|
We're talking about prisons.Specifically, one prison.
Specifically, one prisoner.
The thing is, some of us aren't talking about this one prison or this one prisoner. In fact some of us aren't even concerned with the prison system at all (rehabilitation versus punishment etc). That is an entirely separate discussion.
What some of us are talking about, what we are concerned with (and I would have hoped you and others would be), is the way our hobby is being characterized, in the media in general, and by these prison officials in particular. I, for one, would rather that convicted criminals and D&D had not be mentioned together at all, and definitely not in the manner that this case has.
The entire reason that this story has gotten as much attention as it has has everything to do with D&D and how it is perceived by the public in general. Much the same way that rock music and video games are targeted by certain groups within society, D&D is seen as a something worthy of contempt or fear. Something wrong. Do you honestly think that if the story of Mr. Singer's appeal had been based on him being allowed to play some form of board game, that we would have been reading about it in the New York Times and USA Today? I highly doubt it. I don't doubt for a second that prisoners take prisons to court all the time in attempts to make their incarceration more tolerable. We don't hear about those cases. They don't make the Times. You then have to ask yourself why. Once you answer that you might begin to understand why some of us object to that manner in which this case has been dealt with and subsequently reported.
The fact that many members of our own community don't see the root issue as a point of concern is entirely shocking to me. If we won't defend our hobby, who will? If members of our own community agree with the slanderous claims being used to denigrate our hobby, what does that say to those who don't know any better. What does that say about us?
It is no wonder that many enthusiasts are leery about revealing in public they play D&D. Apparently we do have something to feel shame about. Our hobby, in the eyes of many including some that are active participants, is a catalyst capable of promoting gang activity and predisposing people to violence. If that is truly how some of you feel, if that is what you actually believe, why are you playing? And before you answer with, "because I know right from wrong! And I would never cross that line...", ask yourself how do you think Mr. Singer would have answered that question prior to the incident that ended his sister's boyfriends life? I would imagine the answer would have been the same. Maybe not. I don't know Mr. Singer. But to dismiss him (and all convicted prisoners) as "abnormal" and unable to distinguish right from wrong or fantasy from reality, is ludicrous.
Anything can be dangerous in prison. Even a toothbrush. I'm betting I will be waiting a long time to read in the New York Times how they have been banned from prisons.
People are disparaging your hobby! Stand up and defend it! Say nothing if you must, but please don't lend credence to their position by agreeing that our hobby is dangerous, in any context or setting.
I am not advocating that ANYONE be allowed the right to play D&D. I am advocating that no one should be denied the right to play under grossly misrepresented, patently false and wholly unsubstantiated claims. Prison has no bearing in the matter for me.
That is all I can say... I'm out.
Cheers
Shifty said:
{...and those ban happy jerks keep gaining traction.}
I can't argue about what's going on in your country because the USA has different laws, and I don't know if you have the same free speech protections that we do have in the USA.
{The only people who have lost anything here is we, the gamers, as our hobby gets another 'credible' hit to it's reputation as a legitimate passtime.}
Since when is a decision made by a prison in Wisconsin a "credible" hit to anyone not in prison? Prisons ban the works of Noam Chomsky, cell phones, pornography, weapons, drugs, alcohol, tobacco, pets, baseball hats, flip-flops, shorts--yet I don't see anyone using the argument, "they're banning X in prison, therefore we should ban it for everyone." (Or if they are, they're the sort of nut who thinks we should ban Swiss army knives because they're "dangerous weapons.")
And before you start thinking this ban on RPGs has anything to do with the "Satanic panic" of the 80s, Waupun Correctional Institution (where this first-degree murderer is held) has a pagan priestess as one of its two acting chaplains.
{Sure, you can fob it all off because you claim it's just one dude, in just one prison, but frankly its just another precedent that has been set that rolls on very easily to affect others.}
Yeah, I hate it when a court of appeals rules that a prison's ban on something is reasonable for the prison, because everyone starts clamoring for an amendment to the Constitution banning D&D.
{My view is that your assessment of his lot in life (no rehab, just punishment) is a little off as well. I'd far prefer him relaxing and playing D&D and not bothering others}
The guys been playing D&D since he was a kid. If only D&D's magical gamer power of "not bothering others" (at all times) was working when Singer premeditatively stabbed and bludgeoned a man to death, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
In other words, just because this murderer is playing D&D 4 hours a day doesn't mean he doesn't have hours left in the day where he's not free to shank someone.
{rather than starting trouble and ending up shanking some guy who is there doing time for an unpaid parking ticket.}
I don't know about your country, but in the USA, people with unpaid parking tickets usually do community service, they don't end up in a maximum security penitentiary with murderers.
{The problem is that given what this guy did, he is a pretty easy target for disdain - even though you don't actually know ANY of the background of why he did what he did}
I've been on a jury trial where we convicted a woman of first degree attempted manslaughter (she shot at her ex-boyfriend six times, hit him four times, turned the gun on herself but was out of bullets, led a low-speed chase with the police back to her apartment to get more bullets, realized the police wouldn't let her get into her apartment, tried to commit suicide by cop by exiting with her gun out, was shot, survived, went to trial, convicted by myself and eleven other jurors).
I understand the concept of premeditation, and how the law treats it and uses it to differentiate between one kind of crime and another. I may not know all the details of this man's specific case, but it is a fact that he intended to kill someone and there were no mitigating circumstances regarding that:
As opposed to:
{(and if he's TRULY that bad, he wouldn't be mixing much with other inmates).}
His prison is a maximum security prison.
Thus, everyone around him is a suitable dangerous inmate, and they're all mixing.
Kevin Andrew Murphy:
{The ban applies to all prisoners in that prison, not just the lifers, not just one specific lifer. The lifer was simply the one that brought the lawsuit, for the simple fact that he's going to be there the longest and has both the time and the interest to bring the suit. As for "he failed to prove his case" you also skip over the "this time" inherent in all such pleas. He can appeal, and from what the judge laid out in his ruling, and the analysis over at some of the legal blogs, what the judge is wanting is the same things said by the various prisoners and academics to be repeated by some witnesses in law enforcement.}
Right--which is why I'm not too up in arms about it. It's not like the SCOTUS has said, "we agree with this ban, the game is dangerous and should be kept out of prisons." It's a ruling from an appeals court basically saying, "you have failed to prove a critical point, Singer." Happens all the time. He may try again. Let him.
To quote one news story:
{And as has been mentioned on some of the legal blogs, it's also interesting that this may be used to impeach Captain Muraski's credibility in other cases for which he's a witness. All a lawyer has to do is ask "So, Captain Muraski. Is it also true that you believe that D&D leads to gang activity, and a dungeon master is the same as a gang leader?"}
Anything that puts one prisoner in a position of power over a group of other prisoners is something the COs are going to scrutinize carefully.
Lord oKOyA:
{What some of us are talking about, what we are concerned with (and I would have hoped you and others would be), is the way our hobby is being characterized, in the media in general}
The "media in general" characterizes gamers as nerds, not as violent criminals. Hollywood actors, well-known comedians, musicians, and so on are public about their D&D geekdom. This is not 1980, people aren't shunned for playing D&D because it's Satanic--it's a geek hobby. Ten million people play World of Warcraft (more than the population of Georgia)... fantasy gaming is almost mainstream. The media thinks it's funny, not scary.
{The entire reason that this story has gotten as much attention as it has has everything to do with D&D and how it is perceived by the public in general. Much the same way that rock music and video games are targeted by certain groups within society, D&D is seen as a something worthy of contempt or fear.}
Contempt, maybe, but not fear.
Wikipedia: D&D in popular culture.
{Something wrong. Do you honestly think that if the story of Mr. Singer's appeal had been based on him being allowed to play some form of board game, that we would have been reading about it in the New York Times and USA Today? I highly doubt it. I don't doubt for a second that prisoners take prisons to court all the time in attempts to make their incarceration more tolerable. We don't hear about those cases. They don't make the Times. You then have to ask yourself why. Once you answer that you might begin to understand why some of us object to that manner in which this case has been dealt with and subsequently reported.}
You mean like how the intro line of the New York Times article says
Oooh, such scathing words from the media! They're calling us nerds!
Let's digress a moment and quote AboveTheLaw.com quoting the court's response:
Another comment from the court about "finding another outlet for violent tendencies":
In other words, the court is saying "yes, some prisoners may benefit from RPGs, but Singer's prison believes in their situation it can lead to gang-like activity, which is a threat to COs and other inmates, and Singer has failed to show that is not the case in his situation."
{The fact that many members of our own community don't see the root issue as a point of concern is entirely shocking to me. If we won't defend our hobby, who will?}
This isn't an attack on our hobby. This is a maximum security prison showing concern about murderers and thieves gathering in groups and planning (fantasy) murders, thievery, and escapes from dungeons. Or would you be OK with Charles Manson running a game of Vampire, Paranoia, or D&D while behind bars? Some people can't discern a fantasy game from reality, and they shouldn't be allowed to play.
{If members of our own community agree with the slanderous claims being used to denigrate our hobby, what does that say to those who don't know any better. What does that say about us?}
Slanderous claims such as "in prison, this can lead to gang-like activity where one person is the ringleader of other players and determines who they're able to rob and murder"?
I suspect inmates aren't allowed to play Halo, WOW, or GTA, either. They're probably not allowed to watch Prison Break or Oz, either. Do you have a problem with that? Or are you just sensitive about the D&D ban because you play D&D?
{Our hobby, in the eyes of many including some that are active participants, is a catalyst capable of promoting gang activity and predisposing people to violence.}
Take your words out of my mouth, please.
1) D&D is a game where you take the role of a fantasy character whose "job" is to kill others and take their stuff. Do you deny this?
2) Some people have difficulty realizing the difference between fantasy behavior and what is reality. Do you deny this?
3) People with violent tendencies and have demonstrated their willingness to kill and rob real people probably should be steered away from situations where those behaviors are encouraged, whether in reality or fantasy. Do you deny this?
4) In prison, life is different than "on the outside." In a maximum security prison, corrections officers are often at risk of injury or death because of the violent criminals they must supervise at all times. Do you deny this?
5) To ensure the safety of the prison staff and other prisoners, some things aren't allowed in a maximum security prison because they could be used to harm others or lead to behavior that could be used to harm others. Do you deny this?
6) Prisoners aren't the best judges of what is good for the safety and security of the prison and its staff. Do you deny this?
7) While some prisoners may benefit from RPGs, others may find it encourages their problem behaviors. Do you deny this?
8) Barring an extensive (and costly) study and analysis of every inmate in a prison to determine whether RPGs are good or bad for the individual in question, it is easier and safer to ban an activity that may be harmful to some inmates or the staff. Do you deny this?
{If that is truly how some of you feel, if that is what you actually believe, why are you playing? And before you answer with, "because I know right from wrong! And I would never cross that line...", ask yourself how do you think Mr. Singer would have answered that question prior to the incident that ended his sister's boyfriends life? I would imagine the answer would have been the same. Maybe not. I don't know Mr. Singer. But to dismiss him (and all convicted prisoners) as "abnormal" and unable to distinguish right from wrong or fantasy from reality, is ludicrous.}
Dismiss "all prisoners" as abnormal? Yeah, that's ludicrous. Good thing that's not what I'm doing.
Dismiss "all people guilty of first-degree homicide" as abnormal? Not ludicrous at all. And that *is* what I'm doing.
{Anything can be dangerous in prison. Even a toothbrush. I'm betting I will be waiting a long time to read in the New York Times how they have been banned from prisons.}
Convert your toothbrush into a weapon, it's dangerous, and they'll take it away from you.
But how can you tell if an RPG is dangerous or not? You can't. So, to protect the men and women working in the prison as corrections officers, the prison is banning something they believe can lead to harm.
{People are disparaging your hobby! Stand up and defend it! Say nothing if you must, but please don't lend credence to their position by agreeing that our hobby is dangerous, in any context or setting.}
I'm sorry, but that's just putting your head in the sand. Vampire used to have a section on the title page of its book that said, "This is just a game. There aren't really vampires. You aren't a vampire, and when you play this game you're just pretending to be one. If you can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality, this game is NOT FOR YOU." Denying that some people can't handle RPGs is absurd.
{I am not advocating that ANYONE be allowed the right to play D&D. I am advocating that no one should be denied the right to play under grossly misrepresented, patently false and wholly unsubstantiated claims.}
They're not patently false or wholly unsubstantiated.
|
If they ban D&D in prison then they need to ban everything.
Put all prisoners in solitary and let them do nothing.
The valid point was made of prisoners lifting weights and playing sports, is that not an enjoyable pastime?
Then on the same ilk ban that too or ban nothing.
Role playing games might actually help some of these prisoners stay out of trouble. I know when I was gaming I stayed out of trouble. When I got my "rough" crowd of friends into gaming we stayed out of trouble for years.
If they ban D&D in prison then they need to ban everything.
Put all prisoners in solitary and let them do nothing.
The valid point was made of prisoners lifting weights and playing sports, is that not an enjoyable pastime?
Then on the same ilk ban that too or ban nothing.
Role playing games might actually help some of these prisoners stay out of trouble. I know when I was gaming I stayed out of trouble. When I got my "rough" crowd of friends into gaming we stayed out of trouble for years.
First...
Most prisons have rules against using codes to pass information. Roleplaying in and of itself is a way of communicating actions and telling a story.
Has anyone stopped to consider how easy it would be for gang members (or anyone else for that matter) to plan sneaking up on and beating the hell out of (or shanking) some guy by discussing it in the guise of PCs "planning" a sneak attack?
Simply put as an example, the DM allows certain types of characters/monsters to represent real life figures. Then, the DM can draw a map of the situation and allow the players to discuss "in character" how they should execute the task of defeating the opponent ahead in the corridor or where ever.
With this, you have a difficult to detect coded planning method for attacks within the walls of the prison. I'm not saying this is common or has even ever happened. I am just saying that the potential raises it to a level where it can be restricted.
Second...
The fact that one, or even several forms of recreation is banned in order to limit the having fun of the prisoners in no way implies that it has to be (or even should be) uniformly applied to every form of entertainment.
Example: The state wishes to restrict entertainment but not eliminate it entirely because so doing would possibly make life so miserable as to increase violence and danger within the prison. The state then chooses to allow one and only one form of entertainment because having only one form would make monitoring the actions of participants much simpler. Thus, less chance of infractions and misbehavior occurring.
Note: I'm not advocating the removal of D&D but rather challenging the specific logic used here to dismiss the reasoning for disallowing it.
...you can really spot the guys here who really haven't had anything to do with the penal system, yet want to draw on that vast knowledge to overlay their interpretations about how things go on in there, and how the gameplay could thus be applied.
It's not TV, it's not the movies, and there isn't a gang fight every episode. It's just a bunch of dudes with a lot of time on their hands, and very very few positive outlets.
I accept that people want to take a moral high ground (even though I feel a little are just being self-righteous) against prisoners, however take a bigger picture view and realise that the story spread quite far and wide (in that it went across the broader media) and with a sensationalist headline to boot. So it's not an isolated incident, its just one more blow to 'Gaming PR', and whats WORSE is we have posters on these boards not only backing up the view that the finding was right, but that even liken the game to GTA where the principle aim is to form Gangs and rob n' kill stuff.
I've been at this hobby for several decades now, and sat at a lot of tables and experienced a lot of conventions, and I am YET to see a session that fits the above description.
...you can really spot the guys here who really haven't had anything to do with the penal system, yet want to draw on that vast knowledge to overlay their interpretations about how things go on in there, and how the gameplay could thus be applied.
It's not TV, it's not the movies, and there isn't a gang fight every episode. It's just a bunch of dudes with a lot of time on their hands, and very very few positive outlets.
I accept that people want to take a moral high ground (even though I feel a little are just being self-righteous) against prisoners, however take a bigger picture view and realise that the story spread quite far and wide (in that it went across the broader media) and with a sensationalist headline to boot. So it's not an isolated incident, its just one more blow to 'Gaming PR', and whats WORSE is we have posters on these boards not only backing up the view that the finding was right, but that even liken the game to GTA where the principle aim is to form Gangs and rob n' kill stuff.
I've been at this hobby for several decades now, and sat at a lot of tables and experienced a lot of conventions, and I am YET to see a session that fits the above description.
Were vyou referring to my description in my quote above yours or to something in your quote? I'm trying to figure out what in your quote is the description that you were referring to...
|
The fact may be harmless, but the misinterpretation can be dangerous.
Arguing about it brings nothing, the deed is done now. If you feel threatenned by it, then gather your fellow player and do something good, some community service. Show that the hobbie players are not escapist nerds that don´t care about the real world.
Deeds talk louder than especulation.
Were vyou referring to my description in my quote above yours or to something in your quote? I'm trying to figure out what in your quote is the description that you were referring to...
Ahh sorry I wasn't specifically citing any quotes etc (Other than the GTA one which SKR made), I was more making my summary statement around how I see the world turning, and outlining my general frustration with a number of posters who aren't able to separate the various issues and look at the big picture, and that frustration being exacerbated by people making commentary and judgment about the penal system (which they obviously know little about) and generally talking out their hats.
Seriously, if prisoners want to work out codes for discussing how they are going to roll a guard room or any other nefarious activity, they have a range of options available to them that are far easier and less obtrusive than sitting in plain sight enjoying a round of D&D... like I mean, seriously folks...
Seriously, if prisoners want to work out codes for discussing how they are going to roll a guard room or any other nefarious activity, they have a range of options available to them that are far easier and less obtrusive than sitting in plain sight enjoying a round of D&D... like I mean, seriously folks...
Exactly my thoughts.
Seriously, if prisoners want to work out codes for discussing how they are going to roll a guard room or any other nefarious activity, they have a range of options available to them that are far easier and less obtrusive than sitting in plain sight enjoying a round of D&D... like I mean, seriously folks...
There are some problematic activities that cannot reasonably be eliminated in the prison setting, but we try to eliminate whatever security "holes" we can.
Never underestimate the power of creativity to get around the system for communication in the same fashion that you can never underestimate the power of an idiot when making a device or procedure idiot-proof.
Never underestimate the power of creativity to get around the system for communication in the same fashion that you can never underestimate the power of an idiot when making a device or procedure idiot-proof.
But if we limit the opportunities inmates have to communicate plans and plots, we increase our ability to intercept those communications.
So, we should just put them in a 6 x 8 with a cot, a sink, and a toilet and slide food through 3 times a day? No more, no less?
|
So, we should just put them in a 6 x 8 with a cot, a sink, and a toilet and slide food through 3 times a day? No more, no less?
No for some we should not even do that. It should be a tiered response to our judicial system.
Some people should be left in solitary their entire jail term.
Others should be given many other social and otherwise reasonable interactions. This should be based on if they are model prisoners and if they have any chance of parole.
Maybe its just me but when a person goes to jail they should see it as a punishment.
If it is not a life sentence they should also be given a reason to want to get out of jail and be given the skills to survive outside of jail.
Never been to jail, only arrested once. Spent one crappy night there. So I am no expert.
So, we should just put them in a 6 x 8 with a cot, a sink, and a toilet and slide food through 3 times a day? No more, no less?
No, but we should balance risk vs. reward. We give many inmates access to power tools in vocational classes, because their improved ability to find worthwhile legal employment is worth the risk. We keep maximum custody inmates in restraints every time they leave their cell because the risk of staff or inmate assault is too high.
The rehabilitative benefits of D&D aren't proven and prison staff don't think its beneficial, so they are uneasy about allowing it.
(It is currently permitted in Arizona prisons, however.)
I was being sarcastic, but you're right -- it should be punishment. But the more restrictive we are to those in confinement, the greater the possibility that they could become sociopaths if/when released.
Don't get me wrong; there are some individuals who should never see the light of day -- throw away the key and the whole nine yards, but like Shifty and several others, I'm looking more on a macro scale versus micro with regard to banning certain things because the content may be misunderstood by the general population.
The rehabilitative benefits of D&D aren't proven and prison staff don't think its beneficial, so they are uneasy about allowing it.
(It is currently permitted in Arizona prisons, however.)
And why do Arizona prisons differ in that rationale? Anyone?
And why do Arizona prisons differ in that rationale? Anyone?
RPGs were prohibited for many years, but the powers that be decided that whatever security risks could reasonably be associated with gaming were managable through routine procedures.
Arizona still maintains strict policies about what books are permitted in Arizona Department of Corrections facilities, limiting descriptions of the construction and use of weapons or other potential contraband, martial-arts techniques, or containing other information that could pose a security risk. Some modern-day RPGs fall under these prohibitions.
These restrictions often prohibit those RPG products most susceptible to misuse.
Well, I don't see them playing FATAL anytime soon. :P
I'd love to hear this. :P How so?
...you can really spot the guys here who really haven't had anything to do with the penal system, yet want to draw on that vast knowledge to overlay their interpretations about how things go on in there, and how the gameplay could thus be applied.
My girlfriend trained to be a cop and has a degree in criminal justice. My friend Mike is the chief of police at a large university. My friend Anabel is a domestic intervention advocate who takes problem juveniles out of problem homes before they end up in prison; her husband works as a corrections officer in a prison. I have relatives who've spent time in prison as adults.
So CLEARLY I'm basing my views of prison just on TV and movies.
FYI, many people who play D&D treat it like GTA--kick down the door, kill the monsters, take the treasure, repeat. In fact, there's even a section in the 3.5 DMG that describes this type of play.
My girlfriend trained to be a cop and has a degree in criminal justice. My friend Mike is the chief of police at a large university. My friend Anabel is a domestic intervention advocate who takes problem juveniles out of problem homes before they end up in prison; her husband works as a corrections officer in a prison. I have relatives who've spent time in prison as adults.
Then I can only express some surprise and disappointment at your viewpoint; I'll leave it at that.
|
|
Fundamentally, I'm going to have to agree with Sean here. It sucks that Wisconsin is passing up a good opportunity to give inmates a positive outlet, but they're inmates.
I went to prison, I lost a host of freedoms when I was there. D&D isn't a right, and if someone is going to break the law, they need to understand that they may not get to participate in some of the things they like to do while in prison. It's punishment.
I was lucky to be someplace I could play. Actually, had I not been allowed to play, I wouldn't be posting here right now (would have never heard of Paizo through my Dungeon sub for one, hadn't played for five years before I was busted for another), but, still, if you break the law, you really should just be happy you get any recreational activities, they aren't required beyond basic fitness stuff.
Fundamentally, I'm going to have to agree with Sean here. It sucks that Wisconsin is passing up a good opportunity to give inmates a positive outlet, but they're inmates.
Yeah and I can see where you are coming from. It does suck, and it is a positive outlet, and Prisons aren't designed for beer and skittles.
That being said, the chief complaint I have is the portrayal of RPG's as something sinister and underground, and various parties linking them to (or being seen as a catalyst) towards anti-social behaviour.
Whilst there may or may not have been GTA references in 3rd Ed (no idea, never played it) I can only say I'm disappointed if that sort of thing was encouraged in print, and even more disappointed that people would hold that view up as legit. When people in the media have cited these boards as some kind of authority, we need to think about how we are portraying, and allowing to be portrayed, our hobby.
you sir are fighting the oldest fight in dnd history.and that fight pulls more hits on google then kittens.for some reason people believe that dnd makes crime and no one knows why
you sir are fighting the oldest fight in dnd history.
Yeah well I accept that. I was around when the fight started, and I just refuse to tap out :P
thats the only way to when the other side is to old to fight forever and i will roll die of there graves
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
FYI, many people who play D&D treat it like GTA--kick down the door, kill the monsters, take the treasure, repeat. In fact, there's even a section in the 3.5 DMG that describes this type of play.
Is that the same as "games/activities such as ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ [promote] fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling"?
I'm not going to argue against prison officials making decisions they feel are in the best interest of the prison population at large. That's there job.
It is being reported that D&D was banned because it promoted violence and that the courts agreed with that. That's the problem.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
FYI, many people who play D&D treat it like GTA--kick down the door, kill the monsters, take the treasure, repeat. In fact, there's even a section in the 3.5 DMG that describes this type of play.
Far be it from me to judge someone else's game, but if you aren't playing D&D like GTA, you're doing it wrong. Maybe the next printing of the PFRPG can make sure to include that rule.
I mean, look at the facts:
Fact: NPCs are incompetent and stupid. They are good for treasure and xp. If they give your character lip, they should be killed immediately.
Fact: All good D&D campaigns begin in a tavern. And what happens everytime a party enters a tavern? A brawl!
Fact: Ponies are kewl.
Fact: Ponies are kewl.
Since when? ;)
It is being reported that D&D was banned because it promoted violence
No, it's being reported that D&D was banned in prison because the prison officials felt that the game promoted violence.
Big difference.
and that the courts agreed with that.
No, the court acknowledged that
(1) experts have testified that D&D can be a positive influence in prison, and(2) based on other published circuit court cases there are valid reasons to fear negative outcomes of D&D in prison, and stated that
(3) the prisoner failed to prove that in his circumstances, relationship between D&D and violence is “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.”
Big difference.
I'm waiting for it to be reported somewhere that prison was banned because D&D officials thought it was dangerous.
|
|
Yeah and I can see where you are coming from. It does suck, and it is a positive outlet, and Prisons aren't designed for beer and skittles.
There are many privileges that we see as a positive outlet. I will agree. D&D was a major influence on my entire life and it has helped me to be the person I am today. I learned strategy skills, negotiation, and communication from it. However, There are many privileges just so that are not safe for security/corrections officers to hand out to inmates. We're talking about a maximum security prison here, not weekend detention.
The basic idea here is that the corrections officers feel like allowing D&D in their prison is NOT worth the risks associated with it. It is easier to get rid of it than to pick and choose who in their prison is allowed to play the game. Just ban it and forget about it. They are not banning D&D because of their religious beliefs or judgmental beliefs on the game.
These criminals have killed people! To the average person, D&D does not pose a risk. You are trying to state that it should not be allowed to be portrayed this way, correct? Well, in a way you're right. It should not be portrayed as "risky" to the typical non-criminal mind. Criminals clearly do not have the same socially-accepted views as do most non-criminal people.
To the public population D&D does not necessarily pose a risk of altering one's behavior, but for prisoners we KNOW they are unable to behave respectably. So the imaginative hack-n-slash realm that D&D promotes is in fact risky for them to become involved in. Officers should never allow activities that promote their untamed imaginations. This is 4+ years of criminology speaking. I have studied the criminal mind for several years--Most of my adult life has been contributed to understanding criminals better.
That being said, the chief complaint I have is the portrayal of RPG's as something sinister and underground, and various parties linking them to (or being seen as a catalyst) towards anti-social behaviour.Whilst there may or may not have been GTA references in 3rd Ed (no idea, never played it) I can only say I'm disappointed if that sort of thing was encouraged in print, and even more disappointed that people would hold that view up as legit. When people in the media have cited these boards as some kind of authority, we need to think about how we are portraying, and allowing to be portrayed, our hobby.
It is great that you want to defend the game that you love but in reality, the situation here has nothing to do with the media holding a general idea that D&D promotes bad behaviors.
These criminals are in prison because they are not able to separate reality from the fantasy. Officers are naturally going to decide that someone who has actually behaved maliciously in real life will not be able to handle keeping the reality and fantasy of Dungeons and Dragons separate. That's all this is. I personally feel like it is a wise preventative tactic.
Here is my main point to your argument:
Keeping officers (as well as other inmates) SAFE is worth a little criticism towards our favorite RPGs. I feel the safety of the officers is more important than D&D's reputation. They are constantly having to monitor the inmates behavior 24/7 and when one issue arises it is their right to protect the facility by banning anything that may cause a problem in the future.
(3) the prisoner failed to prove that in his circumstances, relationship between D&D and violence is “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational".
Well not quite - the ban is on all the prisoners so what he failed to prove was that the relationship between D&D and violence is “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational".
Now to be frank, we ALL KNOW that such a finding is utter BS, which is why a few of us here are a bit 'special' about it.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
It is being reported that D&D was banned because it promoted violenceNo, it's being reported that D&D was banned in prison because the prison officials felt that the game promoted violence.
Big difference.
and that the courts agreed with that.No, the court acknowledged that
(1) experts have testified that D&D can be a positive influence in prison, and
(2) based on other published circuit court cases there are valid reasons to fear negative outcomes of D&D in prison, and stated that
(3) the prisoner failed to prove that in his circumstances, relationship between D&D and violence is “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary or irrational.”Big difference.
Most of the reports I've read aren't nearly so accurate. If they were, I'd have no objection. I'm not objecting to a ban on D&D in one prison in Wisconsin. I'm complaining about flippant journalists (and even more flippant bloggers) misrepresenting the event.
Most of the reports I've read aren't nearly so accurate. If they were, I'd have no objection. I'm not objecting to a ban on D&D in one prison in Wisconsin. I'm complaining about flippant journalists (and even more flippant bloggers) misrepresenting the event.
Most reporters are lazy and can't be bothered to look up a source, let alone do quality reporting.
|
|
Most of the reports I've read aren't nearly so accurate. If they were, I'd have no objection. I'm not objecting to a ban on D&D in one prison in Wisconsin. I'm complaining about flippant journalists (and even more flippant bloggers) misrepresenting the event.Most reporters are lazy and can't be bothered to look up a source, let alone do quality reporting.
Exactly, look at how the one reporter that Urizan linked to a few days agon characterized the whole Paizo board as being against letting prisoners hve "anything fun at all."
Is that the same as "games/activities such as ‘Dungeons and Dragons’ [promote] fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling"?
I'm not going to argue against prison officials making decisions they feel are in the best interest of the prison population at large. That's their job.
It is being reported that D&D was banned because it promoted violence and that the courts agreed with that. That's the problem.
I regularly find myself defending D&D because of my wife's workplace, a conservative Christian private school. Many of her co-workers first heard of D&D through the absurd accusations made against the game in the 1980's.
When I'm addressing their concerns, I explain that D&D reflects those who play it: While some people (especially teenage boys) enjoy the idea of being a villain, powerful and remorseless, people normally prefer to play more heroic characters. Demons and evil forces are normally presented as the villains of the story, the enemies heroic characters must overcome.
So, does D&D promote violence? I'd argue that it does. The model of heroism presened in the game is someone who fights and kills their enemies. Their cause may be just and their hearts pure, but these adventurers are violent professional killers. The good guys encounter evil and cut it down, reinforcing the same ideas of justice and vengeance promulgated in much of the mass media.
More ambiguously, does this encourage real-life violence? That's a harder question to answer. I believe the claims that there's a causal link between violence in mass media and increased rates of aggravated assault over the last 50 years. I think that video games often model scenarios of murder and mayhem in ways similar to those used to condition soldiers so they can kill.
Obviously, RPGs are seldom as visceral as a movie or some first-person shooter, but they can still influence those who play them, for better or worse. I believe that the positive aspects of RPGs vastly outweigh the negative in healthy personalities, but I think they do encourage the acceptance of violent solutions to real-world conflicts.
I believe the claims that there's a causal link between violence in mass media and increased rates of aggravated assault over the last 50 years.
Citation? All I could find was this and this, both of which show a decrease but over a shorter time period.
Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society suggests that Americans are much more willing to kill than their predecessors of two or three generations earlier. He attributes this rise to violent mass media exposure among children and teens.
I'm not sure how solid their data sources are, but this website from The Disaster Center shows crime statistics from 1960 to 2008. The rise in murder approximately tracks the rise in population, but Lt. Col. Grossman's book suggests that improvements in medical technology resulted in many more surviving victims of murderous attacks.
The rise in aggravated assaults is roughly twice the rise in population. To be fair, there are several other credible reasons for such a rise, including improved reporting standards, changing demographics (young men are much more likely to commit assaults or murders than other groups), and the breakdown of traditional family structures (children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to commit crimes). Nonetheless, I found On Killing's arguments compelling.
The rise in murder approximately tracks the rise in population, but Lt. Col. Grossman's book suggests that improvements in medical technology resulted in many more surviving victims of murderous attacks.
Yet we also have better and more advanced tools for killing... curious :p
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I believe the claims that there's a causal link between violence in mass media and increased rates of aggravated assault over the last 50 years.Citation? All I could find was this and this, both of which show a decrease but over a shorter time period.Lt. Col. Dave Grossman's book On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society suggests that Americans are much more willing to kill than their predecessors of two or three generations earlier. He attributes this rise to violent mass media exposure among children and teens.
I'm not sure how solid their data sources are, but this website from The Disaster Center shows crime statistics from 1960 to 2008. The rise in murder approximately tracks the rise in population, but Lt. Col. Grossman's book suggests that improvements in medical technology resulted in many more surviving victims of murderous attacks.
The rise in aggravated assaults is roughly twice the rise in population. To be fair, there are several other credible reasons for such a rise, including improved reporting standards, changing demographics (young men are much more likely to commit assaults or murders than other groups), and the breakdown of traditional family structures (children raised in single-parent homes are more likely to commit crimes). Nonetheless, I found On Killing's arguments compelling.
Thanks for the stats. Yes, it does appear that during that time period the rate of overall violent crime roughly doubled. Perhaps Americans are more willing to kill each other now that fifty years ago.
Now, let's see if we can find anything to blame it on. ;-)
During the same time period, the average distance travelled by Americans each day roughly quadrupled. As a result, Americans are less likely to know the people who live around them than they were fifty years ago. Perhaps a breakdown in a sense of community?
You've hedged your claims in a reasonable way, but I'm sure you see my point.
Yet we also have better and more advanced tools for killing... curious :p
I suspect that the average murderer isn't as high tech as he might be, clearly another example of America losing its competetive technological edge to those upstart "furriners"...
I agree with Houstonderek that the prisons have a right to ban whatever they damn well please--so long as it doesn't step on the 1st Amendment--but the trouble I have here is that the judge and the prisons are shifting ground in their arguments.
If you say that "Punch and cookies lead to gang violence!" and someone argues back that "Punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence!" it's already bad enough that you argue that the plaintiff's witnesses aren't credible because they're not in law enforcement, but then it's seriously shifting ground in the argument to say "Well, prison is for punishment anyway, so we can just give you bread and water instead, so there!"
In other words, if the prison argued from the get-go that games were being banned as a punitive measure, it would suck, but it would at least be consistent with the end argument. But to argue that games lead to gang violence, or at least possibly could lead to gang violence (even if they never have before), makes the prison administration simply look paranoid and stupid. Or as it was put on one of the blogs I've read: "Singer asked the prison to roll a Reality Check and they rolled a critical fumble."
But also, as Derek mentioned upstream with the note about his prison recreation director being some anti-D&D ultra-Christian, I think that Captain Muraski, the prison's proclaimed "occult crimes" expert, probably knows just enough to be paranoid and not enough to understand anything in context. I mean, you show someone some recycled sigils from the Lemegetton used for the Pact Magic portion of the Tome of Magic, how are they going to differentiate those from the same sigils used in an occult crime? (Note: This assumes ritual competence on the part of the occult criminal, which is assuming an awful lot.) However, since you can't legally ban D&D books for religious reasons without falling afoul of the 1st Amendment (because freedom of religion includes the right to talk to demons or any other otherworldly beings of your choice), I'm pretty certain Muraski just made up the "gang" stuff so he'd have half a legal leg to stand on.
And I really can't respect that. If you're punishing prisoners for religious reasons, you're punishing them for religious reasons, and all the business about "But prisons are a place for punishment!" is just twaddle to cover the trampling of the Establishment Clause.
{If you say that "Punch and cookies lead to gang violence!" and someone argues back that "Punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence!" it's already bad enough that you argue that the plaintiff's witnesses aren't credible because they're not in law enforcement, but then it's seriously shifting ground in the argument to say "Well, prison is for punishment anyway, so we can just give you bread and water instead, so there!"}
But that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled that the prison has the right to ban things that may be dangerous, and Singer failed to prove that D&D isn't dangerous. To quote the ruling:
Just because a prisoner and his prisoner buddies say, "no, your honor, this is totally safe!" doesn't mean you should believe them.
They even had pro-RPG experts in to talk about the positive side of gaming. Again, quoting the ruling":
I didn't see anything about the court or the COs changing tactics from "it's dangerous!" to "it's punishment!" in the parts of the ruling that I read (mind you, I didn't read it all). That may be the opinion of some people in this thread, but I don't think that's what the court is saying.
|
|
{If you say that "Punch and cookies lead to gang violence!" and someone argues back that "Punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence!" it's already bad enough that you argue that the plaintiff's witnesses aren't credible because they're not in law enforcement, but then it's seriously shifting ground in the argument to say "Well, prison is for punishment anyway, so we can just give you bread and water instead, so there!"}
But that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled that the prison has the right to ban things that may be dangerous, and Singer failed to prove that D&D isn't dangerous. To quote the ruling:
Sean is exactly right. Basically, using Kevin's metaphor, the prison said "we believe punch and cookies can lead to gang violence," and instead of saying "no, punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence," Singer replied that "punch and cookies are tasty and can be good for you!" Singer failed to respond to the government's point. Arguing that D&D has positive effects does not prove that it has ONLY positive effects. Similarly, arguing that D&D has never led to the formation of a gang does not prove that it could not lead to the formation of a gang in the future. So even if you assume that everything Singer and his witnesses said was true, the prison officials could still have rationally believed that D&D could potentially lead to the formation of a gang.
There is a paragraph in the opinion which notes that the prison has a recognized penological interest in punishing the incarcerated, which can lawfully be attained by preventing the inmates from engaging in some of their favorite recreations. I read this as saying that even if Muraski and the prison had simply said "we're banning D&D because prison isn't supposed to be fun and we have a legitimate penological interest in punishing these people" the ban would have had a good chance of being upheld. The court's opinion wasn't based on that paragraph, though, since it was sufficient to find that Singer had failed to prove that there is no rational connection between a D&D group and the formation of a gang.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
{If you say that "Punch and cookies lead to gang violence!" and someone argues back that "Punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence!" it's already bad enough that you argue that the plaintiff's witnesses aren't credible because they're not in law enforcement, but then it's seriously shifting ground in the argument to say "Well, prison is for punishment anyway, so we can just give you bread and water instead, so there!"}
But that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled that the prison has the right to ban things that may be dangerous, and Singer failed to prove that D&D isn't dangerous. To quote the ruling:
Sean is exactly right. Basically, using Kevin's metaphor, the prison said "we believe punch and cookies can lead to gang violence," and instead of saying "no, punch and cookies do not lead to gang violence," Singer replied that "punch and cookies are tasty and can be good for you!" Singer failed to respond to the government's point. Arguing that D&D has positive effects does not prove that it has ONLY positive effects. Similarly, arguing that D&D has never led to the formation of a gang does not prove that it could not lead to the formation of a gang in the future. So even if you assume that everything Singer and his witnesses said was true, the prison officials could still have rationally believed that D&D could potentially lead to the formation of a gang.
There is a paragraph in the opinion which notes that the prison has a recognized penological interest in punishing the incarcerated, which can lawfully be attained by preventing the inmates from engaging in some of their...
I know that there have been studies debunking paranoia about links between RPGs and suicide, but I can't find anything that would qualify as proof that there is or is not a causal relationship between RPGs and violence. Is there any serious research that could have supported his case or the prison's contention?