Gatekeepin' it real: On the natural condition of fandom

jasper

Rotten DM
Hum Going off of Celebrim post. All hobbies are compose of TAG. Teachers, Activities and Grumps.
Teachers welcome new people into hobby and will try to teach new people how to play in the new hobby.
Activities are just regular players in the hobby.
Grumps are basically the bad gatekeepers. They are upset over various things/people/state of/etc of the hobby and want to keep people out.
I have been in a lot of groups and hobbies in my 56 years. There are always "gatekeepers". And DnD does not have any more or any less bad gatekeepers than any other hobby.
The only difference in my 50+ years, is the internet forums allows global communication of any hobby. And with global communication the good and bad are better known. In the seventies after a few weeks in x hobby, you knew Rotten Jasper was full of it. Of course that only applied to Montgomery Al. Them there people up in NYC had Meany Morrus and Crazy Celebrim to deal with.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Oofta

Legend
And yet Facebook, which insists on real names, has extremely toxic content. Far more than you'd ever find here.

It's a lot easier to call someone an idiot when you aren't looking them in the face even if they technically know who you are. Besides, if I'm never going to physically meet someone does it matter if they know what name I'm using?

I don't do facebook for a variety of reasons, but my sense is that it's public forums are poorly moderated.

This issue is hardly unique to D&D. That doesn't make it right.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
I don't facebook either, and its glorious. I have an account, but only because where I live the reports of school closures are only on FB and I like to know when I don't have to go to work.
 

I think that's the appropriately-named Zero Charisma. I watched it and remember it being terrible, with everyone being universally unlikable, especially the main character. As you said, this was just at the beginning of the age of acceptance, and I don't think it quite got what was coming, compared to some of its contemporaries (The Guild, Unicorn City, The Gamers).

Gatekeeping exists in any subculture. The Goth scene is rife with it - I remember being a teenager and all the arguments about such-and-such being "not goth" or a "poseur." Black Metal fans argue about what is True and Kvlt. And that nonsense is still going on. It's about Us and Them, about elevating yourself at the expense of someone else.

I don't remember the name of the film, and I never saw it, but maybe 5 or more years ago there I recall a trailer circulating for a D&D based drama where the main thrust of the plot seemed to be that a good looking,likable "hipster douchebag" was stealing the nerdy DM's players away from him.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
It's a lot easier to call someone an idiot when you aren't looking them in the face even if they technically know who you are. Besides, if I'm never going to physically meet someone does it matter if they know what name I'm using?

OK. I agree. But that's not anonymity. It is, as I said, lack of consequence.
 

Celebrim

Legend
Gatekeeping exists in any subculture. The Goth scene is rife with it - I remember being a teenager and all the arguments about such-and-such being "not goth" or a "poseur." Black Metal fans argue about what is True and Kvlt. And that nonsense is still going on. It's about Us and Them, about elevating yourself at the expense of someone else.

Well, yes, groups and cultures are often pretentious and arrogant. People who define themselves by an identity almost invariably take pride and often unreasonable pride in that identity. That goes with being human, and it is a vice and most of the time it is justly condemned.

But, I think we should also be sympathetic. There are times when there is purpose behind the gate keeping. To move away from the immediately touchy subject of our own community to something hopefully less touchy, I'm also a fan of the Columbus Crew (a professional soccer team, #savedthecrew). Now, the Columbus Crew like many professional teams has supporters groups. Supporters groups are supported by the team and often get special access and privileges. You have to however join the supporters group and that comes with a bunch of expectations about how you are going to behave. For example, you'll be expected to spend hundreds of dollars on black and yellow gear so that you look the part. You'll probably be expected to spend thousands of dollars on season tickets. You'll be expected to spend time, money, and energy creating signs, tifos, and other things which show your support for the team. And you'll be expected to stand - not sit - in the supporters section, and sing, chant, and cheer throughout the entire game.

Are these unreasonable expectations? Ought you to expect to be a member of a supporters group if you have no intention of doing any of these things? Do you think you should just have front row access in the supporters section if you dress for a game in a random t-shirt and blue jeans? Is that fair? Do you think that you should be fully approved for access to the supporters section if you show up wearing red and white when we play Toronto or NYRB (or really at any game)? Or do you think the groups and the team have a reasonable expectation that they can determine whether or not you are a "real fan" based on your behavior?

I think that they do. And whether you think they do or not, as a practical matter, they in fact do have a right to gatekeep their members and be selective about who gets in.

And we could say that this is even more true about my daughters club team, or the Columbus Crew themselves. The Columbus Crew have a vested interest in not letting a 400lb guy with no talent in soccer taking the field for them, no matter how much he wants to play for them and be part of the team. You have to be a more than middling good soccer player to get on the team. You have to exceed certain minimum standards, or you can't get on that field no matter how unfair you think it is or how much you declare that the issue is 'weightism' and not the fact that you need to run 5 or more miles in 90 minutes at good pace.

Now does this mean that all gatekeeping is just and reasonable? No. We can easily imagine standards that groups could have that are unreasonable. But I do think that at some level we are all going to agree that group have a vested interest in policing there membership, and keeping out "poseurs" and other members that don't reflect the values of the group (whatever they are). There is a thing where you want to accrue to yourself status as a member of the group, without doing the work to obtain that status or accepting the responsibilities that come with it.
 

Salthorae

Imperial Mountain Dew Taster
The internet tends to amplify people's worst tendencies cough**paladin/gnome hate**cough.

Agreed, but I also agree with @Morrus that it's the lack of consequences that enables the behavior rather than the anonymity per se, though anonymity adds an additional layer that may further embolden someone's behavior.

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.

I disagree that it's not human nature.

People all over the world gatekeep in one form or another, even if it's just the tribe vs. "not tribe". it has little to do with merit obsessed culture.

Just look at the vitriol in publications and real violence that arose in Western Europe following the Reformation over religion from all sides, even within the Protestant side as they splinter further and further the same levels of gatekeeping persist. None of that is/was a function of a "merit obsessed culture", it was a simple "you're not X therefore I will war with you physically and verbally.", the most basic form of gatekeeping.

If its universal, or even nearly so, to the world across societies, I find it hard not to attribute to human nature.

I don't think this violates policy as I'm not talking religion itself, just the history of religious strife. If it does please let me know and I'll edit Mods!
 

Celebrim

Legend
I don't think this violates policy as I'm not talking religion itself, just the history of religious strife. If it does please let me know and I'll edit Mods!

Well, I'm not offended and presumably I'm the one who would be. In fact, without going into great depth, I can say the problem of "Christian tribalism" and the fact that it is far too easy to allow your Christianity to just slip into the all too human habit of forming tribes is one that is a topic of much concern with the religion, and one which "we" are quite willing to admit is and historically has been a major problem. So I at least consider it a valid point in a debate as to what "gatekeeping" really is, and what harm it does.
 

CleverNickName

Limit Break Dancing
This is a concise essay on the nature of "gatekeeping," and it was entertaining to read besides. And there's only one thing I would add to it.

I think it's important that we don't just shrug our shoulders and say "oh well, gatekeeping is horrible but it's just human nature. Nothing to do about it, guess we should all just deal." Because as @Umbran said, that is not an acceptable reaction to bad behavior.

The reaction we should have is to get better. Check yourself. Consider what you are about to write/say, and whether or not it's useful or correct. When you see bad behaviors, call them out. Refuse to participate in them, refuse to allow them to waste your time. Point them out and watch them wither.
 

Remove ads

Top