Necromancer Games Under Fire?

[malcolm_n]

When I saw this I immediately thought of the article awhile back about the lady politician who made the news after her opponents made a big stink about her playing WOW... I mean, if you want to question her moral character for playing a Horde orc, that's one thing (lol), but for playing video games?

As for the article, please... Everybody knows Orcus is ruling in Hell, not making rulings in Iowa.

(Ya know, I think if I ever hit the lotto for half a billion dollars, I'm going to run for office - I'll build my whole campaign around being the nation's first openly gamer presidential candidate, and when asked about my platform I'll simply respond "PS4"...)

You'd have my vote without further question .

This is just absurd. Somebody needs to TMZ the article writer and find every little thing he's ever done that was even remotely questionable. I'm sure you'll find out quite a bit more is wrong with his life than a judge who plays D&D.

 

[Janx]

Additional text omitted.

But, the issue is not just an actual conflict, but also the appearance of one. (I thought.)

A divorce might be an actual conflict; a divorce might give a judge a good insight into the process.

The potential for an actual confict seems pretty high.

Thx!

TomB

Indeed, and your words are more clear to what I meant.

the gaming matter is just sensationalizing something that some ignorant folk think is scary.

The divorce matter is something that is being ignored, despite being more relevant to the matter at hand of whether the Judge was suited to manage a certain case.

The humans involved in this story have stumbled on a potential issue, but have chosen the more sensational aspect rather than the more serious aspect.

Either the humans are stupid in their priorities, or a human is attacking the Judge's character for a longer term goal of getting him fired/preventing re-election (ammo to use this fiasco against him at the next election). Basically, somebody's playing politics.

 

[Scorpio616]

I sort of regret that there's a link to the Spokesman Review article on Enworld. It's giving them outrage clicks, which is undoubtedly more than half the reason they posted this garbage in the first place.

What? I felt that was a balanced article with plenty of research done. The article author went through a lot of trouble to provide even handed information. Hell, it looked to me the author even gave some extra information on one parties raising the issue to give the impression that the person ignored their dying mother and sued when he was cut from the will. Did the author need to give those details? No, nor did he need to show that person with their noticeably younger wife, again something one might do to give further hints at a possible motive.

Personally I think there is a LOT of bias right here in this thread. Just because there is a gamer involved, there is an assumption he could have done no wrong.

 

[Morrus]

Personally I think there is a LOT of bias right here in this thread. Just because there is a gamer involved, there is an assumption he could have done no wrong.

Of course there is. He's not just "a gamer"; he's someone we know and like, a member of this community, and a friend.

 

[Umbran]

What? I felt that was a balanced article with plenty of research done. The article author went through a lot of trouble to provide even handed information

Balanced? Even-handed? One commenter noted:

"I'm far more concerned about the points that were simply glossed over in this hatchet job. His messy divorce was mentioned in five paragraphs. His custody battle in one paragraph, his bankruptcy in four and his tax issues in two. But his choice of hobbies shows up in about 60 paragraphs: more than five times as many mentions compared to the distractions of his divorce, child custody battle and inability to handle his finances."

I don't think he is capable of doing no wrong. I think men in his position occasionally must bear scrutiny and review, and can't be above criticism. But, critique things that matter! The article gives the hairy eyeball in a decidedly unbalanced manner, with real issues given passing mention, and a huge focus on the sensational over the mundane issues of life.

There are several reasons to write an article this way, but most of them are not, "Give a fair and balance report of what is actually going on in the community."

 

[Bedrockgames]

What? I felt that was a balanced article with plenty of research done. The article author went through a lot of trouble to provide even handed information. Hell, it looked to me the author even gave some extra information on one parties raising the issue to give the impression that the person ignored their dying mother and sued when he was cut from the will. Did the author need to give those details? No, nor did he need to show that person with their noticeably younger wife, again something one might do to give further hints at a possible motive.

Personally I think there is a LOT of bias right here in this thread. Just because there is a gamer involved, there is an assumption he could have done no wrong.

Sure we are biased here, because this is a gaming forum and the article opens with that aspect of the story, then focuses on it almost exclusively, leaving many of us to wonder how the writer would have handled the piece if another hobby were involved. I used to do freelance work as a stringer for local papers, and this article did not strike me as balanced. I agree it was well researched, but mainly just to emphasize the enormity of his posts on gaming forums. I had way more questions than answers after reading it.

 

[Janx]

What? I felt that was a balanced article with plenty of research done. The article author went through a lot of trouble to provide even handed information. Hell, it looked to me the author even gave some extra information on one parties raising the issue to give the impression that the person ignored their dying mother and sued when he was cut from the will. Did the author need to give those details? No, nor did he need to show that person with their noticeably younger wife, again something one might do to give further hints at a possible motive.

Personally I think there is a LOT of bias right here in this thread. Just because there is a gamer involved, there is an assumption he could have done no wrong.

Have you read my posts on this thread dude? I (and others) have pretty clearly noted where he may have made mistakes.

aside from the fact that the guy is a well known person in RPG-land (and friend to many), the main beef with the article is it is capitalizing on anti-D&D/RPG sentiment in order to butcher the guy's character by making him look silly because of his posts on a forum.

Imagine somebody dredged up all your posts and used the times of some of them against you, or the more silly ones in an article to the public to imply that you haven't been doing your job.

Most of us can empathize that while there's likely nothing wrong with our online activities, when cast in the wrong light, they can be used against us.

that's not a good thing for anybody, and the sooner you belly up to the picket line with the rest of us, you'll find that scab will peel right off.

 

[Nightfall]

I'm sorry but I don't see how anyone with even a smidge of writing talent could conceivably believe this article meets ANY journalistic standards. Sure there are facts in here, but there's no a) clear presentation of order nor does this article even remotely contextualize the fact there are OTHER factors that MIGHT have hindered Mister Peterson's judgement. Just focusing on ONE aspect to the exclusivity of others does not make for good journalism. It's just cherry picking yellow journalism at its most basic.

So that's my two cent.

 

[technoextreme]

Sad to see people still think rpgs are somehow different than any other hobby. If he had been into antiques, baseball stats, or model trains, I doubt anyone would care that he posts messags past midnight or on his lunch break. My sense is the lawyers in this case know they can use a misunderstood hobby to paint him negatively.

Its not that. Even if you were to strip RPGs out of that context a lot of his stuff would be incredibly stupid to have posted like flirting on the internet. Though I have to say I'm actually more surprised this hasn't happened more often given the preponderance of incredibly stupid stuff people open themselves to in this industry.

 

[Janx]

Its not that. Even if you were to strip RPGs out of that context a lot of his stuff would be incredibly stupid to have posted like flirting on the internet. Though I have to say I'm actually more surprised this hasn't happened more often given the preponderance of incredibly stupid stuff people open themselves to in this industry.

And thats part of the trap of the article. Anybody can be made to look bad, especially if the article paints it in such a way to make it look wierder than anything else we've all done.

I'm sure there's a valid concern to the point that the Judge may or may not have done his best work on some cases given other factors going on his life at the time.

D&D isn't likely part of the problem, and use of his hobby posts to make him look ridiculous aren't good for the rest of us if this practice catches on.

It's one thing to post stupid things on Facebook that your boss is friends with you on, so he can catch you playing hooky.

It's another to have a muck-raker journalist dredge up your online goofiness from under an alias to paint you in a bad light to prove a point, all the while ignoring the completely valid real issues (presiding over a divorce while in the middle of a divorce).

It's not good for those of us in the hobby (and on forums like this).

It's not good for actually getting justice in the matter on the real issue at hand.