Problems with LARPs and Public Discourse
Jun. 21st, 2004 12:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drydemAlright, I have recently gotten into an argument over on bneunsc's journal(sorry bneunsc) over the werewolf game that I am invovled in, over the nature of an NPC that Bryn played. gollumgollum, one of the STs in the game, made a comment that things should be taken up privately with her and the other STs. Here is why I don't think that should be so, though I admit I was a little snippy in my criticisms.
The value of public discourse as a means of expressing dissatisfaction is tied up in the nature of public protest. Public protest is useful as a social tool because it gives certain benefits to the protestors, who are almost always without actual power to change things.
First, it allows someone to voice dissent without having to personally confront an individual with Authority(1). Confronting an individual with Authority one on one is not easy and is frequently unproductive. Public protest allows individuals without Authority to attempt to speak as one, granting them greater sway in a social situation. This can lead to change in the balance of Authority.
Second, public protest can cut away misunderstanding. By revealing more of the details of public opinion, public protest can make known the overall opinion of the group. By providing a forum in which complaints can be brought out into the open, a public protest can overcome the problems involved in situations involving Authority, specifically that communication across the bounds of Authority is generally limited, making those without Authority more likely to communicate with each other and doing the same for those with Authority. With private protest, it can seem that only a single voice is speaking against a certain problem, when that is only the most vocal individual.
I understand the argument for private addressing of concerns. There are concerns that can be addressed privately. But I believe in the value of public debate, when private concerns are left unaddressed. That is why I will complain publicly about things that I have seen unaddressed.
(1)Authority is used here as a shorthand for "possessed of an imbalance of power in a social situation." An imbalance of power is not necessarily bad, but is generally intimidating. i.e. In a conversation between myself and a professor about a class, the Professor has Authority. In a conversation between myself and W about the war in Iraq, W has Authority.
The value of public discourse as a means of expressing dissatisfaction is tied up in the nature of public protest. Public protest is useful as a social tool because it gives certain benefits to the protestors, who are almost always without actual power to change things.
First, it allows someone to voice dissent without having to personally confront an individual with Authority(1). Confronting an individual with Authority one on one is not easy and is frequently unproductive. Public protest allows individuals without Authority to attempt to speak as one, granting them greater sway in a social situation. This can lead to change in the balance of Authority.
Second, public protest can cut away misunderstanding. By revealing more of the details of public opinion, public protest can make known the overall opinion of the group. By providing a forum in which complaints can be brought out into the open, a public protest can overcome the problems involved in situations involving Authority, specifically that communication across the bounds of Authority is generally limited, making those without Authority more likely to communicate with each other and doing the same for those with Authority. With private protest, it can seem that only a single voice is speaking against a certain problem, when that is only the most vocal individual.
I understand the argument for private addressing of concerns. There are concerns that can be addressed privately. But I believe in the value of public debate, when private concerns are left unaddressed. That is why I will complain publicly about things that I have seen unaddressed.
(1)Authority is used here as a shorthand for "possessed of an imbalance of power in a social situation." An imbalance of power is not necessarily bad, but is generally intimidating. i.e. In a conversation between myself and a professor about a class, the Professor has Authority. In a conversation between myself and W about the war in Iraq, W has Authority.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 11:20 am (UTC)Maybe, just *maybe* the things you have seen unaddressed haven't been dealt with because no one besides you was aware that they were concerns/issues. Perhaps if you had approached the "Authorities" with your concerns they would have given some rationalization/explanation or maybe even have addressed the issue(s).
no subject
Date: 2004-06-21 12:13 pm (UTC)(1) and I may be mistaken, but I think you mock me somewhat by using the term "authorities", if so, I do not appreciate it.