Quote from: rkhigdon on August 23, 2022, 05:44:52 PMWell, Steve is around 70, and Phil Reed is a few years older iirc, so I guess it depends on what the succession plan is once one or both decide to move on.

Phil Reed is no longer with SJG.  It hasn't been disclosed whether or not he was fired.   Phil's successor marks off all the woke check boxes, based on her posts/social media.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 08, 2022, 10:19:27 AM
What does this have to do with Steve Jackson Games deciding to Woke virtue signal in a way that alienates at least half his potential customers?

SJG's been alienating and just play ignoring their potential customers for decades now. Same-ol-same-ol.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2022, 10:41:52 AM
I admit to some morbid curiosity about what kind of actual business case they thought they were making. Does SJG really believe that the market they gain from taking this stance will publicly make up for what they lose?

Could be they are just pro choice and against anything that takes that away from women. That at least would make some sort of sense.

But too many people equate choice with MURDER and so its going to be read wrong no matter.

Quote from: Omega on January 25, 2024, 07:36:57 PM

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on July 08, 2022, 10:41:52 AM
I admit to some morbid curiosity about what kind of actual business case they thought they were making. Does SJG really believe that the market they gain from taking this stance will publicly make up for what they lose?

Could be they are just pro choice and against anything that takes that away from women. That at least would make some sort of sense.

But too many people equate choice with MURDER and so its going to be read wrong no matter.

It could have been, if he didn't make is the official company stance.  What about the pro-life employees?  Wouldn't that make them uncomfortable?  And if the answer is, "Maybe he only hires like-minded people, so there are none in his company"... well, isn't that an even bigger problem of discrimination based on one's beliefs?

Women deserve control of their own bodies. They deserve full, life-saving medical care. They deserve privacy. That's not a political stance, that's just consonant with the modern belief that women are, in fact, human.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 25, 2024, 09:56:11 PM
Women deserve control of their own bodies. They deserve full, life-saving medical care. They deserve privacy. That's not a political stance, that's just consonant with the modern belief that women are, in fact, human.

Yep.  And they deserve all these things even when they are in their own mother's womb.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 25, 2024, 09:56:11 PM
Women deserve control of their own bodies. They deserve full, life-saving medical care. They deserve privacy. That's not a political stance, that's just consonant with the modern belief that women are, in fact, human.

This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 25, 2024, 09:56:11 PM
Women deserve control of their own bodies. (and babies that aren't their bodies) They deserve full, life-saving medical care (which no one is denying them). They deserve privacy (as do all Americans but govt overreach ended that). That's not a political stance (but it is), that's just consonant with the modern belief that women are, in fact, human. (though the only ones being dehumanized are preborn babies)

Pawsplay coming to troll a thread that went 18 months without his political nonsense and until then was just fine.

  To steer back towards a more RPG theme...what cult/religion was that where they sacrificed the new born babies in the Superheated brass bull?   Baal, or Moloch?  I know Carthage practiced this stuff and it would make an EXCELLENT trait for a villainous cult to appear in an RPG setting.   They can be very good at constantly telling all the women they do not want, or need the constant worry and responsibility of a child and sacrificing it to the "gods" will bring them great satisfaction.   I guess the only difference between the cults of history/fantasy rpgs and the cult today, is they can go ahead and give Baal/Moloch what he wants without birthing a child.   

    I do not see any scenario where I could play a character that identified with the beliefs of a cult like that...literal comic book level villain level of evil.

Quote from: oggsmash on January 26, 2024, 02:23:55 AM
  To steer back towards a more RPG theme...what cult/religion was that where they sacrificed the new born babies in the Superheated brass bull?   Baal, or Moloch?

It was Moloch.  Recently, author Jonathan Cahn wrote a book on the trio with Ishtar as the third member, and explained each one in detail.
Also, Baal was the bull.

Quote from: pawsplay on January 25, 2024, 09:56:11 PM
Women deserve control of their own bodies. They deserve full, life-saving medical care. They deserve privacy. That's not a political stance, that's just consonant with the modern belief that women are, in fact, human.

This is in fact a political stance, and one that veers off the topic. Post off-topic again anywhere and you'll be banned.

Quote from: oggsmash on January 26, 2024, 02:23:55 AM
  To steer back towards a more RPG theme...what cult/religion was that where they sacrificed the new born babies in the Superheated brass bull?   Baal, or Moloch?  I know Carthage practiced this stuff and it would make an EXCELLENT trait for a villainous cult to appear in an RPG setting.   They can be very good at constantly telling all the women they do not want, or need the constant worry and responsibility of a child and sacrificing it to the "gods" will bring them great satisfaction.   I guess the only difference between the cults of history/fantasy rpgs and the cult today, is they can go ahead and give Baal/Moloch what he wants without birthing a child.   

    I do not see any scenario where I could play a character that identified with the beliefs of a cult like that...literal comic book level villain level of evil.

Historians seem to be less certain today whether this was actually done regularly, or whether it was done a couple of times in moments of panic, or whether it was entirely the creation of their enemies' historians. (q.v. also claims that the Romans practiced human sacrifice - it's likely that vestal virgins who broke the rules were buried alive, but it's alleged even by some Roman writers in period that there were also outright sacrifices of humans to the gods.) Also alleged were one or two instances of mass sacrifice by burning of war captives on the battlefield, and losing generals committing ritual sacrifical suicide rather than returning to face likely punishment (also parallel if not exactly matching some Roman practices.) When you archaeologically investigate the Tophet there's a lot less sign of babies having been slain by burning than would be expected from the stories passed down to us.

- as remembered from my recent reading of The Carthaginians, Dexter Hoyos, 2010.

Also compare the common practice alleged of many cultures of leaving unwanted or unhealthy babies out to die by exposure; I'm not sure "feed baby to the wolves" is any kinder than "kill baby in the temple", and in famine it could be argued to be better than "slow death by starvation".

I believe it's considered more likely that the original Phoenecian home cities from which Carthage sprang practiced ritual infanticide.

Hopefully not a derailment, but I'm admittedly a bit confused. I myself consider abortion to involve killing, by definition. I'm not really much in favor of it at the individual level from a moral perspective as a result. That said, Steve Jackson games was originally listed as woke in this thread I think because it had gone directly for the left wing side of things by supporting abortion lobbying actively with proceeds? (Though it has also gone genuinely woke via other actions taken involving support for DEI and the like.)

The former is of course a political stance, because supporting politically and morally contentious issues with sales proceeds is a political stance, hence in part the listing. I disagree with pawsplay's claim to the contrary. But I think it may have despite being incorrect been a relevant claim to the original post within our gaming context? It felt very much like what SJG and its supporters might say, at least.

With respect to the ruling, was it that the thread had evolved and it was no longer relevant to the discussion? Or was it the fact that with a political context as contentious as abortion it would likely result in thread derailment to encourage discussion of the issue in question? Both?

Essentially just trying to figure out whether it's contentious political topics that should be avoided in more direct discussion (even if tangentially related to the thread or OP), within an RPG politics context as opposed to politics subforum context. Or if thread responses are primarily supposed to be keyed to current thread discussion as opposed to previous, when the discussion has broadly moved on. Or I guess a separate reason, which is entirely plausible.

I'm not always the sharpest tool in the shed, and sometimes I pace the line so to speak on acceptable thread behavior with respect to derailment and the like. Just kinda hoping to get the rough reasoning and extrapolate my own recommended personal conduct from there.

KindaMeh, The reason it, to me, is grounds for going on the woke meter is not SJ's personal position on the issue, or if he's irrational or subscribes to kook theories that sound like they came out of his Illuminati game.  In that case I wouldn't care less, but that he made it the official company stance, and put funds and efforts to the cause.  Much like the fascists at rpg.net made it their official stance (and announced that wrongthink would be canceled).

In Pawsplay's case, he has a chronic habit of using political talk when it revolves to a gaming story into a soapbox to troll entire threads with posts that have nothing to do with the topic as it relates to gaming, but just to use it a an opportunity spout his beliefs on the political topic.

I think the stance of SJ Games is entirely in keeping with the standards of modern, ethical society. I think they made the right call and it will pay off for them. I don't think it's "woke," 80-something perfect of people in the USA agree with them. That is my opinion about the actions of SJ Games, which have been described by other people in this thread, and are about the subject matter of how "woke" SJ Games is, and how this affects their relationship with their customers.