Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8338254" data-attributes="member: 16814">Are you confusing &quot;is a member of the social contract and has an adult say&quot; with &quot;is the supervisor of the social construct?&quot;&nbsp; Because I've also seen players hailed as social and team leaders and discussions of strong team concepts where everyone is equally on board with managing the social aspects of the team.&nbsp; &quot;Coach&quot; isn't &quot;social supervisor.&quot;Then I am truly sorry that you haven't yet gamed with adult people capable of managing their own social interactions without supervision.Oh, I don't disagree this has happened a lot, or isn't common, my point is that it's toxic to the culture of gaming.&nbsp; You make this claim but don't see that such infantilization of players in favor of aggrandizing GMs as supervisors of the social contracts is one of the things that's received such negative attention in the hobby.&nbsp; That so many recent positive improvements have been to let people know that they can, indeed, speak up and the GM won't just slap them down and kick them out for bucking their rule.&nbsp; That assuming that it's the incapability of people that requires their supervision by someone that isn't at all vetted for the job (seriously, what qualifications are necessary to be a GM and, according to you, de facto supervisor of the social contract?) is part of the continuing problem.&nbsp; I have little faith in people in general.&nbsp; As such, I definitely don't have faith in a structure that makes the assumption that because you can run a good game that you're automatically qualified to be a social mediator and supervisor for other adults.&nbsp; That this is the norm, and expected, is, to me, betting blindly and hoping things work out.&nbsp; A system where people are responsible for themselves, and share responsibility for group things, is, to me, a far better foundation for flawed people to gain better outcomes than blindly hoping Bob the GM isn't an naughty word.I mean, let's be honest here.&nbsp; I'm advocating for treating people like adults and not privileging someone into a position of authority just because of their role in a game.&nbsp; You're arguing that people must be supervised by such a person -- someone that has shown a modicum of ability in playing a role in a game -- and that this is a better outcome because people cannot be trusted to act like adults and might not stand up to someone else.&nbsp; Okay, then, I'm pretty okay with my position in this argument.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8338254, member: 16814"] Are you confusing "is a member of the social contract and has an adult say" with "is the supervisor of the social construct?" Because I've also seen players hailed as social and team leaders and discussions of strong team concepts where everyone is equally on board with managing the social aspects of the team. "Coach" isn't "social supervisor." Then I am truly sorry that you haven't yet gamed with adult people capable of managing their own social interactions without supervision. Oh, I don't disagree this has happened a lot, or isn't common, my point is that it's toxic to the culture of gaming. You make this claim but don't see that such infantilization of players in favor of aggrandizing GMs as supervisors of the social contracts is one of the things that's received such negative attention in the hobby. That so many recent positive improvements have been to let people know that they can, indeed, speak up and the GM won't just slap them down and kick them out for bucking their rule. That assuming that it's the incapability of people that requires their supervision by someone that isn't at all vetted for the job (seriously, what qualifications are necessary to be a GM and, according to you, de facto supervisor of the social contract?) is part of the continuing problem. I have little faith in people in general. As such, I definitely don't have faith in a structure that makes the assumption that because you can run a good game that you're automatically qualified to be a social mediator and supervisor for other adults. That this is the norm, and expected, is, to me, betting blindly and hoping things work out. A system where people are responsible for themselves, and share responsibility for group things, is, to me, a far better foundation for flawed people to gain better outcomes than blindly hoping Bob the GM isn't an naughty word. I mean, let's be honest here. I'm advocating for treating people like adults and not privileging someone into a position of authority just because of their role in a game. You're arguing that people must be supervised by such a person -- someone that has shown a modicum of ability in playing a role in a game -- and that this is a better outcome because people cannot be trusted to act like adults and might not stand up to someone else. Okay, then, I'm pretty okay with my position in this argument. [/QUOTE]

Verification