Hasbro

[FainFlynn]

Again. The issue with your "dissenting viewpoint" is that the introduction of it is specifically against the rules of the Inn.

Please cite exactly what rule I am breaking and how I am breaking it? I went over the rules again just to be sure, and I am not seeing this.

[Pancho]

It’s pretty obvious that a few people who commented negatively on the video Shadzar posted never actually watched it. To describe it as “hate” is beyond ridiculous. It’s a young man acting as whistleblower, eloquently explaining his concern about racism, racialised thinking, and even segregation, being promoted by his company. He is doing so at his own personal cost, as it’s quite likely that his company will, or have already, fired him for exposing their indoctrination of children. Similar things have happened at Google and scores of other companies.


The company is Hasbro. It’s annoying that we even have to talk about it here, but it is legitimate. They are remaking Heroquest, and whistleblowers are even coming out now to explain how warped they are, so unfortunately this kind of nonsense will have an impact on what product you are going to get. It’s going to be pretty difficult NOT to be political about a company that is playing politics in such a loopy fashion.

[cornixt]

Saying that they are playing politics doesn't actually mean that they are. What could we actually get out of this? The heroes aren't all white males in the base set, that's a definite. Maybe, just maybe, not all orcs are evil. Argh, indoctrination of children! It's VERY thin on the ground for anything more than that - it's absurd to accuse them of being political over and over with nothing to actually show it.

It's all just more pretend stuff made to rile people up, get angry, and vote the way they want.

[Shadzar]

Argh, indoctrination of children! It's VERY thin on the ground for anything more than that - it's absurd to accuse them of being political over and over with nothing to actually show it.

You are clearly on one political spectrum and like said by someone else, failed to watch the video i linked.

I jsut linked a video, new info "from" HASBRO, and it is the latest we have that can tell us anything about the new release of HQ. watch the video as i will not repeat what it says.

Sadly, the person that mentioned David might lose his job, well he did. They have done a couple other videos that i will allow people to search for themselves, since they do not exactly reference HASBRO as much as they do the people Keefe and Johnson. Since Johnson is no longer employed at HASBRO the further videos will have little to do with HQ.

I wonder though if maybe Daid was one of the guys that designed things like the miniature insert tray? What reason would "race" play into designing packaging for toys that he would have gone through such training in order to design things like the miniatures insert tray?

What is a packaging engineer other than designing the boxes that stuff comes in? Sounds like a mail man to me. Like someone at Amazon that directs shipments and packages to route to the right place maybe? Someone that makes it fit on shipping containers to be delivered form the production plants in China?

IS the delay in shipping that has things backed up for 12 months from China also delaying the HasLabs campaign for HQ like it did with MtG? (the dice for MtG are made in China for Hasbro/WotC)

will we see HQ in our hands in 2021?

[Davane]

Racism has always been a thorny issue, even amongst academics. Turns out, most social politics is, what with most of us essentially being part of, and affected by, society.

The problem is that with all social issues, societal power is always based on percentage share, meaning that any form of positive action for one group also represents negative action for all others within the same societal spectrum. As a model, most societal spectrum have three groups, although in practice there are often many, many more. This works a lot like alignment in many games, so for the sake of modelling, let's simply call them A and Z.

In the spectrum of A vs. Z, and they will always be oppositional, you will have two groups - those that are pro-A and those that are pro-Z. They will be ideologically opposed, so anything that pro-A people do will inherently be anti-Z, whilst anything that pro-Z people do will always be anti-A. Then you will have a third group, those who are against any "anti" behaviour (although the irony that they are also "anti" may or may not be lost on them). They will shift along the spectrum as the balance of power between A and Z shifts. Thus, while A is dominant, this third group will ally with Z to oppose pro-A/anti-Z behaviour, and while Z is dominant, they will ally with A to oppose pro-Z/anti-A behaviour.

This third anti group is often part of their own oppositional spectrum, consisting those who are for intervention (supporting pro behaviours, and the opposed anti behaviours) and those who are against intervention (against anti behaviors, and the opposed pro-behaviours). Meanwhile, the groups of people A and Z will fall under the group supporting intervention for their group, and thus when intervention itself is threatened, may ally to oppose the third anti group. For convenience, we'll just call this third group @ for now.

So, what you end up with is something like this:

(A --- @ --- Z), where the outcome is either A@ --- Z or A --- @Z depending upon whether A or Z are less dominant respectively.

It gets more complicated as you add more groups. For example, let's say there's another group in the societal mix - group M. Now, because the group consists of A, M, Z, and @, things get complicated because pro-A behaviour is no longer just anti-Z behaviour, but also anti-M behaviour. Thus, pro-A is anti-MZ behaviour. In addition, anti-A behaviour is now also pro-MZ behaviour.

The full list now becomes:

Pro-A = Anti-MZ
Pro-M = Anti-AZ
Pro-Z = Anti-AM
Pro-AM = Anti-Z
Pro-AZ = Anti-M
Pro-MZ = Anti-A

You still have group @ in this mix, but there's a lot more anti behaviours to oppose, and the situations become even more complex, as they will often move to oppose whatever intervention is the most dominant. The complete list for the model becomes:

(A --- @ --- Z:A --- @ --- M:M --- @ --- Z), with outcomes A --- @MZ, M --- @AZ, Z --- @AM, AM --- @Z, AZ --- @M, and MZ --- @A, depending upon the situation.

Returning to the real world for a moment, let's take apply these models to societal understanding of race:

As it stands, group A can be seen as white (specifically, not BAME), where as group MZ can be seen as BAME (even though BAME includes more than two races). Group @ is represented by those who represent Critical Race Theory.

The current social situation can be seen as A@ --- MZ, as a result of pro-MZ/anti-A behaviour within society. However, back in the 70's when Critical Race Theory first appeared, the situation would have been more A --- @MZ. Thus, it can be said that Critical Race Theory has been co-opted by the far-right.

The problem is that in the situation A@ --- MZ, @ is seen as allying with A and thus pro-A, and therefore can also be seen as against MZ and thus anti-MZ.

The video of Hasbro, which I didn't watch fully to get the gist of it, is a claim that because Hasbro are promoting group @ in the situation A@ --- MZ, they must be pro-A and anti-MZ, bringing out the term racist.

The problem is that because groups A, M, and Z are all based on race, they are inherently racist. Group @ is also racist, because their anti-discrimination agenda interacts with the group AMZ on the basis of race. Thus, all four groups are essentially racist.

Like in the simpler AZ model, however, groups AMZ are pro-intervention and may briefly ally to oppose group @.

I hope that made sense. The important thing is to understand that Critical Race Theory is not inherently far-right or pro-white/anti-BAME. It just seems that way in the current situation where we have dominant pro-BAME/anti-white policies in a legal system where there's supposed to be no pro or anti policies based on race at all.

[StratosVX]

I for one am tired of sitting on my rear end for 15 months of COVID, while HASBRO has been sitting on our money for 9 months, and cant even give product images while they appear on a Canadian EBGames website.

One thing to keep in mind is something you said yourself - you were sent home for 15 months. You are not the only one that had to deal with this. There might not be a ton of updates because there hasn't been a lot of progress since most everybody was sent home. Designs and mockups are easy to do when you are working from home, but not everything else in the process is.

Please cite exactly what rule I am breaking and how I am breaking it? I went over the rules again just to be sure, and I am not seeing this.

I believe what whiteboard is referring to is the banner at the top of all of these pages regarding topic that cause friction among members. Discussion of politics can quickly get out of hand and cause issues. One of the many nice things about the Inn is that discussions usually stay related to HQ unlike a conversation on Facebook would. Members want a place where they can discuss HQ and gaming without unrelated fights being dragged into it. One would think that a topic like science wouldn't cause issues, but unfortunately it caused big ones here resulting in someone getting banned. Discussion of politics definitely has the potential to reach this point so please keep the conversation calm and as ajjohnson said, don't attack anyone. I heard an adage growing up, "There are two things you don't talk about on a date - religion and politics." One of those topics has already been banned because those discussions couldn't be kept civil.

[FainFlynn]

I for one am tired of sitting on my rear end for 15 months of COVID, while HASBRO has been sitting on our money for 9 months, and cant even give product images while they appear on a Canadian EBGames website.

One thing to keep in mind is something you said yourself - you were sent home for 15 months. You are not the only one that had to deal with this. There might not be a ton of updates because there hasn't been a lot of progress since most everybody was sent home. Designs and mockups are easy to do when you are working from home, but not everything else in the process is.

Please cite exactly what rule I am breaking and how I am breaking it? I went over the rules again just to be sure, and I am not seeing this.

I believe what whiteboard is referring to is the banner at the top of all of these pages regarding topic that cause friction among members. Discussion of politics can quickly get out of hand and cause issues. One of the many nice things about the Inn is that discussions usually stay related to HQ unlike a conversation on Facebook would. Members want a place where they can discuss HQ and gaming without unrelated fights being dragged into it. One would think that a topic like science wouldn't cause issues, but unfortunately it caused big ones here resulting in someone getting banned. Discussion of politics definitely has the potential to reach this point so please keep the conversation calm and as ajjohnson said, don't attack anyone. I heard an adage growing up, "There are two things you don't talk about on a date - religion and politics." One of those topics has already been banned because those discussions couldn't be kept civil.

That's not breaking any rules according to the rules section of the website. And the banner currently references drugs, religion and science; I've referenced none of these. I am speaking about Heroquest and Hasbro/AH, that's it.

That said, I didn't even get political, nor am I attacking anyone. Hasbro is the one getting political, and some/many of us, aren't happy with that direction, so we're talking about it. So, you're saying we can't discuss something Hasbro is doing, which directly affects the game this board is created for to discuss? Come on now, this is getting silly. I can discuss the specific points without getting nasty, but others may not, and that's fair. But telling me I am breaking the rules just because someone reacts disproportionately upset? That's absurd. In that case, I am upset whitebeard is causing friction with his comments by using words like "toxic" and "hate", so there! Again, an absurd race to the outrage bottom. I don't actually care. I even finished with imploring the group to be more respectful and hear each other out.

On the point of not causing friction, so if folks disagree about any aspect of the game with no political taint to it, and it gets passionate (which I've seen here), we can't continue discussing just because people may get passionate about it, or because it causes friction? Come on now.

[Davane]

The problem is because we have policies based upon and enforced by perception rather than intent. Thus, people are being "punished" for doing things others find offensive, even when there is no intention to be offensive. It's affecting the wider world, and the online world, and seems to be affecting this board too. Anyone can find anything offensive, so essentially we are having policies that are designed more as tools to "punish" those we dislike/disagree with, which can, and are, often used maliciously.

A lot of what I say can be deemed offensive, simply because I talk a lot about psychology and social theory, and it's biggest issue is that any sort of objective discussion about systems we are inherently part of can be very dehumanising. Add in the fact that many words have a different meaning in everyday usage away from their more jargonised academic definitions, and you can see how it's easy to take offense where there is no intent.

In general, it's almost impossible to talk about any sort of lore or world building based on a game if we cannot talk about politics and social theory in general. After all, we base our experiences and realities within various games based upon our experiences with the real world, and as such, those experiences are important to any sort of discussion regarding games and storytelling about our various in-game and out-of-game realities.

As the saying goes: "I am a gamer. I don't have a life. I have thousands." The thing is though is that they are still all based on life in some way, even those aspects that can be sensitive to talk about. Really, we need to be adults when talking about this stuff, or simply go home. At no point should we EVER consider NOT talking about sensitive subjects.

[Kurgan]

Let's not make whether one likes or doesn't like a specific product a test of whether they are racist or sexist or a bigot. I'm no left-winger and I find racism a horrible scourge on mankind. When I see something in pop culture I don't like, I think it's good not to rush to slap a nasty label on it and the people who do like it. There are lots of people out there who want to start a big fight about it and crush people they don't agree with into the ground, they want us to fight each other about it too, and we shouldn't take the bait. Disagree all you want to, but when we start lumping each other in with "the bad people" (racists, or whatever) that's crossing a line.

I don't come here to the Inn to argue politics (quite the opposite), I'd rather talk about a game, so the rule against divisive topics like politics I think is a prudent action if we don't want to be exactly like those other platforms. Instead of forcing the mods to lock these threads, I think we should all agree to confine our criticism of the game to the game, rather than pointing fingers at each other as if we really think others are evil or unworthy of respect because of something they may or may not believe in relation to politics.

Sadly, AH/Hasbro has chosen to promote their game almost exclusively on Twitter (the internet equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show, remember that, fellow old people?), a platform that THRIVES on political conflict, snarky comments (no room for adequate context, rewards attention-seeking behavior which is easiest with negativity), virtue signaling, group think and cyber-bullying. So it makes sense that some of that negativity will leak into our community as we jump over there to get news on the Hero Quest remake. But let's not let it control us and turn us into squabbling dogs, please?

I employ you all (just as an ordinary board member), from here on, to express yourselves in a way that doesn't unfairly demonize other board members, and doesn't make it personal. Too many franchise fandoms have been ruined by this kind of infighting, so let's nip it in the bud. If the game sucks, then it sucks, we'll return it, not buy it, tell others not to buy it and Hasbro will regret their decision. If it's good, then support it, and spread the good word. If we act like fanatics, we make ourselves much easier to dismiss and ignore as such. Think carefully about that before the next big rant. I'm preaching to all of you and to myself right now when I write this. It would do a lot more to advance a cause to write a letter to Hasbro than it would be to insult or shout somebody down at the Inn (to say nothing of Twitter).

I'm much more concerned about subpar content in the new quests than the goofy political theories of some of the people who are managing the project, since their task is basically just to regurgitate the old game with a couple of aesthetic alternations to avoid conflict with earlier GWS properties and sell it off to the superfans like us who will always love the classic game more no matter what.

Let this place be a haven and respite from the toxicity of platforms like Twitter. Not meaning we can't disagree, but never to stoop to their level.

[Davane]

Let's not make whether one likes or doesn't like a specific product a test of whether they are racist or sexist or a bigot. I'm no left-winger and I find racism a horrible scourge on mankind. When I see something in pop culture I don't like, I think it's good not to rush to slap a nasty label on it and the people who do like it. There are lots of people out there who want to start a big fight about it and crush people they don't agree with into the ground, they want us to fight each other about it too, and we shouldn't take the bait. Disagree all you want to, but when we start lumping each other in with "the bad people" (racists, or whatever) that's crossing a line.

I don't come here to the Inn to argue politics (quite the opposite), I'd rather talk about a game, so the rule against divisive topics like politics I think is a prudent action if we don't want to be exactly like those other platforms. Instead of forcing the mods to lock these threads, I think we should all agree to confine our criticism of the game to the game, rather than pointing fingers at each other as if we really think others are evil or unworthy of respect because of something they may or may not believe in relation to politics.

Sadly, AH/Hasbro has chosen to promote their game almost exclusively on Twitter (the internet equivalent of the Jerry Springer Show, remember that, fellow old people?), a platform that THRIVES on political conflict, snarky comments (no room for adequate context, rewards attention-seeking behavior which is easiest with negativity), virtue signaling, group think and cyber-bullying. So it makes sense that some of that negativity will leak into our community as we jump over there to get news on the Hero Quest remake. But let's not let it control us and turn us into squabbling dogs, please?

I employ you all (just as an ordinary board member), from here on, to express yourselves in a way that doesn't unfairly demonize other board members, and doesn't make it personal. Too many franchise fandoms have been ruined by this kind of infighting, so let's nip it in the bud. If the game sucks, then it sucks, we'll return it, not buy it, tell others not to buy it and Hasbro will regret their decision. If it's good, then support it, and spread the good word. If we act like fanatics, we make ourselves much easier to dismiss and ignore as such. Think carefully about that before the next big rant. I'm preaching to all of you and to myself right now when I write this. It would do a lot more to advance a cause to write a letter to Hasbro than it would be to insult or shout somebody down at the Inn (to say nothing of Twitter).

I'm much more concerned about subpar content in the new quests than the goofy political theories of some of the people who are managing the project, since their task is basically just to regurgitate the old game with a couple of aesthetic alternations to avoid conflict with earlier GWS properties and sell it off to the superfans like us who will always love the classic game more no matter what.

Let this place be a haven and respite from the toxicity of platforms like Twitter. Not meaning we can't disagree, but never to stoop to their level.

Not intending to make this personal, Kurgan, but this is part of the problem we face.

Talking about the game, includes talking about things like Orc Bards that are killing Orcs, and suddenly, you are dealing with politics. It might not strictly be real world Earth politics, but it's still politics. Thus, to rule out politics, you are ruling out talking about large, often interesting, swathes of the game, without even thinking about it.

I get that HQ is a board game, so it's easy to just hand wave and say things like lore don't matter. But for any game even attempting roleplaying or a semi-realistic world view, sooner or later you are going to get to issues about politics, like ruling structures, race relations, class struggles, and gender equality. It's inevitable, because these are factors of our identity, so they will also be factors in identities that we fictionalise. This is because things like racism, sexism, and so on aren't just about discrimination. These are social issues in general, even when you are simply describing one phenotype from another.

Let's take the Old World. If we can't talk politics, the Empire cannot be discussed. It's a political system of semi-vassalage, and is essentially anti-democratic. Elves and Dwarves not liking each other and the War of the Beard, or worse, the sundering of the Elves and the exile of the Dark Elves to Naggaroth - that's racism right there. Medieval feudalism featured a lot of gender inequality and expected gender roles, simply because of the way nature works (plus, we won't even get into the effects of mutants and Slaanesh, since this is supposed to be a PG-13 board, and these can definitely end up in non-PG rated discussions, if you catch my meaning), even though this is a key part of the Oldhammer World. We can't talk about key inequalities that defined historical eras, but neither can we talk about the effects of applying modern takes to such inequalities would have on various worlds. (for example, if you consider females equivalent to males - i.e. true gender equality - then concerns like "manpower" shortages suddenly disappear or are drastically reduced, militias get to double in size, and you get bigger armies for campaign season, which makes the Old World a lot more bloody. That's just WITHIN the Empire, to boot.)

All of these are still part of "the game" for a given game, depending upon how story-driven that specific game is, even for a game with minimal story elements like HQ.

Treating people on the board with respect is important, but there needs to be an understanding that certain topics will always be part of the game, because of the nature of the game and world building. After all, HQ, at its heart is a game about a bunch of "Heroes" (murder hobos) going out to fight Monsters (murder and genocide) just because they are monsters (racism), and find loot (theft), fighting against the forces of Chaos (partisan violence, racism, and genocide, once again). These are the GOOD guys here.

You start taking these out because we can't talk about such sensitive topics, which pretty much ALL social topics generally are, and there isn't going to be much about the game left to even talk about - though I hear the ramifications for a change in square sizes with regards to tiles on the HQ board can be quite an interesting discussion...

Oh, and this is even before we get to any discussions about the meta aspects of the game, such as playing the game. I mean, how can we really deal with gender equality in our game worlds, if we can't even discuss it at our gaming tables or our message boards, or whatever. These factors are all still part of "the game" that would effectively be unable to talk about.

Let's face it, Ye Olde Inn is kindly asking that people take certain discussions elsewhere, even though they are part of the game, because they are part of life in general. For example, we can't talk about Recreational Drugs, on a message board about a game where the setting is built around enemies that consume mushrooms (Goblins), that consume various herbs (anything regarding druidism, elves, or whatever), and the biggie - ratmen consuming warpstone (Skaven and Chaos). How does THAT even make sense?

Could Kurgan get banned for talking about his homebrew campaign, since his non-magical tech-based approach is virtually identical to the discussion about Religion and Science? Heck, any societal discussion about the Colleges of Magic IS essentially the discussion about Religion and Science...

Saying things like "let's just keep topics to the game" sounds easy, but as over 7,000 years of gamers will tell you (in various ways, because not all of them are alive...) just what counts as "the game" is notoriously hard to pin down, especially when that game involves some level of storytelling...