Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5445034" data-attributes="member: 18280">The decision is affirmed, in part, upon the State's reasonable concernthat D&D “could foster an inmate’s obsession with escaping from the real life, correctional environment,” placing both the legitimate penological goals of prison security and inmate rehabilitation in peril.as well as the essentially "gang-like" nature of a structure where one inmate has authority gained, not from the institution, but from his own actions and/or the actions of other inmates.In my Basic Training example, I was offered all sorts of favours because I was running a game.  In prison, the value of favours is certainly higher than in Basic Training, as is the level of authority that someone who offers a form of escapism can hold.EDIT:  You can certainly understand how having others willing to make beds, shine shoes, and perform other tasks would be potentially detrimental to the goals of Basic Training, I trust?  In prison, this is certainly more true!Singer may or may not be prone to violence beyond the incident that got him incarcerated, but surely there are others who are so prone.  When Singer clearly dislikes another prisoner, or has a clear problem with an individual, it is to the advantage of the player base to resolve these problems.  Not unlike polishing boots and making beds in Basic Training, or bringing beer and pizza in the most banal of environments.There is also a power structure in prison, as in all environments.  Prison officials have a reasonable concern that the described recruitment drive to expand the player base is also a recruitment drive to expand the power base of the DM in question (Singer), so as to make his prison time easier.....generally speaking, to the detriment of other inmates.Prison officials also have a vested interest in keeping prisoners focused on their current situation in order to aid in rehabilitation, which the proferred escape into a fantasy world may well damage.  The term "Escapist path" used in the judgment doesn't necessarily mean actual physical escape, nor is the State making a case that physical escape from confinement is an overriding concern.Now, it may well be that the State's concerns are not valid.  It is noted in the judgment that Singer failed to address the State's concerns, and that it is the job of the court to weigh the arguments made, rather than to make arguments for parties.  So, perhaps if Singer was to address the State's concerns with new evidence the judgment could be appealed.IMHO, on the basis of the information available, the court did its job properly.  The court certainly didn't seek to punish "nerds".  There is no evidence whatsoever that the prison officials did, either.RC</blockquote>

Verification