Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Kain_Darkwind" data-source="post: 9628142" data-attributes="member: 7042832">Every thing cannot be everything to everyone.&nbsp; The game, as much as it can become a point of identity in various ways to people, is still just a game.&nbsp; Courtesy goes both ways.&nbsp; New members to a community can be courteous by learning practices and tacit knowledge.&nbsp; Older members of a community can be by demonstrating patience and imparting that tacit knowledge.&nbsp; Gatekeeping is not having specialized knowledge for insiders and veterans, it is refusing to allow those that lack the knowledge (or possess some other undesirable trait) into the community to acquire it.For a lot of the community, their entire D&amp;D related 'responsibility' is voluntary, only to the social contracts they interact with, from their play group, online communities, etc.&nbsp; Yet that can and often does intersect with those who do have legal and commercial responsibilities regarding the game.&nbsp; James Jacobs, Mike Mearls and Monte Cook will never be able to post as 'just a DM' or 'just another player'&nbsp; Heck, even Morus can't.&nbsp; But &quot;as a DM&quot;, also known as voluntarily running a game in my spare time, I don't actually have any responsibility beyond what I adopt for myself.&nbsp; If I run my games like a petty tyrant or a shock jock, that's my choice, but I also am not entitled to have people continue to show up to be belittled or forced into ill conceived confrontations of their phobias.&nbsp; (And whether or not they do, it still makes me a prick.)&nbsp; I am not responsible for growing the hobby, or catering to religious/political group concerns or purchasing third party material, but I am in a position to do all of those things.&nbsp; That has nothing to do with whether those things are good or bad.&nbsp; If I get on here and spout off about not letting girls play, I'll probably be kicked off the boards, or at the very least added to a few dozen 'ignore' lists.&nbsp; But if a producer of game material does the same, it could easily cause a boycott of their company, they could be fired; if the response to their actions is great enough, their actions may well lose other people's jobs too. I think it wouldn't hurt the community (of DnD players, not enworld specifically) for people to act like opinions other than their own, or even deeply held values other than their own, might still be given in good faith.&nbsp; As someone who came from the Army 97-06, not everyone is fighting your war, and some of them don't even know it exists.&nbsp; It doesn't make them the enemy.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Kain_Darkwind, post: 9628142, member: 7042832"] Every thing cannot be everything to everyone. The game, as much as it can become a point of identity in various ways to people, is still just a game. Courtesy goes both ways. New members to a community can be courteous by learning practices and tacit knowledge. Older members of a community can be by demonstrating patience and imparting that tacit knowledge. Gatekeeping is not having specialized knowledge for insiders and veterans, it is refusing to allow those that lack the knowledge (or possess some other undesirable trait) into the community to acquire it. For a lot of the community, their entire D&D related 'responsibility' is voluntary, only to the social contracts they interact with, from their play group, online communities, etc. Yet that can and often does intersect with those who do have legal and commercial responsibilities regarding the game. James Jacobs, Mike Mearls and Monte Cook will never be able to post as 'just a DM' or 'just another player' Heck, even Morus can't. But "as a DM", also known as voluntarily running a game in my spare time, I don't actually have any responsibility beyond what I adopt for myself. If I run my games like a petty tyrant or a shock jock, that's my choice, but I also am not entitled to have people continue to show up to be belittled or forced into ill conceived confrontations of their phobias. (And whether or not they do, it still makes me a prick.) I am not responsible for growing the hobby, or catering to religious/political group concerns or purchasing third party material, but I am in a position to do all of those things. That has nothing to do with whether those things are good or bad. If I get on here and spout off about not letting girls play, I'll probably be kicked off the boards, or at the very least added to a few dozen 'ignore' lists. But if a producer of game material does the same, it could easily cause a boycott of their company, they could be fired; if the response to their actions is great enough, their actions may well lose other people's jobs too. I think it wouldn't hurt the community (of DnD players, not enworld specifically) for people to act like opinions other than their own, or even deeply held values other than their own, might still be given in good faith. As someone who came from the Army 97-06, not everyone is fighting your war, and some of them don't even know it exists. It doesn't make them the enemy. [/QUOTE]

Verification