|
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?
I'm not sure about research that could have been used, but I believe that what the court was getting at when it mentioned that Singer's witnesses were on the wrong side of the system was that testimony from other prison officials that the policy was irrational and that D&D doesn't and can't really lead to gang formation would have been on point. If he had submitted that kind of evidence, his claim would have survived summary judgment, and the trial would have decided the actual rationality of the policy.
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...
You missed this part of the judge's opinion:
Singer does not dispute the legitimacy of the penological
interests Muraski identified. Nor does he question the
legitimacy of unspoken penological interests arguably
present here but not cited by Muraski, such as the prison’s
interest in “[h]olding offenders accountable for their
actions through sanctions . . . .” Wis. Dep’t of Corr.,
Mission Statement, http://www.wi-doc.com/vision.htm
(last visited Jan. 20, 2010). After all, punishment is a
fundamental aspect of imprisonment, and prisons may
choose to punish inmates by preventing them from partici12
No. 07-3400
pating in some of their favorite recreations. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995) (“[L]awful incarceration
brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of
many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the
considerations underlying our penal system.”(quotation
omitted)).
That's pure "Well, we don't want you to do it anyway, so NYEAH!" once rendered out of the legalese.
Or, to put it another way, instead of arguing that punch and cookies lead to gang violence, the judge is saying that they can ban them just because the prisoner likes them and banning their favorite things is part of the punishment.
My contention is that if the prison is going to do this, it should just come out and say it up front rather than hide behind twaddle about fears of roving D&D gangs.
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.
I think you're stretching the word "rationally" to encompass concepts it was not meant to encompass. Following that sort of logic, even though Tupperware parties have never in the past spontaneously led to witches Sabbats, human sacrifice, and blood-soaked orgies on the altar of Baal, that doesn't mean that they COULDN'T, and the court can blow off the testimony of a hundred Tupperware ladies, Tupperware company representatives, lay persons and academics because they're not in law enforcement and instead rely on the testimony of Captain Muraski, their "occult crimes" expert who has seen disturbing similarities between the organization of Tupperware parties and witches sabbats and he believes it's only a matter of time before the lettuce crisper is used to hold human hearts!
Or to put it another way, what the court is describing as "rational" looks an awful lot to this observer like a "paranoid delusion."
D&D has been a part of popular culture for over thirty years by this date and there has been no reported gang activity. Anyone with a rational mind will look at this and think this pattern is unlikely to change.
|
|
Well, apparently the boyfriend totally deserved it. He was 44 years old, a bank robber (according to the alleged murderer's sister) and a drug user.
The sister's story changed. Twice. First, he killed the guy over an argument about a broken window that had happened a few weeks before. Then she changed her story and said that he tried to blackmail her boyfriend for a cut of the take in a bank robbery.
Guys, his mother says her daughter murdered the guy and pinned the blame on her brother, whom she never liked.
As far as I'm concerned, he's the victim.
Right, because (1) it's okay to murder bank robbers and drug users, and (2) the mother of someone in prison NEVER says anything like "my baby would never do this, he's being framed."
The difference between the murder victim and Singer is that Singer got a trial to determine if he was guilty or not. The victim gets speculation and slanderous statements--which of course he can't defend, because he's dead.
Clearly we're dealing with a trio of classy people--Singer, his sister, and the boyfriend--but that doesn't mean any of them deserve to be sledged to death, or that it was okay for someone to do so.
The victim is the guy who's dead. And if Singer is truly innocent, maybe he should have his lawyer trying to get him out of prison, rather than trying to get permission to play D&D in prison.
Oh, it certainly has a fishy sound to it. I'll grant you that. I read on other boards where someone who said they worked in the prison posted, saying much the same thing: And note that while a mother might lie to save her son, she was also accusing her daughter in the same breath.
I also have a feel that Singer is working on an appeal or at very least having a sentence commuted for good behavior.
|
|
Right, because (1) it's okay to murder bank robbers and drug users, and (2) the mother of someone in prison NEVER says anything like "my baby would never do this, he's being framed."
The difference between the murder victim and Singer is that Singer got a trial to determine if he was guilty or not. The victim gets speculation and slanderous statements--which of course he can't defend, because he's dead.
Clearly we're dealing with a trio of classy people--Singer, his sister, and the boyfriend--but that doesn't mean any of them deserve to be sledged to death, or that it was okay for someone to do so.
The victim is the guy who's dead. And if Singer is truly innocent, maybe he should have his lawyer trying to get him out of prison, rather than trying to get permission to play D&D in prison.
And it's absolutely OK for me to kill insurgents, in fact, I have a medal for it. Sometimes we make mistakes, and they aren't actual bad guys, they're just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. What's the difference? Is it merely context?
Also, I'm sure someone that smart would have found a better way to murder someone. Sledgehammers are sooo messy, why would you use one in your apartment? Also, why is there a sledgehammer in an apartment?
You're so very quick to judge someone Sean, you act like jurors haven't been wrong in the past. Do you believe OJ was innocent? Or Micheal? Or the Teflon Don or the many members of the Mafia?
1) Has nobody ever played a game where a PC got killed and the player threw dice all over the room? I have, and it was pretty funny. But if the same thing happened in a maximum security prison, and some of us had been convicted of serious violent crimes, perhaps it wouldn't have been so funny.
2) I work in the youth justice system in the UK and risk assessment is a nightmare. I'll give you an example. Teenage girl swings one punch at teenage boy. No injury is caused and she is convicted of Common Assault. Now, when I do my assessment, I have to accept that although no serious harm was caused (i.e. harm from which it is unlikely the victim will make a full recovery), nor was it the girl's intention to cause that degree of harm, it is possible that such harm could have been caused as a result of the girl's actions. So I have to do a risk assessment, and then I have to come up with a plan to manage that risk. If I don't, and teenage girl kills teenage boy two weeks later, I am considered negligent and I lose my job. This is the reality of working in that environment.
If I'm under that kind of pressure on the basis of a teenage girl who can't even give someone a black eye, imagine the pressure on this Muraski fella. You can bet he's going to play it safe every single day of his working life. The alternative, however unlikely it may seem superficially, is a dead inmate or a dead warden, plus his career down the toilet.
And it's absolutely OK for me to kill insurgents, in fact, I have a medal for it.
I can't believe you're comparing the death of a hostile in a war situation with a civilian MURDERING another civilian to death at peace time.
Sometimes we make mistakes, and they aren't actual bad guys, they're just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. What's the difference? Is it merely context?
No idea where you're going with this, and my point still stands that it's still wrong to MURDER someone. If you're in a war zone and you shoot someone who's pointing a rifle at you, that's not murder; if you turn your weapon on the person next to him who's a noncombatant, prisoner, or surrendered, that's murder (i.e., one may get you a medal, the other may get you a court-martial).
Also, I'm sure someone that smart would have found a better way to murder someone. Sledgehammers are sooo messy, why would you use one in your apartment? Also, why is there a sledgehammer in an apartment?
Again, not seeing the relevance.
You're so very quick to judge someone Sean,
Yeah, strange that I'd accept that someone in prison for murder may actually be guilty of murder. After all, our country's justice system is based on the idea of "innocent UNTIL proven guilty." You know, like how Singer's been found guilty.
you act like jurors haven't been wrong in the past.
Not so.
Do you believe OJ was innocent? Or Micheal?
Our justice system is also set up that the burden of proof lies in the prosecution, not the defense. Thus, comparing "person we 'know' is guilty but didn't get convicted" to "person who did get convicted but because he plays D&D I should stand up and defend him as if he were not guilty and wrongly imprisoned" is apples and oranges.
The FACT is that he got a trial and was found guilty, yet you, with ZERO evidence, are suggesting he's not guilty. If the sister's an unreliable witness, perhaps the jury disregarded her testimony (as they should) and listened to other witnesses (as they should). If the mother's blaming the daughter rather than Singer, that could be an attempt to confuse the jury, and that may have been the mother's plan (you can't charge both of them with murder unless you have evidence they were both involved, thus you have to charge one or the other, and the prosecutors apparently decided charging Singer was a stronger case than charging his sister).
Here's the difference between our perspectives:
* I think Singer is a dangerous guy (based on the fact that they were able to convict him), and shouldn't be allowed to play a game that may encourage his violent tendencies. If I'm wrong, all we've done is disallow a prisoner from playing D&D.
* You're suggesting that Singer is innocent (based on...?), and therefore (if we can't get him out of prison immediately) he should be able to play D&D because he's not dangerous. If you're wrong, we've given a murderer carte blanche to play D&D, a game where you take the role of someone who kills their enemies and loots the bodies.
So... which is the safer option?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, but since he is in prison, who will he vent the violent, destructive urges on that DND supposedly encourages? I don't think it will cause any more harm now than it did before. And just because someone has "life" in prison doesn't necessarily mean they aren't getting out in 15 years on probation, so discounting DND as rehabilitative is a bit churlish.
Yes, I get it, he killed somebody. He's in prison, and is being punished for his crime. But why single him out? Why not take away basketball, card games, rec time, tv...why just DND? I'm sure there are a bunch of murderers in there who live for basketball, and couldn't give 2 craps about DND, but THEIR favorite thing isn't being taken from them.
I'm not going to argue with you Sean if you're going to get so angry about it. Your answer will always be "But he's in prison! It's punishment!". True, but he seems to be the ONLY ONE this ruling really affects.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, but since he is in prison, who will he vent the violent, destructive urges on that DND supposedly encourages? I don't think it will cause any more harm now than it did before. And just because someone has "life" in prison doesn't necessarily mean they aren't getting out in 15 years on probation, so discounting DND as rehabilitative is a bit churlish.
Yes, I get it, he killed somebody. He's in prison, and is being punished for his crime. But why single him out? Why not take away basketball, card games, rec time, tv...why just DND? I'm sure there are a bunch of murderers in there who live for basketball, and couldn't give 2 craps about DND, but THEIR favorite thing isn't being taken from them.
I'm not going to argue with you Sean if you're going to get so angry about it. Your answer will always be "But he's in prison! It's punishment!". True, but he seems to be the ONLY ONE this ruling really affects.
Um, the Corrections Officers maybe? For that matter, inmate on inmate violence isn't excusable either. Plus, I think the argument that D&D is an excellent way for prisoners to pass secret messages and formulate plans definitely has some weight to it, which presents serious risks in the context of a maximum security prison.
This isn't about punishing the guy for murder, this is about safety. The COs believe D&D to be an unacceptable risk, just like knives or bombs or books about how to escape from prison are an unacceptable risk. It doesn't matter if he's the only guy they confiscate something from if the reason for confiscation is valid. The guy is free to contest that judgement, and if he presents a credible case with suitable witnesses, they might overturn it. Until then, the COs are well within their rights to ban D&D at their prison.
Also, it seems to me than Sean is angry with you because a few posts ago, you basically said it was OK to murder someone in cold blood so long as they're an alleged bank robber and drug user. That kind of disregard for human life can rankle some people :D
1) Jared: In answer to your question, other prisoners or prison wardens, most likely. You might argue 'who cares if some inmate gets hurt'. Muraski does, and he has banned D&D on the basis that a gaming group resembles the dynamics of a gang, the game encourages violent escapism, and gangs + violent escapism = bad times.
2) Also, those who are concerned that Muraski is saying nasty things about our hobby, how much worse does this story play out?
"Infamous D&D gang rule prison with iron dice. Common practice is booting in other prisoners' doors, killing them where they lay (coup de grace!) and then stealing their magic cigarettes."
OK, I'm being a little glib, but an attempt to prevent gang formation by banning D&D is better than D&D being associated with an actual prison gang.
"Infamous D&D gang rule prison with iron dice. Common practice is booting in other prisoners' doors, killing them where they lay (coup de grace!) and then stealing their magic cigarettes."
I think if ever I had to face off against a Prison Gang, my choice would be to face off with the Roleplayers; they seem so much less capable than, say, Aryan Skinheads, OMCG's and Gangbangers... :p
One of my players sent me this LINK.
** spoiler omitted **
The problem is those big weapons and scary teeth in the monster manual. If I was a guard or prison and I saw a prisoner making motions with his arms as he swings a dogslicer at a pretend foe, I would consider removing the game as well.
I think if ever I had to face off against a Prison Gang, my choice would be to face off with the Roleplayers; they seem so much less capable than, say, Aryan Skinheads, OMCG's and Gangbangers... :p
Me too, although I'm not sure what an OMCG is. Old Mother Clubbin' Grandads? Ornery Mammary Crazy Geishas? (Actually, they might just be mucky websites...)
My point was that several posters have expressed concern about how D&D has been portrayed, but that if there actually was something to Muraski's concerns (and the court agreed that his concerns were reasonable), this would gift the media a far better anti-D&D story.
|
|
I think you're stretching the word "rationally" to encompass concepts it was not meant to encompass. Following that sort of logic, even though Tupperware parties have never in the past spontaneously led to witches Sabbats, human sacrifice, and blood-soaked orgies on the altar of Baal, that doesn't mean that they COULDN'T, and the court can blow off the testimony of a hundred Tupperware ladies, Tupperware company representatives, lay persons and academics because they're not in law enforcement and instead rely on the testimony of Captain Muraski, their "occult crimes" expert who has seen disturbing similarities between the organization of Tupperware parties and witches sabbats and he believes it's only a matter of time before the lettuce crisper is used to hold human hearts!
Or to put it another way, what the court is describing as "rational" looks an awful lot to this observer like a "paranoid delusion."
D&D has been a part of popular culture for over thirty years by this date and there has been no reported gang activity. Anyone with a rational mind will look at this and think this pattern is unlikely to change.
A couple of things. First of all, this was an appeal of a grant of summary judgment; it didn't come at the end of a trial. This means that the court never made any kind of finding that D&D leads to gang violence. The court didn't even find that there is a rational relationship between the prison's interest in preventing gang formation and the ban on D&D. The court didn't have to make this finding because Singer's evidence was not on point. Based on the evidence presented, Singer failed to even argue that D&D does not lead to gang violence. Instead, he simply highlighted that it also has good aspects.
It's a procedural distinction, but it's legally relevant. If you sue me for whatever reason, and I offer a defense, and then you fail to provide any evidence that my defense doesn't hold up (even if it's irrational), you lose on summary judgment. There is no need for the court to find that I was right as a matter of law. So, on a procedural level, the prison claimed that there is a rational relationship between preventing gang formation and banning D&D, Singer replied with evidence that did not address this to the court's satisfaction, and therefore the court granted summary judgment. Once again, the court did not find that there is in fact a rational relationship between the policy and the ban.
Yet even if Singer had met his summary judgment burden and had produced relevant evidence, I don't think I was stretching the word "rational" out of its legal context. Standards based on rationality are traditionally very difficult to meet. With respect to prison regulations, courts accord prison officials a great deal of deference due to the dangers involved in their jobs. As the Supreme Court has said, “We must accord substantial deference to the professional judgment of prison administrators, who bear a significant responsibility for defining the legitimate goals of a corrections system and for determining the most appropriate means to accomplish them.” So anyone looking to challenge a policy set forth by a prison bears the burden of proving that the policy is so far removed from the asserted goal that it renders the policy arbitrary or irrational. This doesn’t mean that the policy has to be the best way of accomplishing the prison’s goal, only that there is some relationship between them.
The rationality standard doesn’t require prisoners to prove a negative, as seems to be indicated by your Tupperware example. If the prison bans Tupperware, and the prisoner puts up the proper evidence to contradict its alleged negative impact, the policy may be struck down. But if the prisoner puts up evidence about how Tupperware keeps your food fresh for days and days, without addressing the prison’s allegations regarding Satan worship or whatever, the prisoner will lose on summary judgment. I can tell by your posts that you believe the policy of banning D&D is irrational. That’s fine. We don’t know whether the court would have agreed with you, but I think the paragraph about how there is a legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from enjoying their favorite pastimes indicates that the court would have upheld a ban on D&D for that reason as well.
Me too, although I'm not sure what an OMCG is.
My point was that several posters have expressed concern about how D&D has been portrayed, but that if there actually was something to Muraski's concerns (and the court agreed that his concerns were reasonable), this would gift the media a far better anti-D&D story.
OMCG - Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.
...how much more of a better anti-D&D tale did you want than a Prison claiming D&D promotes anti-social activity, violence, and gang formation and this was upheld as a reasonable position in a court of law based on 'expert testimony'?
|
Heard prisoners like them their b-ball and weight lifting too, but that isn't getting banned.
Actually, very few Federal prisons have weight piles any more. And quite a few state joints are rolling them up as well. Basketball probably won't be removed anywhere, as it is inexpensive and relatively peaceful.
The rationality standard doesn’t require prisoners to prove a negative, as seems to be indicated by your Tupperware example. If the prison bans Tupperware, and the prisoner puts up the proper evidence to contradict its alleged negative impact, the policy may be struck down. But if the prisoner puts up evidence about how Tupperware keeps your food fresh for days and days, without addressing the prison’s allegations regarding Satan worship or whatever, the prisoner will lose on summary judgment. I can tell by your posts that you believe the policy of banning D&D is irrational. That’s fine. We don’t know whether the court would have agreed with you, but I think the paragraph about how there is a legitimate interest in preventing prisoners from enjoying their favorite pastimes indicates that the court would have upheld a ban on D&D for that reason as well.
Exactly how are you supposed to address a prison's beliefs about the Satanic implications of Tupperware other than by just rolling your eyes and throwing your hands in the air in disbelief? Ditto beliefs about dungeon masters being akin to gang leaders?
The fact is, this is an extremely shaky argument that wouldn't survive in any court room outside a prison court where the judge's are in the habit of deferring to the prison's wishes because they have a dangerous job. If you can argue that a dungeon master is akin to a gang leader, and the game can be banned because of that, and also that D&D is a game, and it can also be banned just on the grounds that taking your favorite toys away is part of punishment, it also begs the question of why the prison isn't also arguing that, say, the captain of a basketball team is akin to a gang leader, and that since basketball is also some people's favorite game, it should be banned as well, and the prisoners should not complain because hopscotch is still allowed.
To this outside observer, my perspective is that the prison is favoring one group of prisoners over another, not for security reasons but for religious reasons, and they are coming up with "gang" argument and the "no fun for you" argument because those cases where the court will let them have their way even if the judge personally feels they're being stupid, rather than being honest and coming out ranting about "SATAN!" like the Church Lady because if they did that, the judge would have to remind them of the Establishment Clause and actually put his foot down.
As evidence to that end, aside from Derek's mention upstream that his own prison's activity director was uber-Christian and twitchy about D&D, the fact that the court documents mentioned that Captain Muraski was not just the prison's gang expert but also their occult crimes expert. Why is it even germane to the case that he's had any training in occult crimes if they're not alleging D&D is occult? I'd say it's irrelevant, except I'm fairly certain he made up the gang twaddle to skirt the Establishment Clause.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Exactly how are you supposed to address a prison's beliefs about the Satanic implications of Tupperware other than by just rolling your eyes and throwing your hands in the air in disbelief? Ditto beliefs about dungeon masters being akin to gang leaders?
This question has been raised and answered. You refute it by bringing in a corrections officer with enough experience to speak credibly about the issue, and invite him to testify that there is, in his judgement, no Satanic influence in Tupperware that would impact the prison population.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
This question has been raised and answered. You refute it by bringing in a corrections officer with enough experience to speak credibly about the issue, and invite him to testify that there is, in his judgement, no Satanic influence in Tupperware that would impact the prison population.
Exactly how are you supposed to address a prison's beliefs about the Satanic implications of Tupperware other than by just rolling your eyes and throwing your hands in the air in disbelief? Ditto beliefs about dungeon masters being akin to gang leaders?
Have either of you actually been to a Tupperware party? Definitely dangerous.
|
|
Have either of you actually been to a Tupperware party? Definitely dangerous.This question has been raised and answered. You refute it by bringing in a corrections officer with enough experience to speak credibly about the issue, and invite him to testify that there is, in his judgement, no Satanic influence in Tupperware that would impact the prison population.
Exactly how are you supposed to address a prison's beliefs about the Satanic implications of Tupperware other than by just rolling your eyes and throwing your hands in the air in disbelief? Ditto beliefs about dungeon masters being akin to gang leaders?
Something just comes over those ladies.
To this outside observer, my perspective is that the prison is favoring one group of prisoners over another, not for security reasons but for religious reasonsYou do realise that this prison has one of its two priests being a pagan worshiper right?
Yes, I realize that. Do you think religious zealots, if frustrated in their efforts to persecute one disliked target, won't come up with ways to persecute others?
As it stands right now, Wiccan priests are allowed in Wisconsin prisons but D&D is banned, whereas in California, the opposite is true. And I think both are symptoms of the same problem, that being attacks on the 1st Amendment by the religious right.
Yes, I realize that. Do you think religious zealots, if frustrated in their efforts to persecute one disliked target, won't come up with ways to persecute others?
I am boggling right now that you're suggesting that the pagan priest on duty at the prison is somehow complicit in the idea that D&D is dangerous because pagans are persecuted and trying to pass that persecution on to another group.
It's like you're arguing that the prison officials, the appeals court judges, Singer's sister, and a wiccan priest are all part of some grand conspiracy to keep a convicted murderer from playing D&D. Kevin "the Sledge" Singer is apparently the only innocent in this mess.
Yes, I realize that. Do you think religious zealots, if frustrated in their efforts to persecute one disliked target, won't come up with ways to persecute others?I am boggling right now that you're suggesting that the pagan priest on duty at the prison is somehow complicit in the idea that D&D is dangerous because pagans are persecuted and trying to pass that persecution on to another group.
It's like you're arguing that the prison officials, the appeals court judges, Singer's sister, and a wiccan priest are all part of some grand conspiracy to keep a convicted murderer from playing D&D. Kevin "the Sledge" Singer is apparently the only innocent in this mess.
I think you're misreading me severely here. Unless Captain Muraski is the pagan priest (which I severely doubt), I don't think that the pagan priest has anything to do with it.
What I think is that like many religious zealots, Captain Muraski picks his battles and goes after D&D because it's an easy target and he can make up some twaddle about "gang activity" and "escapism" to cover his actual motives which are rooted in the anti-D&D religious mania of the 80s.
I haven't even attempted to sort through the entirety of this thread so I don't know if this has been addressed.....
Has anyone reported on what kind of game was being played? Yes, I know it was Dungeons and Dragons but was it an investigation based campaign attempting to navigate through the wily plans of a crafty mad wizard filled with diplomatic exchanges or was it some sort of liberate the prison camp and overrun the mook guards slaughter fest?
|
|
I think you're misreading me severely here. Unless Captain Muraski is the pagan priest (which I severely doubt), I don't think that the pagan priest has anything to do with it.
What I think is that like many religious zealots, Captain Muraski picks his battles and goes after D&D because it's an easy target and he can make up some twaddle about "gang activity" and "escapism" to cover his actual motives which are rooted in the anti-D&D religious mania of the 80s.
religious Zealot? do you actually have any proof the man follows any religion? Also a little thought experiment here what if you had a a gang in prison for rape playing imaginary scenarios where they get to sexually assault people would that be okay? If not then why is it then okay for a person in prison for violently bludgeoning someone to death to play imaginary scenarios where they murder things?
Has anyone reported on what kind of game was being played?
No.
That said, if it WAS the latter then you could bet your sweet bottom dollar taht we would have heard all about it.
Therefore, I'm going to run with it being fairly vanilla.
religious Zealot? do you actually have any proof the man follows any religion?
Only his own words. From the court records:
"inmates are not allowed to engage in or possess written material that details rules, codes, dogma of games/activities such as 'Dungeons and Dragons' because it promotes fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling."
Compare/Contrast that with this with something like, oh, say, the fatwa against Pokemon cards a few years ago.
The "and possible gambling" is about the closing argument for both of them, despite the fact it would be a hell of a lot easier to play craps with a Monopoly set than with a D&D kit or a set of Pokemon cards.
So, yeah, if it talks like a religious zealot, it's probably a religious zealot. I'm guessing Christian in this case, but honestly, once you get to the loony orthodox fringe, they all sound pretty much the same anyway.
And for the record, yes, I would agree that D&D "promotes fantasy role playing" by definition. But I do not think that is a bad thing.
|
|
Compare/Contrast that with this with something like, oh, say, the fatwa against Pokemon cards a few years ago.
The "and possible gambling" is about the closing argument for both of them, despite the fact it would be a hell of a lot easier to play craps with a Monopoly set than with a D&D kit or a set of Pokemon cards.
So, yeah, if it talks like a religious zealot, it's probably a religious zealot. I'm guessing Christian in this case, but honestly, once you get to the loony orthodox fringe, they all sound pretty much the same anyway.
And for the record, yes, I would agree that D&D "promotes fantasy role playing" by definition. But I do not think that is a bad thing.
Actually looking it over it seems to be in the type of general speech I would expect to find someone promoting evidence to a court. I mean no disrespect but it honestly sounds like you are beginning to stray into tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff here.
Actually looking it over it seems to be in the type of general speech I would expect to find someone promoting evidence to a court. I mean no disrespect but it honestly sounds like you are beginning to stray into tinfoil hat conspiracy theory stuff here.
It's not a conspiracy theory to say that religious zealots generally pretend they're not religious zealots when they get into court, or pretend that whatever they're objecting to is something they're objecting to on purely secular grounds. If you don't believe me, go read the transcripts of California's current Prop 8 trial.
I may be wrong. It may simply be that Captain Muraski is so shell-shocked from dealing with skinhead gangs and others (I looked up some of the other cases he's testified in) that he's starting to see gang-like behavior in a bunch of guys sitting around a table pretending to be elves. But given the verbiage and word choice in some of his arguments, I'm guessing religious objections are the root of the matter.
|
|
religious Zealot? do you actually have any proof the man follows any religion?Only his own words. From the court records:
"inmates are not allowed to engage in or possess written material that details rules, codes, dogma of games/activities such as 'Dungeons and Dragons' because it promotes fantasy role playing, competitive hostility, violence, addictive escape behaviors, and possible gambling."
Okay, I don't see any religious statement here. Sure he uses some of the same language as a fatwa against Pokemon cards, but unless you have proof that the warden is a radical Muslim cleric then you will have to provide more than just a tangental connection to prove your point that he is a radical on a crusade against Satanism. The fact that you could take to unrelated statements and make the leap to any one who is anti-gambling must be a religious fanatic perhaps shows more of your own prejudace then it does the wardens.
Okay, I don't see any religious statement here. Sure he uses some of the same language as a fatwa against Pokemon cards, but unless you have proof that the warden is a radical Muslim cleric then you will have to provide more than just a tangental connection to prove your point that he is a radical on a crusade against Satanism. The fact that you could take to unrelated statements and make the leap to any one who is anti-gambling must be a religious fanatic perhaps shows more of your own prejudace then it does the wardens.
It's not a matter of "proof" so much as "likelihood" and "strong suspicion."
So, in short, I'm not saying "must be" but simply "probably is."
And given the history of D&D persecution in this country, I don't think I'm wrong.
And again, it seems like you're giving the convicted murderer the benefit of the doubt, but not everyone else who is or may be involved in the decision--Muraski, the other COs, the judges, the lawyers, and even the prison's pagan priest.
And again, it seems like you're giving the convicted murderer the benefit of the doubt, but not everyone else who is or may be involved in the decision--Muraski, the other COs, the judges, the lawyers, and even the prison's pagan priest.
No I think that he is giving D&D and Roleplaying games the benefit of the doubt, and labeling the attack on them, and by extension, their players, as the work of sundry parties with more than one axe to grind.
|
|
Okay, I don't see any religious statement here. Sure he uses some of the same language as a fatwa against Pokemon cards, but unless you have proof that the warden is a radical Muslim cleric then you will have to provide more than just a tangental connection to prove your point that he is a radical on a crusade against Satanism. The fact that you could take to unrelated statements and make the leap to any one who is anti-gambling must be a religious fanatic perhaps shows more of your own prejudace then it does the wardens.It's not a matter of "proof" so much as "likelihood" and "strong suspicion."
So, in short, I'm not saying "must be" but simply "probably is."
And given the history of D&D persecution in this country, I don't think I'm wrong.
Probably is? Because you have 'strong suspicion' it 'probably is'? There is nothing in any of the statements to support your suspicions. But please do continue to enlighten us on the mind set of the 'extremist nut job Christian' whom you have never met. Your post reek of the same agenda pushing you seem to be accussing a total stranger off.
No I think that he is giving D&D and Roleplaying games the benefit of the doubt, and labeling the attack on them, and by extension, their players, as the work of sundry parties with more than one axe to grind.
That "axe," of course, is the idea of preserving the lives of the corrections officers trying to maintain order in a prison.
That "axe," of course, is the idea of preserving the lives of the corrections officers trying to maintain order in a prison.
Sure, that may be one axe, but I did say MORE than one :)
And again, it seems like you're giving the convicted murderer the benefit of the doubt, but not everyone else who is or may be involved in the decision--Muraski, the other COs, the judges, the lawyers, and even the prison's pagan priest.No I think that he is giving D&D and Roleplaying games the benefit of the doubt, and labeling the attack on them, and by extension, their players, as the work of sundry parties with more than one axe to grind.
Yep, that's pretty much the size of it.
And to quote Captain Muraski:
“prevent the grouping of inmates into new gangs
or other groups that are not organized to promote educa-
tional, social, cultural, religious, recreational, or other
lawful leisure activities.”
Last I checked, D&D and indeed all other roleplaying games are still "lawful leisure activities" and exist as "social, cultural" and also "recreational" activities, as well as having some fringe benefits on an "educational" end, and even to some extent "religious"--you get ethics debates routinely on what will or will not lose someone their paladinhood.
But Captain Muraski has said my favorite hobby has no "social, cultural" worth, and has said so in court proceedings.
I think he has an axe to grind.
Better OC have an axe to grind than a convicted murderer have a hammer to swing, I always say!
