Quote from: jhkim;1106846That said, I really don't think that gamers advocating the X-card are secretly trying to overthrow society to become a Communist/Globalist State. That seems like a far more ridiculous accusation than the opposing claims.

They seem to have given up on economic Communism. They still want a Globalist world-State.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1106981OK, well if you have to use one, then the open door bit is little more than acknowledging that the players are not prisoners at the table. If they need to get up and leave the GM needs to be OK with that. Has this ever not been the case?

I guess Open Door could be abused if the player keeps leaving & returning, disrupting GM's ability to run game. It certainly seems like the Safest policy, though.

Quote from: SHARK;1106871Greetings!

You want "Nuance?" Fuck nuance.

God bless the Marines.  Shark is my new spirit animal.  

Quote from: SHARK;1106871Jhkim is far too educated and well-read to deny the force and implication of such facts. Jhkim, I think you are being purposely contrarian towards me. You know or you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

Honestly, I think Jhkim is just like that.  I don't know what he does for a living (something science-y?), but in tech land (where I pay my bills) this need for rhetorical precision is a "thing" for some people; to the point that they seem to entirely miss the "gist" of what someone is trying to say and get bogged down in arguing the details.  It's frustrating sometimes and I don't know how to solve it, but I THINK jhkim is trying to argue in good faith.

Quote from: S'mon;1106990I guess Open Door could be abused if the player keeps leaving & returning, disrupting GM's ability to run game. It certainly seems like the Safest policy, though.

There will always be people that abuse anything, but consider how disruptive such a player might be if they don't excuse themselves from the table before making/taking calls or shitting out that greasy meal they had before the game. Overall, open door seems reasonable when dealing with reasonable people. Another plus might be that the players that want other safety options so they can abuse them might just pass over your game if the only one you're using is open door. I think that would be a win.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1106981OK, well if you have to use one, then the open door bit is little more than acknowledging that the players are not prisoners at the table. If they need to get up and leave the GM needs to be OK with that. Has this ever not been the case?

So, if we have always had the right to get up and fuck off, why does a convention need to include several "safety tools" and make it mandatory to choose one?

It's the slow boil, you can't boil a frog alive unless you rise the water temperature little by little over a long period of time. The next step is to either make 2 "safety tools" mandatory or to remove the Open Door one, because nazis.

Mark my words in a short while (2 years tops) you'll see conventions forcing GMs to use the X-Card or some other snowflake "safety tool" if they wish to use the Open Door one, some will even remove the OD altogether.

It's about changing the culture of the hobby and kicking out those who refuse to bend the knee to their cult's dogma.

I'll say it again, we need the most dangerous convention to be a thing. A convention made anti-fragile against entryism by the cultists. Probably more than one, small affairs nothing too big.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107046It's the slow boil, you can't boil a frog alive unless you rise the water temperature little by little over a long period of time.

You could if the pot had a locking lid so the frog couldn't jump out. Perhaps that's why open door is important.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1107047You could if the pot had a locking lid so the frog couldn't jump out. Perhaps that's why open door is important.

Why would you quote mine that specific part? You said:

QuoteOriginally Posted by HappyDaze View Post
OK, well if you have to use one, then the open door bit is little more than acknowledging that the players are not prisoners at the table. If they need to get up and leave the GM needs to be OK with that. Has this ever not been the case?

To which I replied:

QuoteSo, if we have always had the right to get up and fuck off, why does a convention need to include several "safety tools" and make it mandatory to choose one?

It's the slow boil, you can't boil a frog alive unless you rise the water temperature little by little over a long period of time. The next step is to either make 2 "safety tools" mandatory or to remove the Open Door one, because nazis.

Mark my words in a short while (2 years tops) you'll see conventions forcing GMs to use the X-Card or some other snowflake "safety tool" if they wish to use the Open Door one, some will even remove the OD altogether.

It's about changing the culture of the hobby and kicking out those who refuse to bend the knee to their cult's dogma.

I'll say it again, we need the most dangerous convention to be a thing. A convention made anti-fragile against entryism by the cultists. Probably more than one, small affairs nothing too big.

Funny how context matters eh?

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107051Funny how context matters eh?

Perhaps because it doesn't really matter all that much to me. I simply don't take these things as seriously as you would demand, and I'm not sorry about it. My life doesn't need more pointless outrage, but if yours does, then by all means keep tilting at windmills.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1107066Perhaps because it doesn't really matter all that much to me. I simply don't take these things as seriously as you would demand, and I'm not sorry about it. My life doesn't need more pointless outrage, but if yours does, then by all means keep tilting at windmills.

Nice to know you're happy quote mining to win an argument. how very honest of you.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1107070Nice to know you're happy quote mining to win an argument. how very honest of you.

There was no argument, and there was no winner. That's the honest truth of it.

To Trinculo -

Quote from: Trinculoisdead;1106966Has anyone ever used a safety item thing in a game you were in? I just can't imagine it ever coming up, but then I'm used to playing at friends' houses in a relaxed situation. This convention will be a little different I imagine.

Actually, I haven't seen an official "safety tool" used in a convention game I'm in, despite playing in two dozen or more games that used them. The one time I've seen one used was actually in a home game run by a friend, but that was pretty perfunctory. A player was in a mood of sorts, and she was talking about hitting some enemies in the genitals in explicit terms, and the GM touched the X-card and said to step it back. It seemed reasonable to me to ask the player to tone it down -- but it also was something that would be easy to do without the card.

The principle is supposedly that it is psychologically easier to bring up issues if the card is there, and thus some players feel reassured by it.

In my wider convention experience, I have seen players get angry and have an issue with the game they're in. They're extremely rare, though, and I just haven't happened to have seen it in games with safety tools. That could easily be coincidence, but at least they don't seem more common. So it doesn't seem like a big issue either way.

To Brendan -

Quote from: SHARKJhkim is far too educated and well-read to deny the force and implication of such facts. Jhkim, I think you are being purposely contrarian towards me. You know or you should know exactly what I'm talking about.

Quote from: Brendan;1107042Honestly, I think Jhkim is just like that.  I don't know what he does for a living (something science-y?), but in tech land (where I pay my bills) this need for rhetorical precision is a "thing" for some people; to the point that they seem to entirely miss the "gist" of what someone is trying to say and get bogged down in arguing the details.  It's frustrating sometimes and I don't know how to solve it, but I THINK jhkim is trying to argue in good faith.

Maybe I have some internal contrarian bias, but this isn't just a nitpick. I'm genuinely against the spirit of SHARK's overall point. I thought the talk about agitators working towards communist overthrow is fucked up, just as much as leftist complaints about Trump working with white supremacists towards a new rise of fascism. I consider it paranoid partisan bullshit, which I'm opposed to not just because I'm on the liberal side, but would be opposing even if I was on that side.

Quote from: Brendan;1106786First, there is no problem with "consent" in gaming.  Gaming is an inherently consenting activity.  No one is kidnapping anyone and forcing them to roll dice against their will.  No one is keeping anyone at a table if they decide they're not having fun.  This is a fake, bullshit, made-up problem.

(To Darrin Kelley)

Quote from: Brendan;1106786I'm sure you mean well. I'm sure most of the people who are "concerned" about this and just want to be "nice people" and "allies" or whatever mean well, but you being "useful idiots".

This is an explicitly political agenda.  It's about control.  It's partially about control of the game itself, but more than that its about control of GAMING.  More than a language control mechanism, it's a sorting mechanism. Like the Party's "2+2=5" from 1984, adherence to the "consent doctrine" - that RPGs are unsafe spaces full of evil bad-think guys and poor victims that need protection, signals that you are on the "good side", either as a partisan or at least as a bystander. If, on the other hand, you reject it or horror of horrors, actively resist, this means you are one of the "bad people" and should be UN-personed.

I'm in agreement about the first part. Where I disagree is about dismissing what people actually think because they're "useful idiots" - and that what matters is the subversive agenda that is supposedly behind them.

I think people should be judged on what they say, rather than on "dog whistle" claims that when they say X they really mean Y, so judge them on Y.

I can believe there are some people with an explicit political agenda who are encouraging RPG safety tools as a strategy for control. But regardless of their existence, that doesn't mean it's OK to dismiss what someone actually says. There is an objective reality outside of what radical partisans think. If someone thinks that the conversation over safety tool topics is important, then opposition should show that it is not important - not just say "Well, communists think it's important."

Quote from: jhkim;1107115To Brendan -

I can believe there are some people with an explicit political agenda who are encouraging RPG safety tools as a strategy for control. But regardless of their existence, that doesn't mean it's OK to dismiss what someone actually says.

Actually it is.  That's my point.  The right attitude here is dismissal.  It's a bullshit solution to a made up problem and I don't have to take it seriously, because it isn't serious.  The only reason it exists is for control.  

"Useful idiots" by definition don't think they're being used.  That's what makes them "useful" to the movement that spawned them.  I'm sure that burns, but we can all be played. We're human.  I've been played before.  It sucks.  I can be sympathetic to this without buying into the narrative that is using them.

We might not see eye to eye here, but think about it this way.  Let's say someone tells you that you need to give them your car because of the impending Martian invasion.  Do you:

A) Hand over your car keys.

B) Seriously consider the merits of their argument and whether or not you should hand over your car keys.

C) Decline, perhaps politely at first but firmly if necessary, and walk away.

Obviously you choose C.  You don't seriously entertain B, because the frame around the issue is delusional.  

This is how we feel about the consent check-list, X-card, nonsense.  You may see it differently, but perhaps you can understand why we don't feel obligated to choose option B.

Quote from: Brendan;1107120We might not see eye to eye here, but think about it this way.  Let's say someone tells you that you need to give them your car because of the impending Martian invasion.  Do you:

A) Hand over your car keys.

B) Seriously consider the merits of their argument and whether or not you should hand over your car keys.

C) Decline, perhaps politely at first but firmly if necessary, and walk away.

Obviously you choose C.  You don't seriously entertain B, because the frame around the issue is delusional.

This is how we feel about the consent check-list, X-card, nonsense.  You may see it differently, but perhaps you can understand why we don't feel obligated to choose option B.

Actually, the case I'm going on here is:

Someone tells me that I need to stop playing RPG convention games like I do at Big Bad Con because it's helping communists overthrow the government.

On the face of it, I think that this is idiotic, but I'm trying to discuss it rationally. These are fucking games. Even if I disagree with someone about how they should be played, I think associating them with communist overthrow of the government is absurd.

Quote from: jhkim;1107128Actually, the case I'm going on here is:

Someone tells me that I need to stop playing RPG convention games like I do at Big Bad Con because it's helping communists overthrow the government.

On the face of it, I think that this is idiotic, but I'm trying to discuss it rationally. These are fucking games. Even if I disagree with someone about how they should be played, I think associating them with communist overthrow of the government is absurd.

Who told YOU that you needed to stop playing convention games? Citation needed.