Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

[Oofta]

No.

The answer to people behaving badly is not, "get over it."



Some are, sure... But, if we were really all that open... why do we have a special word for our not being open?

The stories of women and PoC who feel the burden of having to prove they are "real geeks" stand in stark contrast to your report. So, color me skeptical that we are really all that great at it.

All I can say is that in my experience with open public campaigns, pretty much everyone has been welcoming of a wide variety of people. There are jerks everywhere, of course.

Online forums tend to be toxic because of anonymity. That's hardly unique to D&D.

 

[Umbran]

All I can say is that in my experience with open public campaigns, pretty much everyone has been welcoming of a wide variety of people.

Is that really all you can say?

I mean, you could also say that you read up, and realize that there's a lot of credible reports of people with different, very bad experiences, and maybe we should look to that.

Why don't you say that?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

Is that really all you can say?

I mean, you could also say that you read up, and realize that there's a lot of credible reports of people with different, very bad experiences, and maybe we should look to that.

Why don't you say that?

I assume it's a given?

The only point I was trying to make was that people have always been and always will be tribal but that in person most people are quite welcoming in my experience. My experience, is of course, far from universal.

If you discuss anything online, sooner or later you will be flamed. It doesn't matter if you're discussing D&D, politics, or collectible doilies. Should we do everything we can to push back against that behavior? Yes. But it is pretty much inevitable.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, I have to agree with @Umbran

Things may be much better than they were 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago.

But "better" doesn't mean perfect, or fixed.

I tend to think that most gatekeeping (esp. in terms of excluding people on the basis of gender, race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.) is less overt now, but it still exists.

I think what I meant to say in my post was misinterpreted.

I see a lot of poor behavior online, I don't condone it, I think we should do what we can as a community to be welcoming and open to all people.

But for better or worse (mostly worse) I also think it's just a symptom of human nature. That doesn't excuse it.

 

[Charlaquin]

It’s definitely not human nature, and it’s not unique to D&D or even gaming generally. Gatekeeping is a product of the cultivation of identity, which fandom is a form of. When one’s identity is built around being a fan of something, one is inclined to establish the merit of that identity, which is done (among other things) by setting standards by which to judge one’s status as a fan. It’s not an inborn instinct, it’s a learned behavior, resulting from a culture obsessed with merit.

 

[Celebrim]

All communities have Gatekeepers and enforce Gatekeeping behavior. As just one example, EnWorld itself has Gatekeepers who pick and choose who will be part of the community. Whether or not you always agree with the Gatekeepers, it needs such a thing. Gatekeeping per se isn't a bad thing. All communities have a right to be exclusive to a certain degree. A community that isn't exclusive won't actually attract members, because to a certain extent the exclusivity is what makes being a member of the community attractive and worthwhile. A community with no standards as to who may join in it, invariably sees members drift away. All communities must maintain a balance between being open and welcoming to new members, while insisting on sort of shared something that makes the members kindred and creates rules of decorum. This is as true businesses, nations, clubs, sport teams, religions, online forums, and online RPG guilds.

The problem is when Gatekeeping is used unjustly and selectively. We don't really disagree with Gatekeeping: we oppose Gatekeeping based on unjust criteria, such as gender, race, etc.

As such, I believe we should just stop using the word "gatekeeping", because it's a phrase that obfuscates and reduces understanding rather than one that clarifies it. We could just as easily talk about how bad sexism or racism is without inventing a term that doesn't encode the actual problem, and then we'd have a pretty solid understanding of what we actually all agree is bad. But when you use the word 'gatekeeping' without any adjective describing what is wrong with the gatekeeping, you end up in a situation where not only are you obviously hypocrites, but you have people who wrongly assume that it is the gatekeeping and not (for example) the sexism that is the problem.

 

[Morrus]

A large part of it is just the internet. Sometimes I think we should just turn it off.

 

[Morrus]

Online forums tend to be toxic because of anonymity. That's hardly unique to D&D.

And yet Facebook, which insists on real names, has extremely toxic content. Far more than you'd ever find here. So I don't think it is because of the anonymity. It's because of a lack of consequence. (Which is partly why places like this are less toxic - because there is a consequence, albeit a very small one).

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*