Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 06:36:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
I'm not sure what this last bit is saying. Did you mean to say from "convince others not to buy"? So it's OK to, for example, say negative stuff about a company online and thus convince other people not to buy from them. I would think that is OK - it seems like free speech to me. And going to collusion is crossing the line.

The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

I don't believe you didn't understand that.  But on the off chance that you don't ... 

Refusing to buy and encouraging others not to buy is a boycott, and fine.  Doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means to force the outcome is not.  It's basically a RICO violation done with politics as opposed to business or Mafia goals.

I'm still actually not clear. Here's my angle: I hate the low attention-span social media culture, and I don't feel like the politics of RPGs either way has much effect on politics as a whole. When I want to be political, I act through means other than RPGs. So I generally don't care about edition wars and kerfluffles over RPG company politics.

However, I do support actual, organized, and thoughtful boycotts, though. This includes things like boycotts of banks to change their behavior. In a previous example, it seemed like you were saying that pressuring a bank was an ethical violation, which I disagree with. The big banks and credit card companies cause a host of problems, and I think it's appropriate to boycott and pressure them to change their policies.

If you're OK with boycotting banks to pressure them, then can you define what "doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means" is?

Quote from: jhkim on April 07, 2022, 04:47:26 PM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 06, 2022, 06:36:50 PM

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 03:27:22 PM
I'm not sure what this last bit is saying. Did you mean to say from "convince others not to buy"? So it's OK to, for example, say negative stuff about a company online and thus convince other people not to buy from them. I would think that is OK - it seems like free speech to me. And going to collusion is crossing the line.

The problem I have with this phrasing is that "making sure no one can buy" is an outcome, not an action. If the result of a boycott is that the company shelves the product, then no one can buy that product any more. So if I join in boycott a company over a product, and it then stops making that product -- then this implies that I've crossed a line, because other people can't buy the product any more. But if I boycott the company and it ignores me, then I'm OK.

I don't believe you didn't understand that.  But on the off chance that you don't ... 

Refusing to buy and encouraging others not to buy is a boycott, and fine.  Doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means to force the outcome is not.  It's basically a RICO violation done with politics as opposed to business or Mafia goals.

I'm still actually not clear. Here's my angle: I hate the low attention-span social media culture, and I don't feel like the politics of RPGs either way has much effect on politics as a whole. When I want to be political, I act through means other than RPGs. So I generally don't care about edition wars and kerfluffles over RPG company politics.

However, I do support actual, organized, and thoughtful boycotts, though. This includes things like boycotts of banks to change their behavior. In a previous example, it seemed like you were saying that pressuring a bank was an ethical violation, which I disagree with. The big banks and credit card companies cause a host of problems, and I think it's appropriate to boycott and pressure them to change their policies.

If you're OK with boycotting banks to pressure them, then can you define what "doing an end-run through other purportedly neutral means" is?

If you're a liberal you might not care because it doesn't affect you, but banks have started closing personal accounts of conservatives. That's not the result of pressure on banks for doing business with China, that's pressure on banks to prevent people with differing opinions from having bank accounts. And this isn't a slippery slope argument - it's already here and has been for years.

Quote from: migo on April 08, 2022, 06:42:06 AM

If you're a liberal you might not care because it doesn't affect you, but banks have started closing personal accounts of conservatives. That's not the result of pressure on banks for doing business with China, that's pressure on banks to prevent people with differing opinions from having bank accounts. And this isn't a slippery slope argument - it's already here and has been for years.

This.  And that's why "collusion" and "banks" (plural) is the key.  A boycott of a bank that supports X cause is still within the realms of private entities.  It may be inconvenient for the person excluded from the bank, but there's another bank that will do business.  Whereas, an organized effort to deny a individual all banking access in today's modern society is getting dangerously close to saying that aren't allowed to function.  I don't think you'd support an organized effort to deny the families of conservatives access to food. In our modern world, one is awfully close conceptually to the other.

Which brings up another key aspect of boycotts.  What is the collateral damage of the boycott?  If people do or don't buy this Mongoose product, or encourage or discourage others from doing so, the collateral damage potential is extremely low, approaching non-existent when you factor in the normal vagaries of the market. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 08, 2022, 08:38:19 AM
Whereas, an organized effort to deny a individual all banking access in today's modern society is getting dangerously close to saying that aren't allowed to function.

Close? It's downright tantamount.

Quote from: Zalman on April 08, 2022, 09:43:33 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 08, 2022, 08:38:19 AM
Whereas, an organized effort to deny a individual all banking access in today's modern society is getting dangerously close to saying that aren't allowed to function.

Close? It's downright tantamount.

I'd say it's open war and persecution, and a direct threat to the subsistence of those who fail to conform to the new orthodoxy. And not only a complete betrayal of the values that the so-called "left" once claimed to uphold, but completely disgusting, despicable and outright malicious behavior.

The "Left" went from "it's wrong to oppress and marginalize people, and the excesses of corporations, authoritative institutions and the establishment must be opposed at every turn" to "we are the establishment and it's ok to oppress, persecute and marginalize people, and ally with massive corporations to pursue that end, if we even think (not even know for a fact, but merely THINK) that those people might harbor wrong opinions or be in league with those we don't approve of—and we will hunt them to the ends of the Earth and make sure they can't even open a bank account or gain proper employment." And all of this gets excused for political expediency and tribal reasons, that purposefully seek to downplay the obvious impact and magnitude of what's actually going on, or where this might lead us for EVERYONE if this sort of shit gets normalized (which it already has, it just hasn't gotten widespread yet).

If black people, women or gays were denied bank accounts the Left would have a shit fit that would resonate across time and space. All society would grind to a halt and we wouldn't hear the end of it—and they'd be right to do it too! But since this now is happening to those they declared acceptable targets (under completely spurious and imaginary reasons) everything is open season, and not just accepted but outright excused.

This isn't oppression or purposeful marginalization, but normal forms of protest and standard operating procedure for businesses everywhere, who suddenly have the right to deny essential services and exercise their god given right of free association to avoid people who've been declared persona non grata through mob pressure without trial or oversight. And this is all ok because these people have no values, principles or morals, or even capacity for critical thought or foresight to see how this will eventually be applied to them as well once they stop being useful for the establishment and are just idiots. And the only standards they have are double standards that they apply to other people but not their own tribe.

Yet people complaining about the contents of a freaking game book they aren't even demanding be dropped out of Kickstarter or not be allowed in the shelves is somehow comparable to this! Like those two things are anywhere near the same freaking galaxy in what they entail.

Quote from: Zalman on April 08, 2022, 09:43:33 AM

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on April 08, 2022, 08:38:19 AM
Whereas, an organized effort to deny a individual all banking access in today's modern society is getting dangerously close to saying that aren't allowed to function.

Close? It's downright tantamount.

There will be no problems as long as you love your friend the Computer I mean Washington and the liberal elite.

Quote from: jhkim on April 06, 2022, 05:57:54 PM
Boycotts potentially have the power to make companies go bankrupt and/or change their products. This means that if someone liked how the company was prior to the boycott, then the boycott has effectively denied them the ability to get what was previously offered.

A boycott means normal consumers change habits. A denial with force of law or slander is about denying otherwise paying customers the right to pursue normal spending habits.

Its the difference between a group of friends refusing to talk to bill because they think he is a dick, and a group of friends being forbidden by law to talk to bill.

This is a "the ends are the same, so the means are irrelevant" argument, which is nonsense.

Quote from: Trond on April 06, 2022, 11:01:12 AM

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll on March 11, 2022, 05:55:57 PM
So in their new RPG, called Shield Maidens, the rules say that Shield Maidens aren't necessarily born female.

So they are Viking warriors , born male, never took any hormones to transition, but they're also ladies??

Shield maidens with penises.

Quote from: DocJones on April 09, 2022, 03:06:53 PMShield maidens with penises.

Those Shield Maidens will win all the contests!

Because in clown world, men are just better at being women than women!

Quote from: Spinachcat on April 10, 2022, 02:32:21 AM

Quote from: DocJones on April 09, 2022, 03:06:53 PMShield maidens with penises.

Those Shield Maidens will win all the contests!

Because in clown world, men are just better at being women than women!

Would you bigots just shut up and suck the feminine penises!?

Jesus just got through reading this thread this is like an episode of Jerry springer. You even managed to get a mongoose guy in here, not sure what he does there but he seems to work for em.

As for the game based on everything shared here it really does seem like an sjw propaganda piece. The concept would have alright if it wasn't for the on the nose inserts. The language used is a dead give away, and the authors bio made me cringe.

I mean I totally get not wanting to be too paranoid in labeling something as whole garbage but I don't think we are jumping at shadows here.

Quote from: Ocule on April 11, 2022, 10:37:24 AM
and the authors bio made me cringe.

Bhadda-Bing!

Quote from: Ocule on April 11, 2022, 10:37:24 AM
Jesus just got through reading this thread this is like an episode of Jerry springer. You even managed to get a mongoose guy in here, not sure what he does there but he seems to work for em.

As for the game based on everything shared here it really does seem like an sjw propaganda piece. The concept would have alright if it wasn't for the on the nose inserts. The language used is a dead give away, and the authors bio made me cringe.

I mean I totally get not wanting to be too paranoid in labeling something as whole garbage but I don't think we are jumping at shadows here.

I thought people might be taking it a bit too hard after reading the primer, which is like 90%+ not about SJW crap. The author's a bit of an asshole, but you wouldn't notice the SJW stuff in the actual book unless you were deep into the Culture War and went looking for it (as I did). The game itself looks good going from the primer at least.

Quote from: VisionStorm on April 11, 2022, 12:28:13 PM
I thought people might be taking it a bit too hard after reading the primer, which is like 90%+ not about SJW crap. The author's a bit of an asshole, but you wouldn't notice the SJW stuff in the actual book unless you were deep into the Culture War and went looking for it (as I did). The game itself looks good going from the primer at least.

I also perused it, and it didn't strike me as particularly woke either.

...nor particularly compelling. It could have easily been based on 5e, Traveller, or Legend as it doesn't do anything substantially different than any other task resolution system. And while it seems to be going for a Heavy Metal meets Green Lantern vibe it came off as surprisingly dull and generic.