On Aug 7, 2007, at 11:54 AM, David Artman wrote:
Finally, Marnen, you have begged the question with these two
(I'll disregard the pointless rhetoric, other than to make this
about disregarding its pointlessness):
As long as they're not causing a disturbance, let them say their
piece. Throwing them out would not be "supportive of gaming"; it
would just be unsupportive of customers.
They DID "cause a disturbance" in my example: I felt it could be
assumed that they made the gamers feel uncomfortable with their
no different from some guys coming into my bar and making sexist
comments about my staff or other lady customers within earshot. Gone.
Out of here. Come back when you grow up or not at all.
OK, if the comments were that inflammatory, then I totally agree with
you. I guess I wasn't quite clear that that's what you meant.
Ridiculous. You are proposing something that would end up as a
closed society. I don't see why we need to shut non-gamers out -- at
least, not until they prove themselves *unworthy*.
Uh... my efforts to unify a society that has fractured into enclaves
because of [insert reason they don't just go to their local pub/store
today] is *closing it*?!? Huh?
If you don't allow non-gamers in without them proving their worth,
then yes, it is closing it. However, I now think that I may have
misunderstood you here. See below.
You totally miss the point, and you
engage in hyperbole to try to patch the fact that you seem to realize
that you've missed the point:
Based on my understanding, I don't think what I wrote was hyperbole.
I never said one word about "shutting out"
non-gamers; I merely was saying that people who wander in looking lost
have the burden on them to be respectful of gaming and my regular
Of course. But that goes without saying, doesn't it?
Just like folks wandering in looking lost at the
local Panthers or Duke bar had BETTER not be dumb enough to disparage
the Panthers or the Blue Devils.
But by the same token, they don't have to prove they're Panther fans;
they just have to not behave stupidly. My point stands, unless not
behaving stupidly is what you meant by "proving their worth".
Beside, many folks might come into such a Gamer Bar and never even
really notice that there's gamers present. Indie RPGs in particular
look like little more than some kind of brainstorming business meeting
with folks taking notes. And a partitioning arrangement along with
dampening can reinforce that even more (and resolve YOUR ridiculous
argument that "all that noise is BAD for games"--have you ever BEEN
major gaming convention?!?).
I've been to some fairly large cons, although nothing as big as
DragonCon or Origins. I *hate* playing in noisy environments and
avoid it where possible. Fortunately, well-run conventions make it
What is germane to your attempted refutation, however, is the fact
even now, this very day, folks do all sorts of things at bars that
others mock and marginalize, BUT there's not the aggressive rejection
that (I at least) have found at many ages, like there is for gaming.
Interesting. I have never seen this aggressive rejection.
Some folks think watching sports rather than playing them totally
stupid... but they don't expect to be able to go into a sports bar and
roundly insult the patrons! Some folks think bar games like darts and
pool are utterly uninteresting... but they don't go into a pool
tell the players they are engaging in a very low social value, utterly
gamist, inflexible pastime.
Yet I am supposed to accept your argument that you'd NOT want to be a
patron if I stood up for your right to game at my bar without being
insulted to your face?!?
No. I misunderstood your example, as I mentioned above. Put this
way, I agree with you. But would you really expect that sort of
thing to happen in the first place?
(As for "the restaurant will become a nightmare with unsupervised
children"--Look up "straw man argument" on wikipedia.)
I'm well aware of what a straw-man argument is; I don't need your
condescension on that point. But how exactly is my unsupervised-
children argument a straw man?