|
Kai Tave posted:That's how consequences work, though. If you steal a candy bar then maybe the cop who catches you will let you off with a stern warning, but on the other hand maybe you might still get in some actual trouble for shoplifting. You say something rude to a cashier and the manager might tell you to get the gently caress out and not come back. You work for an act-out-your-rape-fantasies game and other people might not want to associate with you. Case in point: that computer game Kickstarter that got bad press when it turned out one of their creative staff was a paedophile. That guy's sexual predilections had nothing to do with his ability to create a game, but it was still damaging for the rest of the team to associate with him. In the end I recall they shut down the Kickstarter then rebooted it without the short-eyes on staff.
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
jivjov posted:The only position I can take is that every single person on this green earth has done some manner of "bad thing". Be it stealing a candy bar, saying something rude to a cashier, or doing layout work on a questionable RPG product. Telling someone "I don't like this project you're doing layout for, so you can no longer work on Inverse World or any other project my company makes" seems harsh to me; if doing something you find objectionable is such a black mark and makes someone unfit to be a co-worker/co-collaborator/whatever, you'll quickly find yourself out of co-workers. There's always this undercurrent that if you hold certain standards then your pool of whatever will dry up - this is largely false. These people aren't just dropping people out of their circles for little annoying things, but big things - if someone wants to work with an RPG professionals who don't contribute to projects where rape is a thing players are encouraged to do in the game, they won't "quickly find themselves out of co-workers" - there are tons of people they can work with. Much like how people say that if you don't read books by explicitly homophobic sci-fi authors, you will quickly run out Sci-Fi to read. But when you actually look at the sheer amount of science fiction that comes out, cutting out maybe ten authors doesn't actually restrict your ability to enjoy sci-fi at all!
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
I have pretty strict standards for who I like to work with, and if anything I am involved with too many projects and partnerships right now. I have a huge pool of artists, layout folks, writers and all kinds of other RPG professions to consult.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
You know, I'm really glad I didn't have to choose between having Jonathan Walton make something for my game and being associated, however tangentially, with Misery Index. I don't know what I would've chosen, but it's kind of insane that some people can't respect Mikan's choice. I don't like to dwell on it too much, but there are some people involved in RPGs that just aren't worth your time, and cutting them out of your life isn't that big a deal because there are so many amazing people doing awesome things that you could never hope to keep up. (Though IME Jonathan Walton is one of the Good Ones.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:10
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:Why is it harsh, why do you find this unreasonable? We are going to make a good poster out of you yet. A lot of the disagreement was me taking a much more...involved definition of 'association'. I was looking at it from a "who actually created the sword-rape content and who is just doing layout work" whereas the Inverse World folks were using a much more general "he worked on a thing that we don't like". From my end of things, I see it as harsh that a guy who did not write one single word of Oldest Cruelest Sword is being judged by said content. However, if the the goal is "I want as many degrees of separation between that project and ours" then it's perfectly reasonable from that context. I understand that consequences exist, but the way I saw it "you no longer get to write a stretch goal that X number of backers were to receive" seemed disproportionate to the act of "did layout". Were I in charge of inverse World, I probably would have gone with including a small disclaimer that Inverse World and all authors and contributors thereof are not affiliated with and do not support Misery Index et all, and perhaps refraining from working with that layout guy in the future.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:12
|
|
|
Laying out a book is still an active part in creating a product. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
The more general case is the correct usage of asssociation, and do you not see your disclaimer creates far more problems than it solves?
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
jivjov posted:A lot of the disagreement was me taking a much more...involved definition of 'association'. I was looking at it from a "who actually created the sword-rape content and who is just doing layout work" whereas the Inverse World folks were using a much more general "he worked on a thing that we don't like". From my end of things, I see it as harsh that a guy who did not write one single word of Oldest Cruelest Sword is being judged by said content. However, if the the goal is "I want as many degrees of separation between that project and ours" then it's perfectly reasonable from that context. I still don't think you understand that 'association' isn't just 'literally the head dude'. Like, the 'degree of separation' Mikan wants is 'all' and laying out the book is a pretty involved process.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
quote:I understand that consequences exist, but the way I saw it "you no longer get to write a stretch goal that X number of backers were to receive" He's still writing it and it's even being given to backers, it's just not associated with Inverse World anymore. The Inverse World version is being produced in-house instead. He is not being prevented from writing anything. Literally the only thing that actually happened here is that Jon Walton can't use the name Inverse World and associated concepts because the people who own and are behind Inverse World didn't want it anymore.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:17
|
|
|
I think it comes down to serious misapprehensions (and misappropriations) of concepts like 'inclusivity' and 'persecution', which tie into the old geek social fallacies that demand everyone be friends with everyone else, and tolerate behavior that is frankly intolerable. The furries did it (and some still cling to the concept of being 'fursecuted' like internet Jews), otherkin are predicated on it, and 'true' geeks are getting in on the act now that people are actually starting to call out the worst offenders, these self-styled defenders of the indefensible are starting to throw poo poo like anxious chimpanzees. These are people who think 'geekface', a la blackface, is a real thing. These are people who don't understand criticism. At all. Anything that isn't praise, is abuse. Anything that is abuse must be beaten back. It's an adolescent defense mechanism, being applied to adolescent productions (the word 'mature' belongs nowhere near games like Maid, Bliss Stage, or these things Misery Tourism are 'developing') whose developers want to be adolescent gadflies, while still being taken seriously as adults... and that doesn't work. There are reasons why 'manchild' and 'grow up' are derisive terms and imperatives. And while people like to bandy terms like 'indie' about, there is a strong interdependence in the industry at large. Someone created Apocalypse World. Someone remixed it into Dungeon World. Funhaver's crew has derived Inverse World from that. Would the asshats behind FATAL get anywhere in the industry using their published names, now? Almost certainly not. The industry is small enough that those traditional six degrees of separation are probably four or five at worst. Is there a difference between layout and writing? Yes, of course there is-- but Google doesn't give a drat about it, it is still a central role, and with regards to a creative project, there is a very valid assumption that being associated with it in such a major role implies a certain degree of belief in the worthiness of that project... and if these gatekeepers of geek think they can get loud, they haven't seen people who have really been dealing with persecution.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Did Maid's development team want to be "taken seriously" in the way that Misery Tourism's do? I was under the impression it was just a silly little anime game, not a troll/"satire" of power dynamics present in romantic and economic environments between people who hold power over one another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
jivjov posted:A lot of the disagreement was me taking a much more...involved definition of 'association'. I was looking at it from a "who actually created the sword-rape content and who is just doing layout work" whereas the Inverse World folks were using a much more general "he worked on a thing that we don't like". From my end of things, I see it as harsh that a guy who did not write one single word of Oldest Cruelest Sword is being judged by said content. However, if the the goal is "I want as many degrees of separation between that project and ours" then it's perfectly reasonable from that context. I wonder if your disconnect here is that you may not consider another dimension of association. I am not going to try to speak for Mikan or Gnome here; this is my own thinking on the matter. The you that follows is kind of a general you, not a specific one, so keep that in mind. By becoming part of the team for a project, you are, whether you like it or not, going to be seen as supporting whatever you are working on. You may not personally feel that way, and you might find some people who don't think that you have to hold the same principles as the one for whom you work, but there is going to be at least a percentage of the population who sees it and then later sees your name come up again and might look up what you've done. It may sell them off your project if they see that you were involved on working on something which they find distasteful. If it doesn't, it will probably at least give them pause. It doesn't matter what you personally believe. What the consumer will see and think is what determines whether your stuff gets sales in the future and it could lead to new opportunities just as much as it could lead to blocked opportunities. If you have one case where you worked on something some people find distasteful, they might consider a bit longer whether they want your stuff in the future because they might eventually decide that you could have made a mistake once or twice but in general you produce some good stuff. This is more of a marketing consideration, but I think there is a bit of principle bleeding into it, and while I'm sure business-minded people would rather keep the two separate I don't agree. I would argue that the way most gamers I have seen online express their opinions about products actually aligns with this viewpoint. Some people manage to ride a middle ground, where they can tap into different markets. But there seem to be two main camps here: one believes that anything not expressly forbidden is permitted if it exists in the world of fiction/fantasy, and another believes that what you do in your fiction/fantasy can be separate from your daily life but it still reflects on your positions/values. Judging by what I have seen from people in the former camp (the ones I can think of might be extreme or not, I don't know), they sneer at those in the latter, because they believe it is silly that someone can be effected by fantasy. People in the latter camp would probably find it atrocious that someone from the former camp would believe that there is no repercussion at all for what happens at the table or in the game's text, because individuals enter the game with differences in experience and if you don't account for that you can hit upon sore spots for them. To not take that into account is a failure in empathy. More on this later perhaps if I haven't been too wordy already. Gasperkun fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Aug 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Did Maid's development team want to be "taken seriously" in the way that Misery Tourism's do? I was under the impression it was just a silly little anime game, not a troll/"satire" of power dynamics present in romantic and economic environments between people who hold power over one another. Maid is just a goofy anime game, yeah. It's not a juvenile "look at how enlightened we are" kind of thing like the Misery Index and I don't think it belongs in the same category. Ewen can probably speak better to that though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Also if you take a job laying out a book you are implicitly agreeing that the book is a product that should be published. People who disagree with you are going to consider you part of why the book exists, because you HELPED MAKE IT A THING. Walton is part of the culture that creates and accepts poo poo like this. He's not a villain but he is in the wrong here and it's completely reasonable to call him out on that and not want to work with him anymore, regardless of what high opinion one might have about his other work. I really like Enders Game but ill never give Orson Scott Card another dime and I'm not conflicted about that at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
Thing too that I don't get is how readily people bandy around the 'if you don't support people who do x in y field, you won't be able to enjoy anything in y field at all eventually' because-- even if you allow that this is true (it's not), how is that really germane to any argument at all? The potential loneliness of a person taking a moral stand doesn't impact the position, and 'if you do this, you'll be bored/lonely' just seems to me to be the most childish of appeals to emotion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:48
|
|
|
For those of you who remember the Desberough/Sprange debacle, this is Mikan making the opposite choice. Instead of doubling down, he's professionally cutting ties. I know (and work with) people who work with Sprange. I wouldn't be associated with him, professionally, but it doesn't bother me that my author works for him on non-awful projects. If Doc were to pick up Slayer's Guide to Trannies and Perverts, then we'd need to have a discussion. I have enough bad going on with Nightfall without picking up that kind of baggage. Likewise, I generally look down on people who engage or even like the Foglios, because they are pretty awful people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 9, 2013 23:59
|
|
|
Winson_Paine posted:I don't believe either of those was intended as an equivalency, only other examples of external consequence resulting from action. I don't particularly have a dog in this fight either way (Mikan/Gnome can have whoever they want do the layout), but I don't think Kai was intending that. I was asking jivjov - it's his example. jivjov posted:The only position I can take is that every single person on this green earth has done some manner of "bad thing". Be it stealing a candy bar, saying something rude to a cashier, or doing layout work on a questionable RPG product. Telling someone "I don't like this project you're doing layout for, so you can no longer work on Inverse World or any other project my company makes" seems harsh to me; if doing something you find objectionable is such a black mark and makes someone unfit to be a co-worker/co-collaborator/whatever, you'll quickly find yourself out of co-workers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
jivjov posted:A lot of the disagreement was me taking a much more...involved definition of 'association'. I was looking at it from a "who actually created the sword-rape content and who is just doing layout work" whereas the Inverse World folks were using a much more general "he worked on a thing that we don't like". From my end of things, I see it as harsh that a guy who did not write one single word of Oldest Cruelest Sword is being judged by said content. However, if the the goal is "I want as many degrees of separation between that project and ours" then it's perfectly reasonable from that context. You are now involved in a discussion and seem to be arguing in good faith, you are absolved of the challenge. Go forth and sin no more, carrying the seed of good discussion about the forums. CHALLENGE PASSED
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Gau posted:Likewise, I generally look down on people who engage or even like the Foglios, because they are pretty awful people. What's wrong with the Foglios? All I know about them is from their online comics. (Although Phil and Dixie was often ... unimpressive to say the least).
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Yeah, that's the first I've ever heard of the Foglios being spoken of in the same breath as James Desborough. What's up?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
...
Nostalgia4ColdWar fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Mar 31, 2017 |
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 00:52
|
|
|
I guess the one distinction I've been drawing that's been the main subject of discussion is "author" vs "layout artist". While I do wholeheartedly agree that if you accept an offer to work on a project you're giving some manner of stamp of approval on it. However I've been plotting the culpability for that on a sliding scale, from 'lead author' to 'head artist' to 'layout guy' to 'lawyer on retainer who helped you with the copyright notice' all the way down to 'sandwich shop worker who you let look at a draft cause he asked about it' I personally see "did layout work" as a much looser involvement than a lot of other jobs in getting the finished product together, at least in terms of the content (rather than presentation, the layout guy is very much involved in presentation). That said, I don't know how much a typical layout guy actually has to do with the internal content, so I may be way off on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
If you have "Rape Simulator" on your resumé, then I, as a prospective employer, aren't going to give two shits what exactly you did on the project. You could have done literally anything, but all I am going to see is "Rape Simulator" and I am going to tell you that you're never getting the job. Likewise, if I am an employer and an employee decides they're going to work on "Rape Simulator" as a side-job, then they'd better hope it pays well because they're not going to be employed by me for much longer. "I didn't actually write any of the rape stuff, I just made sure it looked nice" isn't really going to persuade me to think differently in either situation. You still worked on a project I find morally objectionable. Ensuring you do not work on any of my projects means that I can safely make sure that at no point anyone can ever say any of those projects are "from the team that brought you Rape Simulator". But that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
Regardless of if the person doing the layout actually wrote a word of the text, if no one does layout, there is no actual product. If you are the person who has chosen to do layout for this product, you have played a key role in enabling this product's existence-- regardless of whether or not someone else would have done it or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I guess the one distinction I've been drawing that's been the main subject of discussion is "author" vs "layout artist". Then you can hire the guy for your projects, I guess? I dunno if a clearer answer can be given than what has been spelled out above. Being the layout guy is clearly more intimate a relationship than the IW guys are comfortable with, and they acted on it. Your estimation of such may be different. That aside, layout (depending on the product and how much attention is being paid) can vary widely on the book. If you have a fairly straightforward presentation (like say, dungeon world core book, or any given GURPS book) then it is an important but not a huge role. If it is something more art/design intensive (think the 4E L5R books, or a White Wolf splat) then they are more important and if the design is such layout plays an "active" role in the presentation (Underground or HOL or something where the presentation is huge) then they are a fairly involved player.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
Jivjov, did you actually read Jonathan's own post on Google+? It pretty clearly delineates his support for the project that he's working on.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
There are levels of guilt-by-association which are justifiable, basically, and other levels where it's taken to an absurd degree. The Westboro Baptist Church is reprehensible. (They're the ones with the God Hates Fags signs at the funeral of a gay soldier). If I found out they went to a sign-maker in my town and had some God Hates Fags signs printed up, I'd never do business with that sign maker again; my expectation is that the sign-maker should look beyond the immediate income from the job, and say "no, I will not do business with horrible people regardless of the profit potential". Failure to make that judgement is a deal-breaker for me. If a company is supplying that sign-maker with paper and ink, and they continue to do so after the sign-maker prints signs for Westboro Baptist Church, would I do business with that paper-and-ink company? Uh, yeah, probably, because now we're at a level of disassociation where I can extend reasonable doubt. It's possible the paper&inc guys don't even know about the sign job; and if they do, it's possible that they disagree with the decision to make those signs, but feel like it's not worth losing an important customer over, and even if I disagree with that decision I can at least see it as reasonable. And if a company that makes fortune cookies decides to continue their contract with the paper-and-ink company, which is continuing to supply the sign-maker who made signs for Westboro Baptist Church, it'd be ridiculous for me to boycott the fortune cookies. This is just a random example but my point is, there is kind of a fuzzy border of association where reasonable people can disagree about what exactly is, uh, reasonable. Mikan and co's decision is well within the boundaries of "reasonable." They don't want to work with someone who, upon learning about the product, failed to say "uh, no, I want no part of this" and pulled out. Failure to do that doesn't only create a chain of association with just two links in it, it puts into question the moral judgement of the person in question. Given that this is business, it's easy to sever the relationship on professional terms without hard feelings. It's not like Mikan is ostracizing a close family member or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I guess the one distinction I've been drawing that's been the main subject of discussion is "author" vs "layout artist". I don't see Mikan's decision (nor do I know Mikan, so I'm to some extent speculating here) as any different than hiring a guy to paint your house, and then you find out that the last job he had was painting the meeting hall of a KKK chapter (or something), and saying 'well, if you worked for them, you don't work for me.' Being a part of a project and taking their money carries with it at least implicit approval of the content/aims of that project, because presumably if you objected, you wouldn't work for/with them. It's not unreasonable - it may be unusual - to say that if this person approves of a project you find reprehensible, you don't want them on board with your own project. Basically, if you're the kind of person who was ok with doing that, then you're not someone I want to be in business with.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:33
|
|
|
If a family member wrote this crap you'd be justified in ostracizing them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Did Maid's development team want to be "taken seriously" in the way that Misery Tourism's do? I was under the impression it was just a silly little anime game, not a troll/"satire" of power dynamics present in romantic and economic environments between people who hold power over one another.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Gau posted:Likewise, I generally look down on people who engage or even like the Foglios, because they are pretty awful people. Can you elaborate on this bit some more? As a dude who plays Magic and reads about it a bunch all I've ever heard about them is people gushing about their artwork. I had no idea that apparently they're terrible.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:If a family member wrote this crap you'd be justified in ostracizing them. I agree. But if a family member did layout work for the guys who wrote this crap, while I'd be upset, and probably have an argument with them, and be really disappointed, I would sever on just that basis and I'd think it was extreme for someone else to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
Chaotic Neutral posted:Jivjov, did you actually read Jonathan's own post on Google+? It pretty clearly delineates his support for the project that he's working on. This post reminds me...where does kill puppies for satan fall on the scale of objectionable games? I'm not asking about the content; I've read it, and while I think I understand what Baker was trying to do with it, I can't imagine playing it for very long without the game either stalling from inertia or going into territory that would lead me to stop playing. Considering that many of us support Baker's work, I want to know what others think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
It's been a long, long time since I read kill puppies for satan but I mostly remember it being dumb and trying way too hard.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 02:18
|
|
|
I think kill puppies for Satan is in the"dumb joke" area of RPGs. Certainly it is not meant to be taken seriously. Now Poison'd... That's a serious game involving rape and you could get some real heated debate about that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 03:28
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Did Maid's development team want to be "taken seriously" in the way that Misery Tourism's do? I was under the impression it was just a silly little anime game, not a troll/"satire" of power dynamics present in romantic and economic environments between people who hold power over one another. Come to think of it... I know a lot of people who claim their games are cutting satire, but how many games are there that are actually satire and not poorly-disguised cheesecake or some poo poo? Do people make those?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 03:32
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:I think kill puppies for Satan is in the"dumb joke" area of RPGs. Certainly it is not meant to be taken seriously. Oh thank god. For a second there I was reading through posts and thinking "Wait, kill puppies for satan isn't tongue-in-cheek?  "
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
The thing I remember about my readthrough of KPFS is that it's pretty explicit that you don't get rewarded mechanically for doing truly heinous stuff -- only really petty, stupid evil acts. So I assume it'd just become an exercise in absurdity. And I think that's the intention. It's still a game I don't really have any desire to play, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
Ettin posted:Come to think of it... What about Paranoia?
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 05:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:17 |
|
|
The thing I don't get about kpfs is that it's supposed to be a parody/criticism of murderhobo games like any White Wolf game ever, yet when reading actual plays about it or reviews, they gush about how funny and/or fun the game was and what genius game design is involved. Doesn't that invalidate the whole ''criticism'' angle? If kpfs is fun and good game design, then every White Wolf game is fun and good game design. Unless you want to claim you're playing it ''ironically'', in which case you're an idiot. It's not like you play Werewolf and think ''gee, I really am a werewolf and I'm taking this game super seriously guys.''
|
|
#
?
Aug 10, 2013 13:01
|
|
