"In Times of Wars," The Pros and Cons of Being on the Outside (Patreon)

So, here are some things I have observed about the ttRPG industry in specific, but also more generally about all industries where one group's unannounced plans and/or intentions can have a massive impact on the industry as a whole (or at least the attitudes of the fandom within it).

First: If you are on the side, that is you have first-hand knowledge of what a group's unannounced plans or intentions are, you probably aren't allowed to talk about it. This, of course, makes sense. If insider knowledge of a company's plans can impact the entire industry, the people in charge of that group don't want people knowing about those until and unless they are ready to announce it (at which point it's not really insider knowledge anymore).

And who is "in charge" of a group may not always be clear, even from the inside. Often there is a circle of responsibility -- boards to presidents to owners to stockholders to boards, for example -- where arguably everyone answers to someone, and if a plan is being built within that group's upper echelon, no one person can safely decide to reveal it to outsiders before the whole group decides it's the right time.

Second: If you have the freedom to talk about whatever you want -- i.e. you're not bound by agreements, marching orders, NDAs, and fiduciary duties -- you almost never have the whole truth of any group's unannounced plans, motives, or intentions.

But.

If you are experienced enough, know enough people, are trusted enough and/or have a big enough platform, you may learn some of a group's insider information. This may come through analyzing public statements they make or actions they take, or from inadvertent slips of the tongue around you, or even from people specifically telling you things their group feels they shouldn't tell you. 

This is, in fact, an important part of journalism. The power of the Fourth Estate to inform people of things that can impact them, advocate for the public group, and frame how a discussion forms, often depends on the ability to gain information a group would rather no one (especially not journalists) have about it. But it's certainly not limited to journalists.

Third: Many segments of our society, especially "lifestyle" elements which include some politics, most sports, and a tone of geek hobby things, are very tribalized. While it's not universal, there's a common reaction among such tribes of common lifestyle hobbies to attack anyone they perceive as attacking their tribe. It often does not matter if the initial attack is rooted in fact or not, the very act of suggesting the company, game, creator, or group the tribalized hobbyist holds dear is deserving of criticism brings rancor, whataboutism, gaslighting, and often just ugly personal attacks.

And, of course, that also means anyone who criticizes a popular element of a hobby tribe is often accused of doing so out of their own tribalism, rather than a good faith effort to examine an issue of importance.

Fourth: If a group is going to undertake an action that can harm a large number of people, it is much much easier to convince them not to before they actually do it.

Fifth: Many groups prefer not to announce anything someone might object to until they are ready to roll it out as fait accompli. In the most positive light, groups don't want to be blamed for things they may not do and are just considering, or may need to get complex issues ironed out without inviting harassment of their allies and employees. They may even wish to protect the privacy of some people involved in the early stages that may have no involvement with the final execution. More negatively, they want changes that will be unpopular to be secret until they can be enacted, and make sure they at least seem carved in stone before anyone can analyze or object to them.

Sixth: Any movement to prevent a group from taking some major action perceived as harmful by others is likely to become a movement to hurt that group. There are real economic reasons why that may be the most effective method of convincing a group not to take some action they see as beneficial to themselves (even if it harms others), but it also means innocent people within the opposed group are likely to suffer fallout despite having done nothing wrong.

There is rarely any objective way to measure the harm done to the innocent without a group being opposed to the harm done to those outside of it if they are not opposed.

So, what does all this mean?

It means that often, the only people who are allowed to act against a major bad thing are the people who do not (and cannot) have the most complete information about it. And that such efforts often become tribalized, regardless of the intent of the original instigators. At the same time, the only other option is to ignore warning signs, even those flashed to you by people you know who have access to insider information and that you trust to be ethical about why they are giving you a warning sign, and smart enough to correctly parse what the insider information they have means.

That is always going to be an imperfect balance of drives, needs, responsibilities, and information.

Or, tl;dr:

War is messy, and people are going to get hurt. Consider that very carefully before taking the first shot, or joining some brigade.

But not opposing wrongdoing when your best analysis of a situation says it's coming allows bullies to win.

I don't believe there's a perfect answer here.