defend them. My only point is that it isn't in and of itself bad for a company to be able to enforce standards on who gets to use or license their stuff, given it will have impacts on them. If a Trad Right Winger wants to create a game company and decide that they don't want to license it to someone who campaigns for abortion to be legal that should entirely be their decision.
Like I said I left WOTC behind a long time ago so I am not specifically defending them.
Right, not accusing you of taking their side. My point is mostly that they really shouldn't be able to accept all the lovely benefits that came with having an extremely open license, then turn around YEARS after implementing said license and try to impose heavy restrictions because they're suddenly worried about possible costs of said license might hit them as well, to the detriment of the very people who produced those benefits.
To me it strikes me less as them really needing to 'enforce standards' and more about them needing some excuse, any excuse to start charging money to those who have struck it rich off DnD content.
It might have been somewhat more acceptable if they had clearly articulated how this money was going to benefit the product or the players or anything. But that would mean they might be called on that later.
In short, they're seeking to heavily bind their creators hands even after those hands have made the product more popular, whilst leaving their own hands free to collect money, change the terms of the agreement further, change the product itself in the future, and, apparently, to tell creators to screw off if they cross some arbitrary lines.
It's asymetrical in the extreme.
You're right, but I have the suspicion that an abortion campaigner will self-select against buying from a Trad right-winger anyway so that's likely a moot point.
Oh yeah the standards change is just the side show. The important point from their point of view is the monetization change. I suspect the standards change is just so they can cut loose anyone they think is a PR problem once they have a financial link to them through the monetization program where they don't have the plausible deniability they had before.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link