Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7896426" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would say that I agree. But I think the example shows that there are probably reasons why that player isn't receiving acceptance, validation, and affirmation that are valid and not discriminatory in the sense the word is usually used. I for one would not want to play magic using a bunch of cheaply made homemade cards that didn't have art or rules text (or trustworthy rules text). It would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I suspect most people feel the same way, or we would all be running around with 3x5 note cards playing MtG without spending thousands of dollars on it.Further, while I can sympathize with this player, because I ultimately dropped MtG as a hobby I couldn't really afford and I never was &quot;in&quot; the game as much as I wanted to be, and I can understand how he feels, I think there is also an element in the hypothetical players desperation that isn't healthy and likely comes from a place of envy.&nbsp;&nbsp; He's trying to force his way into a community.&nbsp; He's not really respecting it.Yet another definition! This is awesome. So, &quot;not inviting someone&quot; is a big part of literal gatekeeping. It's a major way that people are excluded. You just leave them out of events, and it would I think be an example of the most serious sort of exclusionary behavior. If the basis of it was discriminatory, then I think that we'd all agree it was gatekeeping at its worst. &quot;I'm sorry but, like, you weren't invited.&quot;And yet, while you are willing to concede that that might sometimes be a quite reasonable thing, you introduce a completely new idea.&nbsp; We have literally been talking about gatekeeping as an act of exclusion or attempted exclusion for nearly 150 posts now, and now you introduce a new broader idea - gatekeeping as things that &quot;actively diminish or negate someone's enjoyment of a thing.&quot;&nbsp; This is an immensely broad idea, and it's so broad that it could probably apply to really any sort of behavior.&nbsp;&nbsp; Sure, it applies to things that make anyone feel unwelcome, and to things that make people feel uncomfortable, and people playing Paladins and Gnomes.&nbsp; You might as well at this point just say that &quot;gatekeeping&quot; is a synonym for &quot;bad&quot;, because its already so abstract in your newest definition that anyone that takes offense over anything could argue that they were the victim of &quot;gatekeeping&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7896426, member: 4937"] I would say that I agree. But I think the example shows that there are probably reasons why that player isn't receiving acceptance, validation, and affirmation that are valid and not discriminatory in the sense the word is usually used. I for one would not want to play magic using a bunch of cheaply made homemade cards that didn't have art or rules text (or trustworthy rules text). It would greatly diminish my enjoyment of the game. I suspect most people feel the same way, or we would all be running around with 3x5 note cards playing MtG without spending thousands of dollars on it. Further, while I can sympathize with this player, because I ultimately dropped MtG as a hobby I couldn't really afford and I never was "in" the game as much as I wanted to be, and I can understand how he feels, I think there is also an element in the hypothetical players desperation that isn't healthy and likely comes from a place of envy. He's trying to force his way into a community. He's not really respecting it. Yet another definition! This is awesome. So, "not inviting someone" is a big part of literal gatekeeping. It's a major way that people are excluded. You just leave them out of events, and it would I think be an example of the most serious sort of exclusionary behavior. If the basis of it was discriminatory, then I think that we'd all agree it was gatekeeping at its worst. "I'm sorry but, like, you weren't invited." And yet, while you are willing to concede that that might sometimes be a quite reasonable thing, you introduce a completely new idea. We have literally been talking about gatekeeping as an act of exclusion or attempted exclusion for nearly 150 posts now, and now you introduce a new broader idea - gatekeeping as things that "actively diminish or negate someone's enjoyment of a thing." This is an immensely broad idea, and it's so broad that it could probably apply to really any sort of behavior. Sure, it applies to things that make anyone feel unwelcome, and to things that make people feel uncomfortable, and people playing Paladins and Gnomes. You might as well at this point just say that "gatekeeping" is a synonym for "bad", because its already so abstract in your newest definition that anyone that takes offense over anything could argue that they were the victim of "gatekeeping". [/QUOTE]

Verification