Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Show Stuff => Show Talk => : Meg January 09, 2009, 11:54:37 AM
-
We've planned this episode but haven't recorded it yet but feel it's an important one. The biggest struggle is how to not sound like complete asses with it.
Suggestions on how to not kick someone out?
-
I think you've touched on this in previous episodes, but the most important thing is to find out what the problem person is looking for out of the game.
That means using non-confrontational techniques, preferably one on one, to ask them questions about what they want from the game and what they can live with. Don't tell them they're messing up, tell them it seems like they're either not enjoying the game or they aren't having fun, then ask them what kind of game they're looking for. You can go from there.
Of course, if they are actually an actively agressively destructive player (sabotage the game on purpose for their own amusement), then you have to call them out on it. I think if you are honest with them about the problem, try to work with them, and they continue to cause problems because they're actually a jerk, then you have one of the few times when kicking someone out is OK. It's not likely to happen with friends, but if you run a game for people out of a store it can happen.
-
I've had to kick many people out. Apparently my "friends" enjoy ruining everyones fun. I need new friends.
-
…
-
Alternative: "I don't want to play with you" doesn't mean "kick someone out." It can mean you leave, it can mean you play a different game, and so on. I think as a culture, we have this notion that there is a single group of people, you signed up with them at one point, and you're stuck with them until the day you die.
I'd prefer the discussion to be "how do you deal with people who you think you don't want to game with" or something less verbose. Put all the options for coping with situations like this on the table.
-
Alternative: "I don't want to play with you" doesn't mean "kick someone out." It can mean you leave, it can mean you play a different game, and so on. I think as a culture, we have this notion that there is a single group of people, you signed up with them at one point, and you're stuck with them until the day you die.
I'd prefer the discussion to be "how do you deal with people who you think you don't want to game with" or something less verbose. Put all the options for coping with situations like this on the table.
Some excellent points here. There's some introspection involved in there - you have to figure out first if the problem is the other person, or it's just that you don't enjoy playing with the group you're in.
Unfortunately, for a lot of people they only HAVE one gaming group, so they're are stuck with them if they want to keep gaming, or at least that's their perception. This topic dovetails really nicely into one of "How do you find other people to game with, particularly people who you will WANT to game with?"
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Or are people who more likely to hang out with player x at the table and not player z ? For a long time I have gamed with people I considered friends and I simply did not game or feel comfortable gaming with strangers. And the consensus was the same for some around the table but not others. And clearly for me over the years there were players I fell out of touch with because they just showed up to game and they weren't there to become an active or inactive friend in my life. People who want to do that will have an interest by way of their actions to make themselves proactive friends outside of the table.
Now how that translates to kicking people out of the game well this is a seed for that larger issue. If you aren't friends and don't enjoy the company of the person in question in or out of the game then a decision like that becomes rapid fire. But I have also seen due to alliances that kicking a person out of a game by GM dictates or be it that the host was offended or what have you can promote bad blood and fracture a group like a rotted bone. All too easily it snaps under the slightest pressures. Why ? Because resentment was there from kicking the person out it left a bad taste in the players ' mouths who didn't speak about it or were passive about it. Or the person is associated with x amount of players at the table and kicking him out means he takes his boys with him effectively crippling the group size.
This brings me to consequences..do the consequences of kicking the person out outweigh the rewards and benefits. Because at the end of the day its a game that people come to enjoy and have fun at playing and participating in the creation of the shared event. Kicking someone out might end all of that and be more trouble that its worth.
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Actually no. People you "hobby" with are friends and should be treated as such.
Calling people "acquaintances" is distancing talk so you feel better about treating them badly. Acquaintances are people you are forced to be around, members of the PTA, the people in your bus group or the guy who gets his coffee at the same time you do. If you have a book club, those people are your friends.
The difference is if they are interchangeable. I don't care who else is in the PTA. The other people could change every meeting, it would not matter. People you invite into your home and you play games with are by definition your friends. They may be terrible friends, but they are still friends. If a friend steals from you or wrecks your house you will kick them out whether you game with them or not. And by the same token only a dick kicks a guy out of his house because he does not like the way he plays a dwarf.
-
What if you try to talk out the problem... only for them to scream and holler and carry on and claim you're the only one being unreasonable for not handholding them through any story parts of a game and how dare you not make the whole world revolve around them instead of expecting their detective character, which they chose that angle for, to search for clues or employ basic logic such as "there is no reason for robbers to rob a vault they just emptied, and terror and mayhem are more easily spread by hitting targets whose security hasn't been heightened in response to the robbery they just committed than by hitting the same target twice" or just plain be proactive in any way whatsoever?
*deep breath*
Yeah, I've had someone like that. Sometimes there really is such a thing as a lost cause. -- Pteryx
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Actually no. People you "hobby" with are friends and should be treated as such.
No. I don't know where you game, but in my world you game with your GM's friends. This does not make them your friends. I've gamed with people I've never met with before and after several sessions wouldn't feel bad if they ignored me on the streets.
I game with people who share my hobby because my friends are unavailable. Yes its tough, but the hobby is filled with enough social dysfunctionals that your not to keen to invite everyone home and hang out with.
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Actually no. People you "hobby" with are friends and should be treated as such.
No. I don't know where you game, but in my world you game with your GM's friends. This does not make them your friends. I've gamed with people I've never met with before and after several sessions wouldn't feel bad if they ignored me on the streets.
I game with people who share my hobby because my friends are unavailable. Yes its tough, but the hobby is filled with enough social dysfunctionals that your not to keen to invite everyone home and hang out with.
The people you game with, the term you call them is "friends."
And, kicking people out is a GM centric concept. If you are a player you don't have the power to kick people out. And You may not be interested in the game, but the game is accepted as a whole or not. You don't get to half choose to be in a game.
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Actually no. People you "hobby" with are friends and should be treated as such.
No. I don't know where you game, but in my world you game with your GM's friends. This does not make them your friends. I've gamed with people I've never met with before and after several sessions wouldn't feel bad if they ignored me on the streets.
I game with people who share my hobby because my friends are unavailable. Yes its tough, but the hobby is filled with enough social dysfunctionals that your not to keen to invite everyone home and hang out with.
The people you game with, the term you call them is "friends."
And, kicking people out is a GM centric concept. If you are a player you don't have the power to kick people out. And You may not be interested in the game, but the game is accepted as a whole or not. You don't get to half choose to be in a game.
No thats your definition Josh, not mine. Don't force your crypto-fascist friendship-ism on me :P But seriously, they are people I share my hobby with, I treat them as fellow hobbyists. I've come to find many friends in that group, but that grows out of trust, respect, like and time; not being present while theres a game running.
And I'm often the GM. I've not renewed my invitation to game to certain individuals once a 'season' is over. Being a friend of a friend, or random person who's desperate to D&D gets you that much. After that its a measure of the 'fun' qoutient you bring. Harsh but fair, I've left games that my presence made less fun.
Since that will be targeted, examples: bringing a LG character to a supposedly neutral party and realising that the players were basically interested in an evil party despite the GM's plans. Looked at that group, and decided since evil wasn't my mood at the time, I'll just drop out. A more complex example, some ppl I know, and some I don't, everytime I was there my play style was too serious for the group - I chased after wounded monsters, anticipated villains and followed clues; played smart basically - I found out later that that group had less fun. S'cool, I drop out.
Mutual enjoyment is the goal of a game, but I've lost count of the amount of times we had to nurse ego's and hurt feelings. I'll do that for a friend, not some person I have no emotional investment in other than as a fellow human being,
-
"other than as a fellow human being" should be enough.
-
I've honestly gamed with people I could barely stand to be around. To call them my friend is horrible disservice to the word.
-
I've gamed with people on a weekly basis I outright hated.
-
An analysis of the distribution of players is needed. Who among the group of players around the table can be considered friends ? And who are just acquaintances only brought together by the shared hobby alone and nothing else ? What the issues of contention likely to cause the kicking out ?
Actually no. People you "hobby" with are friends and should be treated as such.
Calling people "acquaintances" is distancing talk so you feel better about treating them badly. Acquaintances are people you are forced to be around, members of the PTA, the people in your bus group or the guy who gets his coffee at the same time you do. If you have a book club, those people are your friends.
The difference is if they are interchangeable. I don't care who else is in the PTA. The other people could change every meeting, it would not matter. People you invite into your home and you play games with are by definition your friends. They may be terrible friends, but they are still friends. If a friend steals from you or wrecks your house you will kick them out whether you game with them or not. And by the same token only a dick kicks a guy out of his house because he does not like the way he plays a dwarf.
Exactly how I feel about that only a dick would kick friends out because he didn't play a character correctly and hence that's why my group broke up because I told a dick GM who did stuff like that to more than one person in my group (and he treated them like shit) repeatedly to go fuck himself and I left and so did everybody else and now we no longer game because of life, family( my new son and girlfriend deluxe package) and schedules and out of the rest of them I am the only one with a computer so no skype can be done. So except for the latest convention I will be attending and running a game the sad reality is that my gaming days are really behind me unfortunately.
But yes I have gamed with people that were total ass bags my former GM in that description who cursed people out and acted like a tyrant at the table or a player I that gamed that tried to put moves on in the attempt sleep with two of the other guys wives that he called his friends) that I would never hang out with in other events. Or the guy I played with that got sentenced to Riker's Island for a time.
Some of them in fairness would hang out with me we just operated in different social circles and this was the only one where we intersected. Our common interests were gaming and comics while we gamed but beyond that we could drift apart for months, years and not speak or call one another and then be called to game at a table and those of us that felt up to it would show up.
-
Of course, on the other hand, though I see kicking people out of the game as a viable method of last resort -- and definitely not the kind of thing to recommend for every disagreement you ever see -- I've rarely had to actually kick someone. Instead, people tend to loudly explode and storm out of my life completely if they're that kind of a problem player.
Keeping secrets from me as a GM? Well, apparently it's such a big deal for me to have worked with what I'd been given when what I'd been given looked like creative license that it's worth torpedoing my game over. Expecting me to lead the group down well-lit railroad tracks rather than expecting the detective wholly by player choice to actually seek clues and apply logic, and then not biting when I actually do drop a clue in their laps? Apparently it's so terrible for me to not derail the villains into being Chaotic Stupid for their benefit and for me to say that I feel as though I'm being asked to treat them like idiots that it's more important for them to win an argument than solve the problem. Insisting that being The Lancer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLancer) means being impulsive, not acting as a foil, contrast, and brake on excesses, and not even allowing me to argue the point or he'll quit? ...Yeah. -- Pteryx
-
Let me try a different tact. Calling people things (friend enemy etc) is beside the point. The only reason you say aquaintance is to create an emotional distance so you feel more justified when you are mean to them.
And there are times when you will ask people to leave. BUT the reasons are the same no matter the activity. If one of your scrapbooking friends slaps your wife, you kick them out.
-
Agreed on the latter. On the former, sometimes a acquaintance is a an acquaintance unless you mean you describe them as an acquaintance retroactively to justify kicking them out.
-
I'm wondering where this comes from. Were you guys kicked out of a game? Have you just heard one too many stories of somebody who was? Are you tired of seeing the game being blamed for why somebody's kicked out? What?
Cheers,
Cam
-
Were you guys kicked out of a game?
Pretty much. This came up in the live episode.
-
Let me try a different tact. Calling people things (friend enemy etc) is beside the point. The only reason you say aquaintance is to create an emotional distance so you feel more justified when you are mean to them.
And there are times when you will ask people to leave. BUT the reasons are the same no matter the activity. If one of your scrapbooking friends slaps your wife, you kick them out.
In my case I meant acquaintance from the standpoint of people that did not want to make that transition of being my friend at the table and never wanted to do so or felt the need to do so. The guy that I offer hey want to hang out and answer is no more than once but if I invite others feels hurts that he wasn't included and yet every time I ask the answer is no. The proverbial guy who came with the other guy at the the table for years that established a clique at the table. Or rather mini cliques. They never saw anything wrong with their behavior and saw it even less when they dropped out of games without any notice. Yes people do use the meaning of the word itself as justification to be mean spirited. I am not one of them and so I hope you aren't making an assumption based solely on terminology.
-
More the last two reasons than the first. If you're asking why we are so concerned about it I can provide an answer for my personal reasons. There is a trend among gamers where people who do not fit the "group mind" are kicked out of groups. People defend it ususally by desparaging the style of play of the banished player. It's symptomatic of a lerger problem with the Gameosphere. That is the idea that some styles of play are "bad" while others are "proper". I can see wanting to play in a specific style and why someone playing in an oposing style could be troublesome. However, you can aleays talk to the player or (gasp) try to modifiy your style. Gamin is an intensely social personality driven activity. Try as you might to pretend it doesn't matter and you have no connection to the other people around the table, you do. Whether or not you want to.
-
Let me try a different tact. Calling people things (friend enemy etc) is beside the point. The only reason you say aquaintance is to create an emotional distance so you feel more justified when you are mean to them.
And there are times when you will ask people to leave. BUT the reasons are the same no matter the activity. If one of your scrapbooking friends slaps your wife, you kick them out.
This is what I'm talking about when I say there are reasons to kick people out. I can't see kicking someone out because you don't like the way they role-play, that's pretty ignorant. If, however, they're mean to other players, or abusive of your house, or whatnot then of course you have to deal with that aggressively.
And for the record, I say acquaintance to differentiate between the people who I like and want to spend my free time with (friends) and people I don't really want to spend free time with. There's never any excuse for being mean to people, that's always uncalled for. But I don't consider my co-workers friends, nor the random person who's a friend of a friend who showed up to game last night. That's what the word acquaintance is for. Someone you know, but not very well.
-
I think, however, it's quite reasonable to no longer play with someone because you don't like their gaming style, or your gaming styles don't mesh well.
-
Well, sometimes people you game with are people you are forced to be around due to dynamics and relationships of other members of the group. I've gamed with plenty of folks that I was only around due to my friends wanting/allowing them to be there. Me gaming with someone does not make me their friend though that does not mean I'm going to ignore or be an ass to them.
-
It's symptomatic of a lerger problem with the Gameosphere. That is the idea that some styles of play are "bad" while others are "proper".
I'm sure you could argue convincingly to some people that you have some scientific metric to determine a "good" vs. "bad" play style. I'm not sure I'd buy that any more than I'd buy the scientific metric of a "good" vs. "bad" game, however.
Which is to say, I agree with you that there's not a universal right or wrong here, but it's probably not the problem.
Cheers,
Cam
-
More the last two reasons than the first. If you're asking why we are so concerned about it I can provide an answer for my personal reasons. There is a trend among gamers where people who do not fit the "group mind" are kicked out of groups. People defend it ususally by desparaging the style of play of the banished player. It's symptomatic of a lerger problem with the Gameosphere. That is the idea that some styles of play are "bad" while others are "proper". I can see wanting to play in a specific style and why someone playing in an oposing style could be troublesome. However, you can aleays talk to the player or (gasp) try to modifiy your style. Gamin is an intensely social personality driven activity. Try as you might to pretend it doesn't matter and you have no connection to the other people around the table, you do. Whether or not you want to.
I have a connected mindset to this, which is, because gaming is a social activity, you shouldn't game with people you wouldn't socialise with. When I played magic at an actual gaming store, I would routinely play it with people I wouldn't like to socialise with much, but I could still appreciate them as people. Magic gave us that common ground, a place to stand where our other business didn't matter as much. Engineers sat down with labourers and we all pretended to throw fairies at one another.
Zeke's right in that there's this pervasive superior mindset you'll encounter in gaming, but that's as much the nature of clique-forming social circles as anything else. I think the mindset of 'never kick someone out of your game' is a bit of a rubric itself in that it's cutting off a totally legitimate tool. Hopefully, this podcast will cover such things as finding the root of a problem, ways to make playstyles compatible, the value of equal time for equal fun and how styles can be brought into contrast, rather than into conflict.
While the right to kick is something that belongs to the GM, the players need to bear in mind they can influence it too, of course...
But anyway, I'm blathering at this point. Zeke, I agree with you that people in gaming tend to view things as 'right' and 'wrong' rather than say, 'Vanilla' and 'chocolate.'
-
This is all great- especially since we haven't even recorded this episode yet, so it gives us really good info to ensure is in the recording.
What I'm getting from it is:
1) Ensure we begin by saying "deciding to stop playing and kicking someone out are two different things." A decision that is mutual between GM and Player- whether one style or the other is unfit for the group, is fine and what you are striving towards. The PC always has the feet veto power, so walking is ok too. It's the screaming, angry, "Get out!" that we are advocating against.
2) Great point about whose responsibility it is and I'm going to argue it's not the GM's alone. I think the first person who has the right to begin problem solving is the host of the house. I think most justified reasons for asking someone to leave are personality related specifically as they interact with the group. We game at my house and if one of the PC's repeatedly kicked my dog while we gamed and thought it was funny, then as someone who has someone else in their house, I would be perfectly within my right to ask them to leave. How it affects the game is up to the GM. Do you find a different spot and loose me? Do you let the person go? Lots of food for thought.
3) I also think the "friend" thing is mostly semantics, but I do agree that acquaintance is fine. I adore my Monday Night Board Game group and overall it is a great group. There are a couple people there- I can think of 3 specifically- who I love playing games with, who I have fun with, but I would never hang out with and wouldn't consider them friends. It's ok to separate people in your life into "use" categories. I don't want to do everything I do with everyone I know. I wouldn't want to have Josh or Zeke with me were I to go to a meditation class- Josh would be too negative and there is no way Zeke would be quiet. I would travel with my boss but don't like to go out to eat with her- she's a health nut and would make me feel bad about eating cheese. I have a whole other set of friends and acquaintances that I wouldn't play games with- they wouldn't be interested or wouldn't be stimulating enough.
So if you can have friends you don't game with, can't you have game partners you aren't friends with?
-
would make me feel bad about eating cheese.
Okay, that's just not cool.
-
So if you can have friends you don't game with, can't you have game partners you aren't friends with?
Ding! Also, it's disingenuous to require friendship to promote good play at the table. I have a friend I'm fond of, great guy, but at every game I don't GM he plays the most broken monsters ever by the players standard. He's my friend, but I grind my teeth everytime I see his character make everyone else at the table redundant and non-vital. I can OP as well, but that would mean I become another offender and not part of the solution.
The GM and the group have chosen not to address this since he flares off at criticism and stalks off. I feel the game experience for everyone would be better if he left; politeness is not an asset when the principal offender won't change.
In a non-utopian world, how would you deal with that situation?
-
The more I think about it and read these responses, I think the better analogy for people you game with is that they are like people you work with. The big thing I'm going to talk about in the episode (or may do one just on this) is problem solving and setting friendship aside to deal with the problem. That is much more similar to the way you would problem solve with a co-worker or subordinate. The whole point is to keep it impersonal and rational and to just have it based on friendship is actually probably poor advice.
Good stuff is coming from this. Keep it going!
-
Agreed on the latter. On the former, sometimes a acquaintance is a an acquaintance unless you mean you describe them as an acquaintance retroactively to justify kicking them out.
Sure, but they are in effect the same person. You treat the person in your game in a way that should not change in either reguard.
-
Were you guys kicked out of a game?
Pretty much. This came up in the live episode.
That is in turn disingenuous.
I had the attitude years before we were ever kicked out of a game.
-
I see that you're 'trying a different tact', but this statement struck me sufficiently to want to comment on it:
People you invite into your home and you play games with are by definition your friends.
No. Just no. The people who respond to a posting that I've put up at the FLGS or on a local gamer's website and show up after an email or two, sight unseen, to my home to game are not 'friends' yet by any definition I can find in Webster's. Nor are the cousins of our Rogue's fiance, who just moved to town and are looking for a game, 'friends'. They are barely at the level of acquaintance at that point - quite likely for all parties involved. I do not feel obligated, at this point, to put up with these new people for more than a session or two if it becomes clear that their presence is disruptive, nor do I especially feel obligated to give disruptive players numerous chances to interfere with everyone else's enjoyment of the game or the company. I probably won't boot them after a single session, but I'm not putting up with multiple sessions where the majority are unhappy for the sake of 'not booting someone'.
'Disruptive' could mean they whine incessantly over the established house rules (seen it), they lecture other players on how they should build and run their characters (seen it), or that they constantly make in and out of character passes at the women we have seated at the table (seen it). If booting these players from the game in order to preserve everyone else's enjoyment of it is a gamer's crime, I'm pleading nolo.
Josh, I recognize that you often tend toward hyperbole in order to drive home a point, but claiming that anyone that is invited over to the house to game is automatically a 'friend' is simply too far a stretch.
-
The more I think about it and read these responses, I think the better analogy for people you game with is that they are like people you work with. The big thing I'm going to talk about in the episode (or may do one just on this) is problem solving and setting friendship aside to deal with the problem. That is much more similar to the way you would problem solve with a co-worker or subordinate. The whole point is to keep it impersonal and rational and to just have it based on friendship is actually probably poor advice.
I think you have both situations - people you just game with who aren't really friends, and people you game with who ARE friends. Obvious, sure.
The thing is, dealing with problem at the table is I think often much more difficult when they're friends. When you're dealing with an acquaintance, you're at liberty to treat like you would a co-worker - respectfully, but with the understanding that if they're causing a problem it needs to be dealt with.
When it's a friend, you get into much stickier territory. Confronting a friend about a problem, even if done with respect, can cause serious blow-ups, and if you plan to go to a movie with them tomorrow it's often easier to just let it ride than to "ruin a friendship".
My old Sunday game included a guy who would min-max his characters into tiny little niches, then complain wildly and sulk whenever he was ineffective at the many things his character COULDN'T do. We tallied his to-hit rolls, and I believe at one point he had a 75% crit chance based on his "die rolls". If it had been someone we all barely knew, it would have been a no brainer to bring it up - but the Sunday game was about hanging with friends first and gaming second, so we all put up with it. When it was too much for me, I'd just bow out of a campaign for a while - it was all I could do.
-
OK, in the gaming club I was in I took in a bunch of problem players over the years.
I never had a problem dealing with them.
So what does that mean?
And I have had all these situations. It is not like I lucked out.
-
OK, in the gaming club I was in I took in a bunch of problem players over the years.
I never had a problem dealing with them.
So what does that mean?
And I have had all these situations. It is not like I lucked out.
Insufficient evidence is available to draw any valid conclusions about what that means.
Your face-to-face people skills may be so phenomenal that you were easily able to overcome these issues - regardless of claims to the contrary by Meg, Zeke, et al.
Your personality may be so confrontational that what you perceived as 'never had a problem' was actually quite a challenge to overcome for the other players - or so challenging that they simply chose to leave before you had to ask them to.
I listed 3 specific situations - assuming in my pride that your unattributed comment was directed at least in part to me - so it could mean that the 3 individuals who represented these specific situations seemed such a minor inconvenience to you that, in hindsight, you don't see that there was a problem. Maybe all three situations were manifested in the same individual, which would have minimized the difficulties in dealing with them even further.
There's no indication in your response where this gaming club met, or what your role in it was, which both could alter significantly how much you had to personally deal with difficult players.
You could be misrepresenting the amount of difficulty the issues presented in order to make a point, unintentionally or otherwise.
Etc.
-
OK, in the gaming club I was in I took in a bunch of problem players over the years.
I never had a problem dealing with them.
So what does that mean?
And I have had all these situations. It is not like I lucked out.
If you've seen all of these problems, and you've successfully dealt with them all, then I'd say you have your episode. Reflect on how you dealt with the issues, and share your wisdom. With specifics, please.
A blanket admonishment of "Never kick someone out" helps no one. Practical advice on dealing with issues before you reach that critical juncture helps immensely.
-
Were you guys kicked out of a game?
Pretty much. This came up in the live episode.
That is in turn disingenuous.
I had the attitude years before we were ever kicked out of a game.
'Kay. I was just saying what Meg said on the live episode.
-
Talen, your job here is to disagree with everything I say, jesus man, know your role.
but seriously, yeah the intolerance bothers me. It's not that I don't think you shouldn't socialise with the people you like, I just think gamers don't always try hard enough.
-
Talen, your job here is to disagree with everything I say, jesus man, know your role.
but seriously, yeah the intolerance bothers me. It's not that I don't think you shouldn't socialise with the people you like, I just think gamers don't always try hard enough.
We're a mixed bag. Up here in Canada it feels like they try to hard and let jerks ruin their game Zeke.
-
Actually, whether or not people "ruin" games will be discussed in the epi. Canaidians are known for being rather tolerant.
-
Talen, your job here is to disagree with everything I say, jesus man, know your role.
This is where you kick me out of the game for not being a team player, isn't it? ;_;
-
More the last two reasons than the first. If you're asking why we are so concerned about it I can provide an answer for my personal reasons. There is a trend among gamers where people who do not fit the "group mind" are kicked out of groups. People defend it ususally by desparaging the style of play of the banished player. It's symptomatic of a lerger problem with the Gameosphere. That is the idea that some styles of play are "bad" while others are "proper". I can see wanting to play in a specific style and why someone playing in an oposing style could be troublesome. However, you can aleays talk to the player or (gasp) try to modifiy your style. Gamin is an intensely social personality driven activity. Try as you might to pretend it doesn't matter and you have no connection to the other people around the table, you do. Whether or not you want to.
So if everyone was playing pirates and some guy comes in and wants to play ninjas, they're all supposed to start wearing black and cut their parrots' vocal cords?
The more I think about it and read these responses, I think the better analogy for people you game with is that they are like people you work with. The big thing I'm going to talk about in the episode (or may do one just on this) is problem solving and setting friendship aside to deal with the problem. That is much more similar to the way you would problem solve with a co-worker or subordinate. The whole point is to keep it impersonal and rational and to just have it based on friendship is actually probably poor advice.
This is... a strange way of putting it. I have a very mixed gaming group. Some of these guys are like brothers to me, but this one guy is kind of annoying, like the strange guy nobody likes at the office. I love most of these guys, but I sometimes hate gaming with some of them. It's a strange thing, let me demonstrate in chart:
Person A: Good friend, sometimes gets me mad.
Person B: Like a brother, but gets me mad quite often.
Person C: Friend, but he has a way of making people laugh.
Person D: Good friend, sometimes disappears into the background, but generally a great guy.
Person E: Annoying guy, sucks at game
I have a very mixed group as you can see. You can't treat every player the same way, just like you can't treat every relationship the same way. If you have to go take off at a hangout, your buddies will understand, but you can't just leave your girlfriend in the middle of a date. Sometimes the same problem will require a different solution depending on the player.
And I am totally fine with kicking someone out, but that's usually because I, as a person, want to sever that relationship. I wouldn't want to kick out a friend who just annoyed me while gaming. I'd want to work with them and find out the problem. For instance, I get mad at persons A and B far more often than I get mad at person E, but I'd much sooner kick out person E because he's kind of a jerk.
-
I'd much rather listen to "This is how to not kick people from your games. A. B. C." than "Don't kick people from your games."
The first offers solutions rather than admonishments. Giving me advice on how to work through difficulties that I perceive would be a real help. Blandly stating that I'm wrong to kick players is useless. As are anecdotes that don't give any specifics.
So, if you're going to be more verbose than Josh has been on these boards about this subject, then I'm interested. Otherwise, I'll give it a pass.
-
I am looking for ward to hearing this episode.
I game with the people I work with - Since pretty much all my company are people who love games (and our QA department has monthly "gaming night") we've got a wide selection of people to choose from.
In my current game we've had 3 people who had to be removed.
1) just didn't fit the game at all and refused to change character. ("fight-or the barbarian" in a game of social characters and deception) He agreed that we were not a good match for his gaming style and he moved on.
2) bad scheduling. - He was an awesome player and we all want him back - but his scedule just doesn't match (night shifts, and now no car to get to us... we're still bugging him to return).
3) The i'm a mosnster player. This guy was hard. He was actually interesting and a nice guy we like, but he was.. disturbing... in character. He kept pushing the character in directions where he was not involving the other players and after eventually he stopped coming as he moved to night shifts, but we all breathed a sigh of relief.
But yes, dealing with players who dont fit well with the group is very bloody difficult. Hints on how to do this tactfully are very appreciated! (especially when you work with the people and have to see them every day, you really cant just "kick" them out)
-
I have been kicked out of a game for arguing with the GM about a game I was currently running. That did not affect my position on the kicking of players. Before I was kicked out, all but 1 player kicked out the primary problem player, most by giving the DM a him or me and me giving him a him or you (the DM was in my game). It worked, however bad it may seem, and proves that players can in fact kick other players out. It just requires amazing cooperation or, in my case, a lot of singular people making the same threat with no knowledge of the others.
-
We never made the claim that it is impossible to kick people out. We make the claim that it is not your best option.
-
The best option is not always the option that keeps players.
-
The best option is not always the option that keeps players.
Do you have an example?
-
A game I was in had a severe problem player, he was actually physically abusing other players. Finally, Every player left the game until the problem player was kicked. If you are going to lose one player or another no matter what, kicking the problem player looks best.
-
A game I was in had a severe problem player, he was actually physically abusing other players. Finally, Every player left the game until the problem player was kicked. If you are going to lose one player or another no matter what, kicking the problem player looks best.
How was that an "in game" issue? Didn't you kick him out like you would from any event?
-
How was that an "in game" issue? Didn't you kick him out like you would from any event?
Isn't player behavior the reason they're asked to leave or kicked out anyway? In this case, games are like any other event, yes. It just so happens that in some cases it's because the person is being a dick within the context of the game and nobody else is getting along with them, hence being booted.
Cheers,
Cam
-
How was that an "in game" issue? Didn't you kick him out like you would from any event?
Isn't player behavior the reason they're asked to leave or kicked out anyway? In this case, games are like any other event, yes. It just so happens that in some cases it's because the person is being a dick within the context of the game and nobody else is getting along with them, hence being booted.
Cheers,
Cam
Do you have an example?
-
Actually, Cam, this has kinda been gone over, and what I understand is that if the player is not doing things In Real Life that are kickable offenses (eating your pets, drinking the last beer, etc.), Josh contends that they should not be kicked. That is, in-game stuff should always be taken care of, rather than getting rid of the player. emissary666's example is showing physical abuses.
Example: If players are leaving solely because one player is playing a different game, perhaps he's consistently bringing up uncomfortable subject matter like torture, the group/GM are supposed to be able to satisfy that player's needs for play while keeping everyone having fun.
I'm interested in specific anecdotes or techniques that the Gameologists might have that produce this effect.
Do you have an example?
Do you?
-
Actually, Cam, this has kinda been gone over, and what I understand is that if the player is not doing things In Real Life that are kickable offenses (eating your pets, drinking the last beer, etc.), Josh contends that they should not be kicked. That is, in-game stuff should always be taken care of, rather than getting rid of the player. emissary666's example is showing physical abuses.
Example: If players are leaving solely because one player is playing a different game, perhaps he's consistently bringing up uncomfortable subject matter like torture, the group/GM are supposed to be able to satisfy that player's needs for play while keeping everyone having fun.
I'm interested in specific anecdotes or techniques that the Gameologists might have that produce this effect.
Do you have an example?
Do you?
The episode is recorded. It will be released as soon as possible.
-
And the Episode is up!
-
Just started listening. Extremely good, so far. Consider this your head-pat.
-
Ok, just finished listening. Great stuff. Seriously. I think this is your best episode ever. It's certainly the best episode I've ever listened to, and that's including the ones where I got metaphorically blown.
What's especially interesting to me about my reaction to this show is that I'm a firm believer in choosing not to play with people you're not compatible with. My preferred analogy is not a bowling team or dinner party but is instead fucking. You shouldn't keep fucking someone if you don't click and when you realize this is the case it's incumbent upon you to be honest with yourself and your play partner and anyone else you've chosen to involve.
So why do I love this episode so much? Because you guys know what you're talking about and are passionate and focused. My only disappointment is you guys didn't include the brilliant thing that Josh, I think, said at the Arisia panel: people aren't being assholes because they like to hurt people. Their asshole behavior is scratching some kind of itch. Figure out what that is and try to figure out a way to scratch it functionally.
-
Typically I go to the "Just kick them out" advice when I'm sick of hearing about a person bitch about another player. If they ask for advice or help thats a different story, but when I hear "Such and Such is such a douche, they keep ruining my game!" every week for a number of months... then I jump to the "Fuck um, boot um." advice.
Normally, I'm pro-communication. Just talk to the person about whats bothering you. Nine times out of ten the situation will change and those few times that it doesn't are typically when the other person is offended and doesn't come back.
-
Normally, I'm pro-communication. Just talk to the person about whats bothering you. Nine times out of ten the situation will change and those few times that it doesn't are typically when the other person is offended and doesn't come back.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Our next two episodes are how to talk to them. And we go into it so deeply because I can guarantee EVERYONE needs improvement and whoever is doing the talking is probably making the situation worse.
Of those 9 times out of 10 that the situation changes, I bet a lot of them are just for the short term because too many people (we sort of assume it's the GMs) talk at the person. "Look, you've got to cut out XYZ or I'm going to boot you." From a communication perspective, there are about 12 things wrong with that statement. We're going to share specific strategies to make the "just talk to them" process go better.
-
Normally, I'm pro-communication. Just talk to the person about whats bothering you. Nine times out of ten the situation will change and those few times that it doesn't are typically when the other person is offended and doesn't come back.
Thanks for bringing this up!
Our next two episodes are how to talk to them. And we go into it so deeply because I can guarantee EVERYONE needs improvement and whoever is doing the talking is probably making the situation worse.
Of those 9 times out of 10 that the situation changes, I bet a lot of them are just for the short term because too many people (we sort of assume it's the GMs) talk at the person. "Look, you've got to cut out XYZ or I'm going to boot you." From a communication perspective, there are about 12 things wrong with that statement. We're going to share specific strategies to make the "just talk to them" process go better.
Gah, I hate hearing the "Do X or I'll do Y". I've heard it in groups before and when I asked why I should the response was typically "Because I'll do Y if you don't do X"
I prefer explanations and discussions. Honestly, I typically start the conversation by asking non aggressive questions. "So, I noticed you do X alot? Why is that?"
Of course, I'm sure you'll cover all this in your episode so I'll zip it. :P
-
Did you read our script?
;) Naw, the advice I took from 4 different sources- some well known and some not at all, but all with a similar message. Some of it is sort of basic and extremely important, like your example, and some is extremely detailed but makes a big subconscious difference, like where you sit and how you angle your body when you talk to the person.
For this episode though... no, I'll start a new post so it doesn't get lost.
-
In this episode, Josh did most of the editing so I'm curious about a couple of things:
Did you notice the music is screwed up? Is it only me and my nitpicky perfectionism that noticed?
He put in quite a few of our "funny cut material", not just one. Thoughts?
-
<modified post> original tone was not excellent
I felt like the first 40 minutes of the podcast were really an attempt to rebutt what I see is as a non-issue (i.e. the attitude of a couple of annoying people on the internet)
I think it would have been more productive if you focused more succinctly on the issue of problem groups.
Starting out with "don't kick people out" limits the ability to analyze the situation.
Start with identification of the problem before deciding how you're going to resolve it and all that.
Just my feeling having seen people waste years of their lives dealing with assholes every Sunday.
-
<modified post> original tone was not excellent
I felt like the first 40 minutes of the podcast were really an attempt to rebutt what I see is as a non-issue (i.e. the attitude of a couple of annoying people on the internet)
Well, you may see it that way, and that's good.
I have had this argument, many, many times. And these issues come up a lot. So it is better to nip it in the bud.
I think it would have been more productive if you focused more succinctly on the issue of problem groups.
Starting out with "don't kick people out" limits the ability to analyze the situation.
Start with identification of the problem before deciding how you're going to resolve it and all that.
Just my feeling having seen people waste years of their lives dealing with assholes every Sunday.
How does it limit the situation? If anything the opposite is true.
For people "wasting their time" this is the best advice. Wait for the rest of the discussion to round things out.
-
I love when I hear people say this is a nonissue. Great! May your experiences not be jaded!
I can't even tell you how many convention panels I've been at that harp on and on and on and have an entire room filled with people who's first answer is always "kick them out!" I can't even explain how many "What's a GM to Do" threads on the WotC message boards gave the advice "just kick them out!". If that's not your perception, you've had great experiences and I'm happy for you!
For your point #3- I don't think 80% of gamers have poor conflict resolution skills. I think about 90% of people have mediocre to poor skills. I can say with all certainty that you and every single person here (myself doubly included) have screwed up when communicating more than once. Our next 2 episodes are all about that because "just talk to them" is much much harder than saying the words.
-
I'm listening to this and now I kinda see where you're coming from. I do agree that you shouldn't just OMGBAN people, and that you should give them a chance to change and give yourself a chance to accommodate them, and that asking people to leave is the good way to do it.
However, sometimes a person's just a dick.
-
When we say "you shouldn't kick people out" we mean it like "don't punch your Grandma in the face." There are situations that require popping nanna in her dome, but it's still a good rule. Putting the knuckles to Memere should always be a lst resort and entered into only when there is no other option.
-
When we say "you shouldn't kick people out" we mean it like "don't punch your Grandma in the face." There are situations that require popping nanna in her dome, but it's still a good rule. Putting the knuckles to Memere should always be a lst resort and entered into only when there is no other option.
What if your Grandma is in Fight Club? Then can it be the first resort?
-
I love it when people make my point for me.
-
I love it when people make my point for me.
Just trying to get clarification. :D
-
as always - very nice episode.
-
I have a problem with your idea of being polite to other players. When I was a DM (back in 7th grade) I had no respect for my players, when I was a player (still 7th grade) I STILL didn't have respect for the players. Maybe this makes me a bad person, but if I am not shown respect I do not show respect.
-
First off, I am shocked that no one respects you.
You should be respectful of people because they deserve it. Not because they reciprocate.
And you should act like a person worthy of respect. Not demand it.
-
I'll say it til it's acknowledged: People act like assholes because they're trying to get something they want, not because they enjoy being assholes. Figure out what they want, and figure out how whether it's possible to the group to deliver it and for you to still have fun.
-
First off, I am shocked that no one respects you.
I really hope your being sarcastic
-
The whole people are not just jerks, is in part 4 of this series.
-
Excellent.
-
You should be respectful of people because they deserve it. Not because they reciprocate.
Respect must be earned, it is not an innate right.
-
You should be respectful of people because they deserve it. Not because they reciprocate.
Respect must be earned, it is not an innate right.
That works if you consider respect a thing that costs to give, and not as something that improves you. I don't always get there, but I try.
-
Correct but people get the beneft of doubt when you first meet them and sometimes you salute the uniform not the man
-
It takes respect to get respect. Not in the "if you don't respect me I won't respect you" but rather, if I treat people with nominal respect I will establish that I am a person who believes in fair treatment.
-
I will agree that people get the benefit of the doubt when you first meet them, but I have no need of being respected by those I have no respect for and I have never saluted the uniform when I knew the man and didn't respect him.
-
I have a problem with your idea of being polite to other players. When I was a DM (back in 7th grade) I had no respect for my players, when I was a player (still 7th grade) I STILL didn't have respect for the players. Maybe this makes me a bad person, but if I am not shown respect I do not show respect.
No, this shows that you were in 7th grade.
We mentioned but perhaps should've clarified that our advice was (is) for adults. Youth have a different perspective and lack the wisdom to realize how idiotic they are.
So much of the bad advice is simply a lack of maturity.
-
I will agree that people get the benefit of the doubt when you first meet them, but I have no need of being respected by those I have no respect for and I have never saluted the uniform when I knew the man and didn't respect him.
the operative part is "when I knew the man"
I have spent my life working with groups of people others find repellant, by aproaching with firmness and respect I have established relationships with them that others are unable to.
-
I can't believe there isn't any caveman/astronaut or Gandalf/Yoda controversy yet.
-
I will agree that people get the benefit of the doubt when you first meet them, but I have no need of being respected by those I have no respect for and I have never saluted the uniform when I knew the man and didn't respect him.
the operative part is "when I knew the man"
I have spent my life working with groups of people others find repellant, by aproaching with firmness and respect I have established relationships with them that others are unable to.
Well to be honest I don't salute any uniforms, I was speaking more along the lines of people with power over me in general.
-
I get that.
-
I was just clarifying. :p
As for the other part, that's a plus on your part but there's a difference between working with groups of people and choosing to game with them. I refuse to game with people that I don't like because it lessens my enjoyment of the game. Since the whole point of gaming is to enjoy myself, I see no reason to not do so to my fullest extent.
-
I think youmight be limiting yourself. If you try to understand people many times you discover good things you night otherwise have missed. Be open and fearless, that's my advice.
-
We have different views on the value of being open and fearless. I'll not drag this thread down any further with my particular personality quirks so I'll leave it at that.
-
I can't believe there isn't any caveman/astronaut or Gandalf/Yoda controversy yet.
Well, for starters, GET OUT OF THE PIRATE CAMP! Ninjas are far better.
-
I was just clarifying. :p
As for the other part, that's a plus on your part but there's a difference between working with groups of people and choosing to game with them. I refuse to game with people that I don't like because it lessens my enjoyment of the game. Since the whole point of gaming is to enjoy myself, I see no reason to not do so to my fullest extent.
The 4th episode in the series is exactly this- how to choose the right group and head off the problems before you start.
-
I don't give the benefit of the doubt. I give respect when I am shown respect.
-
That sounds like a pretty good idea, Emissary. So good that maybe everybody should do it. Except if they did, who would respect whom?
-
Yeah, so that's wrong. Don't do that.
-
I don't give the benefit of the doubt. I give respect when I am shown respect.
Why? And who has to show respect first? And how can you determine if you're shown respect? Do you go into a situation assuming you won't be respected?
-
We all posted at he same time we are not ganging up.
Please don't feel like that
-
I used to give the benefit of the doubt. I found that giving respect rarely got me any respect back. So, since I found it flawed, I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt and instead assume that the person is going to be an asshole, so I show no respect but no disrespect.
-
I used to give the benefit of the doubt. I found that giving respect rarely got me any respect back. So, since I found it flawed, I stopped giving the benefit of the doubt and instead assume that the person is going to be an asshole, so I show no respect but no disrespect.
But what does "showing respect" even mean?
-
There are times when I have had to walk away from people I gamed with and write them out of my life and as a result of that, not game with them anymore.
It has happened twice, both were people I never saw anymore away from the table and our friendships had atrophied. Things happened at the gaming table that displayed that atrophy or maybe the reason for it...chicken and egg.
The best thing I could do is walk away from them as people and as gamers.
Sometimes people are jerks because they aren't getting something out of the game. Sometimes they are jerks for far deeper and more nefarious reasons. Sometimes they are jerks because of a flaw in your friendship that allows them to think that they can be jerks, that it is okay.
It ain't.
Eff them, in the aye, with a big fat cee.
I have listened to the first half of the show and look forward to listening to the rest.
-
An example of saluting a uniform is respecting the GM and or the venue owner. If you do not respect the guy who put together the adventure you are on, or the person who lets you use their house, you are a horrible human being and need to grow up.
And you don't get respect because you show it.
You get respect when you act like you deserve it. And you should show people the respect they in turn deserve.
A GM, for example, who is fair, even tempered, fun and creative deserves your respect.
There are times when I have had to walk away from people I gamed with and write them out of my life and as a result of that, not game with them anymore.
If have had similar events, not with gamer friends, but it could have been. The guy you thought was a friend and then x happens. You shake your head and get away from them. Been there.
-
A GM, for example, who is fair, even tempered, fun and creative deserves your respect.
Can we run, not walk but run away from this?
I'd love to take ten giant steps away from the GM as Patriarchal stern daddy figure who deserves respect and instead walk towards, the people you game with are cool people and deserve your respect until they squander it by asshattery.
The person who owns the venue definitely deserves everyone's thanks for allowing us all into their home to play pretend. I love to show this by offering to clean up before we leave.
-
Well, the GM is just one person who deserves respect. Just one player that deserves respect. I don't think Josh's calling out the GM in this case necessarily means he's limiting such treatment to the GM.
-
Well, the GM is just one person who deserves respect. Just one player that deserves respect. I don't think Josh's calling out the GM in this case necessarily means he's limiting such treatment to the GM.
Yup, yup, my apologies. I didn't read charitably and jumped in the middle without reading prior posts.
-
Well, the GM is just one person who deserves respect. Just one player that deserves respect. I don't think Josh's calling out the GM in this case necessarily means he's limiting such treatment to the GM.
Yup, yup, my apologies. I didn't read charitably and jumped in the middle without reading prior posts.
The GM or Venue Owner are just the clearest examples.
Everyone "on board" with the fun deserves respect. Even people not in the game. In an earlier episode we talk about "parent time" if you are gaming at someones parents house you should set aside time in the beginning of the night to talk to the parent. Just to say hi and connect and so forth. That is respect.
Respect is when you make another person feel glad that they know you.
-
In this episode, Josh did most of the editing so I'm curious about a couple of things:
Did you notice the music is screwed up? Is it only me and my nitpicky perfectionism that noticed?
He put in quite a few of our "funny cut material", not just one. Thoughts?
1. The music did seem to be off. The offness of it wasn't a thing which jumped out at me; it sort of crept up after multiple listens. (I listen to the shows while doing work, so I'm usually distracted and have it looped. Eventually the stuff of the show sinks in....)
2. I like the funny cut material, though I suspect that my sense of humour may be closer to Meg's than Josh's. Given that this is only one point of datum on what funny cut material to stick in, it's a little hard to say.
Re: The respect thing. I think Meg pinned it in the episode when she said that it's important to be civil. Saying you need to show respect to someone gets tied up with the idea that you feel respect for someone. Saying that you should be courteous or civil to someone is tied to the idea that you should be a decent human being.
Plus when it gets to the point where you need to bitch slap someone, it has that much more weight to it.
-
I get kicked out on a regular basis. :bigeye
Then I'm told, "Just kidding.". :twitch :)
Then I'm told, "No, seriously, get out." :lmao
It's played so straight, it's hard to tell if he's kidding or not. Even though I know he's kidding.
Or not.
Maybe.
I think.
I always wondered what would happen if I took it seriously and just left. (I wouldn't take it personally as I'm unsure if it was a serious kick out or not.)
If I were every really kicked out, I doubt I'd return.
-
I get kicked out on a regular basis. :bigeye
Then I'm told, "Just kidding.". :twitch :)
Then I'm told, "No, seriously, get out." :lmao
It's played so straight, it's hard to tell if he's kidding or not. Even though I know he's kidding.
Or not.
Maybe.
I think.
I always wondered what would happen if I took it seriously and just left. (I wouldn't take it personally as I'm unsure if it was a serious kick out or not.)
If I were every really kicked out, I doubt I'd return.
Liking country music gets you hanged in some parts of the country.
-
Not liking country music can get you hanged in DIFFERENT parts of the country.
I just re-listened to your episode.
I have also been kicked out of a group, on the interwebs no less, and I will wager the opinion that being kicked out online can be more annoying then being booted in real life.
Unless they're ninja, people can't completely avoid explaining themselves in real life. You can expect a conversation about it, which will likely be unpleasant and one-sided, but you can expect to have your opinions heard, by at least some of the people involved.
When you go to check the game website and your login has been deleted after submitting your character concept, and you have a single e-mail saying in brief "I don't like your character concept, and because you attempted to argue why you wanted to play that character, I have kicked you out and removed your login." you have no recourse at all. You can no longer communicate with anyone involved.
It was a surprisingly unpleasant experience.
It hugely affected my stance on gaming, especially on gaming through forums. I now believe that games of a quality and consistency that I desire cannot be played through PbP, the medium is insufficient. Observe Josh's burning wheel game on this very forum. He started prep for that game in January, and it hasn't gotten through character creation yet.
It also solidified the idea that there are no "problem players."
The concept of the "problem player" a dangerous idea, and one that allows the objectification of an other person that justifies unpleasant actions towards them. A gaming group can have a problem, and that problem can be caused by the actions of a specific member, but the player is not the problem. The problem is the action. More specifically, the problem is the negative responses that the action provokes the in the rest of the group.
Is this semantic bullshit? Yes, to a degree, but it represents a more helpful way to look at these problems then labeling them "problem players". In general, "problem players" are merely acting in a way that a majority of the group dislikes. If this is pointed out in a non-confrontational way, behavior can be changed. Simply by bringing it up, the rest of the group may find ways to channel those actions towards more productive ends. The now cliche "power gamer" is the most obvious example of this. Their payouts are causing friction, but they are not themselves a problem.
Now inevitably this leads to the response of "what if they're crazy and stab people?" It's a ridiculous question that's completely outside of the area of argument. Of COURSE someone who stabs other people is a "problem player" they're a "problem person" and probably a "complete lunatic" as well. It's a niche situation that does not in any way relate to the actual discussion, and I can well understand why you spent almost half and hour debunking this form of argument. It drives me nuts.
I enjoyed this episode, and as someone who has also been kicked out of a group I appreciated it. Unfortunately, the people who are going to casually kick people out of a group are unlikely to be the kind of people who take advice.
-
I'm listening to the episode, and I heard your ethics comparison. While Ethics of Engineering might say that "killing someone is wrong" is a universal fact, actual ethics classes have a lot more room for arguments. Whether something that is normally wrong but circumstantially justified, it isn't clear that it's still wrong. That's probably why you get a huge backlash from people who almost entirely agree with you on this issue. It's the same reason the debates on right-to-life and right-to-die arguments are so intractable, but with less serious consequences; it's a debate on the meaning of "good" and "right".
Hope this helps, because I loved the episode :)
-
I'm listening to the episode, and I heard your ethics comparison. While Ethics of Engineering might say that "killing someone is wrong" is a universal fact, actual ethics classes have a lot more room for arguments. Whether something that is normally wrong but circumstantially justified, it isn't clear that it's still wrong. That's probably why you get a huge backlash from people who almost entirely agree with you on this issue. It's the same reason the debates on right-to-life and right-to-die arguments are so intractable, but with less serious consequences; it's a debate on the meaning of "good" and "right".
Hope this helps, because I loved the episode :)
Ethics of engineering is an an actual ethics class.
Part of the problem with people, and this issue, is that people just want to argue.
You can punch your grandma if you are in fight club together and it's your first night.
-
I'd punch my grandma if she gave me enough reason. Some people are not going to listen to ethics and shit. If you don't want people kicking others out of their games, you need to distinguish between who's getting kicked out unfairly and who is just an asshole.
-
Just got to hear the episode. Very good stuff.
I try my best not to label people as "good" or "bad" players -- or, indeed, as anything at all, if I can help it. But then again, I'm one of those annoying bastards who tend to be appallingly neutral when it comes to conflicts between people. ;) (Yes, this would include the apparently widespread and deeply raging conflict between people and their grandmothers in their local fight clubs...)
After reading this over, I see that this will indeed be covered in a later episode, but I'll go ahead and add my support to the idea of heading things off at the pass when you're setting up your gaming group in the first place. I am hoping that what I'm doing is not "velvet-roping," though, as Zeke puts it, because since he mentioned that I begin to wonder if that might be the case.
Well, here's an example. I recently had a friend text me asking if I'm looking for more people for my tabletop game. I told him yes, but wanted to know who it was he was thinking of inviting along. When he told me who the two people he'd been talking to were I let him know that I don't think I have the necessary patience to deal with those particular guys as players in a tabletop game. He responded by telling me he understood and would tell them that the game is full. I did not stop him from doing this.
Now, these are a couple of guys whom I consider friends but whom I'd prefer not to have as players in one of my tabletop games because they have personality quirks that I get frustrated with very quickly and I know that it would cause the game to suffer -- particularly since I know some of the other players get frustrated with those guys pretty quickly as well. Now, I'm not saying that I don't want to interact with those guys or anything or that there's anything inherently WRONG with them, just that I don't want to deal with the problems that I know would come up if I tried to run a tabletop game with them in it. I'm trying to help prevent them, myself and my players from having a bad gaming experience by recognizing my own limitation in this respect (namely, my lack of patience for those particular personality quirks) and keeping it from coming into play.
And that said, by the way, I am working on trying to become more patient with those individuals when I see them socially so that I can ultimately come up with better ways to handle it. And heck, this isn't even a case in which I've invited someone into my game or even been talking to them about it -- this is just something that happened to arise from a private conversation between them and one of my players. Is this velvet-roping? Or is it genuinely heading issues off at the pass?
Ah, and as for the respect thing, I have to agree with Lakira. Without getting into the semantics of it (since I know that different people and indeed different dictionaries will disagree about the meanings of words -- and heck, without differing definitions of things language would never evolve and we'd probably still be speaking Latin or pseudo-Germanic or something), I try to be courteous to people regardless of what degree of the emotional response associated with respect I may or may not be feeling, simply because it's part of treating someone like a person instead of a thing. Treating a person like crap just because they haven't yet "done something to earn your respect" seems to me more just an excuse to treat them like crap than anything else. It kind of makes it sound like earning respect is a specific item on a list that can be checked off as soon as X value is reached, when really I think it's more to do with the randomness of emotional response. I can't decide to feel respect for someone any more than I can decide to fall in love with them. Although I suppose it's possible to decide to have sex with them without either of those two things having happened, but that's another topic entirely... :D
Oh, and about the editing! I noticed the difference with the song playing longer behind the intro and then under some of the outtakes. I kind of liked it. I'd probably fade it out earlier at the start of the show (like it was before), but having it run under the outtakes seems like more of a natural extension of the kind of thing you were doing before when Josh and Zeke would make funny comments in between Meg reading the ending notes. It kind of works. For me, at least. :)
-
First of all, it is a true joy to actually have an episode that was actually interesting after the horrors of the min-maxing episode. The utter lack of self-righteousness in the min-maxing episodes was starting to grate on me, and those episodes were quickly relegated to my doing dishes and writing research papers background listening pile.
This episode was pure brilliance, if only for the fact that it was actually needed. It is a sad comment on the gaming community that this is a controversial topic, even more worrying that the incredibly commonsensical approach taken by the podcasters seems to actually cause some ire.
Anyway, the episode was highly listenable and I look forward to the next instalments.
-
Well, here's an example. I recently had a friend text me asking if I'm looking for more people for my tabletop game. I told him yes, but wanted to know who it was he was thinking of inviting along. When he told me who the two people he'd been talking to were I let him know that I don't think I have the necessary patience to deal with those particular guys as players in a tabletop game. He responded by telling me he understood and would tell them that the game is full. I did not stop him from doing this.
The "mistake" is possibly not talking with the offending party about it. And obfuscating the truth. Even the response of "I don't think you are a good fit for this group" would be better. That creates a situation where they might take some self awareness about their issues. Now some people might lie to save their feelings, I am against this only because lies tend to require bigger lies and if they can be salvaged as players, I would like that.
I generally find that people who I know the problem with, can be managed. But this is coming up in further episodes.
-
Now some people might lie to save their feelings, I am against this only because lies tend to require bigger lies and if they can be salvaged as players, I would like that.
Yeah, that's kind of one of the things bothering me about it -- I don't want to end up sliding into that particular gravity well. :rollseyes I think the particular situation I described in the example I used might end up all right because it struck me as a somewhat casual question in the first place and I don't see it necessarily coming up again since I don't usually talk a lot about my own tabletop RPGs when I see these guys. However, I can see that there may be a point down the road if maybe someone ELSE joins the group and talks to them about the game where it WOULD come up again. If that does happen then I won't lie to them -- I'll try to clarify the situation for them as best I can (which at least should be easier in this particular case since I never spoke to them about it in the first place).
I generally find that people who I know the problem with, can be managed. But this is coming up in further episodes.
I look forward to seeing what's on tap. :)
-
So...we're woefully behind in listening, but we finally got the chance to listen to this one.
I liked your discussion on the semantics of the friend/acquaintance/etc. Actually I liked your discussion on the whole. Interesting listening. Bravo. :clap
-
So...we're woefully behind in listening, but we finally got the chance to listen to this one.
I liked your discussion on the semantics of the friend/acquaintance/etc. Actually I liked your discussion on the whole. Interesting listening. Bravo. :clap
Likewise. I just recently caught up on the podcasts. I enjoyed listening to the last two episodes. Very interesting. :)
-
I finally got some time to catch up on some of the podcasts, and I have to say that I really liked this one. The content/joke ratio was particularly high, and I thought the discussion was well balanced and thoughtful.
One idea that strikes me particularly hard is "velvet roping". It's something I've done a lot of over the years, and I'm personally conflicted on the merits of it.
On one side, it's downright rude to actively exclude people from your group. Almost everyone has good traits that add to the table in some way, and players with limited experience SHOULD be exposed to new types of gaming, even if they seem to cause problems while they learn. Sure, that guy who always play a Rogue and maintains a single-minded "kill it and take it's shit" mentality can be irritating, but if they've only played DnD in basic DungeonCrawl mode then they deserve a chance to learn something new, and I'm the better person for giving them that chance and not being a dick to them.
On the other side, however, I don't have a lot of free time to game any more. Between the wife, the house, traveling for work, and anything else I have to do I can barely manage a twice monthly game, and more often than not one shots are the way to go. If I'm running a game of SotC, or I'm organizing a game of shock:, I'm not sure I feel bad cherry-picking who I invite. I don't have much time to game, I want to enjoy it when it happens, and if I want to frontload that experience with the best and most creative gamers I know, then by the gods I should do it. The last time I was forced to spend time with people I didn't like much (without being paid for it) was high school, and that was many blissful years ago. Why waste my precious gaming time with people I don't really really want to game with?
Obviously, if I'm in a group as a player, I'm not going to make any waves; I'm going to show up and have the best time I can and try to help everyone have the best time they can. But as GM/facilitator, it's customary to reserve the right to invite only those you want at the table, and I've taken advantage of that many times. Hell, I've forgone playing with people I love to game with because I'd have to invite their girlfriend/boyfriend, and I find the SO incredibly annoying and game-wrecking.
Does this make me a bad person? I'm not too sure myself. Thoughts?
-
I finally got some time to catch up on some of the podcasts, and I have to say that I really liked this one. The content/joke ratio was particularly high, and I thought the discussion was well balanced and thoughtful.
One idea that strikes me particularly hard is "velvet roping". It's something I've done a lot of over the years, and I'm personally conflicted on the merits of it.
On one side, it's downright rude to actively exclude people from your group. Almost everyone has good traits that add to the table in some way, and players with limited experience SHOULD be exposed to new types of gaming, even if they seem to cause problems while they learn. Sure, that guy who always play a Rogue and maintains a single-minded "kill it and take it's shit" mentality can be irritating, but if they've only played DnD in basic DungeonCrawl mode then they deserve a chance to learn something new, and I'm the better person for giving them that chance and not being a dick to them.
On the other side, however, I don't have a lot of free time to game any more. Between the wife, the house, traveling for work, and anything else I have to do I can barely manage a twice monthly game, and more often than not one shots are the way to go. If I'm running a game of SotC, or I'm organizing a game of shock:, I'm not sure I feel bad cherry-picking who I invite. I don't have much time to game, I want to enjoy it when it happens, and if I want to frontload that experience with the best and most creative gamers I know, then by the gods I should do it. The last time I was forced to spend time with people I didn't like much (without being paid for it) was high school, and that was many blissful years ago. Why waste my precious gaming time with people I don't really really want to game with?
Obviously, if I'm in a group as a player, I'm not going to make any waves; I'm going to show up and have the best time I can and try to help everyone have the best time they can. But as GM/facilitator, it's customary to reserve the right to invite only those you want at the table, and I've taken advantage of that many times. Hell, I've forgone playing with people I love to game with because I'd have to invite their girlfriend/boyfriend, and I find the SO incredibly annoying and game-wrecking.
Does this make me a bad person? I'm not too sure myself. Thoughts?
Let me bring in a more clear example of "velvet roping." You are out with friends and the subject of gaming comes up. One of your friends says "gee i would sure like to get into your game." You have room, but you don't like the guy enough, so you say no and bring the velvet rope up.
Are you being a jerk?
What if the guy makes messes and steals food, even when you ask him to stop?
What if he just always plays killer barbarians?
Where is the line?
-
I would have to agree with Josh's contention that labeling someone as an aquientance is just an excuse for you not wanting to deal that person in a real way.
It's no secret that gamers are not exactly the most socially compotent people in the world so some care problems should be expected from the get go. Setting firm boundaries at the start of the campign makes misunderstandings much easier to manage later on as everyone has a clear understanding of where the line is (and hence when that line is crossed).
I take it many people have either experience with kicking people out or have been kicked. Over what? I have never been kicked from a game nor seen anyone kicked out so I really don't know what a "problem gamer" but most people I games with are strange and socially awardward in their own way but I do consider everyone of them my friends.
Maybe you guys have a different definition of friends, but my definition is people I have with. I have fun playing make believe with my fellow gamers hence they are my friends. If you disargee with such a simple statement then I would have to say you are playing it wrong.
-
Our Pathfinder game nearly self-destructed because of one player. The DM gave him the boot. Now everything is gravy.
-
Our Pathfinder game nearly self-destructed because of one player. The DM gave him the boot. Now everything is gravy.
Incorrect. When you kick someone out you have a 100% failure rate. (hint: it's the person you kicked out who does not think it's gravy.)
-
That player was cancer. We excised the tumor, and the patient has made a full recovery.
I consider that to be a 100% success rate.
-
You know what, Josh?
You can't please everyone.
Of course, I doubt you've ever played in a game with what we in the biz refer to as a cat piss man.
-
That player was cancer. We excised the tumor, and the patient has made a full recovery.
I consider that to be a 100% success rate.
you are telling yourself a pretty story and dehumanizing someone to feel better. It actually means you know you are wrong, it's the construction of a guilty conscience.
Analogies are ways of telling the truth, they are not the truth. They are a finger pointing at the moon.
The situation. You have 5 people. One you treat like shit and kick out of your group. You go on to mock and dehamanize them on message boards. The other 4 have fun. So even if we discount the guilt and the unsettling feeling that they could be kicked out next. Number 5 was still treated badly. Thats something you fully admit.
You know what, Josh?
You can't please everyone.
Of course, I doubt you've ever played in a game with what we in the biz refer to as a cat piss man.
Forget please. I want to start with people not being a raging shitbag to their supposed friends as the default for having a bad day.
I assume you mean a person who smells. Would you kick them out of your BBQ or ice cream social? Then how is that an in game problem?
-
It isn't a figurative term.
To protect the unwashed, I'm just going to say that he ended up getting banned from the FLGS.
If you leave... residue... wherever you've sat, it's probably long past the point where you should have showered.
-
I think the point is that you decided to ask him to leave for things external to the game.
EDIT: You can fix game related issues by taking ownership of the issue and resolving it. Resolution may in fact involve the player leaving - but at least he wasn't kicked out. But how do you take ownership of the dude's hygiene problems? Hose him down every week?
-
that's why you're my homeboy PI
-
It isn't a figurative term.
To protect the unwashed, I'm just going to say that he ended up getting banned from the FLGS.
If you leave... residue... wherever you've sat, it's probably long past the point where you should have showered.
What PI said.
This is not an in game problem and thus not what we are talking about.
-
If you would kick someone out of your house during a social gathering of friends, then they may very well deserve to be kicked out of a game.
-
Well, here's an example. I recently had a friend text me asking if I'm looking for more people for my tabletop game. I told him yes, but wanted to know who it was he was thinking of inviting along. When he told me who the two people he'd been talking to were I let him know that I don't think I have the necessary patience to deal with those particular guys as players in a tabletop game. He responded by telling me he understood and would tell them that the game is full. I did not stop him from doing this.
The "mistake" is possibly not talking with the offending party about it. And obfuscating the truth. Even the response of "I don't think you are a good fit for this group" would be better. That creates a situation where they might take some self awareness about their issues. Now some people might lie to save their feelings, I am against this only because lies tend to require bigger lies and if they can be salvaged as players, I would like that.
I generally find that people who I know the problem with, can be managed. But this is coming up in further episodes.
Turns out I got to revisit this last weekend. For various real life reasons my game has bounced around from venue to venue and has finally ended up at one of my friend's houses. This guy is friends with pretty much everybody and they drop by his place unannounced fairly regularly. So, last weekend, one of the guys I'd mentioned earlier (who had asked one of my players about joining the game and was told there was no room -- which, oddly enough, turned out to be true at that time since I think we had seven players at the next session) happened to drop in when we were playing and asked if he could join in. I decided to just address the elephant and tell him about my issue with having him as a player. For his part, he understood immediately and had no problem with it -- but then, he's one of those guys you can say something like that to and it won't faze them. So it worked out this time, but I suspect that if he'd been anyone else there would have been hurt feelings involved. Even so, having now done it once and seeing how it worked out I think I'm going to have to agree with Josh that actually talking about it is better. I don't believe that how someone else chooses to behave is any of my business unless it affects me directly (or is hurting people. but that's a different can of worms entirely and not relevant here) - and of course it will affect me directly if that person starts playing in a game I'm running - and I tried to express that in my "Address to the Elephant." That seemed to help, so I'm hoping that it will continue to help if/when a situation like this comes up again.
-
Not a problem. I won't post about my game anymore. Again, my apologies for derailing the thread.
Feel free to post about your game. Just not in this thread.
I don't really understand this. Theory is fun and all, but the point of all this advice is to apply it in the real world and so far this is the first real world example I've seen brought into the discussion. If the conversation isn't grounded in reality at some point then it's just going to continue to devolve into theoretical tail-chasing.
Personally I think one example of a conflict that Josh has mediated successfully in the past would be at LEAST as effective at teaching the lesson the BGs are giving as the pure theory so far posted and listed in the podcast.
-
Not a problem. I won't post about my game anymore. Again, my apologies for derailing the thread.
Feel free to post about your game. Just not in this thread.
I don't really understand this. Theory is fun and all, but the point of all this advice is to apply it in the real world and so far this is the first real world example I've seen brought into the discussion. If the conversation isn't grounded in reality at some point then it's just going to continue to devolve into theoretical tail-chasing.
Personally I think one example of a conflict that Josh has mediated successfully in the past would be at LEAST as effective at teaching the lesson the BGs are giving as the pure theory so far posted and listed in the podcast.
Perhaps we could start a thread where we go over specific examples?
The only problem is that it's incredibly difficult to deliver all relevant information through text.
Particularly when relevant information also may pertain to being upset.
I'd be willing to give it a shot, but I'm not really an expert.
-
Not a problem. I won't post about my game anymore. Again, my apologies for derailing the thread.
Feel free to post about your game. Just not in this thread.
I don't really understand this. Theory is fun and all, but the point of all this advice is to apply it in the real world and so far this is the first real world example I've seen brought into the discussion. If the conversation isn't grounded in reality at some point then it's just going to continue to devolve into theoretical tail-chasing.
Personally I think one example of a conflict that Josh has mediated successfully in the past would be at LEAST as effective at teaching the lesson the BGs are giving as the pure theory so far posted and listed in the podcast.
We go over it in the episodes, plus I generally don't need to fix problems because I head them off. Which is covered in other episodes.
And, this isn't theory btw. It is technique.
That being said, if you have a specific question, ask it.
-
Nope. Listened to the whole first podcast, and read the synopsis of the others. Those weren't related to the 'should/shouldn't,' and so I didn't feel that I needed to listen to them.
My apologies then. You premised your posts in just responding to other posts, hence why I thought it was off topic. If it had been slightly reworded it totally would've been on topic and would've had a different reception.
In general, we absolutely want to hear real examples in the threads about the show. But I guess we assumed they'd be in respond to the show, not in response to what seemed like someone coming in just to back up a buddy who had been problematic to begin with.
I'm going to clean up this thread- but if anyone has real examples or questions, by all means ask.
-
Ok, so I've now listened to all 4 of the 'don't kick players out' podcasts, and I think I've nailed down the major points of disagreement some of us have with these (If this isn't civil enough, or doesn't make sense, by all means let me know. Please read, I'm not trying to wall-of-text, I'm trying to make my point thoroughly):
Long winded explanation [spoiler]
I'm going to go with the dinner party analogy, because it was a good one (sidenote: If I changed every instance of dinner party in these next two paragraphs to DP, it would be awesome). A game is a lot like a dinner party in that it takes 4-6 hours and has 5-8 participants. Now, like a dinner party, a game is often just as much about meeting or getting to know people as it is about hanging out with the people you're already well-acquainted with. Somebody might bring their boyfriend or you might invite your neighbors. If somebody is rude and boorish at my dinner party, I'm not going to kick them out. Hell, short of bodily fluids or threats of violence, I think I'd be decently understanding. I might roll my eyes at the offending guest, and I might be mad that he ruined my party, but, mostly, I'll just be glad I don't have to see him again once the night's over.
And that's where the analogy gets problematic. The dinner party is a one evening commitment. You only have to spend a few hours with that person. But a campaign (at least those I've played in) can be a years long 1/week endeavor and if you always go into it with a "never say kick out" attitude, that means you continue to be stuck with that person. In this sense, a campaign is more like a series of dinner parties, in that, if you really really don't want to spend your time with that person, you shouldn't have to invite them back. Certainly, if you're close to them, or they brought delicious gin to the party (read: something good to the game), you might talk to them about their behavior and ask them why they were so rude. But, most of the time, if the person contributed nothing good, and was nothing but rude, you aren't asking to them to dinner party 2, and you aren't spending your time wondering why. I think the 'convince them not to come' is bad advice. I think that's manipulative and more passive-aggressive than directly removing them, and I know, personally, I'd probably realize I was being handled.
Now, I thought the 4th podcast in this series was really excellent advice for the planning stages of the game. I'm a relatively experienced DM and I still feel like I learned something to try with my next game. However, I don't think 'heading off problems before they start' is particularly realistic. The truth is that this is a hobby filled with a mishmash of people who often have poor communication skills and talking to them and analyzing them until you're blue in the face isn't necessarily going to let you know who is or isn't going to be a problem or who does or doesn't want things your game can't give. Heading all of these problems off just isn't realistic because, unlike Josh, the rest of us haven't all had great experiences with "problem players". The rest of us call them problem players for a reason.
So, the logical conclusion seems to be to be selective about your players. Pick people who you know you can play your game with. But that's also unrealistic. This is a hobby built on "friend of a friend", "can I bring my girl/boyfriend along?", and gaming clubs. And you yourselves have said you hate velvet roping your games (If I can paraphrase, cherry picking your players). As terrible as it sounds, sometimes, in my experience, you're just trying players out to see if they click. The vast, vast majority of the time (like 95%)they do, and most nonclicking can be gotten rid off by good planning (such as you suggested). But, in reality, you can't always work out the kinks in who will work out in your party and who won't. I'm not referring to the rogue who steals from the party (for reference, I would never kick a player out for that, and I agree this is over-prescribed), or other well-meaning miscreants, I'm referring to a person who is simply fundamentally rude and has an attitude that conflicts with your party. For most of us, no amount of planning can completely keep that from happening.
[/spoiler]
In summary, is it better to velvet rope, or is it better to kick players out? And, if somebody's a jerk at your dinner party, how much attempt at communication are you really obligated to do? Because, I think, for a lot of us, it's less than you guys seem to think.
-
I have a long standing "love hate" relationship with analogies. The key thing to remember is analogies are used to explain a point, not to examine or extrapolate. The item missing from the standard dinner party is the key part of gaming, the game. People come to a game because of the playing.
The reason that is important is that people understand the need to work at and improve that game. While dinner party communication may be rare, game communication is incredibly common. In fact it is rare not to communicate. How much obligation is their for a gaming group to communicate, quite a bit.
Even old school traditional grognard sour pusses advocate communication and player feedback. And remember, people who you would kick out of a dinner party, kick out of your game.
-
In summary, is it better to velvet rope, or is it better to kick players out? And, if somebody's a jerk at your dinner party, how much attempt at communication are you really obligated to do? Because, I think, for a lot of us, it's less than you guys seem to think.
Great point and something we should've elucidated on. The communication we advise is about quality, not quantity. Have good, effective communication up front- it will save a ton of time in the long run. Head off the problem when it first arises, don't spend 10 minutes every game just putting a band-aid on it.
I'm convinced that most gamers, when they "just talk to" their fellow players, do it in a way that adds to the problem, not heading it off. So it's the same amount of communication- perhaps a bit front loaded, but saves a ton of time, energy, and heartache in the long run.
-
Hey there,
I'm just getting caught up with all the podcasts, but this is near and dear to my heart.
But I have a rather unique take on this and can use some advice. So, I was running a D&D with friends for about 3 years when I started to have some personal issues and told the group that I really couldn't run any more (and needed to take a break from playing as well).
So, another player offered to run the game at his place and they had one session (a few players couldn't make that one due to some scheduling conflicts).
The next day, both I and the other players get emails/text messages from the rest of the group telling us that the game went really well and they don't really want any more players. So yes, I was kicked out of a game that I had been running... Also at about this time pretty much all social activities with these people stopped as well (so, no more invites to game nights, coming over to play rock band, etc.).
So.. yeah.. that happened.
But now the -real- questions. I'm back to running a game again. The question is, do I invite any of those people back? Should I be the bigger man?
-
Should you be the bigger man?
Good question, not one I can answer. Your friends were jerks, or they were just dumb. Or, whatever.
Then there is the need factor. When I was growing up in Maine we had to put up with players foibles, because if you didn't there would be no game at all. You may need these players. Or you might have tons of players.
So, do you need these guys? do you want to give them another shot?
The key question is: will you have more fun with or without them? Do that.
-
[raise thread] This thread seemed relevant to this episode (http://www.plausiblydeniable.com/opinion/gsf.html). At least, I thought so.
-
I actually don't disagree with any of those points, just in execution
-
I actually don't disagree with any of those points, just in execution
BEEP BOOP! EXECUTION COMMAND ACCEPTED!
STATE NAME OF HUMAN FLESH BAG IN NEED OF TERMINATION!
-
I totally accept being replaced by a robot