Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5445665" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, there we agree, at least, and I applaud you for making a reasoned argument (rather than a series of jokes, for example).&nbsp; &nbsp;And the prison claimed that D&amp;D interferes with that by taking prisoners away from the situation the prison is attempting to use to rehabilitate them.&nbsp; Singer's case did not answer that allegation.Ultimately, the court has to decide on behalf of the prison unless the plaintiff successfully answers the reasons given by the prison.&nbsp; Singer failed to address those reasons.The court even notes in the decision that the prison's arguments may well be weak and/or answerable, but that Singer did not do so.Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the prison's arguments.&nbsp; Unlike, say, a point guard in basketball, a GM's authority derives both from his being difficult to replace and the amount of control he has over the successful outcome of the game.&nbsp; From experience (my own Basic Training experience), I can say without any doubt that, were one disposed to do so, one could easily use running a game to form the nucleus of a gang in an environment where there are few alternative forms of entertainment.Moreover, even if Singer wasn't of that bent, the prison would have a much harder time explaining why some other prisoner (who was) couldn't also run a game.There is no doubt in my mind that the prison's argument is 100% correct here.No, it does not.&nbsp; I suggest you read it again.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5445665, member: 18280"] Well, there we agree, at least, and I applaud you for making a reasoned argument (rather than a series of jokes, for example). And the prison claimed that D&D interferes with that by taking prisoners away from the situation the prison is attempting to use to rehabilitate them. Singer's case did not answer that allegation. Ultimately, the court has to decide on behalf of the prison unless the plaintiff successfully answers the reasons given by the prison. Singer failed to address those reasons. The court even notes in the decision that the prison's arguments may well be weak and/or answerable, but that Singer did not do so. Perhaps, but that doesn't answer the prison's arguments. Unlike, say, a point guard in basketball, a GM's authority derives both from his being difficult to replace and the amount of control he has over the successful outcome of the game. From experience (my own Basic Training experience), I can say without any doubt that, were one disposed to do so, one could easily use running a game to form the nucleus of a gang in an environment where there are few alternative forms of entertainment. Moreover, even if Singer wasn't of that bent, the prison would have a much harder time explaining why some other prisoner (who was) couldn't also run a game. There is no doubt in my mind that the prison's argument is 100% correct here. No, it does not. I suggest you read it again. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification