Chrkeller said:
Shadow1980 said:
Regarding what royalties Rowling gets, it may be more complicated than that. Without any actual documentation, we don't know what kind of money she makes off of any given licensed work based off of her books. Most people aren't privy to the specific details of any given licensing agreement. So, maybe she got money off of each copy sold of Hogwarts Legacy. Maybe she didn't. But that's not the point. The point was that people are opposed to J.K. Rowling because she is a transphobe. Not "allegedly." Is. People are well within their rights to refuse to continue to spend money on anything related to HP, to advocate for general boycotts of anything related to the Wizarding World because of Rowling's transphobia. People who boycott Rowling and works based on her IPs were being mocked for doing so. They thought it was amusing that people opposed Rowling's transphobia. They took it as an opportunity to mock people they hated for political/cultural reasons. For example, a user on this site wrote in one discussion "I guess the boycott made by certain 'community' backfired." Not sure else how to interpret that "certain community" jab as anything other than trans people (and probably also trans allies who were also boycotting the game). Another user (who's since been permabanned for multiple instances of flagrant bigotry & sexism) wrote in a separate discussion that "It seems the woke boycott didn't work :)" That's even more explicit in its direct mockery of people boycotting the game because of Rowling's transphobia. So yeah, we were more than justified in having that policy regarding Hogwarts Legacy. We weren't going to go full ResetEra and outright ban discussion of the game. People can separate the art from the artist, and many people still enjoy HP-related media despite Rowling being a bigoted POS. But we decided we needed to make it clear that we weren't going to put up with people making snide comments about those who were opposed to Rowling and her history of blatant transphobia. |
Opinion that you are pretending is a fact and forcing on others. The boycott was going to hurt a new developer... but that couldn't be pointed out because your opinion was forced to be accepted by all. She sold the rights. The boycott wasn't hurting her.... but we were banned from pointing that out. With a boycott, who gets hurt the 60k fresh out of school programmer or the person worth $1,200,000,000? Lol. I got nothing else to say, it was a one sided slant forced onto all. It was and still is a bad look. |
It was 100% forced on to us. One of the mods wrote some forum post trying to actively change the forum rules in a forum post. There opinion was completely in the minority on the site. It was called out and the mod closed the thread.
Unfortunately the concept of neutrality from a mod perspective has been thrown out the window or given less importance - previously it was high on the criteria list. We have mods in writing stating having ulterior motives for holding modship. Nothing has changed. They will end all discussion they dont like and they will ban you if they dont like you. Especially if you are lesser known user.
