Quote from: Paul B;350008Ah. I'm seeing the basic problem here.

There's a fundamental difference between:

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit." That's criticism.

and

"This game is pretentious, offensive shit that they made," using said pretentious, offensive shit as a means of earning points against them. That's moralising against them.

That is because the game wasn't delivered to them by the universe at large.  There was an individual that wrote this out, involving a thought process and the effort to put pen to paper.  The entire time, this individual was so intent on instructing people about gang rape, they utterly forgot to consider other avenues for their information.  Like doing some actual research, and writing an article for the local paper.

In fact, they are so outraged at the local legal system giving a pass (in their opinion) to violent criminals, their first thought was to re-enact the consequences of a gang rape.  The exercise is offensive because the author willingly wrote a highly offensive exercise.  If that doesn't make sense to you, then you are likely so enamored of your own hipness, no discussion will ever break through the armour of your emo cynicism.

Did you contact your local game store and see if you can get a table to host a session about gang rape?  I am presuming you didn't, because you clearly lack the strength of your convictions.  Highly possible is that you also don't have much contact with the outside world.  You can certainly continue your thinly veiled diatribe about the 'thought police', but until you host one of these jeepforms, you have zero credibility, much like the authour of this particular scenario.

GnomeWorks

Ah, a part-time psychoanalyst. Super.

Also, just FYI saying you play, 'devils-advocate' rings the same alarm bells with me as a player around the table fucking things up for everyone and then saying, "But, it's what my character would do!"

Sorry JA, i'm fiddling with your chew-toy.

Quote from: One Horse Town;350039Ah, a part-time psychoanalyst. Super.

That's... not really what I was going for, but sure. I'll run with it.

QuoteAlso, just FYI saying you play, 'devils-advocate' rings the same alarm bells with me as a player around the table fucking things up for everyone and then saying, "But, it's what my character would do!"

Yeah, that's kind of the point, isn't it? At least I'm being upfront about it.

Examine things from all angles. Take a proposition and run with it, explore all the ramifications. Find your assumptions, play around with them, see what happens. Ask the questions other folk aren't willing to ask, that they don't think to ask.

You might find it irritating. I find it intellectually intriguing.

Paul B., your BADD analogy fails because no version of D&D ever glorified or concentrated on Satan worship. This Gang Rape game does glorify and concentrate on gang rape, its the title of the game in fact!

And no matter how you dress it up, gang rape is not cool.

So, you need to try harder with your moral equivalency bullshit.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350040Examine things from all angles. Take a proposition and run with it, explore all the ramifications. Find your assumptions, play around with them, see what happens. Ask the questions other folk aren't willing to ask, that they don't think to ask.

You might find it irritating. I find it intellectually intriguing.

I find it an indication that the moral compass needs a new magnet.

I choose to take the stand that gang rape is wrong. From that, a game that concentrates and glorifies gang rape is also wrong and I do not want it representing any aspect of the role-playing hobby.

EDIT: Easing back from the personal on this. I understand the need to examine and analyze new material to refine a personal worldview, but once a baseline is achieved the new material must be measured against that baseline. What do you choose?

Quote from: jeff37923I find it an indication that your moral compass needs a new magnet.

You're really going to judge me, as an individual, from what I say on the 'tubes?

I find that laughable. Considering that in the very next paragraph in that post, I state that I would also be disturbed by anyone interested in playing this stuff.

Quote from: jeff37923;350041This Gang Rape game does glorify and concentrate on gang rape, its the title of the game in fact!

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a pretentious piece of twaddle deliberately designed to be as offensive and unpleasant as possible, by the designers own admission.

Emphasis mine.

One of these two statements is wrong.

Yeah, I knew about this game before this thread too. Is there a statute of limitations on calling shit shit?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350040Yeah, that's kind of the point, isn't it? At least I'm being upfront about it.

Devil's advocacy is quite often the retreat of the moral relativist though isn't it? Somewhere to retreat to where they can abdicate responsibility for what they are saying with a limp and lame rejoinder of, "i was playing devil's advocate!"

Claiming Devil's advocacy is also the easiest way to camourflage trolling.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;350036so why do it?

Prurience, pretension, psuedointellectualism, childishness, hostility to morality, a desire to be seen as "edgy", the list could go on, and frankly, I don't care what the thought process is.

Deeds, not thoughts, are what matter, and the deed in question is that they made a game about gang rape to play with their friends.  

That's pretty goddamn fucked up no matter what the reason.  It is not a subject that should be made sport of.  

The only thing I feel I can say with certainty they didn't intend is, ironically, the very thing they wear as a shield against criticism, the claim it was a genuine awareness exercise, because it's clear no genuine public awareness will arise from it's existence.

If you want to make people aware of a major public issue, a handful of dorks at a gaming convention who couldn't care less is probably not a good place to start.

QuoteI don't know if you included me in your "some of you people,"

I didn't, for what it's worth.  I ascribe to you far different motives, that, while perhaps a kind of nobility, are mostly a waste of time.  

Quote from: One Horse Town;350045Devil's advocacy is quite often the retreat of the moral relativist though isn't it? Somewhere to retreat to where they can abdicate responsibility for what they are saying with a limp and lame rejoinder of, "i was playing devil's advocate!"

It might be. It's been awhile since I honestly contemplated my moral system, and recent events in my life have caused whatever it was to be shaken up, anyhow.

And I usually don't pull the "I was just playing devil's advocate" phrase out, anyhow. However, using that thought process is often useful for continuing a discussion, and helps us to figure out base underlying principles about ourselves and the world around us. So long as it's understood that a lot of the things that I investigate don't necessarily agree with how I personally see the world, then it's all good.

QuoteClaiming Devil's advocacy is also the easiest way to camourflage trolling.

I'm also not the sort of douchebag who will keep making the same kinds of arguments over and over again, even when presented with a solid argument against what I'm saying. Give me a good reason to change my mind, and I will. Give my "devil's advocate" argument a solid, reasonable response, and I'll drop that line of inquiry, as it has been answered satisfactorily.

I fail to see what's trollish about this.

Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the Platonic form of trolling.

Quote from: J Arcane;350047Prurience, pretension, psuedointellectualism, childishness, hostility to morality, a desire to be seen as "edgy", the list could go on, and frankly, I don't care what the thought process is.

You might not, but I find it an interesting question, at least. It might be something as lame as "a desire to be seen as 'edgy,'" which wouldn't really be all that exciting as a rationale.

QuoteDeeds, not thoughts, are what matter, and the deed in question is that they made a game about gang rape to play with their friends.

I'm beginning to suspect that the word "play" might not be the best one to use to describe this particular... thing. I might be wrong, though.

QuoteThat's pretty goddamn fucked up no matter what the reason.  It is not a subject that should be made sport of.  

I concur. But the question is, did they do it to make sport of the subject matter?

QuoteThe only thing I feel I can say with certainty they didn't intend is, ironically, the very thing they wear as a shield against criticism, the claim it was a genuine awareness exercise, because it's clear no genuine public awareness will arise from it's existence.

You claim it's a shield. Why? What makes you so certain that they did it for any reason other than that one?

QuoteIf you want to make people aware of a major public issue, a handful of dorks at a gaming convention who couldn't care less is probably not a good place to start.

It does seem a little silly, yes. But if an artist wants to make a political statement, they paint. A writer writes a short story.

A game designer designs a game...

QuoteI didn't, for what it's worth.  I ascribe to you far different motives, that, while perhaps a kind of nobility, are mostly a waste of time.  

Eh, I'm a philosophy student. You have no idea how often I hear that my efforts are a waste of time.

For the record i'm not suggesting GnomeWorks is either a moral relatavist or a troll. Just that the DA phrase often hides such things under a shield.

I found some footage of this LARP online...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PNJur5i6zaw

Quote from: J Arcane;350049Most people tend to regard deliberately starting an argument where none was present as pretty much the Platonic form of trolling.

My complete and utter hatred of Platonic forms pretty much makes any reasonable response to this impossible... but I'll try.

I find the basic premise of this opinion very strange. Do you people not engage in discussion - argument, even - over a variety of topics with your social circle? I do this all the time, on a regular basis. I can't recall the last time a day went by where I didn't get in an argument.

Not all arguments are heated. My arguments in my live social circle are understood to - generally - not have much personal attachment; we throw out ideas, we discuss them, investigate some, refute others, and further the discourse.

If there is no conversation to be had - if we all agree - someone (usually myself) will investigate alternatives. I'll question our assumptions, try to figure out another angle, and work from there. I don't necessarily agree with anything I come up with, I do it for the sake of discussion.

There's no malice here, no spite. When I play devil's advocate, I do so simply for the purpose and joy of continuing an interesting conversation. I'm not trying to trick you, I'm not trying to egg you on. It really is just for the purpose of furthering conversation.