roguerouge
First Post
Quick question: was it third edition or fourth edition that lead to gang activity? *Ducks*
Remember he's not characterizing roleplaying games in the outside world, he's specifically characterizing roleplaying games in a prison setting. What makes you think that someone with decades of experience as a security expert in the prison system wouldn't have some empirical evidence concerning the effects of roleplaying games on prisoner behavior and security issues?I just feel his characterization of role-playing games is not based on empirical evidence
Perhaps, but the information we have does not clearly state where the conclusions come from. It could be based upon observed prison experience, it could also be based upon somebody reading a Chik Tract and writing a letter in Law Enforcement Technology to that effect.Remember he's not characterizing roleplaying games in the outside world, he's specifically characterizing roleplaying games in a prison setting. What makes you think that someone with decades of experience as a security expert in the prison system wouldn't have some empirical evidence concerning the effects of roleplaying games on prisoner behavior and security issues?
Last I checked, D&D is a social, recreational and lawful leisure activity. Perhaps in this case the issue is that the was not "organized to promote" these activites, but happened on its own outside the system.Muraski testified that it is his responsibility
to “prevent the grouping of inmates into new gangs
or other groups that are not organized to promote educational,
social, cultural, religious, recreational, or other
lawful leisure activities.”
Quick question: was it third edition or fourth edition that lead to gang activity? *Ducks*
It was 1st edition.
I know that because when I was young I was in a gang, and we played D&D.
That's a good point. Also, I think most organized inmate groups get pre-approval by the prison staff. Usually that means careful supervision by a staff member. It sounds like this group was an ad hoc group, not something organized and OK'ed through the prison hierarchy with official supervision. I'm sure that made a big difference in how it was perceived.The other thing is this: Last I checked, D&D is a social, recreational and lawful leisure activity. Perhaps in this case the issue is that the was not "organized to promote" these activites, but happened on its own outside the system.
Remember he's not characterizing roleplaying games in the outside world, he's specifically characterizing roleplaying games in a prison setting. What makes you think that someone with decades of experience as a security expert in the prison system wouldn't have some empirical evidence concerning the effects of roleplaying games on prisoner behavior and security issues?
You don't know there was no policy on RPGs. All you know is that RPG materials weren't banned.Because he's been the security supervisor there for nearly twenty years yet only implemented the ban after being tipped off about this alleged D&D gang.
The chain of events was:
1 He's in charge of prison security for more than a decade with no policy on RPGs.
Apparently, the staff responsible for gang activity monitoring weren't aware of the game for those two years. They didn't become aware of it until the players started recruiting additional inmates into the game with flyers.2 Inmates play RPGs for two years with no problem.
He decided to confiscate the material and ban any further RPG activity after examining not only the gaming material, but also the recruitment flyer and a document created by the players, the contents of which we know nothing about. It would not surprise me if the staff interviewed other inmates about the group's activities as well.3 Anonymous letter asks him to investigate that D&D gang.
4 He decides to do so and confiscates their D&D material
5 A month later he issues a letter to inmate explaining RPGs are now banned, followed by a prison bulletin to that effect.
Perhaps he only concluded the threat was worthy of an outright ban after he investigated the situation. It's also possible that RPGs had never been an issue in that particular facility before, but other games or activies of a similar nature had caused problems in the past and those experiences shaped the policy on RPGs.If he had previously had experience with RPGs in prison and thought they were a threat to prison security then I would generally assume, as he was the prison's security supervisor for nearly twenty years, he would have implemented the no RPG policy when he first concluded they were a possible threat.
I assume that the prison official has experience with inmates playing games in prison because I find it impossible to believe that he was involved in security at a prison for 20 years and never encountered inmates engaging in recreational games. I also assume that, even if he has never encountered inmates playing RPGs before, he is capable of extrapolating his previous experience in a way that allows him to assess the implications of RPGs in a prison setting and make informed judgements about the security risks they might pose. I also assume that his investigation into the specifics of this groups activities informed his policy decisions.Why would you assume he would have experience with them, consider them a possible threat, and do nothing for years and allow them to go on? Then change position and implement a no RPG policy after acting on the tip off about Singer's D&D gang?
Hrmph. D&D also promotes cooperation, following the rules, and working together to accomplish a common goal.