Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6864155">I would imagine that would go over about as well as telling them to leave the table.  I mean, lets put this into other situations such as:Movies:  Boe, Joe and Sue want to go see Love Actually.  Frank wants to see The Expendables.-Bob, Joe and Sue obviously outweigh Frank's opinion, and tell him that if they want to keep hanging out, he needs to "change his tastes" and watch Love Actually with them.Food: Bob, Frank and Joe want to get burgers.  Sue was sushi.-Once again, the outlier is outweighed and an ultimatum is issued: Eat burgers.Obviously, it doesn't have to come in the form of an ultimatum.  The Group can suggest The Outlier give what The Group is doing a try, see if they enjoy it more this time around because they're doing it with friends, or because it's New Edition.  If The Outlier gives it a fair, earnest try (which probably can't be well judged by the interested parties of The Table) and still doesn't like it, The Table is left with two options: Up the ante by telling The Outlier to play in a manner they don't find fun, or back off and deal with the possibility of reduced fun for the group but increased fun for the Outlier.  These need not be absolutes.  Perhaps The Outlier's fun is a 10 when he gets to Play His Way, but the Group's fun is a 6.  When told to play a different way, the Outlier's fun is a 5, but the Group's fun is a 7.  From a utilitarian point of view, 7*3+5=26/4=6.5; while 6*4+10=34/4=8.5 ; meaning that letting The Outlier play the way he enjoys may result in a higher level of fun for the group as a whole, than telling The Outlier to play a way he doesn't find fun.  Please note, this is all AssMath(TM) and should not be taken as the end-all, be-all answer.  But it is not wrong to argue that one player having significantly reduced fun will bring down the table just as easily as one player having too much fun can.  Of course, The Outlier is an outlier, and statistically he could be ignored.  In this case, we have a result of an AFL(Average Fun Level) at Table 1 where they're telling The Outlier to play differently of 21; while the AFL of Table 2 where they're not is a 24.  Divided by 3 that gives us of course, 7 and 6, only marginally different.Now there's a whole range of what could or might be the experience at a table.  Telling The Outlier to play a different way could result in The Outlier's fun being reduced only a little but, while the Table's fun is increased substantially, say, AFL 9*3+7=32/4=8.  Or the Outlier could have next to no fun at all and become an even worse burden on the Table, producing an AFL of 4*3+1=13/4=3.25.In any case, any sort of decision is like playing a game of cards, when you don't immediately win (everyone starts having an overall better time), you have to do one of two things: ante up or fold.  Eventually you reach one of two conclusions: The Outlier is permanently removed from the equation, or the equation is disregarded and the Outlier is allowed to play as they please, regardless of how it impacts The Table.For most people who aren't total noobs, players know how they enjoy the game.  Asking them to "change their tastes" is a sort of passive-aggressive way of saying "we don't like the way you play, you need to change because we said so." allowing you to imply the "or else", instead of just state it outright.  The fact of the matter is there aren't a lot of options.  That's why it's a problem.  If there were, it wouldn't be a problem.  There are lots of ways to go about saying the same thing, and different people will react differently to it but there's still really only two answers: bring down the boot or let it go.Well...that was more long-winded that I expected....</blockquote>

Verification