
[BOR]
0: Safe
1: Open-ended question
2: Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
3: Not regarding using or support for Lemmy
4: Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
5: [An actual topic of discussion]

[EOR]
[BOC]
&gt; Actually it is. Because it's not the author's game, it's not the author's product. It's the developer's product with their name all over it. Their concerns are first and foremost when it comes to how they are depicted by their output.

The backer paid for the privilege of having their own content placed within anothers game, the developers were obligated to confer with the backer, as it was a transaction of sorts. Regardless, the authors content was their own, they had authority over it, which even the developers recognized. 

&gt; You're going to need to be much more specific because until you tell me what these parameters are I have no idea what you're trying to say.

A demand is made as of right. In order to have a right to supersede someone elses liberty, they must have infringed upon yours in some way. By doing so, you are given the right to respond to restore your own liberty via demand.

AKA if the content causes direct harm or infringes upon your human rights, you have fair cause to demand it changes. 

&gt; This is entirely conjecture on your part. Maybe the devs understood the criticism, internalized it, and decided to do something about it. 

This is based of the actual scenario. The developers did not decide to do something about it - they asked the backer what he wanted to do. If they had agreed with the criticism, they would have **told** him what to do. 

&gt; As to the tweet, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the way it's worded or framed

It is framed as an objective moral imperative that must be met, hence a demand. It is not framed as subjective critique. 

But that specific tweet is part of the broader context of their demand and argument, which is why I stated I'm not comfortable focusing on specific tweets [the limitations are obvious] when we already know the outcome and know what happened. 

&gt; The word has quite a few interrelated definitions. Even if I "demand" you stop abusing the English language like you have been, I'm not limiting your freedom in any way, shape or form. It's a non-sequitur that a demand necessarily limits freedom.

I've been focusing on definitions of words, that is not abusing the English language, it is using it to the fullest extent it can be used. 

Your demand is illegitimate, so I'm not going to comply. That does not change the theory behind a demand, that you are placing your wants above my liberties. The objective of a demand, even when restoring liberty, will always necessarily limit the offenders conduct. 

&gt; When did I suggest otherwise? 

You suggested it's fine to make a demand based on offense, which is false by definition. Hence I can only assume you think offense is a legitimate parameter in this instance - a right - when it isn't. 

&gt; Things that are offensive about the things that I am are said all the time. Especially on Reddit. If the maker of a product that I otherwise enjoyed and appreciated were to partake in some of those things, I'd demand they changed their habits, otherwise I'm not giving them my money. I have a right to demand that. 

You have a right to boycott them, you do not have a right to make a demand as to what they must do, nor do you have the authority to do so. 

&gt; That I demand it doesn't infringe on their rights.

We've been over this. 

&gt; If they want my money, they will do what I asked. If they don't, they won't. 

You continue to mix up a boycott and a demand as if they are interchangeable. They aren't. 

&gt; At no point is the author entitled by right to have his poem included in the game. 

Unless he pays for the privilege, and is sold the right to in exchange for funds. 

&gt; You're suggesting that the devs rights and freedoms should be suspended in favor of somebody that made a donation to their project.

Not at all. The devs have a right and freedom to curate their own content however they choose. They also have the right to edit content provided by others for free, as there is no transaction or obligation involved here. 

They do not have a right to change the content of somebody who paid them to have their content put in the game under certain agreed upon limitations, outside of those limitations. Doing so would be failing to supply a product that a consumer has paid for. 







[EOC]
