Issue with a problem player and VC's open gaming policy


GM Discussion

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 4/5

Drogon wrote:

I'm going to re-introduce the store situation:

I announce on a public venue (one run by my local VC, set up at the behest of Paizo staff). I do this because I am the largest PFS organizer in the state, running around 200 games per year.

As a store owner, I have the right to deny any particular individual entrance to my store. So long as I am not violating a state or federal law when I deny that person entrance, THIS IS MY RIGHT.

What I am seeing above is that, if I intend to deny someone entrance to my store, I should pull out of the public announcement venue set up by the local VC and Paizo. Losing my 200 games worth of players by splitting them off of their player-base would be pretty detrimental to the other dozen stores that organize games on that site, don't you think?

People's insistence on maintaining the rights of the public cannot override my own rights as a proprietor. This discussion is starting to break down into just that, and needs to be refocused.

No I think that's not where we are at. I think, most of us are saying that if they do not want to deal with certain people in the privacy of their home, they can. But many times, it's best to deal with that privately via email or other means. Instead of using an open public site where everyone will see it, including the people that they don't want to host.

When it comes to matters of game stores, that is their preference and choice. It's up to them whether or not they want to be public or not. But if they are public, they have to understand that you are going to get the jerkfaces with the nice people. While the store has the right to kick players out accordingly, it's a little harder because then you are doing so in a public forum and you have to justify yourself. Versus going private and doing as you please.

4/5

I hate multi-quote but it's the only way to catch up and address some things. SO here I go.

Sitri wrote:

I guess it depends on how literal this statement is.

Arestes wrote:


...However, in order to host these sessions I have to use the local societies meet-up.com group in order to advertise these sessions....

Additionally, as someone stated earlier, paid members of Paizo have stated that organizers do have the right to remove problem players.

And yes physical property rights are more important than virtual ones.

I think this mystery VO is speaking way out of his/her pay grade.

I think that taking that quote that literal is so far in left field it's coming back in from right field.

No VC can force people to advertise games on their meetup site. So taking the quote to mean that is wrong. I don't believe any VC would tell someone that (especially since VC are suppose to encourage advertising on Paizo's site. Which is in direct conflict with that quote.)

I read that quote as the OP feels the need to use that site in order to successful attract players. And that is why he has to use that site.

Cubic Prism wrote:
Jeffrey Fox wrote:
Sitri wrote:

It amazes me that volunteer organizers for a hobby would have the audacity to tell another person who must be admitted into that person's house. I don't think I could take them seriously.

If they didn't host at their own home's, they would be hypocrites. If they did host at their own house, I would go there and party like its 1999.

And no VC has said that.

All the mystery VC has said, is don't post exclusive meetup on my website that is for all inclusive meetups.

I find it amazing that people only care about the property rights of the OP and not the property rights of the mystery VC. It's like people think VC's don't have any rights to control their personal property as much as anyone else does.

Per Arestes:

Quote:
I have previously spoken with the VC for my area and he has stated that the open play rules means that all sessions advertised through the societies page must be open to all comers.
Seems clear to me what was told to him.

Yeah, clear that he was told that only all inclusive events are to be posted on the meetup site.

Nowhere does that say the VC told the OP that this person had to be allowed into his home.

Saying you can't advertise on my website is not the same as saying that you must accept this person into your home.

Cubic Prism wrote:
Effectively you're saying that the venue can't enforce their own bans on people if they want to take part of the main PFS gathering mechanism. Also lets be honest, if you can't advertise to the main PFS group, you're being treated like a second class member.

If the main PFS advertising group is owned by one person, then yes that person can dictate how it's used. That's the problem with using other people's property. The VC can't dictate who can or can not enter a venue, and the venue can't dictate who the VC allows to advertise.

Now if the VC knows about a problem player being banned, then he probably should ban the problem players from the advertising group. But we don't even know if the VC knows about the problem player in order to make that decision.

Of course why hesitate to vilify the VC before we find out if the guy even knows about the issue.

Drogon wrote:

I'm going to re-introduce the store situation:

I announce on a public venue (one run by my local VC, set up at the behest of Paizo staff). I do this because I am the largest PFS organizer in the state, running around 200 games per year.

As a store owner, I have the right to deny any particular individual entrance to my store. So long as I am not violating a state or federal law when I deny that person entrance, THIS IS MY RIGHT.

What I am seeing above is that, if I intend to deny someone entrance to my store, I should pull out of the public announcement venue set up by the local VC and Paizo. Losing my 200 games worth of players by splitting them off of their player-base would be pretty detrimental to the other dozen stores that organize games on that site, don't you think?

People's insistence on maintaining the rights of the public cannot override my own rights as a proprietor. This discussion is starting to break down into just that, and needs to be refocused.

Does your local VC require you to have an all inclusive gameday in order to advertise on his site that he owns? If not then then it doesn't really apply to you, if it does well...

As a website owner, he has the right to deny any particular individual or group use of his website. So long as he isn't violating a state or federal law when he denies them use, that's his right.

My area uses warhorn for different stores, and each store maintains their own so that they can control who they allow and control how they collect money for events they host that have a fee. I haven't run into a problem yet of players not being able to navigate through the different stores and events. (The new warhorn dashboard is great for that.)

And yes, I do agree that if a person is such a problem that a store needs to ban him that a VC who runs a meetup type site should look into banning that person rather then banning people organizing events.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Jeffrey Fox wrote:

Does your local VC require you to have an all inclusive gameday in order to advertise on his site that he owns? If not then then it doesn't really apply to you, if it does well...

As a website owner, he has the right to deny any particular individual or group use of his website. So long as he isn't violating a state or federal law when he denies them use, that's his right.

Fair points.

And the answer to the question is, "No." Of course, I was one of the driving forces in getting this site set up the way that it is, so it would make sense that the site would somewhat follow my own sensibilities.

So, carry on...

Liberty's Edge 5/5

I'm seeing a bunch of absolutes here.

How bout we dial it back and realize that each situation is circumstantial.

Does a store owner like Drogon have the right to ban someone from his store and still advertise on the regional website?

Yes.

Although if he's too willy nilly or arbitrary (which I'm sure he isn't) then people will stop patronizing his store as much. Communities have a way of self regulating.

But then Drogon likely should handle his ban between himself And the customer and maybe tge VOs.

We can't make this a zero sum equation. Things will be circumstantially different with every circumstance.


Lady Ophelia wrote:

No I think that's not where we are at. I think, most of us are saying that if they do not want to deal with certain people in the privacy of their home, they can. But many times, it's best to deal with that privately via email or other means. Instead of using an open public site where everyone will see it, including the people that they don't want to host.

When it comes to matters of game stores, that is their preference and choice. It's up to them whether or not they want to be public or not. But if they are public, they have to understand that you are going to get the jerkfaces with the nice people. While the store has the right to kick players out accordingly, it's a little harder because then you are doing so in a public forum and you have to justify yourself. Versus going private and doing as you please.

I think you're misinterpreting what has been said. Nowhere was it said was that this would be done via public shaming. If anything, Arestes behavior implies (granted implication doesn't equal fact, and I'm trying to limit my viewpoint to only what's been posted by Arestes) that he would go through proper respectful channels to do so. I think folks should re-read what's been said and put yourself in Arestes shoes. Maybe then you'll understand why Drogon and I are saying what we're saying.

Now, as it turns out I know a number of people involved, so I'll be recusing myself from this conversation out of respect for them.

3/5

It is all about property.

If you own the property you have rights to that property.

In your home you can ban anyone you want from your home.

In drogons store he can limit people from his store with in the federal and local laws(usually this just means you can not discriminate against the forms of illegal dsicrimination[sex, religion, ect]).

Now the site where you post your event is also owned by someone. If you own it you can post what you are legally allowed to post on it. If not the owner has the right to restrict usage of that site. If you post events in a manner the owner does not want, said owner can bar you for using it.

Generally what you own you control.

1/5

Finlanderboy wrote:

It is all about property.

If you own the property you have rights to that property.

In your home you can ban anyone you want from your home.

In drogons store he can limit people from his store with in the federal and local laws(usually this just means you can not discriminate against the forms of illegal dsicrimination[sex, religion, ect]).

Now the site where you post your event is also owned by someone. If you own it you can post what you are legally allowed to post on it. If not the owner has the right to restrict usage of that site. If you post events in a manner the owner does not want, said owner can bar you for using it.

Generally what you own you control.

Sure that website owner can legally make restrictions based on whatever he wants, just as Drogan said that Arestes could stop someone from entering his house because he didn't like his haircut. But actually feeling justified in and making demands that someone relinquish rights on what is most likely their most valuable and private possession needlessly for using your $100/yr (or whatever a meetup site costs) digital resource, displays a lack of respect and judgment I don't feel befitting of anyone acting in an any official capacity.

While Drogon may have set up his own site, I do not believe a VO would stop advertising publicly on another site for his store if Drogan banned a single player. This VO is trying to strong arm Arestes out of his own private residence, when I do not believe it would be done to a public store. A house should have more rights than a store, not less.

4/5 5/5 **

12 people marked this as a favorite.

Putting on my Big Boy pants.

Time to clear the air. I thought I recognized aspects of the OP's story when I first read this so I reached out to one of my players and it turns out this is about my Meetup site, thus I'm the nameless VC. However, like all stories there are two sides, so grab a beverage of your choice and read on.

I have 285 players registered on my local PFS-only Meetup site, and I haven't had a chance to meet all of them. The OP is one of those that I've never met in person. (Because he posted anonymously I will honor his desire to remain that way. In no way does it change the story.) A few weeks ago he "Suggested a new Meetup" at his house, but in my opinion he used some pretty strong language, to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing here) "I reserve the right to select only those players I want." It came across as fairly elitist in my opinion, so I posted a comment that it seemed counter to the spirit of organized play and that I preferred games posted to be first-come, first-seated. He deleted the event and e-mailed me to get clarification on my posting policies. However, life and work happened and I didn't immediately get a chance to answer him. He also began posting more games on the site to be run at his house, but without this language.

After I saw this thread, I reached out to him to ask if he was the anonymous OP so that I could find out what was really driving this and get the story on what had happened with the problem player at the referenced game back in October. He responded that he was the OP and let me know that the only point of his original statements were so that he could exclude this one problem player if necessary, and he agreed that perhaps his original comments could be construed as somewhat elitist. With that point now known to me, I agreed that yes he could exclude specific players if he had cause. Said player had RSVP'd to one future event at the OP's house so I overrode the RSVP, and then contacted that player myself to let him know I was the one who had done it so that the OP wouldn't have to deal with this player if he didn't want to. For those of you posting that, within reason, an event host has the right to exclude certain problem players for cause, I agree with you, I just didn't want event hosts to start cherry-picking players who signed up for their games. I believe that, by-and-large, we should be more egalitarian than that.

If players want to set up private PFS games with certain people only, they are welcome to do that off-line via e-mail. As has been said, I have no power to control that, nor would I want to so long as it's working for them. I know of several local games that have occurred this way. Heck, I've done it myself - there are only a few of us with high level Seeker characters, so when we wanted to play a level 15 module we just e-mailed each other to organize our schedules, there was no reason to post that on the Meetup.

Mike Brock, when he was still a lowly VC, once posted that many players use PFS as a way to meet other players, decide which ones they feel comfortable gaming with, then invite them to home campaigns or adventure paths and sometimes disappear from PFS. He didn't say this in a derogatory way, he supported it as a neutral way to safely meet a variety of players before inviting them into your house! I even let people post one-time organizational meetings on my site for those GMs looking for interested players for an AP or home campaign, although I don't let them use it to coordinate their routine gatherings after that, mostly because it would clutter my site with events that the vast majority of the players would be excluded from. Once a home group is formed they can use e-mail to coordinate their schedules after that.

So, back to the story. Of great concern to me were the particulars of the questionable GM behavior, even though it was four months ago. The story from the OP was so far out there that I needed to get a second viewpoint from the game, so I checked the Meetup history, found out from the RSVPs who the father-and-son were, and contacted the father directly to get his side. He responded immediately and we talked by phone last night, in which his telling of the story was nearly identical to the OP's, even though I only asked the question in an open-ended fashion, not in a leading manner. I'm telling you, this was a "Stop, turn around, use your binoculars, and look for the line that you crossed way back there" moment. With this information in hand, I took the action to ban this person from my Meetup site. I had recently spoken to this player/GM about several much more minor complaints about him so that he could correct his actions, but this egregious error in judgment could not be overlooked.

None of the players ever reported this behavior to me or my VL back when it happened. The father and son simply haven't returned to another game, although I hope they will now. Another of the players later left the Meetup altogether, and the OP almost left. If it weren't for this thread I might never have found out. I have never banned a player before and did not take the action lightly.

Anyway, that's the rest of the story. The OP and I are good, and we look forward to finally meeting and gaming together some day. I have found the comments on this thread to be very thoughtful, given the partial information available, and I thank you all for the food for thought. Now, let's go roll some dice!

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love a happy ending.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Now that's a Venture Captain.

4/5 5/5 **

5 people marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Now that's a Venture Captain.

So is Sheila Heidmarch, try not to hold that against the rest of us!

3/5

Mr. simmons, not that it matters much that I say this but you are an awesome guy

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Nice

Sovereign Court 4/5 5/5 ** RPG Superstar 2014 Top 32

Well done on a superb handling of a difficult situation.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Well done.

I am glad that the issue was able to be resolved in a mature and rational way.

Grand Lodge 5/5

TOZ wrote:
Now that's a Venture Captain.

+1. Very well handled, Dan.

*starts a slow clap*

Liberty's Edge 4/5

TOZ wrote:
Now that's a Venture Captain.

Yeah I think Dan's done a great job in the area. I started running a few games in No. Virginia and Maryland in 2008 but Dan's done a fantastic job to expand games since he took over and when he returned as VC of DC.

I know that the problem player has been an issue for me. My friend banned him from a game back in 1999 after he yelled out loud and then pounded the table we were gaming at, after my friend killed his character. I know that several PFS players intentionally avoid him when he signs up for games. He has been GMing in the area but obviously he made inappropriate comments with a kit at the table, while GMing.

Hopefully the father and son return to the games now.

Mike

Liberty's Edge 4/5

Seth Gipson wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Now that's a Venture Captain.

+1. Very well handled, Dan.

*starts a slow clap*

*claps louder*

Mike

Lantern Lodge 2/5 *

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Yes, Dan is a very good VC, player and judge. He would not have banned this GM unless it was absolutely necessary for the betterment of his local PFS region.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

nice resolution to a potentially ugly situation.

51 to 70 of 70 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / GM Discussion / Issue with a problem player and VC's open gaming policy All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in GM Discussion