Play Matt: Are Competitive Men a Board Gaming Blight?

Sagrilarus wrote: So . . . Matt's recommendation to read the table and adjust appropriately is not going to be part of the discussion?

No, because as I said in my reply earlier he alienated everyone he wants to listen to him with that opener. This clickbait shit will never inspire any kind of reasonable discussion.

GorillaGrody wrote:

DWTripp wrote:
"Angry male nerds are a blight upon the earth. Almost every dreadful cultural phenomenon of the past decade, from internet harassment, to social media bubbles, all the way up to cases of mass murder has been propelled by bitter, socially awkward young men."

How you managed to recover from that stunningly uninformed and colossally silly premise is beyond me, but you pulled it out. 'It' being your head . Well done.

Hm. I don't know about the Earth, but we could be getting near that point in which bitter, socially awkward older men are going to become a blight on this discussion forum.

Matt's statement is totalizing, and begs for a fight, but I agree with it. Bitter, socially awkward young men are a big problem. There are underlying factors that go into this, but whether we're talking about young men who grow up in Syria or in Montana, they make up the bulk of spree murderers, as well as of the normalizers of political and economic instrumentation of human bodies which makes the world such a shit place to try and improve.

And I'm quoting myself here to append a note to say that this has nothing to do with some essential badness in men or boys, but a flaw in the way they're often raised. It took me a long time to get over getting called a pussy by every second male member of my family, watching them die young of liver failure and poverty and idiocy.

Just a note to say that a few days ago, there was some staff chat via email saying how lovely and refreshing it was that everyone was being nice to each other on the forums and that they were talking mainly about games and other geek culture stuff.

Obviously, it's me that's kicked that apple cart right over with this piece, and I've got some apples to pick up. But can we not use them to have an apple fight, please, so that the staff who are left to clean up the apple mush when we're done can continue to enjoy that pleasant vibe?

Vysetron wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: So . . . Matt's recommendation to read the table and adjust appropriately is not going to be part of the discussion?

No, because as I said in my reply earlier he alienated everyone he wants to listen to him with that opener. This clickbait shit will never inspire any kind of reasonable discussion.

This is in the Southern Baptist tradition of speech, where you start on the downswing, rile up emotions, and then turn the corner to bring home the promised land. It's an oratory institution that is very effective, very entertaining. If you choose to storm off and sulk halfway through that's your business, but I opted to stay for the big finish.

So the question, again -- what about reading the table and adjusting accordingly? If you won't answer it for Matt, answer it for me instead. I'll even say please and use a smiley so as not to offend. . (I hate smileys.)

Sagrilarus wrote: C'mon, seriously? How thin's your skin?

This is in the Southern Baptist tradition of speech, where you start on the downswing, rile up emotions, and then turn the corner to bring home the promised land. It's an oratory institution that is very effective, very entertaining. If you choose to storm off and sulk halfway through that's your business, but I opted to stay for the big finish.

So the question, again -- what about reading the table and adjusting accordingly? If you won't answer it for Matt, answer it for me instead. I'll even say please.

Somebody didn't read my other post. I'll clarify. For you.

This wasn't written in any tradition of speech other than "well this'll get clicks". The problem is that the content of the article is paper thin. It makes some weak statements on the issue then tries to backpedal for a milquetoast conclusion. If you're going to make a statement that you think is controversial you need stand by it and back your points up. I outlined everything in my post at the top of the thread, so for to state that I didn't read the thing is a really lazy attempt at mudslinging. If you're gonna try to stick me, try harder.

Obviously you read the table and the room in any social situation. That's how social interactions work, but that wasn't what this article was really about. If it was then the title, and the entire first paragraph, would reflect that. I think you know that.

Several posts were moderated in this thread. One of the things moderated is in a quote tweet, so I am posting this note. Generally we prefer to discuss moderation privately over DMs instead.

Vysetron wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: C'mon, seriously? How thin's your skin?

This is in the Southern Baptist tradition of speech, where you start on the downswing, rile up emotions, and then turn the corner to bring home the promised land. It's an oratory institution that is very effective, very entertaining. If you choose to storm off and sulk halfway through that's your business, but I opted to stay for the big finish.

So the question, again -- what about reading the table and adjusting accordingly? If you won't answer it for Matt, answer it for me instead. I'll even say please.

Somebody didn't read my other post. I'll clarify. For you.

Thanks. You're a peach.

Obviously you read the table and the room in any social situation. That's how social interactions work, but that wasn't what this article was really about. If it was then the title, and the entire first paragraph, would reflect that. I think you know that.

Thank you for answering. It appears you and Matt are in agreement.

Leaping to the conclusion that shocking headlines and intentionally inflammatory speech to draw attention are a new invention is pretty surprising coming from you. Prior posts have been insightful. I'll give you prior notice -- I use the concept all the time in my writing. It's been an effective trick for centuries. Matt clearly is not indicting the readership here en masse, he's setting the stage for what follows.

I unintentionally scared the hell out of a guy at an open game night once years back. We were playing Timber Tom, the best sounding game ever published. He took a move designed to impede my progress, more or less standard operating procedure in the game. I looked up at him and said, "you shall be my sworn enemy" in a Maxwell Smart sort of voice, and he damn near leapt out of his skin. He didn't know me; he didn't hear it as an indication of respect for his move choice. I had to backpeddle like hell and my buddy explained to him that I was full of shit when I spoke. He settled down, we continued to play. That was a valuable learning moment for me, one that I think Matt speaks to in this article. So I like other (more toxic) individuals still have things to learn from other peoples' opinions. The article serves a purpose.

Matt Thrower wrote: Just a note to say that a few days ago, there was some staff chat via email saying how lovely and refreshing it was that everyone was being nice to each other on the forums and that they were talking mainly about games and other geek culture stuff.

It's hard to look at the discussion now and think it wouldn't have been completely different if your article had been entitled "Are Competitive Gamers a Board Gaming Blight?"

When it comes to games, our individual stakes play a huge part in our level of competition. Like Mr. Thrower, I stop having fun with Poker when the pot hits a certain dollar value - I'll play, but I'll do anything to win. The intrinsic stakes of a game are a lot higher for certain male gamers when they're competing with, for example, women, homosexuals, Mormons, or anybody along the "pseudo-scientific" spectrum of gender identity.

Anjou Valentine wrote: It's hard to look at the discussion now and think it wouldn't have been completely different if your article had been entitled "Are Competitive Gamers a Board Gaming Blight?"

In self-defence, that wasn't my title. It was edited, although I agreed to the edit.

"Angry white nerd" is a subgroup that I put only a few steps below "A Florida Man" in terms of folks I don't need to interact with any more. They've made whole swaths of entire hobbies and fandoms completely unenjoyable with their man-baby bullshit. You can find them currently moaning and pissing about a whole range of topics from Captain Marvel to (still) bitching about the Last Jedi. Get a fucking life, guys.

And yes, this is the same type of person who thinks they are King Shit because they have some skill at a board game and love to bray about it, and en route to their latest victory they'll belittle and (try to) intimidate anyone they can.

I say? Fuck 'em. I don't need 'em.

So I have my own quote, or rule, that I live by that I came up with long before I read Knizia's version: Always play to win, but don't care if you lose. Do I sometimes get butt-hurt when someone takes me out of winning or the like? Sure, but I try not to take it out on others.

So much I agree and disagree with here, but it's probably best I stay out of it.

Sagrilarus wrote: Leaping to the conclusion that shocking headlines and intentionally inflammatory speech to draw attention are a new invention is pretty surprising coming from you. Prior posts have been insightful. I'll give you prior notice -- I use the concept all the time in my writing. It's been an effective trick for centuries. Matt clearly is not indicting the readership here en masse, he's setting the stage for what follows.

I didn't call clickbait a new invention. I called it shitty. And it is. You have to have an actual article to back up stuff like this, like Angelus did, otherwise all it does is anger the wrong people and make the site look worse. But by all means excuse it as long as it said something you liked.

I'm doing a lot of moderation in this thread and tempers are running high. Stop attacking each other and being hostile towards each other and not the article. I have been leaving as much critique of the actual material in as possible even in heated posts, to keep actual discussion going.