Quote from: jhkim;1120991I don't give a damn if the author is liberal or conservative, if they're a gamergater or an SJW.

I'm definitely influenced by whether I like the author. Eg I don't like right-wing Vox Day/Theodore Beale so I'll avoid buying stuff by him on that basis. If there's a left-wing author I like (Michael Moorcock eg), and their stuff looks interesting, I'll probably buy it. If they're a git (eg Philip Pullman) I'll avoid their stuff. I suppose there are extreme cases like Pat Mills of 2000AD comic where I don't much like them, I definitely don't like their politics, but I *really* like their stuff (in this case because 2000AD was such a formative experience for me in the early '80s) so I'll buy it.

Quote from: S'mon;1121006I'm definitely influenced by whether I like the author. Eg I don't like right-wing Vox Day/Theodore Beale so I'll avoid buying stuff by him on that basis. If there's a left-wing author I like (Michael Moorcock eg), and their stuff looks interesting, I'll probably buy it. If they're a git (eg Philip Pullman) I'll avoid their stuff. I suppose there are extreme cases like Pat Mills of 2000AD comic where I don't much like them, I definitely don't like their politics, but I *really* like their stuff (in this case because 2000AD was such a formative experience for me in the early '80s) so I'll buy it.

Yes, it is a sliding scale.  The better the product from the author, the more I don't care if they are a raving loon.  Heck, at some point you can even see that them being a raving loon was the cost of being able to make the thing.  Likewise, I ain't supporting a murderer even if they are the da Vinca of RPGs.  But outside the extremes, what we mostly have is people of slight loon status producing material of some modest degree of usefulness to some subset of the potential audience.  They can get away with a lot in return for quality, but not an infinite amount.

However, mostly my time is limited in evaluating which products I'll check out enough to decide to buy.  I've learned that people that go rabid on things that aren't essential to the product but can't stop talking about it--probably don't do very good work, either.  So the only way they'll even get me to consider them is if someone else I trust affirms that they have some good stuff despite all that.  It's not so much a product filter as an attention filter.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1120922Yes, and ...yes, ...did you?

Of course, which is why I'm wondering how it's relevant to alleged blackmail schemes and an example of "misbehavior," to use your own term. How is this document in any way relevant to that when all it is is a list of in-game secret societies players in good standing may join under certain circumstances? Along with descriptions of the "common knowledge" of those societies that one might come across in game. Do you level this same charge at D&D 3e for having organization-focused Prestige classes? I may dislike some of White Wolf's practices, and I absolutely loathe LARPing . . . well, at least their brand of LARPing(I haven't tried boffer yet, so I can't rule LARP out altogether). But this document doesn't support your accusations even a tiny bit, and anyone with even the tiniest amount of reading comprehension can see that.

Of course, you're the same person who somehow thought a post obviously about Vampire was actually about D&D when it was clearly a "they're complaining about X even though they give Y a pass when it's so much worse" type of post. A comparison showing hypocrisy. So I'm not holding out much hope for you, to be honest.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1120935Anon, What do you have against Larry Correia?

Quote from: steelshadow;1120997I'd second this question.

Y'all missed the point. Anon didn't say he had anything against Larry. He might for all I know, but that's not what he was saying in that particular post. He was linking to an example of something Jim Butcher said in agreement with Larry Correia that would - if Fred Hicks/Evil Hat were consistent in their actions and not total hypocrites - result in Evil Hat refusing to work with Butcher. It was an example showing Evil Hat's hypocrisy, not a statement of Anon's personal feelings about Butcher/Correia one way or the other.

Quote from: jhkim;1120991You start off sounding as if what you care about is if the product is good -- but then you say that you've just got a different political litmus test that authors have to pass.

Personally, what I care about is if the product is good. I don't give a damn if the author is liberal or conservative, if they're a gamergater or an SJW.

Perhaps you misunderstand, and I could have been clearer, unless you are saying that virtue signalling & wrongthink are inherent to one side of the political spectrum, which I would disagree with.

Let me try again; An outcry that we should not buy a given authors work because they are gay or racist makes me want to boycott the products of those who seem to think that such is relevant at all, out of pure spite for the insult of assuming i will respond in their favor to such meaningless emotional handwringing.

I disdain the notion that we must collectively gatekeep for tangenital reasons unrelating to the veracity of the work in question; and will actively boycott and work against anyone who so arrogantly thinks that i'm dumb enough to allow the "he's got cooties!" slander/brushing to cause me to help them ostracize someone. It is my policy to turn their desired result back upon them for the insult of thinking such is a valid tactic or remotely relevant. It's a pet peeve of mine. When a celebrity accepts their oscar and then pontificates with woke BS, whether it be right or left dogma, they earn my ire.

The politics of the individual are not relevant in my decision until they try to push or promote such upon me. I could know full well that an actor is a communist or an actual no-shit nazi and will by default not give that weight in deciding to see their film...until they pull a dixie chicks and piss me off by the very act of presuming I can or will be swayed by their totally irrelevant opinion on matters tangenital to the subject at hand. Reactionary maybe, sure. But biased?  I would say not.

Mel Gibson saying things about jews while drunk would not sway my decision to see/not see his film, him urging us all to "name the jew" while accepting his award would though, it's like, the second you try to draw lines form teams and appeal to consensus you've not only lost me but now I'm hostile to you as a matter of policy, just to deter you from doing that sort of thing in the first place.

In a free society, we have the right to vote with our dollars.

When you buy a product, you express your support for that publisher and author.

If you buy that Genghis Burger, you're giving cash to Genghis. Maybe he uses your cash to make more tasty burgers, or maybe he uses it to destroy irreplaceable Chinese art, music and culture.

If Genghis getting your cash matters to you, then spend your dollars on an equally tasty burger from someone else.

If where your cash goes doesn't matter to you, that's also fine, but your dollars are still votes.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1121033In a free society, we have the right to vote with our dollars.

When you buy a product, you express your support for that publisher and author.

If you buy that Genghis Burger, you're giving cash to Genghis. Maybe he uses your cash to make more tasty burgers, or maybe he uses it to destroy irreplaceable Chinese art, music and culture.

If Genghis getting your cash matters to you, then spend your dollars on an equally tasty burger from someone else.

If where your cash goes doesn't matter to you, that's also fine, but your dollars are still votes.

Please stop with examples of common sense and personal accountability. They have no place in Victimville.

Quote from: Slipshot762;1121031The politics of the individual are not relevant in my decision until they try to push or promote such upon me. I could know full well that an actor is a communist or an actual no-shit nazi and will by default not give that weight in deciding to see their film...until they pull a dixie chicks and piss me off by the very act of presuming I can or will be swayed by their totally irrelevant opinion on matters tangenital to the subject at hand. Reactionary maybe, sure. But biased?  I would say not.

Mel Gibson saying things about jews while drunk would not sway my decision to see/not see his film, him urging us all to "name the jew" while accepting his award would though, it's like, the second you try to draw lines form teams and appeal to consensus you've not only lost me but now I'm hostile to you as a matter of policy, just to deter you from doing that sort of thing in the first place.

Thanks for the clarification. I don't follow celebrities, so I might be missing some nuance of these examples. But to pick a more practical example for RPGs, I'd suggest the RPG Pundit as an example. He frequently posts on political topics - sometimes RPG-related, sometimes not. I think it's fair to say that the posts are proselytizing. And I frequently (though not always) disagree with his views. But I still have bought a number of his games, and I don't begrudge his airing his views. I think he's welcome to express his views and try to convince other people.

I think that people should try to advocate for their views. If someone truly believes that a group is trying to subvert the political system, then the moral choice for them is to call it out - and try to organize people against that subversion. That's what I would consider the free marketplace of ideas. They can be jerks about it, but just making an appeal isn't inherently being a jerk.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1121033In a free society, we have the right to vote with our dollars.

When you buy a product, you express your support for that publisher and author.

If you buy that Genghis Burger, you're giving cash to Genghis. Maybe he uses your cash to make more tasty burgers, or maybe he uses it to destroy irreplaceable Chinese art, music and culture.

You are free to buy products on whatever basis you like. Personally, I don't buy into the "everything is political" line -- such that where you buy your burgers should be decided on the basis of the politics of the burger chain. I use my political vote and voice to support a free society with strong rights -- so even if a burger chain gets money, they can't do criminal acts or have undue power over people's lives.

Quote from: Dimitrios;1120968Only somewhat on topic, but have any of these CoC wannabes ever made inroads into Chaosium's market share?

Market? Yes.

Market share? No.

Quote from: jeff37923;1120989I still have not seen or heard of any charges being filed against Matthew McFarland or Michelle Lyons-McFarland even though this story has been out for about a year and both have been publicly demeaned for being bad people.

I'm only going by Matt's public statement, which whaddayaknow they deleted.

But the internet never forgets.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1120935What do you have against Larry Correia?

Quote from: Ghostmaker;1120937If he's smart, nothing.

Quote from: steelshadow;1120997I'd second this question.

Quote from: GeekEclectic;1121017Y'all missed the point. Anon didn't say he had anything against Larry. He might for all I know, but that's not what he was saying in that particular post. He was linking to an example of something Jim Butcher said in agreement with Larry Correia that would - if Fred Hicks/Evil Hat were consistent in their actions and not total hypocrites - result in Evil Hat refusing to work with Butcher. It was an example showing Evil Hat's hypocrisy, not a statement of Anon's personal feelings about Butcher/Correia one way or the other.

Yes they missed the point, and immediately jumped to questioning my tribal affiliations.

And that, my friends, is THE problem on the internet. That's why we can't have nice things. That's why we can't have rational discussions about important issues.

And it's as bad here as everywhere else.

Quote from: jhkim;1121060Thanks for the clarification. I don't follow celebrities, so I might be missing some nuance of these examples. But to pick a more practical example for RPGs, I'd suggest the RPG Pundit as an example. He frequently posts on political topics - sometimes RPG-related, sometimes not. I think it's fair to say that the posts are proselytizing. And I frequently (though not always) disagree with his views. But I still have bought a number of his games, and I don't begrudge his airing his views. I think he's welcome to express his views and try to convince other people.

I think that people should try to advocate for their views. If someone truly believes that a group is trying to subvert the political system, then the moral choice for them is to call it out - and try to organize people against that subversion. That's what I would consider the free marketplace of ideas. They can be jerks about it, but just making an appeal isn't inherently being a jerk.



You are free to buy products on whatever basis you like. Personally, I don't buy into the "everything is political" line -- such that where you buy your burgers should be decided on the basis of the politics of the burger chain. I use my political vote and voice to support a free society with strong rights -- so even if a burger chain gets money, they can't do criminal acts or have undue power over people's lives.

But does Pundit preach his personal politics in his products?

You are being disingenuous here, conflating expressing your political views in a post with turning what should be a game, a rulebook, a setting into nothing but propaganda for your political/religious views.

Furthermore, pundit has said several times he doesn't care if you agree with him on his political/religious/etc views, you can still enjoy his works because he doesn't preach to you from said works.

You are free to buy what you want from who you want on whatever basis you like, but again you either miss the point or are being disingenuous, buying from Ghengis Khan puts money in his pocket, if you disagree with what he does with his money you shouldn't give him yours.

Let me give you an example you'll maybe understand: A person X makes an RPG it's good, it doesn't preach, but said person is the leader of the KKK and he pays the bills for their chapters. Would you still buy from him? Knowing that any money you give him would likely be used to fund the KKK? Really?

Now maybe you can address the points and not go on a tangent or attack a strawman.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1121064But does Pundit preach his personal politics in his products?

You are being disingenuous here, conflating expressing your political views in a post with turning what should be a game, a rulebook, a setting into nothing but propaganda for your political/religious views.

If something is actually nothing but political propaganda, then it isn't a good gaming product and I wouldn't buy it on that basis. However, that wasn't what we were talking about previously. Just having a paragraph in the intro describing H.P. Lovecraft's racism doesn't inherently turn the entire work into propaganda.

I don't know of any games that would truly be nothing but political propaganda. If you would care to cite actual examples, I'd like to hear them -- but it sounds like an over-the-top claim. There are some games with blatant political themes - like the The Price of Freedom RPG. However, I don't have any problem buying or playing The Price of Freedom. I've been considering running that.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1121064You are free to buy what you want from who you want on whatever basis you like, but again you either miss the point or are being disingenuous, buying from Ghengis Khan puts money in his pocket, if you disagree with what he does with his money you shouldn't give him yours.

Let me give you an example you'll maybe understand: A person X makes an RPG it's good, it doesn't preach, but said person is the leader of the KKK and he pays the bills for their chapters. Would you still buy from him? Knowing that any money you give him would likely be used to fund the KKK? Really?

Now maybe you can address the points and not go on a tangent or attack a strawman.

Genghis Khan was actually an example from Slipshot762, who said he *would* buy from Genghis Khan.

I prefer to deal use real cases rather than over-the-top hypotheticals. For example, I wouldn't buy an RPG from Varg Vikernes -- a convicted murderer and white supremacist as well as RPG author. But that's an extreme case, and that's true regardless of whether there was preachy text from him in the product. Within nearly all other published RPGs, I don't care about the author's politics.

Quote from: jhkim;1121076If something is actually nothing but political propaganda, then it isn't a good gaming product and I wouldn't buy it on that basis. However, that wasn't what we were talking about previously. Just having a paragraph in the intro describing H.P. Lovecraft's racism doesn't inherently turn the entire work into propaganda.

I don't know of any games that would truly be nothing but political propaganda. If you would care to cite actual examples, I'd like to hear them -- but it sounds like an over-the-top claim. There are some games with blatant political themes - like the The Price of Freedom RPG. However, I don't have any problem buying or playing The Price of Freedom. I've been considering running that.



Genghis Khan was actually an example from Slipshot762, who said he *would* buy from Genghis Khan.

I prefer to deal use real cases rather than over-the-top hypotheticals. For example, I wouldn't buy an RPG from Varg Vikernes -- a convicted murderer and white supremacist as well as RPG author. But that's an extreme case, and that's true regardless of whether there was preachy text from him in the product. Within nearly all other published RPGs, I don't care about the author's politics.

So it's not "everything is political" but there are true legitimate political reasons not to buy from Varg. I wouldn't buy from him or for his mirror image on the other side, people that go for the intersectional/purity test/SocJus angle. Even if it wasn't in their game. Because at the end they are only the mirror image of the white supremacists.

Edited to add:

Not gonna go buy something just to give you a blow by blow, but feel free to google #Feminism the rpg for but one example. There are others less obvious but just as guilty of propaganda.

Quote from: jhkim;1121076If something is actually nothing but political propaganda, then it isn't a good gaming product and I wouldn't buy it on that basis. However, that wasn't what we were talking about previously. Just having a paragraph in the intro describing H.P. Lovecraft's racism doesn't inherently turn the entire work into propaganda.

I think it's important to point out that Fate of Cthulhu doesn't have a paragraph in the intro describing H.P. Lovecraft's racism.
They have a sentence in the intro declaring that H.P. Lovecraft was a racist, and then a page justifying using the works of a racist as the basis of their RPG book.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1121095I think it's important to point out that Fate of Cthulhu doesn't have a paragraph in the intro describing H.P. Lovecraft's racism.
They have a sentence in the intro declaring that H.P. Lovecraft was a racist, and then a page justifying using the works of a racist as the basis of their RPG book.

The page in question can probably be summarized as: "We want your money, so buy our game."

Quote from: Anon Adderlan;1121061Market? Yes.

Market share? No.



I'm only going by Matt's public statement, which whaddayaknow they deleted.

But the internet never forgets.









Yes they missed the point, and immediately jumped to questioning my tribal affiliations.

And that, my friends, is THE problem on the internet. That's why we can't have nice things. That's why we can't have rational discussions about important issues.

And it's as bad here as everywhere else.

I apologize, Anon. I was being a smartass. I've met Larry a couple times at convention, and he's always struck me as a decent sort.

You're absolutely right about the Internet not being a great place for discussions, though. And social media is the Internet hopped up on PCP and meth.