r/ProgressionFantasy • u/jadesubspace • 8d ago
Discussion Soccer Supremo - Additional Context
Reply to a support ticket I made.
333
u/JuneauEu 8d ago
Hahahahahahaha.
Gammon!
Oh my, as a Brit, this is absolute gold. It's an insult yes, but... seriously? Bannable, even the police would ignore you for that one.
Brexit is also absolutely fair game, it has massively, and negatively impacted sports.
It's not even political at this point. It's history. It's not a current thing. It happened 6 years ago.
The freedom of movement amongst other losses of rights UK to EU people had massively curtailed football.
Genuinely.
As a, I would like to think, a rather well educated, middle of the political spectrum person.
Those two are massively disappointing points for something to be moderated over.
137
u/fued 8d ago
At this point they are getting close to needing to say "no books set in modern times"
95
u/JuneauEu 8d ago
This from the RR team needs passing up to the top of the chain, because soooo many stories have far far worse politics and points in it then calling someone a gammon or talking about Brexit.
This is the type of thing that brings a company down. Getting away from them.
11
u/myboystash 8d ago
I mentioned this exact point to someone earlier and they said it would have little to no effect on RR at all. I laughed really hard about that!
20
u/wuto 8d ago
What's getting away from all this is the disproportionate, hyperbolic vitriol and meme responses over multiple threads making a shitty situation and bad personal judgment into an institutional culture war.
As u/RavensDagger said, we pubbed VERY left-wing stuff on this site for YEARs.
I am a bit miffed by this whole thing.
In my line of work, WHOLE essays are written on the nature of human paradox, inconsistencies, conflicting perspectives, discursive viewpoints.Here's some of the stuff we teach to recognise in popular media.
A discerning reader should recognise the following disingenuous methods of persuasion:Moral Grandstanding: Deliberately using universally agreed-upon ethical ideals to address singular events or individual mistakes, especially ones that can be resolved amicably.
Moral Equivalence: Treating personal opinion as a personal grievance with the same moral weight as historical atrocities, a favourite of election season Town Hall hecklers.
Coercive Framing: The inherent rejection of logical proportionality and instead reliance on moral, emotional, guilt-tripping.George Orwell hates this. He hated the insincerity of such methods.
We strongly teaches these to kids because, as a community, we are so constantly exposed to these methodologies in any kind of political debate on the internet.
The English essayist George Orwell tells us this: art is inherently political. The stance that art can be apolitical is itself political. Soccer man's art cannot therefore be stated as non-political. I think both the author and RR are guilty of this, and I hope they come to a compromise.
I am going to hug my cat now.
96
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
Absolutely. As a Brit living in the US I am 100% sure they don't know what gammon means.
Saying that is insulting and can't be used, well better send notes to hundreds of books who have characters using far more offensive terms. Because characters, sometimes are racist?!
And saying Brexit is political and can't be criticized is absolutely nonsense as well.
55
u/myboystash 8d ago
It's an Israeli owned company btw... Do with that information what you will.
12
u/flying_alpaca 8d ago
I remember reading the fan translation of Legendary Moonlight Sculptor there when I was back in college. Then didn't hear about if for like 5-10 years and now it's a completely different thing.
26
61
u/myboystash 8d ago
And the Hungry stuff is also now history because of a change of leadership in the country... This is a very strange time to make this move by RR.
-42
u/RavensDagger 8d ago
AFAIK they did just ask the author to talk about it, and then the author decided to delete their story in response. I... don't think RR would actually ask for sweeping changes.
If they did, then it would be the first time, as far as I know, that RR asked for something like that. The exception being storied with too much smut, RR has always been pretty big on the 'no more than 10%' rule.
81
u/Lorevi 8d ago
Royal Road admin account:
So to summarise, it was reported that the fiction had political content, a moderation team member investigated that, confirmed it, and asked the author to remove such content, upon which, the author chose to delete his fiction from our platform.
Author account:
Basically I was asked to change the content of the story or it would be deleted.
Both of them are consistent in that RR did ask for changes actually. And after Ted Steel decided that he wasn't willing to change his story, then it was either remove the fiction himself or it would be deleted.
I'm not sure why you're playing defence for RoyalRoad here but both public statements contradict you.
37
u/DoyleDixon 8d ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/litrpg/s/h6REqWdOj7
Ted Steel replied to a fan post with a rather large post describing the situation from his perspective. It often reads like a Max Best rant(MC from his three series) but he does clearly state he was told “24 HOURS”.
I can easily imagine authors getting heated about being asked to censor themselves. He’s also a prolific writer considering he’s about through his 25? Book in under five years. At that pace, going back to edit something from ages ago or make sweeping removals of a term would be time consuming.
33
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
Listen if some mod called me about these complaints I would be livid. They are ridiculous and completely out of line with numerous books which aren't a problem.
I fully support the author and I'm seriously considering my use of rr.
29
u/Selraroot 8d ago
c'mon, you're better than that. They clearly wanted the content changed, both stories are consistent on that.
6
u/LLJKCicero 8d ago
They confirmed in the Well discord that they asked the author to either edit those things or the fic would be deleted.
Now maybe they could've been negotiated down and the author noped out too fast, but that's how they presented it.
19
1
u/sorte_kjele 7d ago
Yeah you are either misinformed or willfully misrepresenting the gammons at RR HQ
22
u/Robo-Connery 8d ago
100% this is some right wing Hungarian discord or some other forum that have came and brigaded it via reports.
The content that it has been banned for is ancient as well, the gammon stuff has been in sincenthevstart, not like a new chapter dropped and regular readers were offended and organically reported it.
When you selectively enforce rules only at a critical mass of votes then you aren't really enforcing them, you are just giving the power to remove disagreeable content to fringe groups.
And yeah 100% the idea that "gammon" is offensive is so fucking hilarious to me, like jesus Christ it's the most mild insult there ever has been. You could find endless examples that are far more offensive in almost any series on there. For example, hundreds of RR series use the word "pussy" as an insult which is not only a sexist term but also generally used for toxic masculinity. I don't think they should be banned but it is by definition exclusionary language and far more so than fucking "Gammon".
And yeah not only was Brexit 6 years ago, the vote was ten years ago.
Vague world governments and past actions of nations are constantly free to be critiqued but apparently not this one time.
A decision that was obviously made with 0 critical thinking and then they can't walk it back because he quit so they are left having to defend their insane decision.
11
u/Batbeetle 7d ago
HWFWM is surely on the chopping block, then? That one is notorious for having an MC who makes irreverent political statements, people complain about it constantly in reference to that series. It isn't even subtle, it's part of his whole schtick. An entire arc involved going back to Earth and made comments about real world politics that people can extrapolate from as easily as the Hungary thing. I would be astonished if nobody ever put in a complaint about HWFWM's political leanings given how well known it is. Yet is Shirtaloon being told he's broken the rules and has to do extensive edits or leave? Does he seem like an author who would not have anything to say about that?
DCC also constantly references real life politics and things you can easily Google and find out what real situations and real people were being referenced, yet that was allowed to stay for 6 books ( I would be less astonished if those things never triggered reports because of what they were and the RR reader demographic but it is rife with them).
4
u/---Sanguine--- 7d ago
I was going to ask about HWFWM if this content was being asked to tone it down. HWFWM has some hilariously bad stereotypes of Americans and such. I guess since they’re not real people though it passes the filter
11
u/AHappycritter 8d ago
It really sucks because the fact that real world political issues and cultural problems were actual plot points and conflicts that the mc needed to solve is one the coolest things about Player Manager imo. It really added to how immersive Player Manager feels as a story.
8
u/mynewaccount5 8d ago
Sounds like someone copy and pasted it into chatgpt and said "find me offensive stuff".
6
u/davisty69 8d ago
Is gammon like the a British specific version of "boomer"?
19
u/Master-Rake 8d ago
Yep. Specifically it is a type of pink ham/pork. It makes fun of old white British men, who turn pink when shouting angrily at all the little things that have changed and how their times were so much better
2
7
u/Mejiro84 8d ago
Kinda? It's used for middle-aged or elderly men that are varying degrees of right-wing, somewhat sexist and/or racist, often portrayed as red-faced, yelling and angry about the world moving on. It's somewhat more working class than I think boomer is (that's often associated with 'the demographic that has most of the wealth, housing stock etc.'). A bit like a racist, sexist John bull, a chubby older guy in an England shirt, down the pub, moaning about 'those people '
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)1
u/The_Sikhist_Timeline 7d ago
even the police would ignore you for that one.
The absolute state of England
41
u/ErinAmpersand 7d ago
"fictionalize without it being too difficult"
My friend, this stuff is published on Amazon. It is in the audiobook. You are asking him to maintain a completely separate version of the story just for you, that he later reverts to match the published version.
How is there ANY way that is not too difficult?!
(And yes, I know OP is not Royal Road, just sharing his or her discussion with them)
191
u/Lorevi 8d ago
What a joke.
Gammon? Really? Might as well censor every book that uses the term 'boomer' if that's your line. They have significant overlap and both are "derogatory terms used to describe a specific demographic".
-21
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 8d ago
"Boomer" was not originally used as derogatory (and is still mostly not used in a derogatory sense). "Boomer" is also not a race, which is specifically mentioned in the rule, while "gammon" is race-specific, since it is meant to refer specifically to a subset of white British men.
RR moderation staff have consistently banned all identifiable real-world racial slurs.
27
14
u/Batbeetle 8d ago
It's equivalent to calling someone a "Karen", yeah it implies they're white but it also heavily implies they are racist and/or homophobic and otherwise set in their ways. If that's not allowed then RR needs to remove all the Karen references (Dungeon Crawler Carl has to go!) and yes, Boomer since Boomer is ageist if we're going there. Coming out to bat for racists isn't a good look btw
9
5
u/finfinfin 8d ago
Which subset? Why? And why do you think it's only used as a label for men?
Are you English? As a professional English person since birth, it's not a racial slur lmao what the hell
-93
u/SadAd1433 8d ago
I mean, I wouldn’t mind. It breaks the escapism. One second you’re immersed in the story and the next you’re instantly pulled out to encounter the author’s personal take or encounter with a ‘boomer’ or ‘Karen’.
Especially since the RR + Reddit intersection of audience hates boomer. They probably don’t care or enjoy it.
I think it it’s bad for escapism and bad writing
74
u/KeiranG19 8d ago
Then don't read that story?
Not everything is aiming for your personal flavour of escapism.
-41
u/SadAd1433 8d ago
Totally understand that. RR as a platform specifically is though. And they’ve clearly written that in their ToS. And they’ve enforced it.
So, does everyone else understand that? I don’t think so.
I think they want RR to take a moral stance. Or to say that’s not fair because they haven’t applied that to other stories. Or invalidate it by saying it’s not actually a bad term, or it’s the same as other benign things.
I’m just not sure what the problem is here? Clearly, the author broke the ToS and decided to go elsewhere with their works.
40
u/KeiranG19 8d ago
Oh well if they broke a rule then that's that I suppose.
Nobody can ever criticise a rule or its selective enforcement. /s
RR are taking a moral stance by enforcing the rules only against certain political viewpoints.
10
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
They've unilaterally enforced it, while ignoring hundreds of worse examples across many many books.
3
u/Auctoritate 8d ago
RR as a platform specifically is though. And they’ve clearly written that in their ToS. And they’ve enforced it.
I'm sorry, am I the crazy one here? Because I was never under the impression that RR had any inherent restriction towards escapist fiction whatsoever, and looking at their TOS I don't see anything about that either.
37
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 8d ago
Well…this specific story is set in modern times, in England so it’s not exaccctly focused on escapism…
-16
u/SadAd1433 8d ago
Ergo, this breaks RR’s focus on escapist stories. So I guess the author didn’t read the ToS or flaunted them and was finally asked to leave?
What’s the issue? That RR should support these stories? They should change their identity? I could see that. But then how would you like it if all you could find were stories with political viewpoints you don’t agree with?
It goes both ways. You can’t curate RR to be just your political viewpoint. RR knows this is an unrealistic goal, so they just don’t want to bother with it.
Why is that so wrong?
20
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
Ah yes a magical system that makes you an amazing manager and player for your dream soccer team isn't escapism at all!
Are you trying to make nothing but bad faith arguments?
2
u/entertainmentwaffle 8d ago
But that’s just it. Don’t curate at all unless it’s actual hate speech. Let people out whatever politics they want, and let the audience decide via ratings/follows whether they want to read it.
91
121
u/nighoblivion 8d ago edited 8d ago
The policy makes it pretty impossible to write about anything related to real world history, because most historical events worth writing about can likely be connected to something political.
In British political culture, gammon is a pejorative term typically used to describe a specific demographic of older white men who express reactionary or right-wing views, particularly in support of Brexit.
So basically the American "boomer."
I guess that's a warning to authors not to call a character "Karen" or "boomer."
45
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
It is exactly like a subsection of boomer that drinks too much and has that alcoholic red face. This says no characters can use insults in fiction. Which is insanity.
13
14
u/Shinhan 8d ago
Also, its not moderators fault for inconsistent moderation, its the users fault for not reporting massively popular stories that have the same "problems".
/s
But don't worry, they will fix it all by feeding the novel to AI (that's the RR's CTO).
-15
u/SadAd1433 8d ago
history isn’t one year ago especially as applied to novels and literary criticism. 50-100 years is better than
30
u/nighoblivion 8d ago
One year ago is "recent history." History all the same.
If something isn't "current events" (now and a few weeks back) it's "history" in some form (recent, contemporary, modern, early modern etc.)
-11
u/SadAd1433 8d ago
Definitionally according to history 101. But it just doesn’t hold up when it comes to literary fiction, entertainment, and escapism.
Note that RR’s goal is to host escapism stories. What happened to you yesterday might definitionally be history, but people don’t treat their identities that way. They hold onto experiences in their past quite strongly to ground who they are today and tomorrow
Escapism is all about creating a barrier between that.
Happy to explain more if you have questions
16
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
Then don't fing read it and let those who want to do so. Your delicate little sensibilities shouldn't decide anyone else's. A place that has torture porn and murder hobo stories should not be censoring such mild and realistic writing
18
u/nighoblivion 8d ago
But it just doesn’t hold up when it comes to literary fiction, entertainment, and escapism.
According to you?
Who cares.
-12
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 8d ago
"Boomer" is not originally a slur (just a term for a specific generation) nor is it specific to a real-world race. "Karen" at least arguably is, seeing as it's generally seen as specific to white women, and I could see someone getting asked to censor that by a RR mod. "Gammon," literally meaning ham, clearly lacks any non-insulting usage and certainly falls under a well-worn Royal Road rule that bans racial slurs:
Targeting of specific real-world races, cultures, governments, corporations, or entities is not allowed.
In this case, this is not a rule that's being inconsistently enforced. RR moderators are very consistent about banning contemporary racial slurs for real-world races. So, yes, that's a Royal Road moderator applying the rule as written, and this is one that Royal Road has enforced pretty strictly IME. You will find that real-world racial slurs are scarce on Royal Road, even ones that are not usually considered very important. This is particularly notable when considering period-accurate American dialogue from the 19th or even early 20th century.
I say this is notable because the current #2 (frequently #1) on the Historical Best-Rated list on Royal Road, with almost 15,000 followers, is set in the 19th century Deep South. Would "A Journey of Red and Black" be more period-accurate if it was full of racial slurs? Yes. Do Royal Road moderators want to field the kind of volume of complaints they would get about it if it was? No.
12
u/waterswims 8d ago
I am British... Gammon is not a racial slur. It is someone who gets red faced when drunkenly shouting. Unless you believe that only certain races have blood rush to their face when drunk or shouting?
4
u/Batbeetle 8d ago
The only people who think gammon is "a racial slur" are people who are racist themselves.
4
u/Auctoritate 8d ago
"Boomer" is not originally a slur (just a term for a specific generation) nor is it specific to a real-world race.
Eh, it not being specific to a race isn't necessarily relevant. Age is generally considered an equally-protected class as race is, from a legal standpoint. We just don't consider it sacred from a cultural one.
-3
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 8d ago
Whether or not the term is specific to a race or culture is extremely important from the perspective of RR's posted rules:
3. Targeting of specific real-world races, cultures, governments, corporations, or entities is not allowed.
RR has moderation rules, and this one bans racial slurs.
10
u/nighoblivion 8d ago
"Gammon," literally meaning ham, clearly lacks any non-insulting usage
"Boomer," literally meaning someone of the baby boom generation, clearly lacks any non-insulting usage
How are they different?
-5
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 8d ago
People have only been trying to use it as an insult since "Okay, Boomer" was a meme, and that mostly among and between Zoomers, IME. You can spite out "British" like you mean it as an insult, or (ala Hitchhiker's Guide) treat "Belgium" as a word of profound profanity, but the actual contemporary meaning of the word is as a non-offensive label for a thing that exists.
"Gammon" to refer to people was invented as an insult and used as such. Another difference is that the group it refers to is defined partially in terms of race and ethnicity, both of which are called out in the rule about not targeting real-world races, ethnicities, governments, etc. "Geezer" is generally taken to be meant as an insult, but it's not a racial slur, which is where RR draws a hard line (and has for years). Once someone pointed out that "gammon" was a real-world racial slur in a report to RR moderators, they were going to ask him to take it out.
6
u/nighoblivion 8d ago
The distinction seems a bit overblown. "Boomer" can be used as an insult, just as "gammon" can, but neither is inherently some devastating slur. Both are essentially dismissive labels for a perceived type of person. Whether a term originated as an insult doesn't automatically make it more offensive, and the racial angle is silly when the term primarily targets a political stereotype.
113
u/monstercar 8d ago
When did RR become a social site that needs the books moderated?
I just go there to find good reads, and if I don’t like a book or am “offended” I quit reading it.
I don’t understand any need for this sort of policy.
83
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 8d ago edited 8d ago
There’s a certain segment of the population that doesn’t want opposing ideas to exist anywhere, fiction or irl
39
16
u/BusBoatBuey 8d ago
It has always been relatively strict in moderation. I don't know why people are suddenly pretending like Royal Road was the English Syosetsu.
26
u/Memes-Tax 8d ago
Clearly that's not true because player manger has 20 odd books and gamons are mentioned from book 1 since the old farts have so much say in the world of football.
-1
u/the_real_tisan 8d ago
Go look at scribblehub to see what a similar site without moderation looks like
11
u/Memes-Tax 7d ago
You aren't wrong, but my point is you aren't really "moderating" if you ask for corrections to a story that's reached 4 million words over 6 years. You are supposed to do your moderation back during the first few chapters or first book. Also Player Manager is fully published on Amazon and is part of kindle unlimited (that's where I stared reading it) so if it's good enough for their moderation team I don't think RR have a leg to stand on.
4
u/Rumble_831 8d ago
Eh? Its always been like that. You wanna read uncensored books, you need websites like AO3 for that.
37
u/madterrier 8d ago
Yeah, anyone who has played Football Manager knows how Brexit fucked squad building. It's even a feature in some of those games of that they rejoin the European Union.
That said, I would like to see the receipts from the author about what was exactly said.
45
u/Witty_Ad_898 8d ago
I was mostly ignoring this drama and had no opinion on either, but this “additional context” has put me firmly against RR’s actions. This is pathetic.
Seriously? Hungary has frequently made headlines for anti-EU speech and actions under Orban.
Gammon is a cut of cured meat, and also slang for older men with extreme racist and pro-fascist views. It’s a rude term, but not any more so than “Karen” or other similar terms used for people with problematic behavior.
And discussing Brexit? It has been an absolute shitshow for Britain. Why shouldn’t it be discussed?
-9
u/ReshiMael 8d ago
The answer to the first and third question is that RR has had a long standing rule about content related to IRL events, entities, etc, that it needs to be written respectfully and with discretion, otherwise it's not permitted on the website.
Most political coverage would probably break that rule.
As for the author's usage of the term gammon, my understanding is that it falls under the same blanket ban as other IRL derogatory terms.
9
u/Witty_Ad_898 7d ago
That application here would require an excessively sensitive interpretation of the rules considering RR serves a range of genres whose uniting trait is the fantasy to have the power to murder the bad things.
14
12
u/BtanH 8d ago
What is this about? I'm out of the loop, but this seems bizarre.
6
8
u/ReshiMael 8d ago
TLDR: My understanding is that the author's story was reported and was found to break RR's content rules in regards to IRL politics, staff found the author's usage of derogatory terms also problematic, and asked the author if they can tone things down/make some edits.
The author didn't want to make any changes and instead removed the story.
42
u/Mannymcdude 8d ago
I really don't like the framing of "make some edits" as if RoyalRoad's initial ask could be construed as gentle and easy. Imagine you're an author who's written over 3 million words on royal road over the past 4 years, and the term "gammon" appears throughout. This is a term on the same level as "boomer" or "redneck". Out of the blue one day, an RR mod DMs you about how you need to censor your story, and one of the examples they bring up is gammon, which they refer to as a rule-breaking slur.
That's not a "make some edits" situation, that's quite possibly hundreds of hours of combing your incredibly long story for edits, plus lots of back-and-forth with the mod team, all to satisfy censorship that you don't agree with anyway.
It's also much more in line with the message of the story to refuse to kowtow to unfair and selective moderation.
→ More replies (17)
41
u/Ruark_Icefire 8d ago
So definitely nothing worse than HWFWM has done then. Seems like they better ban that story too.
14
u/David_Musk 7d ago edited 7d ago
HWFWM has 30k followers, though. The mods will certainly discover that it falls well within the site's rules.
I once had a support ticket with an RR mod where I asked why an advertising rule applied to me but not several others. The reply went something like: "we have separate agreements with so-and-so . . ."
The same rules don't apply to everyone.
48
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 8d ago
I’m reporting every instance of “snowflake”, “boomer”, “woke”
7
2
u/Ok-Split-6439 7d ago
As a bigot IRL, I am offended by every story that says racism is wrong. I will be reporting every slur against my people.
4
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 7d ago
That’s exactly what happened here. Some gammons got their tiny feelings hurt because Ted used the word gammons. Petty bullshit and RR cowtowed unlike Raul the crab who famously will not cowtow
0
7d ago
3
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 7d ago
They’ll laugh at you in their private discord chats with their crony author simps
197
u/fued 8d ago edited 8d ago
In other words, "we don't want to upset conservatives because they're snowflakes."
Meanwhile, Royal Road has books openly complaining about "woke" culture, criticising feminism and DEI, Liberals being evil, and pushing themes of rule through strength, with compassion portrayed as weakness.
Apparently all of that is fine, but criticising Brexit, Hungary or using the word "gammon" is suddenly too political?
If you're going to allow political commentary in fiction, at least apply the rules consistently instead of selectively policing one side.
Add a big "real world politics" tag or something and pop up a warning when someone goes to read it, and be done with it.
14
u/PsychoticSoul 8d ago
Do you mind giving examples of the RR books that you mention?
To compare their tone to Supremo's
74
u/Pale_Entrepreneur_12 8d ago
The main reason this happened is cause most normal people don’t bother mass reporting a book but Chuds love going on brigades which actually hits the flag enough times a moderator looks at it and then there are things that “technically” break policy also blatantly biggoted books (that aren’t cultivation cause everyone is a wackjob in those universes) are never getting into the places people actually look for books (aka the popular stuff)
24
u/fued 8d ago
yep i see something bad i just stop reading the book as its garbage, i dont go reporting it
→ More replies (1)8
u/PetalumaPegleg 8d ago
Absolutely, if this is the standard apply it everywhere and see how that goes
46
u/Netheri 8d ago
Yeah no politics seems like a kind of stupid rule, everything is political. I mean shit is Ayn Rand political? Because half of the books on this site are like baby's first Atlas Shrugged in how much they emphasize desperate individualism irrespective of consequences.
"No politics" as a rule tends to just feel more like "No objectionable politics" and that's not an objective standard, that's constantly changing depending on who is reading and when.
I don't even see it as partisan issue, it's just a rule that's kind of nonsensical and probably mostly only existed by virtue of it seemingly never being enforced given the amount of stories on Royal Road that have a lot to say about politics.
→ More replies (4)17
u/HelpRequestAccount 8d ago
I have never seen an even slightly popular story on RR complain about “woke”, criticize feminism and DEI, or say Liberals are evil. I would like to know the names of these stories if they are so open about it, as you and other commenters say
→ More replies (6)9
10
u/Ourtimehascome2485 8d ago
Please do recommend some of those books that they complain about woke culture, liberals being evil because all I can find is lesbian powerfantasies 😂
9
u/TsHero 8d ago
Sir. Please point me in the direction of this leaibian power fantasy.
→ More replies (10)→ More replies (48)6
u/Caphoti 8d ago
Wait..Conservatives read? Biggest surprise to come out of all this tbh.
→ More replies (2)
16
u/AvoidingCape 8d ago
All this while Paranoid Mage, which is basically a steaming pile of Q-anon talking points, stays up
32
u/Ardie_BlackWood 8d ago
This is a mess, as someone whose been reading on RR for nearly a decade there's been plenty of books I've come across with popularity that straight up critiqued governments and named them and never got taken down. Many very conservative and "grr u goddamn wokies" type vibe. Honestly. We could expand this into a bigger issue about this is taken so seriously but in comparison the LGBT side of the community whose been pleading for a goddamn tag (has a lgbt tag been added yet?) to avoid the constant hate/vitriol that springs up every other year is ignored.
9
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 8d ago
It's a recent development, but "Lesbian Romance" and "Male Gay Romance" are both available tags now.
4
1
7
u/Fearless-Rip694 7d ago
I think the issue is like, it's one thing if there's justifiable doubt. If the Suzerain of Novagraaf makes long ranting speeches about blood purity or the citizens of Haloran do a march with scented torches, that's one thing.
It's another if it's pretty obvious real-life figures that are being alluded to, especially if there isn't enough historical distance to make them safe references.
12
u/Auctoritate 8d ago
Since when does Royal Road have rules against real world politics anyways?? Am I the only one who had no idea?
Even just going to the front page of their website and clicking on their terms of service there's no mention on the page of politics at all. This is the closest they get:
Inappropriate or Prohibited Content. There are certain types of content we do not permit on our Services (for legal reasons or otherwise). We do not permit content that is categorized as erotica or that involves sexual activities involving underage characters. You further agree that you will not post, upload, send or otherwise transmit any content that is abusive, threatening, defamatory, contains hate speech, or is racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable or offensive in any way or in violation of any other part of the Terms. You also may not post any content that constitutes a breach of any person's privacy or publicity rights, is false or misleading or uses the Services in a manner that is fraudulent or deceptive.
People are quoting some passage from another page that talks about this (and 'no targeting real-world entities' etc) but I have no idea what page that is.
4
u/Zealousideal-Elk9362 7d ago
Support > Knowledge Base > Content Guidelines.
https://www.royalroad.com/support/knowledgebase/114#restriction-on-non-fictional-world-content
IDK how old the rule is exactly, it’s been around on Royal Road longer than I have.
0
u/Auctoritate 7d ago
I've never had to look these up because I haven't ever cared to publish anything there, and I don't generally care about reading political intrigue or genres that are politics-heavy (I don't avoid or dislike politics or anything, it just doesn't do anything for me in a fictional story), so I guess I just never had an opportunity to notice. What the fuck kinda weird rule even is that?
1
u/SilverTripod 4d ago
I guess, if you can't have anything "offensive in any way" then you'd better not have anything objectionable to Nazis.
31
u/Unlucky_Ambition9894 8d ago
This gets more and more farcical as it unfolds. RR really looks as soft as baby shit after this.
10
u/logosloki 7d ago
I feel like a lot of these sites should run under some form of Broadcaster Standards. in plenty of countries you have a window of time after the first release of a piece of media or advertising to make your complaints in and if you make your complaints after that period, then your complaint is invalid as you have had previously sufficient time to make your complaint. I'd make an exception for emerging content. like in this case gamon has been around from the start. it's part of football, it's part of the bants and it's part of the insults you throw around. it's as football as the ball.
like, in a very dark way, if this happened to a new work I'd understand. like I'd think it would be stupid but I can understand moderating from the beginning. but from what everyone else is saying this has been around for years.
14
u/GuyYouMetOnline 8d ago
The problem is that we're in an area that is highly, highly, HIGHLY subjective and emotionally driven. It's incredibly easy for someone to perceive a policy violation that others don't. So the question then becomes: how much trust do you place in each individual mod? You have to have some trust or else you might as well be doing it all yourself from the start, but how much is too much? And there's also the question of how much ability to override a decision you want to have, because if you have too much, you cant moderate effectively because every action would be disputed, but obviously you need so.e or else mods can ignore the rules and do whatever they want. So it's a very tricky balance, and I don't know what the right balance is. And that's before you consider what a decision can signal to others they can get away with; I'm not against reversing the decision, but if that happens there will absolutely be a deluge of people pushing the envelope, and taking action against genuine violations will be made more difficult because people will point to this and say 'you let it go there so clearly this is censorship.against me' (they would be saying it in bad faith, but absolutely still saying it).
Now, that being said, it does sound from this like RR is taking the controversy here seriously, which is good. I don't know what the right decision is; maybe it's reversing the ruling, maybe it's adjusting the policy, maybe it's a number of things. It probably wasn't what happened so far, though i cant really say for sure because i dont know much about the situation or the story in question. But I do know that if we want even a chance to have the right decision made, we have to allow that chance.
4
u/Anew_Returner 7d ago edited 7d ago
So the question then becomes: how much trust do you place in each individual mod? You have to have some trust or else you might as well be doing it all yourself from the start, but how much is too much?
I feel like prolific writers need to be handled with more care, something like this is not a decision that should've been left to any one single mod. "A google search says..." is not enough, there should've been communication with other mods, actually reaching out to others to ask if this was anything more than the nothingburger it is; like maybe if they got ahold of a british person they'd realize how foolish it is to ban someone over using the british equivalent of the word boomer, or if they got ahold of someone who actually reads the book they'd realize this word and this kind of 'political' content has been there since the beginning and acting on it now after all this time would send some mixed signals. It really feels like the focus on the political is burying the lede for what is actually sloppy moderation work, which is something that will always backfire when the person on the other end has a large following.
It also kind of goes without saying that a situation that involves politics and censorship in the same sentence is always going to cause a huge mess if not properly handled.
edit: I am aware that this isn't feasible to apply to every single author and every single instance of a report on the site, but I do think creators who bring a large enough traffic to it deserve more careful considerations; it's hard for me to see this as anything but a lucky shot from someone who saw a good opportunity for concern trolling and who's likely fully enjoying the chaos his action caused, it's unfortunate but the reality is that the more popular you get the more people like this you're gonna have targeting your back.
I'm not against reversing the decision, but if that happens there will absolutely be a deluge of people pushing the envelope, and taking action against genuine violations will be made more difficult because people will point to this and say 'you let it go there so clearly this is censorship.against me' (they would be saying it in bad faith, but absolutely still saying it).
On the other end of this, if they do nothing and allow politics to be nonsensically weaponized like this (against a work that already applied an appropriate degree of self-censorship by not naming any real people, which is in line with what you'd see in other forms of media) you just open every other author to bad faith actors too. Now bored trolls with nothing better to do with their lives know that they can just nitpick stories they don't like and try to have them censored with the hopes the authors will take them down. Even if nothing comes out of it it's still an increased waste of the mods and admins' time, and if something does come out of it on top of that it'll be pissing off and pushing authors away from the platform (because regardless of your stances as a creator it always fucking sucks to have to censor your work, even more so if it doesn't feel like you're having to do it over a legitimate reason).
I don't know what the right decision is
I think we're kinda past the point where a right decision could be made. In my opinion the right decision would have been to do nothing at all until absolutely sure this was worth acting on, not trying to pressure the author with a bogus deadline, and then not make things worse with statements like the one in the picture attached to this thread where they imply the problem is that the author doesn't understand how to properly censor their work, which is beyond condescending and unprofessional. Royal Road isn't a small indie website anymore, vague rules with poor enforcement and discord server-tier moderation is just gonna cause more and more trouble over time.
1
u/GuyYouMetOnline 7d ago
I feel like prolific writers need to be handled with more care, something like this is not a decision that should've been left to any one single mod.
I... can't say I like the idea of 'we treat you differently if you're popular enough'. I know it's inevitable, but I still don't like it. Being popular shouldn't lead to stricter enforcement, but it also shouldn't mean looser enforcement.
On the other end of this, if they do nothing and allow politics to be nonsensically weaponized like this (against a work that already applied an appropriate degree of self-censorship by not naming any real people, which is in line with what you'd see in other forms of media) you just open every other author to bad faith actors too. Now bored trolls with nothing better to do with their lives know that they can just nitpick stories they don't like and try to have them censored with the hopes the authors will take them down.
The thing is, that already happens. It's most likely why this story was reported in the first place. And yeah, if it ends up completely working that might embolden the people doing it, but they'd still be doing it.
But I'm not saying that's a reason not to take back the decision; I'm saying it's something that would need to be considered, if for no other reason than handling it properly.
I think we're kinda past the point where a right decision could be made. In my opinion the right decision would have been to do nothing at all until absolutely sure this was worth acting on,
I mean, sure, but we can't exactly go back in time to change that part. It's smarter to focus on making the right decision going forward.
and then not make things worse with statements like the one in the picture attached to this thread where they imply the problem is that the author doesn't understand how to properly censor their work, which is beyond condescending and unprofessional.
I don't think the statement should be taken as anything but typical hedging their bets. They don't want to say they might have been wrong unless they decide then need to, but they also don't want to double down, so they're trying to dance around things. Much more telling will be what they say when a decision is actually reached.
Royal Road isn't a small indie website anymore, vague rules with poor enforcement and discord server-tier moderation is just gonna cause more and more trouble over time.
Perhaps, but there's not really any good ways to do it that I know of. Things will always be at least somewhat inconsistent when humans are involved, and that's before considering the highly subjective and emotionally-driven nature of the content in question. I don't know how you'd solve any of that other than trusting moderation entirely to an auto-mod, and that would just bring about a whole different set of problems.
So again, I don't know what the correct answer here is. They may not be one at all.
10
u/TheBookCannon 8d ago
This is proper censorship, considering all of the absolutely crazy (and awful) stuff that's on RR. What are they scared of? Litigation?
Genuinely insane they'd be offended at pissing off the right wing, so much so that they would censor a book.
10
6
12
u/BRjawa 8d ago
Haha I think Eldritch Exorcist portrait of Brazil was more "offensive" then that, and there was less problems them Simpsons portrait. Fuck Cultivation Nerd has a part where cannibals/evil natives speaks literally Brazilian Portuguese. Or Princess of the void entire thing is politics with some Hot and Sci fi. And that's just the novels I renember from the top of had, I can probably find way more things that fits royal road criteria if that's it.
23
u/nabokovslovechild 8d ago
Is this a sick joke? Gammon has been used since book 1. He explains what the term means. Why the problem now? How does this decision by mods not make clear they are willing to bend over backwards to please conservative readers? Genocide-happy murderhobos are fine but not a story about a player manager with a magical sports interface?
0
8d ago
63
u/JuneauEu 8d ago
Im laughing at the Gammon bit becaise this genuinely happened on Friday just gone, bit this guy was red faced with anger arguing with someone outside, I don't know how it started, orbwhat over. But some small girl, probably 12/13 shouted "You need to calm down you gammon!".
Me and the wife chuckled as they ran off.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Ok-Split-6439 8d ago
They googled the word and made a decision on the AI summary. They admit as much in their reply which is a pretty shit way to make a decision.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (20)6
u/Memes-Tax 8d ago
Yeah I also instantly canceled.
Fucking gammons ruining football and now RR!! They aren't even a target RR audience!The only legit complaint could come from the football teams mentioned, coaches, players, sporting bodies/ corporations, football manager game rights owners... Satan?
26
u/BokononWave 8d ago
May be worth cross-posting on r/royalroad, there's a pretty big thread about the deletion without this info