Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072337The several threads and videos trying to declare that people who watch the CR-like live-play videos are not gamers. Given that no one has any enforcement powers, arguing that someone else is not part of the hobby is the activity most worthy of the term gatekeeping that I can think of. Mind you, I agree on a linguistic level that using the term gamer to those that don't personally play is a poor choice of wording. But I don't try to pretend that it isn't an attempt at gatekeeping.

People who play games are gamers.

People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.

This isn't rocket science.  Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?

Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby.  They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.

As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong.  Dead wrong.  Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out.  If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play.  Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.

Quote from: kythri;1072341People who play games are gamers.

People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.

This isn't rocket science.  Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?

Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby.  They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.

As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong.  Dead wrong.  Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out.  If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play.  Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.

As I remember it, the initial assertion that Pundit took issue with was that the people who were only watching Critical Role was said to be part of the gaming community. I don't think anybody called them "gamers", which seems to be a strawman.

And one part were I think Pundit is at least close to gatekeeping is when he says "you've never really played #DnD right if you haven't had at least one really long campaign. Like at least 500 total hours of #Roleplaying" and that each session needs to be at least 6 hours long.

"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.

Quote from: S'mon;1072349"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.

Agreed, but it also depends on how you follow it up. "You are doing it wrong" can easily lead to "so you are not a real gamer, and thus not part of the community".
And there are different types of gatekeeping. It is not only to keep the gate firmly shut, but also to set up such a high bar for entry so that in effect the gate is shut.

Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.

Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.

Quote from: kythri;1072357Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.

Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.

You're clearly invested in this, and cannot be objective.  There for, I'm out.

Yeah, I'm the one who's not objective here.

I'm sorry you can't articulate how Pundit has his hand on the gate, or is even near the gate.

Quote from: kythri;1072368Yeah, I'm the one who's not objective here.

I'm sorry you can't articulate how Pundit has his hand on the gate, or is even near the gate.

Look, you HAVE TO let anyone in your club who wants to be in, even if they don't follow any of the rules, or you're just a bigot. But they can have their own private clubs and exclude you for "problematic" reasons, like the wrong skin color or sex. Wrong here being whatever they're not. Unless you're a self-loathing hypocrite, then you can sort of hang out. Want to run AD&D by the book? It's gatekeeping if you won't allow tieflings! Or require rudimentary math skills to add up damage dice!

Yeah nice strawman I'm pretty certain no one here. Or outside of here with a functioning brain cell would accuse anyone of gatekeeping because they want to run an rpg by the book or allow Tieflings. Sure to those used to getting their way one might be accused of being unfair. Which is bullshit imo.

I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.

With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.

Quote from: sureshot;1072377Yeah nice strawman I'm pretty certain no one here. Or outside of here with a functioning brain cell would accuse anyone of gatekeeping because they want to run an rpg by the book or allow Tieflings. Sure to those used to getting their way one might be accused of being unfair. Which is bullshit imo.

I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.

With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.

This is the goddamn Internet, sir. Hyperbolic strawmen and ad hominem are the only way to post.

LOL

Very true.

Quote from: kythri;1072341People who play games are gamers.

People who watch people play games, but don't play themselves, are, by definition, not gamers.

This isn't rocket science.  Why take offense at a non-gamer being called a non-gamer?

Additionally, by definition, someone who isn't participating in the hobby (i.e. playing the games) isn't a member of the hobby.  They may very well be a member of the fandom, but they're not a member of the hobby.

These are arguments on why the gatekeeping is justified. Right after this you call the charge of gatekeeping spurious. Why justify it if it isn't gatekeeping in the first place.

Quote from: kythri;1072341As for the spurious charge of gatekeeping yet again, you're just wrong.  Dead wrong.  Gatekeeping, as S'mon just pointed out, is an attempt to keep people out.  If you'd actually watch/listen to Pundit's video, he's blatantly asking these people to join the game and play.  Pretty much the fucking opposite of gatekeeping, chief.

If you're saying you don't belong, that is gatekeeping. Manning the gate and saying, 'but you can come on in if you want' does not change this.

Quote from: kythri;1072357Gatekeeping is a bullshit accusation, because you can't actually be a gatekeeper unless you have some actual ability/authority to close the gate on people.

Any accusation against someone who lacks that ability/authority is, by definition, a false accusation.

Okay, here we have a definitional distinction. If we're simply arguing over best term, we can do that, and I will even concede to a different term if we can agree upon one which everyone can agree upon. If having the actual authority to keep someone out is a requirement to gatekeeping, than obviously no, Pundey isn't doing that, since he can't. However, I feel like we've used the term before with other people who have declared people not part of the community/not welcome, but who also obviously can't force people out. Every time a publisher declares that they really don't need the money of people who do not share their opinions on the culture war, we are more than happy to call that gatekeeping, even though they can't actually force people not to. If don't see the distinction between the two action. But if we want to find another word, other than gatekeeping, that is fine. As long as we are consistent between our allies and enemies when they do the same action.

Quote from: S'mon;1072349"You are doing it wrong" is not gatekeeping.
'"You are not part of the community" is gatekeeping - it may also be true.

And there it is in a nutshell. I'm not particularly thrilled with the Mercers of the world, or what these online pseudoplays are doing to peoples' expectations (although I also am not especially convinced that there are vast hordes of new gamers going around demanding that DMs play like what they see Mercer do, certainly past the point of a DM chiding them with 'reality doesn't work like your favorite show, deal with it'), but declaring them outside of the community is gatekeeping (or whatever term we land on)(and yes, even if true).

Regardless, the gatekeeping bit was only supposed to be one thing amongst the many that I think people are grating under. See also:

Quote from: sureshot;1072377I will concede he is not gatekeeping. He sure as hell is imo engaging in absolute onetruwayism. If it's not being done exactly how he does it's playing the game wrong.

With trying too stir up a fake controversy of their being a horde of unruly narrative rpg playing barbarians just waiting to knock down the walls and destroy their hobby. Sure are their some who think that way absolutely. In large amounts hardly and it's nothing put Pundit trying to push an end of days style narrative.

And these are others. The onetruewayism, the Chicken Little-ism, and yeah the self-induced controversy. Again, it's his deal and he's a big boy, if this is what he wants to do, rock out. I feel it is making him look like more kook-ish than valiant voice of truth, or however one might want to phrase it.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421These are arguments on why the gatekeeping is justified. Right after this you call the charge of gatekeeping spurious. Why justify it if it isn't gatekeeping in the first place.

I'm not justifying gatekeeping, because I don't believe it exists in this case.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421If you're saying you don't belong, that is gatekeeping. Manning the gate and saying, 'but you can come on in if you want' does not change this.

Pundit (and others), if they are even saying such, are saying "you don't belong" not in the context of "you're unwelcome" but in the context of "You don't do X, which doing X is literally the definition of this term".  If you don't drive, you're not a driver.  If you don't own a pet, you're not a pet owner.  You might be a fan of driving, or a fan of pet owning, but unless you actually do those things, you're not one of those things.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1072421Okay, here we have a definitional distinction. If we're simply arguing over best term, we can do that, and I will even concede to a different term if we can agree upon one which everyone can agree upon. If having the actual authority to keep someone out is a requirement to gatekeeping, than obviously no, Pundey isn't doing that, since he can't. However, I feel like we've used the term before with other people who have declared people not part of the community/not welcome, but who also obviously can't force people out. Every time a publisher declares that they really don't need the money of people who do not share their opinions on the culture war, we are more than happy to call that gatekeeping, even though they can't actually force people not to. If don't see the distinction between the two action. But if we want to find another word, other than gatekeeping, that is fine. As long as we are consistent between our allies and enemies when they do the same action.

We've used the term, because it was co-opted by people who want to push a particular agenda.  If we make it sound bad (as an example, we make it sound like someone is trying to keep other people out of the hobby), then we can demonize them for that, which is exactly what is happening here.

I really don't understand how this isn't clear.  This nonsense idea of gatekeeping is based around the concept that gatekeepers want to keep people out.  When an accused gatekeeper explicitly states "Please, join me/us!  You are welcome here!  Come do what I/we do!" how in the hell can that be considered gatekeeping?

Saying that someone who doesn't play games isn't a gamer isn't gatekeeping, it's merely a statement of fact - and, to the overall point, those people (non-gamers) are not who the gaming hobby should be listening to when looking for feedback or direction.

Quote from: kythri;1072456Saying that someone who doesn't play games isn't a gamer isn't gatekeeping, it's merely a statement of fact - and, to the overall point, those people (non-gamers) are not who the gaming hobby should be listening to when looking for feedback or direction.

But this becomes problematic when Pundit also argues that if you are not gaming for at least six hours at a time you are doing it wrong. Is then the conclusion that you should not be listened to either? That only the few who fulfills Pundits narrow definition of a "real" gamer should be allowed to have any influence on the future of the hobby?

And I have still not seen anybody argue that those who only watches people play should be called "gamers". It has been argued that they should be included in the bigger "DnD community", but that is a different thing.

Quote from: RoyR;1072461And I have still not seen anybody argue that those who only watches people play should be called "gamers". It has been argued that they should be included in the bigger "DnD community", but that is a different thing.

The problem (as trivial as it is) with that is that "D&D Community" is a weasel term meant to imply more than that, but providing the cover of "not saying they are really gamers" when called on it.  They are supposed to be Schrodinger Gamers--gamers by default until you look at them, and then go back again as soon as you stop looking at them.

It's that old story again about the chicken telling the pig, "Let's you and me team up and start a restaurant, serving breakfast."  The pig says, "Ham and eggs sounds like a plan to you.  You've got an interest, but I've got skin in the game."

Except in this case, the "game watchers" aren't even chickens.  They are merely someone that wandered in the kitchen while the food was getting cooked.  They aren't even customers. They are part of the "breakfast community" only in the most obtuse, theoretical extent in one sense.  Granted, they are "potential customers" too, which is the only worthwhile sense in which they are worth discussing from a gaming perspective.