Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7382461" data-attributes="member: 4937">That sounds insane to me.  If a table contract looks like that, it's quickly going to resemble a multipage legal consent form.  People laugh (usually good naturedly) at my lengthy house rules, but if I'm up front with a social contract that goes into details like that, I'd fully expect the players to be justified in walking away slowly and then fleeing as soon as they got around the corner.That we are all crazy to one extent or another is not news to me.  But I still insist that with most people, my need to know about there problems and there need to disclose them is minimal, and that I can enjoy a warm friendship with them for years before they would ever need to or want to disclose their struggles to me.  In the case of friendship that mostly involves meeting to game, I'd expect that length of time to be indefinite.On the contrary, I take it for granted that everyone probably has had some sort of trauma in their past and some sort of problems.  It's precisely because of that that if it ever occurred at my table that someone lost control, that I'd consider it on them and not me.I have two response to that.  First, since we all have trauma, we all need the same allowances that I'm extending in the first place.  Secondly, even if you need special allowances, it's not at all clear that we get better results when we offer reasonable accommodations nor is it at all clear what reasonable accommodations mean.  It's pretty easy to show for example that for a give level of accommodation, depending on size of the facility, or the number of parking spaces, there is a minimum below which any accommodation is not actually reasonable.   A facility with 4 or 5 parking places if it accommodates one as handicapped parking in fact disaccomodates more people that it ever helps.  Moreover, it's also notable that the good intentioned handicapped parking laws are abused far more often that they are actually observed with the original intent.  It requires very little critical observation to note that a great many people acquire handicapped tags as a convenience rather than a necessity, because they can enjoy that accommodation as a privilege.  They are quite capable of walking the extra 100 feet on their own if they are required to.  They don't actually have the severe handicaps that those spaces were intended to accommodate.  And ironically, this selfish behavior might actually be good for society on some level, since it returns the parking lot to Parato efficiency most of the time, since the level of accommodation normally vastly exceeds the need for it.  However, I question whether the people enjoying accommodation as a privilege are actually helping themselves rather than harming themselves.</blockquote>

Verification