Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="tetrasodium" data-source="post: 9292659" data-attributes="member: 93670">There's no other way to respond to to this without breaking it up because you keep talking about wildly different behaviors as if they are the sameThat only matters if&nbsp; the disrespectful &quot;low commitment player choosing to behave in a way that negatively impacting&nbsp; the rest of the table is somehow beyond reproach or deserves to be at the table no matter how their choice to engage in extremely &quot;low commitment&quot; behavior despite ruining the experience for everyone else.&nbsp; The player you've dubbed &quot;low commitment&quot; can either choose to adapt to the criticism by stepping up or move on but the criticism has been earned.It's not demonizing to accurately describes poor behavior and make clear that one player behaving in such a way is negatively impacting the other players at the table.&nbsp; If a low commitment AL game with whatever one shot and potentially random group is all of the commitment that a player can justify then they Shouldn't be outraged when a group with higher standards criticizes their choice in behavior.By criticizing the standout it gives them a chance to learn the consequences of their choices and do better or agree that they were wrong about wanting to play a regular game with others.&quot;Slurs&quot;?! I think you might have intended to finish posting in some other thread and accidentally appended it here.&nbsp; When a player behaves in a way that negatively impacts the rest of their fellow players, any descriptor of&nbsp; that negative behavior is going to be focused on how it is negative if the goal is to reduce or eliminate the negatives.&nbsp; It's long been established that there are players who don't care about understanding the rules of the game so it's strange that you'd jump to one who wants to while talking about slurs to shield players who don't care.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="tetrasodium, post: 9292659, member: 93670"] There's no other way to respond to to this without breaking it up because you keep talking about wildly different behaviors as if they are the same That only matters if the disrespectful "low commitment player choosing to behave in a way that negatively impacting the rest of the table is somehow beyond reproach or deserves to be at the table no matter how their choice to engage in extremely "low commitment" behavior despite ruining the experience for everyone else. The player you've dubbed "low commitment" can either choose to adapt to the criticism by stepping up or move on but the criticism has been earned . It's not demonizing to accurately describes poor behavior and make clear that one player behaving in such a way is negatively impacting the other players at the table. If a low commitment AL game with whatever one shot and potentially random group is all of the commitment that a player can justify then they Shouldn't be outraged when a group with higher standards criticizes their choice in behavior. By criticizing the standout it gives them a chance to learn the consequences of their choices and do better or agree that they were wrong about wanting to play a regular game with others. "Slurs"?! I think you might have intended to finish posting in some other thread and accidentally appended it here. When a player behaves in a way that negatively impacts the rest of their fellow players, any descriptor of that negative behavior is going to be focused on how it is negative if the goal is to reduce or eliminate the negatives. It's long been established that there are players who don't care about understanding the rules of the game so it's strange that you'd jump to one who [I]wants[/I] to while talking about slurs to shield players who [I]don't[/I] care. [/QUOTE]

Verification