D&D 5E Mearls' "Firing" tweet

[Kobold Boots]

I mentioned that because earlier in the thread someone said Mearls is in a position to know based on survey data and such. It's a long thread so I don't expect you to have seen that part.

Thanks, appreciated.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

One of the reason gaming stores frequenlty close/suck are they only cater to a small, insular crowd. You don't need a gatekeeper, you need a BOUNCER. Assume no one will be a problem until they are.

My experience with good gaming stores though is that the gatekeeper both keeps the riff-raff (people who are just there to cause trouble) out and is helpful and welcoming to new customers. The ones who just function as a bouncer are the negative gatekeepers, in my experience.

My current local store has some very effective gatekeepers, like one of the two owners and his wife: they are very good at helping you figure out if you'd like a new board game or not, or if an RPG would cater to your tastes or not. They know this by talking to you and getting to know you. THAT's what the gatekeeper is supposed to be.

It isn't gatekeeping to gatekeep the gatekeepers. The hobby doesnt need random people deciding they get to pick and choose who is ok and who is a secret agent of discord infiltrating the hallowed halls of D&D. Yes, we select who we invite into our own group/homes, but that's different than the systemic issues of women (and POC, and LGBTQ people) being subject to extra scrutiny gatekeeping. It's a hostile environment. Hell, check out the issues of harassment at cons. It's one of the reasons D&D has been a straight, white, boys club for so long. And it's time for a change. The mere fact that a woman can't be hired without a bunch of bitter men crawling out of the woodwork to gripe about "women, SJW, and diversity" should be proof of that.

I don't disagree with you that there's been systemic issues. I don't disagree that gatekeeping CAN BE USED as a negative. Check back on my initial post. I took umbrage with an un-nuanced universal statement.

But I do disagree that it isn't gatekeeping to gatekeep the gatekeepers. That's like saying it isn't harassment to harass people who are harassing people. No... it is harassment, and it's dishonest to think it isn't. We could follow this idea, if you want (serious; I like philosophy and applied philosophy... it's why I'm an old fart in law school and have worked for the government throughout most of the Bush administration and the Obama administration, only to recently join private industry). But that's probably way off topic... so... happy to go to another thread with you on it?

Also I didn't bring up your post count.

Yes, you are correct. That was an assumption on my part from the earlier part of the discussion from another poster and I apologize if it was incorrect to apply the same thought to your reasoning (as it seems it was, if I'm reading into your words correctly).

 

[ad_hoc]

Yes, I know. I am glad we're all on the same page now I am disagreeing with his claim that there is a correlation between the two. I don't think there is.

And you base this on what, your narrow experience?

You should click on his tweet then read each and everyone of the replies from the women. We can put the thread on hold for an hour or two until you get back.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, I know. I am glad we're all on the same page now I am disagreeing with his claim that there is a correlation between the two. I don't think there is.

Would you say that in the past, the game had been played by predominately white males?

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that many people who want to keep the game for some exclusive club would likely fit that category? And that the targets of their attempts would likely be members of other demographic groups?

The fact that they can also try to keep the game from people similar to them (ie other white males) doesn't change that. Just because they're jerks across the board doesn't mean they aren't jerks to women.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Yes, I know. I am glad we're all on the same page now I am disagreeing with his claim that there is a correlation between the two. I don't think there is.

I'd argue that the correlation is that people who do the gatekeeping without getting permission first (permission first is mentoring) are likely to have a high opinion of themselves and offend both genders with their behavior. The fact that they do it to women as well as men is known, but there's a certain amount of respect you've got to show to anyone and it lacking will look far, far worse when it's a man doing it to a woman.

So if it looks like misogyny and smells like misogyny.. Unless everyone knows each other well that's what it is.

Of course, if everyone knows each other well and truly cares about each other, the behavior won't happen in the first place.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Would you say that in the past, the game had been played by predominately white males?

Wouldn't it stand to reason then that many people who want to keep the game for some exclusive club would likely fit that category? And that the targets of their attempts would likely be members of other demographic groups?

The fact that they can also try to keep the game from people similar to them (ie other white males) doesn't change that. Just because they're jerks across the board doesn't mean they aren't jerks to women.

Be very careful where you tread with this line of racial connection. I smell Stalker0 right over the horizon with a close button, as we all should.

 

[Tanin Wulf]

Yes, I know. I am glad we're all on the same page now I am disagreeing with his claim that there is a correlation between the two. I don't think there is.

Humans do seem to have a wonderful ability to tribalize everything and lump every behavior we don't like as being one big, correlated, "the enemy." (Off topic: ...this is totally not meant as the negative term of "gatekeeping" that seems to be thrown around, but check out a book called EDIT: (incorrect book removed) The Righteous Mind (correct book added) by Jonathon Haidt; it goes in depth into why we seem to do this as a species and is a fascinating study that can be applied to make more complex and manipulative D&D villains and understand both player and player character motivation better).

 

[robus]

I am sure it means exactly what I think it means. If you want a clarification you have but to ask. Gatekeeping rightfuly has a negative connotation when it comes to discriminatory issues towards women and minorities, but as a general word it doesn't necessarily have a negative connotation at all. For example, to become a university professor one often must overcome a series of intentional barriers erected by the senior people of that profession, some of which are communication barriers, some of them political (as in social politics) barriers, as a means of gatekeeping the position of faculty member.

My wife is in academia and "gatekeeping" is also seen there in a negative light, especially in terms of hiring. It's shorthand for bias, whether conscious or unconscious.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Bias can be fine depending on what its based on. I wish the local store had some bias against people who don't bathe.

 

[renevq]

It's not though - rules gatekeeping is not defined as having anything to do with discriminatory behavior towards women and minorities. That's my point and I have given several examples of rules gatekeeping I've personally seen which had nothing to do with those issues. He's properly using the word gatekeeping, the very same one I am using and in the same context. He's just claiming one type of gatekeeping is practiced by those who do the other type as well. And I am saying I think he's wrong - they're not related. People who do that to women are just as prone to be heavy role players or just plain sexists, unrelated to rules gatekeeping. Have you seriously never seen someone try and gatekeep the game by behaving poorly in role playing towards someone else? I really don't think this is related to people who like rules gatekeeping.

I think nowadays you're not likely to see that kind of overt, face-to-face behavior towards women; but privately, or behind internet anonymity? In my experience the kind of person who likes the idea of content density as a barrier to entry is the same kind of person who would drop terms like "feminist agenda" and "SJW" in casual conversation.