Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7751621" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, I don't.&nbsp; I'm baffled, because you just defined &quot;gate-keeping&quot; in a manner I was pretty much happy with, and now you are contradicting your own definition.&nbsp; You appear to be arguing that having one most popular and well-known game in a gaming subculture is &quot;defending the sub-culture of an in group&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; That's frankly BS both from a semantic standpoint, and in practice, since you are attributing will and agency to an object and further ignoring that most people enter a gaming subculture because they are invited to play in a game, and thus as an actual matter of practice ones entry into a subculture involves interaction with people.&nbsp;&nbsp; If your first exposure to RPing is being invited to play a game of FATE is the game of FATE now suddenly engaged in the act of gatekeeping?&nbsp; Wait, no.&nbsp; Not only is this a direct contradiction of your own definition (&quot;Gatekeeping is defending the sub-culture...&quot;) but it should be obvious that the word &quot;gatekeeping&quot; came to have this meaning precisely because of intentional and overt acts.Huh?&nbsp; No, the edition war was not fought over preserving a supposed right or ability to engage in gatekeeping.&nbsp; That's ridiculous on its face and unsustainable in detail.&nbsp;&nbsp; Are you suggesting for example that Pazio broke from WotC because they wanted to preserve some ability to determine who could or could not enter the fandom or hobby, as opposed to having a legitmate business interest in producing a marketable product?&nbsp; And the rest of your assertion is equally bogus as it pertains to the actual reasons why the edition war was fought.Are you saying that because D&amp;D is popular gaming is not?&nbsp; First of all, you appear to be arguing from the basis of the counterfactual here, &quot;If something did not happen, then this might have happened....&quot;&nbsp; At best that is pure speculation, but not only is it pure speculation it seems just as likely to be wrong as correct.&nbsp; Had not D&amp;D achieved fad level status in the popular culture, so that it penetrated into the public conscious through various other media, it seems likely that the hobby would have attracted less interest, and further it seems obvious to me that a collection of smaller less popular less economically successful games could not even collectively achieved the level of public awareness that D&amp;D achieved.And whether your counterfactual speculation is true or not, it still has nothing to do with &quot;gatekeeping&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7751621, member: 4937"] No, I don't. I'm baffled, because you just defined "gate-keeping" in a manner I was pretty much happy with, and now you are contradicting your own definition. You appear to be arguing that having one most popular and well-known game in a gaming subculture is "defending the sub-culture of an in group". That's frankly BS both from a semantic standpoint, and in practice, since you are attributing will and agency to an object and further ignoring that most people enter a gaming subculture because they are invited to play in a game, and thus as an actual matter of practice ones entry into a subculture involves interaction with people. If your first exposure to RPing is being invited to play a game of FATE is the game of FATE now suddenly engaged in the act of gatekeeping? Wait, no. Not only is this a direct contradiction of your own definition ("Gatekeeping is defending the sub-culture...") but it should be obvious that the word "gatekeeping" came to have this meaning precisely because of intentional and overt acts. Huh? No, the edition war was not fought over preserving a supposed right or ability to engage in gatekeeping. That's ridiculous on its face and unsustainable in detail. Are you suggesting for example that Pazio broke from WotC because they wanted to preserve some ability to determine who could or could not enter the fandom or hobby, as opposed to having a legitmate business interest in producing a marketable product? And the rest of your assertion is equally bogus as it pertains to the actual reasons why the edition war was fought. Are you saying that because D&D is popular gaming is not? First of all, you appear to be arguing from the basis of the counterfactual here, "If something did not happen, then this might have happened...." At best that is pure speculation, but not only is it pure speculation it seems just as likely to be wrong as correct. Had not D&D achieved fad level status in the popular culture, so that it penetrated into the public conscious through various other media, it seems likely that the hobby would have attracted less interest, and further it seems obvious to me that a collection of smaller less popular less economically successful games could not even collectively achieved the level of public awareness that D&D achieved. And whether your counterfactual speculation is true or not, it still has nothing to do with "gatekeeping". [/QUOTE]

Verification