BANNED AT GENCON!!!
David Nalle
wanted to take to the gaming public, and where better than on rec.games.xxx
As some of you may recall, I work part time for a small gaming company called
Ragnarok Games. We've been publishing games for more than a dozen years,
including the Ysgarth RPG which may be familiar to many of you.
Anyway, every year for the last 6 years we've gone to GenCon up in Milwaukee.
This year promises to be the biggest ever and we're running a variety of
events as well as selling stuff in the dealer room.
So we submit our proposals for events a couple of of months ago, including
two events for the game Suburban Slasher, a humorous horror movie card game.
They were described as follows:
Suburban Slasher Demonstration
Discover the strange pleasure of chainsawing your way through the
characters of a b-grade horror movie as a Suburban Slasher. You become the
crazed killer and compete to make the most and best kills in this silly
card game which captures the humor of slasher films.
The Great Slash-Off
Who is the greatest slasher of them all?> Maybe it's a secrety you've
hidden in your black little heart. Come find out in the world champion-
ships of the ultimate card game of silly horror movies. The one tournament
in which you've got a better chance if you DON'T know the game.
In response to this we got a call from the GenCon staff requesting that we
send them a copy of the game, which we promptly did. This was then sent on
to TSR's legal department, and eventually, after much delay (resulting in our
games not getting listed in the pre-registration booklet) we were informed
that the TSR legal department had determined that Suburban Slasher was too
controversial and we would not be allowed to sell it at GenCon, demonstrate
it, play it, or advertise it in Dragon in the future.
In making this decision they cited the topic of the game (humorous parody
of horror movies) and the graphic art (not particularly gory cartoon-style
illustrations of movie characters).
When I asked if this was a general policy the GenCon staff chief informed
me that LOTS of other games were also being restricted for the same reason,
including other horror games -- she claimed they were ALL going to be
banned -- and other games with graphic art. She also claimed that live
action RPG groups and companies were going to be prohibited from selling
their rules and products.
Well, hearing that I was somewhat mollified since we have a large line of
other games to sell. But then, just out of curiosity, I decided to check
around. As far as I can tell not ONE other game has been excluded from
GenCon. Call of Cthulhu -- which has much more gory and explicit art --
will be there. It Came from the Late Late Show -- which has more explicit
art AND covers exactly the same topic -- will be there. An endless array of
military games and games with graphic violence will be there. In fact, it
seems like everyone can sell whatever they want, but we can't sell Suburban
Slasher.
Now, this is CLEARLY illegal. It's unfair restraint of trade. And it also
seems not to have much point, since our game is probably far less prominent
than games like Call of Cthulhu, so it's not going to likely to be the game
that ends up bringing undesirable publicity to the con.
Our conclusion from all of this is that TSR wants to set up a policy for
censorship at GenCon and they figure they can go after Ragnarok because it
is a small company and we don't have the resources to sue them (well, we
do, but it's not worth the time and trouble). Maybe they thought we were
a small company and would just go away because our sales depended so
much on Suburban Slasher.
But, in fact, SS makes up only maybe a 20th of our sales, so we can live
without it, and since TSR is so sensitive to offending the public with our
game, I thought it would be more appropriate to take this case to the
public rather than to court.
So I'm appealing to the online audience. Do you think it is appropriate
for TSR to set themselves up as censors for the rest of the gaming industry?
Do you want them to be the ones to determine what games you can buy at
conventions or in your local game store? They have their own line of games
which they can do whatever they want with (take out Demons, etc)...where
do they get off doing the same thing to companies which have a little
more guts than they do?
If you find this situation objectionable, here's what we'd like you to do.
I know it's painful to send US Mail, but if you could, write to TSR, or send
them a fax to protest this type of action.
If you like to be able to choose what games you can by for yourself, TELL
that to TSR...write to:
GenCon
PO Box 756
Lake Geneva, WI 53147
Attn: Roseann Schnering
or fax them at:
1-414-248-0389
or complain to GAMA at:
The Game Manufacturer's Association
PO Box 570
Grinnell, IA 50112
Your other choice is to not do anything and send TSR the message
that it's okay with you if they pick what games you're allowed to
buy and play.
Dave
Brian A. Dorion
>
>I really hate to be the one to defend TSR but....
>
>TSR has their own covention. It's called the GEN CON/ORIGINS Game
>Fair [GEN CON is a registered Trademark owned by TSR. Origins is a
>Trademark owned by TSR.] They can do whatever they want with it (take
>out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
>their event?
>
***************WRONG*****WRONG******WRONG****************
Origins is not a TSR trade mark. Origins is the name of an annual
gamming convention run by GAMA a very seperate entity from TSR. Every
year organizations bid for the right to run Origins. TSR has won the
right to hold Origins a few times in the past and has run it in conjunction
with their GenCon convention. Please write and tell both TSR and GAMA that
you are displeased with TSR actions in this matter (if that is how you feel).
Certainly if GAMA decides that TSR is being unfair to small companies
they will probably not allow them to run an Origins in the future.
Brian Dorion
Curtis Scott
|> In article <74...@ut-emx.uucp> d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
|> >So I'm appealing to the online audience. Do you think it is appropriate
|> >for TSR to set themselves up as censors for the rest of the gaming industry?
|> >Do you want them to be the ones to determine what games you can buy at
|> >conventions or in your local game store? They have their own line of games
|> >which they can do whatever they want with (take out Demons, etc)...where
|> >do they get off doing the same thing to companies which have a little
|> >more guts than they do?
|>
|>
|> TSR has their own covention. It's called the GEN CON/ORIGINS Game
|> Fair [GEN CON is a registered Trademark owned by TSR. Origins is a
|> Trademark owned by TSR.]
I really hate to be the one to defend Dave Nalle, but... :-)
Sorry, Shannon, but that last is incorrect. Origins is a trademark owned
by the Game Manufacturer's Association, which has nothing to do with TSR
(except that TSR is a member). This is I think the second time that GenCon
has hosted Origins (it moves around the country), but that doesn't give
TSR ownership of the copyright.
|> They can do whatever they want with it (take
|> out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
|> their event?
Well, it depends. Origins (vs. GenCon) is restricted to selling only
to members of GAMA. As I recall, Ragnarok isn't a GAMA member, but
I haven't checked the rolls in a few years. If Ragnarok IS a member
of GAMA, then this represents an infringement on his rights as a
GAMA member.
As far as banning a product, I'm of mixed minds on this. Dave is right
that Suburban Slasher is at worst "in the pack" in terms of grotesque
imagery and art. Moreover, since GenCon is hosting Origins, that show
is one of the two major opportunities for a game manufacturer to present
a product (usually a new product, but older products also benefit) to
distributors. (The other is the Las Vegas toy show in February (?).)
Note also that they are not simply banning his game from the con. They
are refusing to accept advertising for the game in Dragon (which is
undoubtedly the #1 conduit for consumer advertising in the gaming
industry), and appear to be doing so in a relatively arbitrary fashion.
The question as to whether this is really "restraint of trade" is a legal
one, rather than a question of popular opinion. Having run conventions,
I have always been very hesitant to ban any product; the only time I ever
banned a dealer was for refusing to comply with the convention's weapons
policy. (The guy had a bad habit of taking real swords out into the
"corridor" in front of his table and demonstrating them---violently. And
we asked him SEVERAL TIMES to stop. I did then and still do consider
this to be a reasonable exercise of a convention's perogative to limit
the actions of dealers---or anyone else in attendance.)
I am still troubled by Dave's announcement, much as others have been.
Appealing to r.g.frp.whatever is not the way to solve the problem. Dave
has been in the industry long enough to know how to talk to TSR; I suspect
that if they annoy a few GAMA members with this stuff that GAMA will choose
not to host Origins there anymore. A regular pattern of this kind of abuse
would cause me to express my concerns; thus far, this seems like a dispute
in progress, and I will not accept Mr. Nalle's invitation to take it to
TSR. Nor will I accept his reasoning that by not doing so I am condoning
the behavior.
Curtis Scott
Arthur Adams
>
>TSR has their own covention. It's called the GEN CON/ORIGINS Game
>Fair [GEN CON is a registered Trademark owned by TSR. Origins is a
>out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
>their event?
>
Wait a minute. I know TSR owns GenCon, but they own Origins also?
This is news to me. Are you sure?
--
The world is not analog. The world is digital,
with an incredible number of bits.
Arthur C. Adams (not the comic-book artist) <fnord>
E-Mail aca...@afterlife.ncsc.mil
Peter Wake
>In article <74...@ut-emx.uucp> d...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (David Nalle) writes:
>>So I'm appealing to the online audience. Do you think it is appropriate
>>for TSR to set themselves up as censors for the rest of the gaming industry?
>>Do you want them to be the ones to determine what games you can buy at
>>conventions or in your local game store? They have their own line of games
>>which they can do whatever they want with (take out Demons, etc)...where
>>do they get off doing the same thing to companies which have a little
>>more guts than they do?
>
>I really hate to be the one to defend TSR but....
>Fair [GEN CON is a registered Trademark owned by TSR. Origins is a
>Trademark owned by TSR.] They can do whatever they want with it (take
>out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
>their event?
>[I'm not even going to touch your statements about how deciding what is
>shown at their (admittedly large) covention makes them the Censor of
>the entire Gaming industry. There is some leap of logic in that statement
>that I don't think I will ever understand.]
>Shannon
Nothing more that good oratory - after all the statement was true in spirit
if not in technical detail.
The original poster clearly acknowledged that TSR had the controlling
rights to the convention, nor did he tell them how to run it - instead
he asked us to judge for ourselves and act if we felt it appropriate.
Once TSR begin to make arbitrary lists of games that are banned then
they will use so-called-censorship as a business strategy. To be fair
they have done this in the past with advertising in Dragon (I wish I
could remember the specific examples) though they finally relented -
saying that they had never had a policy of refusing advertising from
company X. When they extend that policy to an event like GenCon they
are doing something more insidious. How long before TSR draws up an
extensive black-list of small companies that it can tread on? TSR has
the financial muscle to steal any small company's sytem or game and get
away with it, how long will it be before it catches on to this idea?
And you'd never know the game was a rip off because the original would
have been suppressed by TSR.
--
Peter Wake
Conspiracy? What conspiracy?
Shannon D. Appel
>Wait a minute. I know TSR owns GenCon, but they own Origins also?
>This is news to me. Are you sure?
Mea Culpa.
Origins is GAMAs, as other people have correctly pointed out. That
doesn't seem to change the most basic facts, however. The convention
seems to be TSR's to run, and to scream "Censorship of the Whole
Gaming Industry" if they decide that they don't want certain products
at their show is ludicrous. I understand absolutely why they don't
want a "Slasher" card game at their show, especially considering all
of the troubles that they have.
Shannon
David Cheng, using Mark S Cheng's acct
As I have heard from not one but two requested-to-be-unnamed TSR
employees, sales go UP during times of heavy anti-D&D-ism.
I don't know if TSR is having any troubles these days. Michael
Stackpole, the pro-gaming activist, and GAMA's Chairperson on
this subject, told me that overall public reaction to "Cruel
Doubt" was rather underwhelming...
As far as I understand, TSR's monetary troubles are years behind them.
No problem there.
The only problem I see is TSR's unwillingness to go to court against
NBC and Joe McGuiness. Both misrepresented the contents of a
D&D book, in quite the negative way. A gamer/police investigator
friend of mine thinks they would have a good case.
Why is it that TSR will sue GDW because GDW's new game has the
initials "DD," (if indeed the rumours are true), but won't
sue NBC and McGuiness for a _real_ offense?
-David Cheng
drc...@wissel.stern.nyu.edu
v124...@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu
Ben Goodwin
If I read your article wrong, then ignore the rest of the post. You say
you understand why they don't want the card game at their con. Explain
yourself. Games like Cthulu and the vampire genres give the fundies
more than enough ammunition. Small companies need exposure to survive.
TSR is denying this exposure arbitrarily. Why exclude this game and not some
of the other hack and slashers?
I was actually surprised at the number of people who said, "Its their
party and if they don't want you there, tough". Not what I expected
from this group. Live and learn I guess. I think TSR is wrong. To
deny permission for this game but let other similar games remain smacks of
something that smells bad, namely TSR in general.
Hey, let's start a TSR boycott, the likes of the Apple boycott. I'm
all for it. I don't buy their products anyway. ;->
--
-Ben
Axly
>>
>>Origins is GAMAs, as other people have correctly pointed out. That
>>doesn't seem to change the most basic facts, however. The convention
>>seems to be TSR's to run, and to scream "Censorship of the Whole
>>Gaming Industry" if they decide that they don't want certain products
>>at their show is ludicrous. I understand absolutely why they don't
>>want a "Slasher" card game at their show, especially considering all
>>of the troubles that they have.
>If I read your article wrong, then ignore the rest of the post. You say
>you understand why they don't want the card game at their con. Explain
>yourself. Games like Cthulu and the vampire genres give the fundies
>more than enough ammunition. Small companies need exposure to survive.
>TSR is denying this exposure arbitrarily. Why exclude this game and not some
>of the other hack and slashers?
Cthulu and the Vampire genres aren't quite in the league of a mad slasher
card game. Given what happened in Milwaukee with the Dahmmer thing, I'd
be hesitant to let anyone play a "Slasher" game.
Besides, the original poster didn't tell us whether he'd contacted other
gaming companies to see if they were being asked to keep the slasher games
out at this Origins.
>I was actually surprised at the number of people who said, "Its their
>party and if they don't want you there, tough". Not what I expected
>from this group. Live and learn I guess. I think TSR is wrong. To
>deny permission for this game but let other similar games remain smacks of
>something that smells bad, namely TSR in general.
>Hey, let's start a TSR boycott, the likes of the Apple boycott. I'm
>all for it. I don't buy their products anyway. ;->
>--
>-Ben
--
* Axly * "Well, yes, it did occur to me that I*
* dv5...@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu * might hit one or two civilians. But I*
* Red Sword Targa * really never thought that I would hit*
* * all of them." -Axly *
David Nalle
Everybody hates to defend TSR, but we don't have to, they have a staff
lawyer to do that for them.
>TSR has their own covention. It's called the GEN CON/ORIGINS Game
>Fair [GEN CON is a registered Trademark owned by TSR. Origins is a
>Trademark owned by TSR.] They can do whatever they want with it (take
>out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
>their event?
In FACT, TSR runs the GENCON convention, not GENCON/ORIGINS.
This year the two conventions are combined, and ORIGINS is owned as a
TM and run by the Game Manufacturers Association, so what TSR's rights
as the local management are is unclear.
Regardless, if they have banned a particular product from the convention
and other products which fail the same tests (graphic horror art) are not
banned then they have a problem.
I actually agree that in principle they SHOULD have the right to ban
anything they want to at their convention for little or no reason at all,
except that this convention is also a trade show and by banning a
given product they are interfering with the publisher's ability to display
that product to distributors and therefore making it more difficult for
the publisher to sell that product in general, not just to attendees of
the convention.
But the point is that we don't want to go to court over it or argue the
legalities. We're perfectly willing to abide by what TSR wants. What
we hoped to do was arouse attention and stir up some indignation so
that people who might be going to GENCON or who buy games would
be aware of what's up with TSR (and with GAMA in its latest policy
ideas) and maybe try to speak out against it.
>[I'm not even going to touch your statements about how deciding what is
>shown at their (admittedly large) covention makes them the Censor of
>the entire Gaming industry. There is some leap of logic in that statement
>that I don't think I will ever understand.]
I should have painted the larger picture, I suppose. GAMA and TSR and
several other larger companies are now essentially working together to
promote a set of minimum standards for what should be allowed in the
gaming marketplace. They're working up guidelines (up until now they've
been unofficial, but expect to see them proposed at the GAMA meeting at
GENCON/ORIGINS) which basically outline what topics and types of
presentation are unacceptable and should not be published or distributed.
It's industry self-censorship, just like the comic book codes back in the 50s.
Already White Wolf Publishing has been forced to recall an entire release
of a product and change the cover because it showed a naked female
torso. TSR is banning certain words from advertising in Dragon --
including the word 'realistic'. This is just the tip of a very large and
very frightening iceberg.
>BTW, I'd suggest rec.games.frp.advocacy for this time of discussion, and
>thus have cross-posted there and set follow-ups appropriately.
I cross posted the original to rec.games.frp.advocacy too.
Dave
David Nalle
>|> out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
>|> their event?
>
>Well, it depends. Origins (vs. GenCon) is restricted to selling only
>to members of GAMA. As I recall, Ragnarok isn't a GAMA member, but
>I haven't checked the rolls in a few years. If Ragnarok IS a member
>of GAMA, then this represents an infringement on his rights as a
>GAMA member.
Ragnarok has been a member of GAMA but we dropped out because
of their restructuring of the Origins Awards and increase of dues for
services which apparently did not exist.
The new management of GAMA seems to be much more pulled together
and in order to exhibit at Origins you have to be a member, so we just
rejoined GAMA for that purpose.
You seem to know something about GAMA...any idea whether it actually
has any provisions to protect member rights in a situation like this?
>As far as banning a product, I'm of mixed minds on this. Dave is right
>that Suburban Slasher is at worst "in the pack" in terms of grotesque
>imagery and art. Moreover, since GenCon is hosting Origins, that show
>is one of the two major opportunities for a game manufacturer to present
>a product (usually a new product, but older products also benefit) to
>distributors. (The other is the Las Vegas toy show in February (?).)
If there are legal grounds for complaint on restraint of trade, the
importance of GenCon/Origins in marketing would be the basis of
such complaints.
>Note also that they are not simply banning his game from the con. They
>are refusing to accept advertising for the game in Dragon (which is
>undoubtedly the #1 conduit for consumer advertising in the gaming
>industry), and appear to be doing so in a relatively arbitrary fashion.
True as well.
>The question as to whether this is really "restraint of trade" is a legal
>one, rather than a question of popular opinion.
It's definitely restraint of trade. The question is whether it is 'unfair
restraint of trade'. I think it is only unfair if it is applied selectively.
In this case that seems to be what is going on.
>I am still troubled by Dave's announcement, much as others have been.
>Appealing to r.g.frp.whatever is not the way to solve the problem.
I didn't appeal to r.g.whatever to solve the problem. I appealed to them
to inform the public. We can't AFFORD to solve the problem. We are
forced to go along with whatever TSR says in this circumstance.
>Dave
>has been in the industry long enough to know how to talk to TSR;
Unless you have very deep pockets the only way to talk to TSR is to say
'yes massa'.
>I suspect
>that if they annoy a few GAMA members with this stuff that GAMA will choose
>not to host Origins there anymore.
Unlikely. Before this joint idea was developed Origins was losing a lot
of attendance to GenCon and GAMA was slipping in popularity. Bringing
TSR back in has really boosted their effectiveness and sense of power.
>A regular pattern of this kind of abuse
>would cause me to express my concerns;
It's a regular pattern. They've banned other ads from Dragon. They have
banned even selling rules for Live Action Role-Playing at GenCon, and
as I understand it GAMA is considering guidelines for a 'code' for all
games in general.
>thus far, this seems like a dispute
>in progress, and I will not accept Mr. Nalle's invitation to take it to
>TSR. Nor will I accept his reasoning that by not doing so I am condoning
>the behavior.
It's not a dispute. We're going along with it because we have no choice.
Send a letter or don't send a letter. Do what your conscience dictates in
light of the situation.
Dave
Shannon D. Appel
->If I read your article wrong, then ignore the rest of the post. You say
->you understand why they don't want the card game at their con. Explain
->yourself. Games like Cthulu and the vampire genres give the fundies
->more than enough ammunition. Small companies need exposure to survive.
->TSR is denying this exposure arbitrarily. Why exclude this game and not some
->of the other hack and slashers?
It's not arbitrary. Sure, both you and I know that CoC, Vampire, and what
not are really more "controversial" than Suburban Slasher [or at least how
that game has been described by various people here]. However, I think the
simple truth is that the people who would potentially criticize these games
aren't really gonna look much beyond the title, and maybe a quick glimpse,
and by that criteria Suburban Slasher is definitely going to look the
worst. It's like this big flap over Eclipse's Serial Killer cards. If
you actually take a look at them, they're not in bad taste, and they
don't glorify killing. But, the stupid people who are complaining about
them don't look that far. TSR is just protecting their best interests,
and no matter what I think of their products, and their impact on the
game industry as a whole, I respect that right.
->Hey, let's start a TSR boycott, the likes of the Apple boycott. I'm
->all for it. I don't buy their products anyway. ;->
If it makes you feel better, I'll promise to never buy a TSR product
again.
Shannon
David Nalle
>Origins is not a TSR trade mark. Origins is the name of an annual
>gamming convention run by GAMA a very seperate entity from TSR. Every
>year organizations bid for the right to run Origins. TSR has won the
>right to hold Origins a few times in the past and has run it in conjunction
>with their GenCon convention.
Quite Correct.
> Please write and tell both TSR and GAMA that
>you are displeased with TSR actions in this matter (if that is how you feel).
>Certainly if GAMA decides that TSR is being unfair to small companies
>they will probably not allow them to run an Origins in the future.
Actually, there is a large (some would say controlling) element in GAMA
which shares much of TSR's feeling about keeping small game companies
under control and preventing controversy.
I'd actually suggest not going too far to urge GAMA to split from TSR if
I thought they'd consider it for a minute. The money is just too good.
I also think that GenCon/Origins every few years does a lot to help bring
the different elements of gaming together, and to keep that going I'm
willing to make a few sacrifices.
We were members of GAMA when the decision was made to invite TSR and
GenCon back in, and I supported it wholeheartedly at the time and still do.
Dave
David Nalle
>rights to the convention, nor did he tell them how to run it - instead
>he asked us to judge for ourselves and act if we felt it appropriate.
Thanks for pointing that out.
>Once TSR begin to make arbitrary lists of games that are banned then
>they will use so-called-censorship as a business strategy.
I have heard a story from more than one source that there is a list of
games which is shared by distributors and others (like Dragon mag)
which is fairly short, but apparently includes at least three games,
Suburban Slasher, Alma Mater and one other whose name escapes me,
which are viewed as too controversial to distribute or allow to be
advertised.
I'm not sure the story is true, though the source is a good one. SS is
one of our best selling and most requested items from retail outlets.
>To be fair
>they have done this in the past with advertising in Dragon (I wish I
>could remember the specific examples) though they finally relented -
>saying that they had never had a policy of refusing advertising from
>company X. When they extend that policy to an event like GenCon they
>are doing something more insidious. How long before TSR draws up an
>extensive black-list of small companies that it can tread on? TSR has
>the financial muscle to steal any small company's sytem or game and get
>away with it, how long will it be before it catches on to this idea?
>And you'd never know the game was a rip off because the original would
>have been suppressed by TSR.
For the record, the people I have dealt with over this and other problems
(like removing the word 'realistic' from our ads) have been reasonable
and apologetic. The orders seem to come from the very top -- which at
TSR must mean the marketing department.
Dave
Curtis Scott
|> >|> They can do whatever they want with it (take
|> >|> out Slasher Games, etc)...where do you get off telling them how to run
|> >|> their event?
|> >
|> >Well, it depends. Origins (vs. GenCon) is restricted to selling only
|> >to members of GAMA. As I recall, Ragnarok isn't a GAMA member, but
|> >I haven't checked the rolls in a few years. If Ragnarok IS a member
|> >of GAMA, then this represents an infringement on his rights as a
|> >GAMA member.
|>
|> Ragnarok has been a member of GAMA but we dropped out because
|> of their restructuring of the Origins Awards and increase of dues for
|> services which apparently did not exist.
|>
|> The new management of GAMA seems to be much more pulled together
|> and in order to exhibit at Origins you have to be a member, so we just
|> rejoined GAMA for that purpose.
|>
|> You seem to know something about GAMA...any idea whether it actually
|> has any provisions to protect member rights in a situation like this?
relationship with TSR is "loose." Mike Stackpole and Lou Zocchi come
immediately to mind.
|> >The question as to whether this is really "restraint of trade" is a legal
|> >one, rather than a question of popular opinion.
|>
|> It's definitely restraint of trade. The question is whether it is 'unfair
|> restraint of trade'. I think it is only unfair if it is applied selectively.
|> In this case that seems to be what is going on.
I stand corrected. Any interference in your marketing your product is by
definition "restraint of trade." If you own a gaming shop and I (scruffy-looking
graduate student) stand outside and scare away your customers, that's
restraint of trade. I was using the phrase with its legal
definition, which includes the concept of criminal abuse of power.
|> >I am still troubled by Dave's announcement, much as others have been.
|> >Appealing to r.g.frp.whatever is not the way to solve the problem.
|>
|> I didn't appeal to r.g.whatever to solve the problem. I appealed to them
|> to inform the public. We can't AFFORD to solve the problem. We are
|> forced to go along with whatever TSR says in this circumstance.
|>
|> >Dave
|> >has been in the industry long enough to know how to talk to TSR;
|>
|> Unless you have very deep pockets the only way to talk to TSR is to say
|> 'yes massa'.
Now, Dave, that's unfair. While I am no-one's apologist, it's been many
years since TSR has been unapproachable with a problem. You seem to be
of the opinion that you have two choices: (1) eat it, or (2) sue. I
would do neither in your shoes. I would talk to someone who could help
me, or at least give me a civil explanation.
|> >I suspect
|> >that if they annoy a few GAMA members with this stuff that GAMA will choose
|> >not to host Origins there anymore.
|>
|> Unlikely. Before this joint idea was developed Origins was losing a lot
|> of attendance to GenCon and GAMA was slipping in popularity. Bringing
|> TSR back in has really boosted their effectiveness and sense of power.
Fair enough.
|> >A regular pattern of this kind of abuse would cause me to express my
|> >concerns;
|>
|> It's a regular pattern. They've banned other ads from Dragon. They have
|> banned even selling rules for Live Action Role-Playing at GenCon, and
|> as I understand it GAMA is considering guidelines for a 'code' for all
|> games in general.
So far as I know, the ads they've banned from Dragon have been with respect
to the content of the ad, rather than just "picking on small companies."
Any publication has the right to refuse to carry an ad they believe will
offend their readership. We must remember that the overwhelming majority
of Dragon readers are under the age of consent; TSR/Dragon could be SUED
for carrying an advertisement deemed inappropriate for the underaged.
I was unaware they had actively banned LARP rules from the dealer's room at
GenCon. Does anyone else have information about this, because that WOULD be
an active pattern of restraint of trade. Are there any publishers of LARP
rules who are GAMA members?
As far as a "code" like the Comics Code, I would have to see it. Remember
that the Comics Code badge has lost much of its teeth since comics stores
decided to ignore it when purchasing comics. (Even Spiderman had an issue
a while back that didn't pass the Comics Code.) A GAMA-sponsored code would
affect some retailers (and maybe even some distributors), but I'd be surprised
if it had much effect on the overall market.
If I remember correctly, the code was spawned by White Wolf's Fairies cover
showing a naked female torso. Frankly, I've seen more prurient things in
TSR products; check out any of the Clyde Caldwell cleavage art. Self-censorship
is a natural process in publishing, and like all other art forms there will
always be those who buck the system.
|> >thus far, this seems like a dispute
|> >in progress, and I will not accept Mr. Nalle's invitation to take it to
|> >TSR. Nor will I accept his reasoning that by not doing so I am condoning
|> >the behavior.
|>
|> It's not a dispute. We're going along with it because we have no choice.
Dave, you're not happy. They're not happy. It's a dispute, OK. It may or may not
be easily settled, and you may choose to accept their decision, but the two of
you are clearly on opposite ends of the issue.
|> Send a letter or don't send a letter. Do what your conscience dictates in
|> light of the situation.
As always, I will.
Curtis Scott
Bryan J. Maloney
>want a "Slasher" card game at their show, especially considering all
>of the troubles that they have.
Ah, but do you understand why they will single out only one "Slasher" game
(whatever the medium) and ignore the others?
What about games which encourage backstabbing? (Paranoia)
Or what about games that require the players to play creatures that prey
upon human beings? (Vampire)
What about games that have VERY graphic blood-n-guts art? (Call of
Cthulhu)
If TSR is going to ban one in the name of "taste", "violence", or
"inappropriateness", shouldn't they ban them all?
Greg Weller
The more I think about it, one of the more nonsensical aspects
about TSR arbitrarily deciding that this or that thing lacks
the 'taste' (or whatever word you choose) to appear in Dragon or
at GENCON, is the point that once TSR sells a product, they have
no control whatsoever over how the game is played. I'm in a couple
of ggames right now that would have the suit types at TSR reaching
for their rosary beads and holy water if they got a load of the
plot lines. As far as I'm concerned, role-playing is a nasty,
subversive, slightly Promethean (read demonic) pastime...and that's
one of the reasons I like it. If TSR were trying to stifle my
creativity (and I'm not entirely sure that's the case--although I
have *no* doubt that there is that kind of mentality at the
corporate offices--remember the old psychological concept of
enatiodroimia--the repressed becomes the repressor, etc) I'd tell
them to shove it up their ass sideways. I paid ffor the game,
I'll play it any bloody way I like (including dressing up in
funny costumes and terrorizing little old ladies at the local
sunday school...). So there! <g>...
Greg
Tim Dunn
>Ah, but do you understand why they will single out only one "Slasher" game
>(whatever the medium) and ignore the others?
At the current time, I see only one slasher game, and that's Dave's.
>What about games which encourage backstabbing? (Paranoia)
Pun-in-cheek, or didn't you realize that? I mean, even those who in
the (recent) past said that they could not play the backstabbing aspect
of Paranoia all acknowledged that it was tongue in cheek. It just wasn't
their idea of fun, that's all.
>Or what about games that require the players to play creatures that prey
>upon human beings? (Vampire)
1) It's not "required." But, that's hair-splitting. Moreover, 2) the
very nature of the game is that your character is trying not to give
in to the dark side of ... ooops, have to answer the door and let the
LucasCorp lawyers in. The game does not _encourage_ killing or inhumane
acts. In fact, the mechanics actively discourage it.
>What about games that have VERY graphic blood-n-guts art? (Call of
>Cthulhu)
I would much rather have good art and have it be tainted with goriness
than to have 'clean' art and have it poorly done. That's neither here
or Lake Geneva. I say the content of the game is more important. That
Dave's game focusses on plaing such unsavory characters is more crucial
than CoC's game focussing on the player characters trying to stop them.
>If TSR is going to ban one in the name of "taste", "violence", or
>"inappropriateness", shouldn't they ban them all?
The flip answer is to say that it would then have to ban all games, but
some groups may take that proposal seriously. The more serious answer
is to say that they should really give a critera sheet, and a reason
for banning the game ("I don't like it" doesn't sound too good, especially
in print.)
As for my personal opinions in the matter, I don't really agree with
the decision, but I would doubt that TSR constitutes the megalithic
monopoly that Dave seems to make it out to be. I play many games, but
not any of TSR's products. I have had no shortage of games to choose
from because of my abeyance of TSR.
However, it is important to recognize that SS is a different game than
Paranoia, Vamprie or CoC. It may have some similarities, but I feel the
differences outweig those similarities, and must be taking into account
as well.
--
Lieberman's Law:
Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens.
Matt Downer
>several other larger companies are now essentially working together to
>promote a set of minimum standards for what should be allowed in the
>gaming marketplace. They're working up guidelines (up until now they've
>been unofficial, but expect to see them proposed at the GAMA meeting at
>GENCON/ORIGINS) which basically outline what topics and types of
>presentation are unacceptable and should not be published or distributed.
>It's industry self-censorship, just like the comic book codes back in the 50s.
>
>Already White Wolf Publishing has been forced to recall an entire release
>of a product and change the cover because it showed a naked female
>torso. TSR is banning certain words from advertising in Dragon --
I don't care what they do in their magazine, or what they do at their
parties, but this bit about messing with other companies products that have
nothing to do with TSR is a bit scary. And considering how the comics code
stunted the comic book industry for 30 years, this is IMHO quite bad news.
How do they plan on enforcing this code? And would this qualify as an 'unfair
restraint of trade'? It kind of sounds like a cartel.
_______________________________
| Matthew B. Downer |
| hach...@u.washington.edu |
| |
| Ore no denwa bango wa 911 da.|
|_______________________________|
Martin V. Walser
(Bryan J. Maloney) writes:
>>at their show is ludicrous. I understand absolutely why they don't
>>want a "Slasher" card game at their show, especially considering all
>>of the troubles that they have.
>Ah, but do you understand why they will single out only one "Slasher" game
>(whatever the medium) and ignore the others?
>What about games which encourage backstabbing? (Paranoia)
>Or what about games that require the players to play creatures that prey
>upon human beings? (Vampire)
>What about games that have VERY graphic blood-n-guts art? (Call of
>Cthulhu)
>If TSR is going to ban one in the name of "taste", "violence", or
>"inappropriateness", shouldn't they ban them all?
You miss the point... Suburban Slasher comes right out and SCREAMS it's
violence at you. It's called, after all, "Suburban Slasher" and though
it may be a parody, it still doesn't look good to have a game about serial
killing at one's game fair.
Paranoia is about a futuristic mad computer. The average gaming "outsider"
looking at a Paranoia blurb is not likely to get offended at it.
Vampire is about *creatures* that don't exist in the real world... Vampires.
Serial killers DEFINITELY exist in the real world. (oh and please, no one
start citing that ludicrous show "Sightings").
Call of the Cthulhu is AGAIN about a very UN-real world topic. And again,
your average gaming outsider is not likely to realize that graphic violence
is involved because they don't think to look to closely at games with names
that don't suggest violence.
How would you feel if you KNEW some of the people killed by the likes of
Dahmer or Rollings (the Gainesville case)? You wouldn't be likely to find
"Slasher" very funny at all... I'd bet you'd be quite offended. How many
people know people who've been killed by vampires or Elder gods?
Suburban Slasher is MUCH more inappropriate, IMO, than Cthulhu or Paranoia,
*especially* in Wisconsin where it's NOT a joke at all.
The comparisons to the other games are invalid, I believe, in this case.
"Slasher" comes too close to real-world violence for it to be funny.
I can very well understand why TSR made the decision it did. It wouldn't
look good for business.
Mart (m...@anywhere.umd.edu)
James A Seymour
>
>You miss the point... Suburban Slasher comes right out and SCREAMS it's
>violence at you. It's called, after all, "Suburban Slasher" and though
>it may be a parody, it still doesn't look good to have a game about serial
>killing at one's game fair.
>
>*especially* in Wisconsin where it's NOT a joke at all.
>
>The comparisons to the other games are invalid, I believe, in this case.
>"Slasher" comes too close to real-world violence for it to be funny.
>I can very well understand why TSR made the decision it did. It wouldn't
>look good for business.
>
>
>Mart (m...@anywhere.umd.edu)
>
This is all just silly. Banning SSl because it is more violent
or sick than other games is downright arbitrary.
Will Car Wars be run at the game convention? Remember all the
freeway killings? Arent you afraid that someone will start
arming the family sedan for that next trip down the highway?
OH, NO! Better ban it as well.
Hmmmmmm, lets ban all the cyberunk/hacker games as well.
We can not have anybody worrying about the safety of
the world info/monetary electronic supply. And just for
good measure, lets grab all of these pesky type of games
so the public wont get any ideas. Yeah, and while we are
at it, if anybody at Origins has a computer, what the hey,
even if they have a credit card reader/verifier, lets
incarcerate them. If they have the equipment they are
obviously a danger to society.
Get realj people. SS is just a game. While the topic
may not be one that Jimmy Swaggart would approve of, it
is just a game.
It is true the gencon belongs to TSR. This year gencon is
HOSTING origins. I guess that means that they get to make
the rules. Fair is fair. Next year, I hope that whoever
hosts origins finds out what game or product line accounts
for 20% of TSR's business and bans that line. (Dave,
you did say that SS is 20% of your current business???)
Would TSR bitch and moan? You bet. Watch out for
throngs of lawyers as well. But fair IS fair.
I hope the games manufactures are watching all of
this going on. Its about time somebody pushed back
at the giant. Somebody has to.
james seymour/camel/came...@matt.ksu.ksu.edu/caml...@cis.ksu.edu
Robert Crawford
>>Already White Wolf Publishing has been forced to recall an entire release
>>of a product and change the cover because it showed a naked female
>>torso. TSR is banning certain words from advertising in Dragon --
> I don't care what they do in their magazine, or what they do at their
>parties, but this bit about messing with other companies products that have
>nothing to do with TSR is a bit scary. And considering how the comics code
>stunted the comic book industry for 30 years, this is IMHO quite bad news.
>How do they plan on enforcing this code? And would this qualify as an 'unfair
>restraint of trade'? It kind of sounds like a cartel.
It's a matter of industry standards, enforced by a trade group
(GAMA). "If you publish something that could call down the wrath of
the fundies upon us, then we will remove you from the trade group."
Maybe the comic book industry _was_ stunted for 30 years, but
it still exists, and is now freer than it ever was. I'd rather see
some restraint now than see a lot more groups marching out against our
hobby.
--
"Well, I'm home."
- S. Gamgee
Robert Crawford be...@camelot.bradley.edu
H++ Visser
In a perfect world, it would be just dandy to publish games with gray titles
and expect large companies to accept them with, but clearly this isn't one.
Why stop there? How about:
"Hail Satan! Is it just a RPG, or is it real...?"
"Baby Butcher"
"Final Solution II: Adventures in Baking"
"Buggery and Butchery"
"Gang Rape"
etc.
You can't, and I'm quite sure that many of the people here that side with Dave
here would be far less happy with the above. The fact is that laws and such are
set up to benefit and protect people like TSR at least as much as for you or I,
and you're living in a dream world if you think protestations of unfairness
will get you anywhere. I'm not saying I like this, support it, or think it is
in any way good. Rather, that's how it is, and the political climate makes it
pretty damn unlikely that anything'll change anytime soon, protests or not.
In fact, I am inclined to believe an earlier poster who claimed that Mr. Nalle
is simply trying to seel more games, and is deliberately naming them things
that TSR won't allow, and then claiming bias (with CoC, Vampire, etc.). Wow.
Impressive. What would be far more impressive would be a little imagination
on the part of the `persecuted', which is what I look for in a game in the
first place. Using a name that'll assure a refusal is hardly a good sign.
"Middle-Class Mayhem"
"I Don't Like Mondays"
"5:00 News"
Doug Ingram
>Enough whining, already!
Who's whining?
>In a perfect world, it would be just dandy to publish games with gray titles
>and expect large companies to accept them with, but clearly this isn't one.
Clearly? According to whom? You? TSR? What are the guidelines
for "acceptable?" Who gets a say in these guidelines? _That_ is the
real issue here, IMHO. Dave is saying that if you don't want TSR to
arbitrarily reject games (i.e. give no explanation and present no
guidelines for rejection to game designers), you should tell them about it.
This is not grandstanding. This is just good sense. Sure, Dave
is going to use TSR's ban to help sell his games. Why not? It works
for most rap records, and it helped "Last Temptation of Christ" make a
real bundle (along with "Basic Instinct"). The fact that he does this,
however, has no bearing on whether TSR's actions are right.
> The fact is that laws and such are
>set up to benefit and protect people like TSR at least as much as for you or I,
>and you're living in a dream world if you think protestations of unfairness
>will get you anywhere.
Oh, sorry, I was under the impression that this is a free market.
> I'm not saying I like this, support it, or think it is
>in any way good. Rather, that's how it is, and the political climate makes it
>pretty damn unlikely that anything'll change anytime soon, protests or not.
That's the kind of attitude that makes people keep sending the
same dorks to Congress even though they're obviously worthless. If you
feel that way, fine, but don't tell me that I should be apathetic just
because you are.
>In fact, I am inclined to believe an earlier poster who claimed that Mr. Nalle
>is simply trying to seel more games, and is deliberately naming them things
>that TSR won't allow, and then claiming bias (with CoC, Vampire, etc.).
Think about what you just said here. You're saying that Dave would
sell more games by _not_ appearing at GenCon and then announcing that his
games got banned. Why would he do this when the far easier route would be
to design an acceptable game by TSR's standards? Of course, there lies
the problem. What are the standards? Who gets to set them? Will TSR
ever get around to letting us in on their judgement criteria?
>Impressive. What would be far more impressive would be a little imagination
>on the part of the `persecuted', which is what I look for in a game in the
>first place. Using a name that'll assure a refusal is hardly a good sign.
How does anyone know whether or not their game will be assured
refusal? Just by the title? Come on.
Dave doesn't seem to lack in imagination based on all the different
enjoyable games he's helped to create (IMHO, of course). What seems to
be lacking here is a coherent direction in your argument. Clearly, Dave
would be silly to purposely create a game that TSR would find unacceptable
(provided, of course, that _anyone_ knows what TSR's guidelines are).
The fact is, and I'm sure Dave knows this, the game won't sell as well if
it isn't shown at a major con like GenCon, regardless of what else you do.
Once you realize this small leap of logic, the rest of your argument
degenerates into the conclusion that Dave has no imagination and is
pretending to be "persecuted" so that he can sell fewer games overall
by not being at GenCon.
Try again.
Doug Ingram -- ing...@u.washington.edu // "Carpe Datum."
do...@abby.chem.ucla.edu
ad!
The horror!
While I don't think I would ever want to play a game like Suburban Slasher,
I think that in general T$R needs to get a clue (take two, they're small!)
and stop trying to impose their view of things on everyone. They can ban
whatever they want from GenCon, but Origins should be another story, as it
ISN'T their con, even if they are unfortunately running it this year. One
point which many people seem to be ignoring is that this may be taken as
a precedent which T$R may (will, IMHO) use in the future to bully the
competition. We've seen what they did to SPI... if T$R is allowed de facto
control of a con which IS NOT THEIRS (Origins) and also happens to be one
of the primary places where new products are shown, etc., then where will
they stop? IMHO, the answer is that they won't before they feel that they
can't get away with anymore... and our complacency now will contribute to
T$R's perceived power later, when it may be something that matters more to us.
T$R is just testing the waters now. How much control of the game industry
do you want them to have?
-Doug Gibson
do...@abby.chem.ucla.edu
Neither UCLA nor the National Science Foundation has a clue what I am doing.
They just pay me to do it.
This is a properly spelled version of the mimetic signature virus. Copy it
into your .signature file and join in the fun today!
Michael Elias Campbell
symbol (Like so: T$R) when you do this, I putyou in the same boat as
the people who spell America with three k's and women with a y. Engaging
in this sort of minor-league political correctness is sophomoric at the very
best.
In the immortal words of the modern radical known only as "Tiger Lily",
shortly before said writer was thron out of MIM Notes:
"If you want peopleto take you seriously, spell for grammar, not
politics."
Matt Downer
>hach...@milton.u.washington.edu (Matt Downer) writes:
>>>Already White Wolf Publishing has been forced to recall an entire release
>>>of a product and change the cover because it showed a naked female
>>>torso. TSR is banning certain words from advertising in Dragon --
>> I don't care what they do in their magazine, or what they do at their
>>parties, but this bit about messing with other companies products that have
>>nothing to do with TSR is a bit scary. And considering how the comics code
>>stunted the comic book industry for 30 years, this is IMHO quite bad news.
>>How do they plan on enforcing this code? And would this qualify as an 'unfair
>>restraint of trade'? It kind of sounds like a cartel.
>
> It's a matter of industry standards, enforced by a trade group
>(GAMA). "If you publish something that could call down the wrath of
>the fundies upon us, then we will remove you from the trade group."
Being removed from GAMA is one thing, but if the large game companies
did something like put pressure on distributors to not carry games that didn't
meet the large companies standards, then I think that that would be considered
an 'unfair trade practice'. It would be a pretty sly way to get rid of smaller
competitors: make up arbitrary standards and then shut them out of the
normal distribution channels when they don't comply. And be damn sure to make
it difficult for them to comply... I guess it depends on whether or not all
the distributors are (or have to be) part of GAMA.
> Maybe the comic book industry _was_ stunted for 30 years, but
>it still exists, and is now freer than it ever was.
I guess in that there are many more X-rated books now than there were before
the code, you may be right. But as far as the size of the readership now,
compared with both pre-code times and what it would be like today, the total
number of comic book readers is a fraction of what it should be.
>I'd rather see some restraint now than see a lot more groups marching out
>against our hobby.
Ya, I'd like to see some restraint, but I'd rather it be voluntary
restraint. Putting one game company, or one group of game companies, in charge
of industry moral standards seems a little like having the fox gaurding the
chicken coop.
But I would hope that anyone playing this game would have the
sense to not flaunt it in front of people who've been the victims of violent
crimes. I also think that marketing it in Jeffrey Dahlmer's backyard is a
tasteless and insensitive idea. A game like this is humorous as an
abstraction, but to anyone who's life has been touched by violent crime, its
no longer an abstraction, and therefore no longer humorous. Just sickening.
But that's Dave's decision, and the decision of his customers and potential
customers. I personally won't buy it, and I think that TSR has the right to
keep it away from their convention and magazine, but it should stop there.
Tim Dunn
> I am getting really sick of you who spell TSR with a "$" symbol. Engaging
> in this sort of minor-league political correctness is sophomoric
Politically correct? Me?!? You have got to be kidding!
No, I spell it as a jab at a company who started the field and has done
nothing much else for it except milk people for all the $$$ they have.
I don't like much of anything that TSR (see, happy now?) has put out,
don't really approve of their "sue anything that moves" attitude and
dislike how they (tm) (r) and (c) everything that is possible.
No, I just don't like TSR. Multiculturalism (the PC way of saying political
correct-ness) has absolutely nothing to do with this issue or my actions as
a whole.
Bad doggie. No biscuit.
--
Corrupt, adj.:
In politics, holding an office of trust or profit.
Ben Goodwin
In the words of a great philosopher; thphhhhhtt!
I hope I got the spelling right.
--
-Ben
Ben Goodwin
>
> It's a matter of industry standards, enforced by a trade group
>(GAMA). "If you publish something that could call down the wrath of
>the fundies upon us, then we will remove you from the trade group."
> Maybe the comic book industry _was_ stunted for 30 years, but
>it still exists, and is now freer than it ever was. I'd rather see
>some restraint now than see a lot more groups marching out against our
>hobby.
Ahem, run away! run away again!
Looks like you should have been named Brave Sir Robin, not Robert.
>
>--
> "Well, I'm home."
> - S. Gamgee
>
>Robert Crawford be...@camelot.bradley.edu
--
-Ben
LELAND
(Stuff deleted.....)
>This is all just silly. Banning SSl because it is more violent
>or sick than other games is downright arbitrary.
>
>Will Car Wars be run at the game convention? Remember all the
>freeway killings? Arent you afraid that someone will start
>arming the family sedan for that next trip down the highway?
>OH, NO! Better ban it as well.
>
>Hmmmmmm, lets ban all the cyberunk/hacker games as well.
>We can not have anybody worrying about the safety of
>the world info/monetary electronic supply. And just for
>good measure, lets grab all of these pesky type of games
>so the public wont get any ideas. Yeah, and while we are
>at it, if anybody at Origins has a computer, what the hey,
>even if they have a credit card reader/verifier, lets
>incarcerate them. If they have the equipment they are
>obviously a danger to society.
(etc...)
This is an argument I have read before many times. It is often used when
some really nasty rock or rap group has some particularly inflammatory,
offensive or vulgar argument in their lyrics, or when an artist wants to
make something particularly vile and call it "art." I am not advocating a
return to tough censorship laws, but we do seem to have gone to the other
extreme; nothing is scared, we can say anything we want and never be
questioned, however mean spirited or pointless it is. Look at Sister Souljah;
somebody had the nerve to yell back at her for once, to call her down, to
tell her to shut up. And they are branded a racist, white boy, etc. You just
can't win anymore. Insult a mud slug and the MSADS (MudSlugAntiDefamation
Society) will jump and scream.
As for TSR, it is true they are a conservative and often arrogant group. They
still foist D&D off as a gaming end all, even though it is clearly out of
date and poor. Yet they spend jillions of their money to host GenCon, and
I wonder if they have some say in what does and doesn't go in there. It is
NOT a public show, it is a privately sponsored event. Would you want some
guy badmouthing you or something at a private party you held? Think about it.
I myself refuse to go to GenCon because A: it's too far away, B: it's mostly
TRS stuff, C: there are people there I do not want to meet again after having
put up with them at DundraCon, BayCon, etc. and C: there is no way I can
possibly justify the expense of flying out there and paying those rediculous
GenCon prices for everything from motels to food. But I feel if I do go I should
let the host have at least some say in what goes on there. I don't see this
banning of one game which sounds pretty stupid and pointless as a huge
censorship isue. The truth is the game designer is going to loose money
because he can't show it off at GenCon. Oh well...
Darrell Leland //
dle...@nmsu.edu ()=========>>=========================--
\\ Queen of Swords
"There is no absolute truth, and that is absolutely true..."
John Francis
> symbol (Like so: T$R) when you do this, I putyou in the same boat as
> the people who spell America with three k's and women with a y. Engaging
> in this sort of minor-league political correctness is sophomoric at the very
> best.
>
I suppose I'll have to promise to redeem myself and follow the one true way,
as espoused by the Holy Prophet Michael Elias Campbell.
Hang on - isn't the definition of PC behaviour doing something just because
you are told to do it, not because that's what you want to do? I'll go with
that definition in preference to the one Michael Elias Campbell believes in.
Grow up and get a life. If you don't like postings, ignore them. (Here is a
line for your killfile -- /johnf@apollo/:j -- that ensures you won't have to
be bothered by my postings again). Pay attention to the message, and ignore
the medium. Or, if you want to, spend all your time nit-picking the spelling
in messages. And consider this - many people who write T$R use it as a kind
of shorthand for the phrase "Those money-grubbing leeches whose actions are
controlled solely by the desire for excessive profit (spit)". "TSR" doesn't
have the same kind of automatic contempt built into it.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled activities. Have a nice day.
--
John Francis jo...@apollo.hp.com
The world can be divided into two classes :-
those who divide people into two classes, and those who don't.
Patrick Rannou
>hach...@milton.u.washington.edu (Matt Downer) writes:
>>>Already White Wolf Publishing has been forced to recall an entire release
>>>of a product and change the cover because it showed a naked female
>>>torso. TSR is banning certain words from advertising in Dragon --
>> I don't care what they do in their magazine, or what they do at their
>>parties, but this bit about messing with other companies products that have
>>nothing to do with TSR is a bit scary. And considering how the comics code
>>stunted the comic book industry for 30 years, this is IMHO quite bad news.
>>How do they plan on enforcing this code? And would this qualify as an 'unfair
>>restraint of trade'? It kind of sounds like a cartel.
>
1- if they can't at least give you a WRITTEN form of this so-called "code",
then they can go to hell.
2- Yes, IMHO it is none of their business if they don't OWN the magazine or
if it's not THEIR event. If they are not happy with one game displayed, the
worst they can do is: a) ask those whose event it is to kick you out (with
justifications), or b) refuse to animate the event.
3- At the very least, they shouyld be fair. They want to kick out chainsaw
massacre, and Chill is OK??? On what basis can they decide that?
4- What, you just learned that TSR was trying to make a cartel??? That's if
they don't already have one...
5- It's scary yes.
> It's a matter of industry standards, enforced by a trade group
>(GAMA). "If you publish something that could call down the wrath of
>the fundies upon us, then we will remove you from the trade group."
Being removed from GAMA is one thing, but if the large game companies
did something like put pressure on distributors to not carry games that didn't
meet the large companies standards, then I think that that would be considered
an 'unfair trade practice'. It would be a pretty sly way to get rid of smaller
competitors: make up arbitrary standards and then shut them out of the
normal distribution channels when they don't comply. And be damn sure to make
it difficult for them to comply... I guess it depends on whether or not all
the distributors are (or have to be) part of GAMA.
Yes.
> Maybe the comic book industry _was_ stunted for 30 years, but
>it still exists, and is now freer than it ever was.
I guess in that there are many more X-rated books now than there were before
the code, you may be right. But as far as the size of the readership now,
compared with both pre-code times and what it would be like today, the total
number of comic book readers is a fraction of what it should be.
I don't know about that. IHMO, it may be true for some X rated alternate
comics, but we don't have any basis to compare it to what it "should have
been". But for mainstream comics, the situation is the REVERSE of what you
say. Comics is a booming industry today. It's incredible how many comics
get selled, and those that are the best and have very good sales are
incredible titles like SANDMAN, SWAMP THING, HELLBLAZER, SHADE, just to
name a few, all of them NOT under the Comic code juridiction.
But that's matter for discussion in ANOTHER newsgroup.
>I'd rather see some restraint now than see a lot more groups marching out
>against our hobby.
Ya, I'd like to see some restraint, but I'd rather it be voluntary
restraint. Putting one game company, or one group of game companies, in charge
of industry moral standards seems a little like having the fox gaurding the
chicken coop.
Bullseye!
But I would hope that anyone playing this game would have the
sense to not flaunt it in front of people who've been the victims of violent
crimes.
Yeah, sure. As if fantasy violence was worse than the real thing. We all
know that those who channel their violence through a game and express it by
rolling a dice on a table are usually far less violent than the rest of the
populace. Players are good guys!
I also think that marketing it in Jeffrey Dahlmer's backyard is a
tasteless and insensitive idea. A game like this is humorous as an
abstraction, but to anyone who's life has been touched by violent crime, its
no longer an abstraction, and therefore no longer humorous. Just sickening.
But that's Dave's decision, and the decision of his customers and potential
customers. I personally won't buy it, and I think that TSR has the right to
keep it away from their convention and magazine, but it should stop there.
Agreed. If I were you, I'd:
1st: try to contact someone (and make friend with him/her) from the group
whose event it really is.
2nd: still show up at the con, even if they said no. Why not? The worst
they can do is try to kick you out AFTER you have made your display. That
is, if you took some precautions like bringing some other games as an
excuse to enter, and not choose too prominent a place to make up your
display (don't choose a hidden corner either...just a normal spot). And
what if they try to kick you out? If it's the staff from TSR, then they
can't kick you out without having the permission from those whose event it
is. Of course they'll try to have these on their side, so that's why a few
friends in the place can help. Hopefully they'll have their hands full
managing the con already to afford to lose time with you. Even if they
have "autorisation" to kick you out, be sneaky and either be a yesman, say
OK, but not do as they said (you "forgot"...), and/or make such a fuss of
it that everybody around will see the commotion.... and we all know that a
good scandal can increase sales, don't we? ;->
3rd: you just have to say that TSR, being a company, is just acting here to
drown the competition, repeat it over and over again... and for that reason
they can't force you to go, because it's not this "inexistent" code (they
can't even show it to you, can't they?) that is the cause for them to want
you to go, but because they want to control everything even if it's none of
their company's business... You can even menace them to go into court for
that. If they laugh at you, laugh back at them. "You can`t show me this
"code", so back off!". And if they "make up" a written code, it's isn't
valid if there isn't as signature of those whose event it is on it... Just
be really diplomatic and push your own weight, choose your words, and they
can't touch you.
Really, it's for you to decide what's best. If you are ready to endure
being pushed around by heavyweights who things they "own" the thruth, then
don`t cry about it, otherwise ACT to correct it, whatever they say.
Well, one final word for those who hate it when some of us write T$R
instead of TSR. I'll just say this to you: If I ever write something
OFFICIAL, I'll write TSR. But you can't force me to write T$R because I
thing they REALLY are money-grubbers. If you continue to whine about it,
I'll start writing $$$ instead of T$R, so you'll understand what I think
about that company a little better.`
Patrick Rannou.
Bryan J. Maloney
> symbol (Like so: T$R) when you do this, I putyou in the same boat as
> the people who spell America with three k's and women with a y. Engaging
> in this sort of minor-league political correctness is sophomoric at the very
> best.
Firstoff, to accuse me of political correctness is just a touch off the mark.
I'm about as "politically correct" as William F. Buckley, thank you very much.
(If not as "conservative"--both "conservatism" and "liberalism" are far too
irrational superstitions for my taste.) However, I do spell T$R as I do
because it is a far more accurate spelling of what the company is. (Much
the same reason I spell "compu$erve" the way I do.) However, variant
spellings of "America" do have some function:
"America"--land of democracy, opportunity, and liberty.
"Amerika"--land of the monied interests, dollar worhship, intolerance, and
racism. See also "Amerikkka".
I am proud to be a citizen of the first, I would gladly nerve-gas the second.
(And I know what nerve gas does, too--ain't pretty.)
In other words:
PTHTTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHTHPT!
NYAH NYAH NYAH!!!!!!
Oooh! I'm wounded, I'm dying, my whole life has been ruined by your
chastisement.
I sound immature? Okay, I sound immature. This is USENET, boys and girls, not
a job interview, and I doubt that a goofy posting on rec.games.frp.advocacy
would really hurt my future in molecular biology/biotechnology.