Quote from: Christopher Brady;1077080So if 1000 people say the same lie it's suddenly the truth to you?  I dunno man, I have no idea who this Zak S. is and I don't really care, but unless he's convicted of a crime, slandering him is not fair and can get you litigated.

Being a creep is not a crime (no matter how much the twatters want it to be), if it was, most of us in this very forum would be in jail (which by the way includes me.)

If a thousand people witness a crime and testify to it, then that's an extremely strong case. And it's not slander as long as you're not intentionally making up lies - or passing on statements that you know are lies. And I'm still annoyed at people who keep using the term "hearsay" for eyewitness testimony around here. Eyewitness testimony isn't infallible, but it is the core of nearly all prosecutions.

Sure, being a creep isn't a crime - but conversely, not buying someone's book also isn't a crime. No one has an inherent right to my business or to be invited to my events. If I choose not to buy someone's book or not invite them to a party, I'm not violating their human rights.

The deal is - you're not required to buy some social-justice-themed LGBT superhero game. Conversely, social justice advocates aren't required to buy Zak's latest LotFP module. People buy what they want to. That's the core of free speech, free association, and free markets.

Quote from: jhkim;1077102If a thousand people witness a crime and testify to it, then that's an extremely strong case. And it's not slander as long as you're not intentionally making up lies - or passing on statements that you know are lies. And I'm still annoyed at people who keep using the term "hearsay" for eyewitness testimony around here. Eyewitness testimony isn't infallible, but it is the core of nearly all prosecutions.

Sure, being a creep isn't a crime - but conversely, not buying someone's book also isn't a crime. No one has an inherent right to my business or to be invited to my events. If I choose not to buy someone's book or not invite them to a party, I'm not violating their human rights.

The deal is - you're not required to buy some social-justice-themed LGBT superhero game. Conversely, social justice advocates aren't required to buy Zak's latest LotFP module. People buy what they want to. That's the core of free speech, free association, and free markets.

True, no one has to buy anything.

We're not the ones trying to make it so you CAN'T buy it though.

That is and always has been the difference.

Quote from: moonsweeper;1077006That's because a worship of legalism benefits the government and the people who make their living from it, so they indoctrinate people to believe it is infallible and beyond mere mortal (non-lawyer, non-government) comprehension.  Even though 95% of current law in the world is only there to keep the lower strata of people oppressed.  That's is why governments and the elite ignore it when it suits their purposes.

That being said, I don't believe shuddemell was considering it in the legal sense, I think he was hearkening back to the actual moral/philosophical principle that the 'innocent until proven guilty' legal concept was based on.  From a moral standpoint it is the only philosophical approach that actually leads to any sort of just, egalitarian society as opposed to tyrannical despotism.

Damn, ninja'd by the great worm himself...

Correct, I typically argue from principle not process.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1077106True, no one has to buy anything.

We're not the ones trying to make it so you CAN'T buy it though.

That is and always has been the difference.

He can always peddle his RPG from the back of a van behind the 7-11! /s

Quote from: jhkimThe deal is - you're not required to buy some social-justice-themed LGBT superhero game. Conversely, social justice advocates aren't required to buy Zak's latest LotFP module. People buy what they want to. That's the core of free speech, free association, and free markets.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1077106True, no one has to buy anything.

We're not the ones trying to make it so you CAN'T buy it though.

That is and always has been the difference.

Yeah, I prefer open markets. I would really prefer there to be a competitive market where there were online choices other than rpgnow. I don't feel like rpgnow should be required to stock everything or be fascists.

Did RPGPundit release Hillary's emails yet

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1077118He can always peddle his RPG from the back of a van behind the 7-11! /s

I remember buying more than a few books during all the SPF buzzing (he was accused of being creepy at conventions) and "will I be able to buy this in the future?" was a legitimate concern of mine.

Thankfully you can still buy all his stuff. But I do think corporations should start being responsible for upholding rights like Free speech here in America because they control so much of a person's life.

Like imagine if Twitter decided you sucked so your apartment won't renew your lease, no one hires you, and people stop letting you buy things because they don't want your dirty money. No government involved, but you now can't live outside of a prison or as an outdoors survivalist.

Quote from: Haffrung;1077063Personally, I think it's unhealthy for the audience to feel they have a personal relationship with creators. It can't have any good influence on the art itself, while the psychological needs fans are trying to satisfy would be better met through genuine two-way relationships with people who they interact with in meat-space: family, friends, co-workers, neighbours. Making creators a proxy for these relationships, and turning a hobby or art interest into a moral 'community', gives finger-wagging scolds and the insecure lonely greater scope to act out their pathologies on a lot of other people who just want to play a game or read a book.

On the other hand, this is used to the benefit of companies to keep 'early adopters' interested and therefore, providing the revenue to keep then going while they legitimize themselves to the market in general. Most companies I know that have done it try to keep the scope of the relationship as narrow as possible because of the muddying issues.

Quote from: HaffrungPersonally, I think it's unhealthy for the audience to feel they have a personal relationship with creators. It can't have any good influence on the art itself, while the psychological needs fans are trying to satisfy would be better met through genuine two-way relationships with people who they interact with in meat-space: family, friends, co-workers, neighbours. Making creators a proxy for these relationships, and turning a hobby or art interest into a moral 'community', gives finger-wagging scolds and the insecure lonely greater scope to act out their pathologies on a lot of other people who just want to play a game or read a book.

Quote from: Lynn;1077214On the other hand, this is used to the benefit of companies to keep 'early adopters' interested and therefore, providing the revenue to keep then going while they legitimize themselves to the market in general. Most companies I know that have done it try to keep the scope of the relationship as narrow as possible because of the muddying issues.

I disagree about Haffrung's basic point from first principles. I'm a big fan of personal connections. I like seeing local theater and local bands, which is a great alternative to seeing billion-dollar Hollywood movies or giant rock concerts. In gaming, I've played a lot of RPGs with the creators - and helped playtest and/or evangelize for cool games from people I know.

I don't think it's bad for people to follow and talk with creators in general. There are some bad trends in social media - like jumping very quickly for or against things and echo chambers - but particularly within a small niche, I think it's reasonable and positive to talk to creators.

Quote from: Mistwell;1077077I've long believed the art is not the artist, and one should separate the value of the art from the value of the artist.  When you start to purge art based on moral objections concerning the artist, I believe all of art is damaged by that purge.  But let's see if you really mean what you're saying?


Watched any movie attached to John Lasseter (Pixar) after he was accused? This means by the way you will never see any of these movies again until John Lasseter dies: Little Mermaid, Kiki's Delivery Service, Beauty and the Beast, Nightmare Before Christmas, Lion King, Toy Story (any), Bugs Life, Monsters Inc (any), Spirited Away, Finding Nemo (any), Incredibles (any), Howls' Moving Castle, Cars (any), Ratatouille, Wall-E, Up, Ponyo, Princes and the Frog, Winnie the Pooh, The Muppets, Brave, Big Hero 6, Wreck-It Ralph (any), Frozen (any), Inside Out, Zootopia, Moana, Coco, etc.

Watched any movie by Roman Polanski after he was accused in 1977?
James Franco?
Louis C.K.?
Richard Dreyfuss?
Dustin Hoffman?
Jeremy Piven?
Steven Seagal?
Tom Sizemore?
Kevin Spacey?
George Takei?
Harvey Weinsten?

I mean your position is understandable, but it's hardly universal. I look at that list, and I'm comfortable with my varying stances on the names on that list, but I'm guessing you don't agree, it should be all or nothing.

Me, I just think that makes me human.

What I am prepared to do is evolve, especially when presented with an argument that I have no good counter to. (I don't think you are making such of course).

For a start there is a difference (a spectrum maybe?) between not taking in somebody's art from a moral standpoint, and realising you no longer enjoy the artist's work as much as you did. There's people that boycott Tom Cruise for Scientology-related reasons (anti-psychiatric treatment or something), I've never considered doing that, even if I can accept that the outrage expressed from that corner is legitimate. I already pointed out that I have an issue with Kevin Spacey's portfolio now (until recently he was my favourite actor). Maybe I will do a complete boycott at some point, but I'm not there yet.

I'm not sure when John Lassetter was first accused, but his name wasn't really high on my mental list, until recently when Dame Helen Mirren came out hard. My issue is less with John Lassetter at that point, and more with Pixar. I'll have to give it some thought. Plus there's an argument for not punishing the many for the sins of the few, etc. If Pixar (continue to?) do the wrong thing, then sure maybe I will determine firmer action is required so that I can look at myself in the mirror.

I don't give myself brownie points or demerits, I just try to be honest.


I don't think your three monkeys approach works for hardly anyone. But if you can live with that, rewarding pretty terrible people who do (nominally) great art, fair enough. (Edit: that maybe sounds snarky, it's not intended to be).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1077167Thankfully you can still buy all his stuff. But I do think corporations should start being responsible for upholding rights like Free speech here in America because they control so much of a person's life.

No offense, but what you're suggesting, unless I misunderstand you, sounds like reintroducing feudalism from a different direction.

IMO what we need to do is prevent corporations from getting big enough to control so much of a person's life.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1077082So you're saying you want known creeps to rob and brutally murder you because nobody wants to put money in their pocket, not even for honest work, so they have no other choice but turn to crime? Or do you just want other people to support their livelihood?

You are insane. Seek medical help.

That kid the designer slashed with a knife? Still has the scar. The family he robbed? Never got their money back.

Honest work? What honest work?

Quote from: Mistwell;1077089I get your position. So, I'll ask you directly. John Lasseter makes money off of every dollar generated by any Disney or Pixar film. Even though he's temporarily stepped down, he still makes money off of them. Will you commit to never seeing a single Disney or Pixar movie, or buy a single Disney or Pixar related product, for the indefinite future until he dies? Or is this just reserved to games for you, and you're not willing to expand this to outside of gaming?

I dont know who Lasseter is or what he has been accused of? And I havent been to see a Disney movie since the late 90s and Not sure I've ever seen a Pixar movie? Was Cars a Pixar movie? Been a while.

But more to the point. Lasseter isnt the writer or designer of Disney or Pixar movies right? More like the Publisher would be for a RPG? If so then had I known he was up to no good while he was in office I'd have been leery of anything connected to him. Same as I am leery of anything connected to Steve Jackson anymore or FFG. I stopped buying White Wolf material after getting ripped off by them too. (I picked up d20 Gamma World and Racer Knights unaware at the time they were really WW products.)

For a long time I did not buy anything from WOTC due to how badly they treated FLGS back in the late 90s to early 00s.

Quote from: Zalman;1077097Or may not be doing. Or may never have done. One might wonder how you "know" these things.

Because they are the ones I've dealt with personally.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1077100So what about the crooks that use false narratives about harassment? Do they get your money?

How would I know they were using false narrative till after the fact? If ever? What sort of argument are you making? We don't have psychic mind powers to tell someones being honest or not. Hence my point earlier about the fact we have to look at both sides and try to sort it out.