Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Hussar]

/snip

In both cases, there might be some participants there whose self-valuation was based on their expensive toys, but even then there would still be a lot of very good reasons why you don't just show up uninvited, unasked, with no permission to that sort of thing with hand made alternative game pieces expecting full acceptance for your action.

Who defines "gate keeping" this way?

If you show up to any sort of event, completely unprepared, being turned away isn't "gate keeping" in the sense that it's being used. If I show up to play 2 on 2 basketball in a three piece suit and no athletic shoes, being told I can't play isn't gate keeping.

You're taking the term and broadening it's meaning to include any sort of action which blocks someone from an activity. No one uses it this way.

Gate keeping is a negative term for a reason. It always refers to activities by fans of an activity who attempt to use spurious reasons to prevent someone from joining the group. The point there is SPURIOUS.

All you're doing is clouding the discussion with pointless definition wanking.

 

[Reynard]

So, to pick a few groups that there might be wide spread agreement on - sexists, racists, sexual predators, and fascists?

Oh FFS.

 

[CleverNickName]

This is getting out of hand, folks.

Like I said before: people know when they are being jerks. Don't be jerks.

 

[Celebrim]

Who defines "gate keeping" this way?

If you show up to any sort of event, completely unprepared, being turned away isn't "gate keeping" in the sense that it's being used. If I show up to play 2 on 2 basketball in a three piece suit and no athletic shoes, being told I can't play isn't gate keeping.

Good, I'm glad to see that I appear to have made my first point. You are quibbling with the definition, but you seem to agree that there are valid reasons to turn people away from the group. You don't want to refer to those valid reasons as "gatekeeping", you want to instead only call it "gatekeeping" is done for some reason you call "spurious".

So from that I think you've conceded the whole of the first part of my argument, aside from the reluctance to give up the term "gatekeeping".

Nonetheless, the important point is reached: even though "gatekeeping" as you define it is bad, that doesn't mean that aren't valid reasons to turn someone away from the group. Thus, it also follows that if someone is turned away from a group, they cannot just cry "gatekeeping" to prove that the reason was inherently spurious or unjust.

I'm glad we are in so much agreement.

PS: Gatekeeping does indeed have a definition. Feel free to look it up.

 

[Zardnaar]

Human nature. We're glorified chimps with cell phones and nuclear weapons.

And social cancer erm media exists.

 

[Anoth]

Human nature. We're glorified chimps with cell phones and nuclear weapons.

And social cancer erm media exists.

not me. I don’t have that condescending attitude towards humanity. I’m impressed at what we accomplished. Even the wars we fight and the political intrigue and backstabbing. That’s the worse. Then there is the amazing things like E=mc^2 and the Mona Lisa. What motivated someone to accomplish such things. And then placing a man on the moon. The desire to go there is astounding. How did Van Gogh accomplish such works of art while suffering internally. Wow. Our ability to destroy and create is both beautiful. What a work of art is man.

 

[Wiseblood]

not me. I don’t have that condescending attitude towards humanity. I’m impressed at what we accomplished. Even the wars we fight and the political intrigue and backstabbing. That’s the worse. Then there is the amazing things like E=mc^2 and the Mona Lisa. What motivated someone to accomplish such things. And then placing a man on the moon. The desire to go there is astounding. How did Van Gogh accomplish such works of art while suffering internally. Wow. Our ability to destroy and create is both beautiful. What a work of art is man.

Agreed! It’s a a shame we are so down on ourselves.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

PS: Gatekeeping does indeed have a definition. Feel free to look it up.

Note, the term has several definitions, depending on context. In the current context, the Urban Dictionary has probably the best definition:

Gatekeeping
When someone takes it upon themselves to decide who does or does not have access or rights to a community or identity.

You're insisting that all discrimination is gatekeeping, when that's obviously not the case at all. There are perfectly good reasons to deny someone access to an activity, depending on all sorts of factors. However, that's not what's being discussed here.

But, you are right. The definition I put forward was somewhat incorrect. I said "spurious" reasons. That's not quite right. Gatekeeping is when someone is blocked from a group for selfish reasons.

And you see it all the time. " Game X isn't a real role playing game. " "Story games aren't role playing games" "This isn't the right Star Wars" "D&D players aren't real role players" "People only play D&D because they don't know how to role play". "Anyone who needs an X card shouldn't be playing an RPG". ((Note, these are DIRECT quotes from over the years)) So on and so forth.

Someone decides that they don't like X, therefore they must make sure that X is not accepted into the group, since, if it is accepted into the group, that would mean that they are wrong, and since they cannot possibly be wrong, X must not be accepted into the group.

 

[Anoth]

Note, the term has several definitions, depending on context. In the current context, the Urban Dictionary has probably the best definition:



You're insisting that all discrimination is gatekeeping, when that's obviously not the case at all. There are perfectly good reasons to deny someone access to an activity, depending on all sorts of factors. However, that's not what's being discussed here.

But, you are right. The definition I put forward was somewhat incorrect. I said "spurious" reasons. That's not quite right. Gatekeeping is when someone is blocked from a group for selfish reasons.

And you see it all the time. " Game X isn't a real role playing game. " "Story games aren't role playing games" "This isn't the right Star Wars" "D&D players aren't real role players" "People only play D&D because they don't know how to role play". "Anyone who needs an X card shouldn't be playing an RPG". ((Note, these are DIRECT quotes from over the years)) So on and so forth.

Someone decides that they don't like X, therefore they must make sure that X is not accepted into the group, since, if it is accepted into the group, that would mean that they are wrong, and since they cannot possibly be wrong, X must not be accepted into the group.

I agree with you on everything except Star Wars

 

[jasper]

I really have no problem with Gatekeeping. There are certain players I don’t want to play with because of their playstyles. And I am happy to keep them out of my games and stay out of theirs. The problem for me is when they say what I can’t do at my table or if I would say what they can or can’t do at their table.

AND LOW! THE ROTTEN DM! HOLDER AND DECIDER OF ALL! NOW! PROCLAIMS THE FOLLOWING.
What Anoth is doing is now called PLAYPENNING.