Jim could probably answer those questions better than anyone. If it would be possible to have something pulled down for manual review twice, he would have experienced it. He'd probably be happy to do that in his Q&A videos that he mentioned. Does anyone have contact info for him? I've been banned on Twitter for ages, and that's the only place I talked to him.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 03:34:42 PM

I guess the main questions there are;
- How often do they go back up?
- Can they be pulled down for manual review more than once?

The reason I ask is because magazine and book publishers commonly review material before they publish it. Distributors generally know what they're distributing. I'm actually more surprised DTRPG doesn't do a content review before they put products up in the first place.

But, if they do put them back up after a review in most cases (and put it at the head of the line) and only pull a given product for review once then it's not really any more onerous than conventional publishing and gives you a double hit of landing on the new release page.

1. The product goes back up once it's cleared the manual review and it goes to the front page like before if it was yanked down in the first few days.
2. Once and only once is it reviewed.

Point 1 was stated by Jim with his video, Point 2 is based on the fact I've yet to hear a product come down multiple times.  This would be news in the market place.

Now if a substational amount of data was rewritten, then that possibly could trigger another review?  that would be a good question to ask. How often does that edge case exist though?

Contact Jim: Email him on his website or post a comment in his Youtube videos, there aren't many comments so it should bubble up quickly.

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 09, 2023, 03:34:42 PM

Quote from: migo on March 09, 2023, 11:10:10 AM

Quote from: THE_Leopold on March 09, 2023, 08:44:13 AM

Quote from: Rob Necronomicon on March 09, 2023, 07:47:18 AM

Quote from: migo on March 09, 2023, 07:44:04 AM
What is hostile marketing?

Err... That's a good question. And it seems deliberately vague.

I'm sure someone here will be able to explain it far better than I could. But it's basically, don't say negative or shitty things about drivethru while you are selling your material on their platform.

"BUY MY PRODUCT BEFORE IT'S GONE FOR EVER!"
or
"SEE WHAT WILL BE BANNED IN DAYS! HURRY BEFORE IT VANISHES!"

using the negative marketing of the fact that a company is enforcing it's rules as a way to say "I'm skirting the rules, get what i'm selling quickly as it's FORBIDDEN!"

the inverse of saying "Here's my new product! Come see it!" you ae are promoting the fact the item is against some rule and will be removed.

So being completely honest is the problem?

Because there are people who will flag every product from certain companies when it is uploaded, regardless of the content, and regardless of whether it actually breaks any rules.

If it would only be taken down because of content that actually breaks DTRPG's rules, that would be one thing. But that's not what happens, it gets taken down because one person complains about it, and then gets "manually reviewed" to see if it goes back up.

I guess the main questions there are;
- How often do they go back up?
- Can they be pulled down for manual review more than once?

The reason I ask is because magazine and book publishers commonly review material before they publish it. Distributors generally know what they're distributing. I'm actually more surprised DTRPG doesn't do a content review before they put products up in the first place.

But, if they do put them back up after a review in most cases (and put it at the head of the line) and only pull a given product for review once then it's not really any more onerous than conventional publishing and gives you a double hit of landing on the new release page.

Is it fun? No. Is it more onerous than traditional publishing reviews? It doesn't appear to be significantly so.

You forget one very important distinction, a traditional publishers IS a publisher, it will even give advances, pay the editors, artists and printing. It's logical for them to veto products they don't feel are worth the upfront expense. That currently many are ideologically driven is a different discussion.

OBS doesn't do anything of that. If you're gonna cite the expense of hosting it it's negligible, the cost of the traffic? Same thing, else they would charge you more for products that don't sell (cost of hosting) or that sell too much (cost of traffic). Or just charge you upfront for your store with limits on the hosting/traffic depending on the plan you buy.

Fuck, OBS even allows FREE books, and I'm not talking small pamphlets, I'm talking about SWN/WWN/CWN, S&W, White Box FMAG, and others of that size. So the cost of hosting  and traffic isn't an issue.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on March 09, 2023, 01:36:50 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 09, 2023, 12:14:47 PM
Hostile marketing can be a lot of things. It could be anything from 'where's the beef' to coke/pepsi taste-test ads in the 80's. 'Strong enough for him, but ph balanced for her', is an example of mild hostile marketing.

More recently, and on the not so mild side, Daily Wire has had a lot of success with razors and chocolate bars.

OBS is saying you cannot use their platform to market in a negative way while also using the platform. That is perfectly reasonable.

Now the ban first mentality that disproportionately impacts people like Venger, LotFP, and others...that is another issue.

Bolding mine.

Is there an objective definition ANYWHERE on OBS' TOS of "Hostile Marketing"? Or is it left to OBS' sole discretion to define what constitutes HM?

Great question. I'm not aware of an academic definition for it. I wasn't a marketing major, but took classes. I got the impression it was like 'reverse psychology' which is really just psychology. It was more slang for a variety of techniques.

I'm sure we have a marketing guru lurking around somewhere that can clear it up.

OBS is actually pretty clear what they mean because they don't actually use the term "hostile marketing." That apparently was coined to describe the policy, which is thus;

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.

Also

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.

So the answer of what qualifies is "derogatory or defamatory statements on social media about OneBookShelf or our staff." and "don't accuse us of improperly or censorship in public."

Seems pretty simple; don't talk bad on social media about the platform that is giving you a service or they will stop offering their service to you.

Round these parts they call that "don't shit in your bed."

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 10, 2023, 07:34:41 AM
OBS is actually pretty clear what they mean because they don't actually use the term "hostile marketing." That apparently was coined to describe the policy, which is thus;

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.

Also

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.

You quote the section immediately prior to the section literally titled "Hostile Marketing". It would have been hard to miss while cutting and pasting the part you posted, but I'll assume for now that you're not intentionally being disingenuous.

Here is that section:

Quote
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.

Two things to note here:
1. It essentially amounts to: we will ban you and if you complain about it we'll pretend that's why we did it.
2. It describes behavior that will be considered hostile, but never claims that's the only behavior that can be so construed.

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
1. It essentially amounts to: we will ban you and if you complain about it we'll pretend that's why we did it.

Yeah. So if there is any censorship, you have to keep quiet about it and deal only with OBS, and entirely on their terms.

Quote from: migo on March 10, 2023, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
1. It essentially amounts to: we will ban you and if you complain about it we'll pretend that's why we did it.

Yeah. So if there is any censorship, you have to keep quiet about it and deal only with OBS, and entirely on their terms.

"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."

With the caveat that English is my first language, I think the policy is pretty clear. If you focus on the words deliberate, public, and attention...you should get most of the way there.

This is not as unreasonable as people are making it out to be.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 10, 2023, 04:21:53 PM

Quote from: migo on March 10, 2023, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
1. It essentially amounts to: we will ban you and if you complain about it we'll pretend that's why we did it.

Yeah. So if there is any censorship, you have to keep quiet about it and deal only with OBS, and entirely on their terms.

"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."

With the caveat that English is my first language, I think the policy is pretty clear. If you focus on the words deliberate, public, and attention...you should get most of the way there.

This is not as unreasonable as people are making it out to be.

Sure let's focus on those words:

"Deliberate" is a subject judgment, entirely up to the discretion of OBS.
"Attention" is a subjective judgment, entirely up to the discretion of OBS.
"Public" means you're not allowed to complain to anyone besides OBS, who will ignore you.


Yep, I'm there all right.

I was banned from DriveThru for hostile marketing!  I knew my game's days were numbered with their new stricter policy, since my game has 80s slang, and they already issued someone a refund on my pdfs that the buyer got to keep.  I was upset that they did that and took the $$$out of my account, so I raised the prices on Drive thru to 100x their retail price, and posted on the drive-thru listings,"Buy from Big Geek Emporium and save 99%."  3 days later, I was free from their tyranny.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 11, 2023, 12:09:51 AM
and they already issued someone a refund on my pdfs that the buyer got to keep. 

This is a pretty big problem. Of course with watermarking if they've downloaded it already they can keep it anyway, but if they're issued a refund it should no longer be available for download.

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2023, 04:44:13 PM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 10, 2023, 04:21:53 PM

Quote from: migo on March 10, 2023, 03:32:25 PM

Quote from: Zalman on March 10, 2023, 07:50:10 AM
1. It essentially amounts to: we will ban you and if you complain about it we'll pretend that's why we did it.

Yeah. So if there is any censorship, you have to keep quiet about it and deal only with OBS, and entirely on their terms.

"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."

With the caveat that English is my first language, I think the policy is pretty clear. If you focus on the words deliberate, public, and attention...you should get most of the way there.

This is not as unreasonable as people are making it out to be.

Sure let's focus on those words:

"Deliberate" is a subject judgment, entirely up to the discretion of OBS.
"Attention" is a subjective judgment, entirely up to the discretion of OBS.
"Public" means you're not allowed to complain to anyone besides OBS, who will ignore you.


Yep, I'm there all right.

Bet ya thought your response was really cute. And then Cathode posted and hit all three.

Quote from: Cathode Ray on March 11, 2023, 12:09:51 AM
I was banned from DriveThru for hostile marketing!  I knew my game's days were numbered with their new stricter policy, since my game has 80s slang, and they already issued someone a refund on my pdfs that the buyer got to keep.  I was upset that they did that and took the $$$out of my account, so I raised the prices on Drive thru to 100x their retail price, and posted on the drive-thru listings,"Buy from Big Geek Emporium and save 99%."  3 days later, I was free from their tyranny.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 11, 2023, 07:58:48 AM
Bet ya thought your response was really cute. And then Cathode posted and hit all three.

Oh you think it's cute? Thanks!

The fact that publishers can be guilty of those things doesn't change the fact that by the terms of the agreement OBS can enforce these rules 100% at their own discretion, whether or not the charges are actually true.

So no, Cathode's actions don't make this contract any less odious (just as people saying nasty things doesn't make censorship any more palatable, etc.).

Quote from: Zalman on March 11, 2023, 08:58:28 AM

Quote from: FingerRod on March 11, 2023, 07:58:48 AM
Bet ya thought your response was really cute. And then Cathode posted and hit all three.

Oh you think it's cute? Thanks!

The fact that publishers can be guilty of those things doesn't change the fact that by the terms of the agreement OBS can enforce these rules 100% at their own discretion, whether or not the charges are actually true.

So no, Cathode's actions don't make this contract any less odious (just as people saying nasty things doesn't make censorship any more palatable, etc.).

You are welcome, cutie

I think we're aligned on the censorship issue. I have a fairly established track record railing against OBS for it. I do not like it at all. I have boycotted them for a very long time over it. Only recently did I realize I was probably hurting creators I would like to support more than OBS.

I guess where my panties get into a wad is the thought that someone could use a platform or service I provide as advertisement against me. If I leased you a billboard, and you pasted a sign that says, "Fingerrod's Mother is a Whore" I would want recourse. At the same time, I don't think I would put into the lease that you specifically cannot use the billboard I am leasing you to call my mom a whore.

Quote from: FingerRod on March 11, 2023, 09:09:29 AM
I guess where my panties get into a wad is the thought that someone could use a platform or service I provide as advertisement against me. If I leased you a billboard, and you pasted a sign that says, "Fingerrod's Mother is a Whore" I would want recourse. At the same time, I don't think I would put into the lease that you specifically cannot use the billboard I am leasing you to call my mom a whore.

Agreed, you shouldn't have to tolerate that, nor should you have to put in the contract. As for using the platform against itself, that could be easily "fixed" with a review process for the posted content itself ... which presumably already exists in some form or another.

But of course, OBS's policy is FAR more reaching, extending to any "public" venue whatsoever.