Personalities in the Gaming Industry and Politics

[Mark]

(Accidental Duplicate)

I loved that movie...

 

[EricNoah]

(I'm not a moderator, and this is not addressed to any one poster: but ... can we try to keep this from going into "one particular poster vs. another particular poster"? Please? Thanks)

 

[GMSkarka]

But I know that my audience comes to my journal to find talk about games, not politics.

I think that's a key distinction, right there.

You view your journal as addressing your audience. In other words, as part of your branding.

Folks like Chris Pramas (and myself) view our journals as aimed not at our audiences, but at our peers and friends. We communicate with our audience via forums like EN World and our own websites.

I think that, given we're in the infancy of this particular phenomenon, there is a disconnect between the two ways of thinking, with both groups attaching very different meanings to the same word (journal or blog). Some view them as an extension of their public personae, and some view them as the virtual equivalent of a conversation in a pub.

 

[Pramas]

I've never really been clear on *why* industry people talk about politics.

Because I have a life outside of the game industry and my blog is an outlet for it. I work on game stuff seven days a week, so when I started a blog it wasn't so that I could spend yet more time writing about games. Now I do make the occasional post about games or the game industry but that's only a part of what I write about on my blog. I never pretended it was just about games, as the blogs of some other designers are (Matt Forbeck, for example, who goes so far as to get his updates promoted on Gaming Report). If gamers are interested, cool. If not, that's cool too.

Chris Pramas

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Because I have a life outside of the game industry and my blog is an outlet for it.

So why not use a handle or nickname that won't get associated with your company? You can distribute that nickname to people who you want "in the know". You can still chat about gaming and whatnot, but it'll be seperate from your company.

It'll also let you openly air your desire to see a Smurfs d20 product (or whatever) and your fans won't think you've gone nuts.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

I guess I've never really understood the idea of consumer activism. I tend to judge things I buy based upon its individual merits, just as I try and do with the people I meet. I may not agree with someone's politics, but that does not mean I won't have anything to do with them.

My officemate at my last job was very far removed politically from myself. We had quite a few loud, very intense debates (OK, more like arguements). Never managed to sway each other at all, but I did get some great perspective on how he saw things and why. And at the end of the day we could go out to a bar and have a couple of drinks together or have our kids play together because I knew that there was a lot more to him that just his politics.

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

Does "making someone sublimate their views" correspond with refusing to buy someone's stuff because of ideologies? To me, it's not the same thing. Making someone hide their views is more the province of censorship or blacklists, than boycotts.

It's along the same lines. If I am worried about expressing what is a fairly innocuous political opinion because I think it may cause me to lose money, that's a bad thing. It isn't actually censorship, or blacklisting, but it's a step in that direction.

One of the things that concerns me here is taking a step (boycotting) that is sensible in one instance - I don't think I'll buy an album by that metal band because they ate their lead singer - and extending it further to those who are only mildly disagreeable to me - I don't think I'll buy that other metal band's album because they think Ted Nugent is sane. In one case, you can make an argument, in the other the argument is much weaker. It seems to me , that the collapse of political discussion in the USA comes from reacting to a mildly opposing position with a reaction that would only be appropriate to a much more stongly opposing position.

If I feel I have to keep quiet about something in order to not be persecuted in some form, I think that's bad.

 

[John Morrow]

This is doubtless at least somewhat true, but it my experience the extent of the ossification is highly negatively correlated with the extent and quality of the individual's education. That is, highly educated people are more open to examining all viewpoints (including their own) critically and logically. (Not to mention more capable of doing so.)

I don't think that's true, either, though I think a lot of highly educated people think it is. I've met plenty of highly educated people who think, by virtue of their education, that they have all they answers and don't need to hear the other side. Whether a person is willing to look at other viewpoints has little to do with how much they know, in my experience. It has much more to do with how much they realize they don't know.

(EDIT: replaced an important word that I dropped.)

 

[EricNoah]

I think that's true, either, though I think a lot of highly educated people think it is. I've met plenty of highly educated people who think, by virtue of their education, that they have all they answers and don't need to hear the other side. Whether a person is willing to look at other viewpoints has little to do with how much they know, in my experience. It has much more to do with how much they realize they don't know.

And their ability to step outside themselves and examine their quirks, knee-jerks, assumptions, opinions, etc. with an objective eye, which is extremely challenging for everyone regardless of your education, I think. So in some sense it's more a wisdom thing than an intelligence thing (to put it in simplistic D&D parlance. ). I'm not particularly good at it myself! But I keep trying...

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

That's ridiculous. It's absolutely appropriate for a consumer to base his purchasing decisions on whatever whim strikes him at the moment.

It's no different than not buying from Wal-Mart for reasons that have nothing to do with the product and everything to do with their corporate image.

I certainly don't mean to say people shouldn't use whatever particular whim strikes them as a reason to buy or not buy a product. What I mean is that it is ultimately a bad thing for us all when those choices are based largely on relatively minor whims, and I would like people to give that more thought.

Saying you don't want to support Wal-Mart is one thing, saying you don't want to support all large chain retailers is another. I think you ultimately run the risk of marginalizing your own position. I'm not a big fan of boycotts. I tune them out in almost all cases, because they're over done. Save it for when it matters.