The question I posted here:

How do you deal with a drunk player who refuses to participate?

seems to have gone beyond the original intent, and changed into an inflammatory discussion. That was not my original intent, and, in its current form, seems to be a mix of two issues:

  • The original question related to drunk and disorderly players
  • A question related to what is appropriate and not appropriate in a role playing session

Is there a way to rescue the question from the crash-n-burn it seems to be headed towards?


Which of your two questions do you want answered?

If the "drunk" aspect is still needed then lets refocus the existing question on "drunk" as that is where the majority of the answers lie.

The other issue should go onto a separate question IMHO.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I see three potential ways to go: 1) Dealing with players not rolling; 2) dealing with drunk players not rolling; 3) Dealing with the actual situation. Both 1 and 2 can make for fine questions. For 3 you'll probably want to scrap things and start over. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 1 '11 at 22:18

Ah,the joy of the Internet.... Yes, it is revocable. To be honest, it does not even come close to a flame war. I would keep the question as is and add a caveat similar to Heinsenberg's one: "This function makes everything I have written read as I indented it (calm, conciliatory, and reasonable). If it reads differently, then there that was not my intent." Or something like that.

Remember what is appropriate for one person may not be for another -- ditto for the same person and different games. That would make a good question in and off itself.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Do you have a reference for the original caveat? \$\endgroup\$ – blueberryfields Dec 1 '11 at 21:22
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sadly not. It is something that one of my lecturer (prone to make typos) did and claimed it came originally from Heisenberg. I could not find any references in a hurry. \$\endgroup\$ – Sardathrion - against SE abuse Dec 5 '11 at 13:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's a cool quote nonetheless :) \$\endgroup\$ – blueberryfields Dec 5 '11 at 15:44

You have fundamentally changed your question, which is always going to end in disaster. Leave the first one as a pure "drunk player" one and do a second about "no win." I'll delete the comment war on the first.

  • \$\begingroup\$ Er, "no win" was in the question from the beginning... \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 2 '11 at 0:59
  • \$\begingroup\$ I haven't edited my question at all :) It's the "drunk and disruptive" angle that is relevant to me - what do you do with a drunk player, who is willing to play @ macro level (and you/your group wants to play with), but is irrationally refusing to perform one or more of the actions required for gameplay to continue. Had I had the chance to rewrite, I'd ended up with something like this. \$\endgroup\$ – blueberryfields Dec 2 '11 at 1:18
  • \$\begingroup\$ @blueberryfields I've reverted to your original version. Feel free to refine from there. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 2 '11 at 1:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ I've refined the question and focused on drunkenness. I'd suggest a second question on the appropriateness of putting a female player into a no-win emotionally charged situation, but that's me. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Dec 2 '11 at 2:24
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @blueberryfields Once again [and even independent of the specific situation], there's a serious problem with your attitude as a DM if you think there's some specific action "required for gameplay to continue". Character actions are the player's decision - even if that action involves abandoning a mission goal. This is not a video game, where there are only responses written for a limited subset of characters actions. \$\endgroup\$ – Random832 Dec 3 '11 at 23:41
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Mxyzplk - I am not saying the action was inappropriate because I believe it probably was. I think that being as you had the leading answer and your revision again made your answer right you should have let another mod do it. Honestly I think the entire question should be deleted... The comments refined the truth of the question instead of the slant. The comments probed and we found a gross abuse of GM power. You pruned away all of those comments and reverted the question so your answer was correct again. It looks bad... like buying stock in a company you are going to grant tax money bad. \$\endgroup\$ – user2015 Dec 15 '11 at 20:14
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Chad I reverted the question. Because I was the one who changed it in the first place. Check the revision history. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 15 '11 at 20:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AceCalhoon - You should have pruned the comments too then. It looks like Mxyzplk did it. His last revision of the question and the fact that he announced it in comments looks like an abuse of power. - And worse the OP came out of it ok. And imo he didn't deserve to. \$\endgroup\$ – user2015 Dec 15 '11 at 20:28
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Chad Regarding "the truth of the question..." We are neither detectives nor judges. Blueberryfields found himself in a situation he wasn't sure how to handle. Yeah, he may have messed up to get there. I would imagine that most people who end up in that situation probably messed something up along the way. Providing a way through that situation doesn't mean we're "taking his side" or condemning the other players involved. Going over the "scandal" of the full situation was distracting from the question. If Blueberry thinks it's a problem after this, he can ask another question to address it. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 15 '11 at 20:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ @AceCalhoon - I Agree. It probably needed to happen. Having Mxyzplk do it LOOKS bad since he had the best answer. Had it be your comment that said the comments were trimmed It doesnt sit and burn in my craw as an abuse of power even though I know it isnt one. \$\endgroup\$ – user2015 Dec 15 '11 at 20:31
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Chad If it makes you feel better, I will take ownership of that comment. I was eyeing the comments myself, and only stayed my hand because I was not aware at that time of the network policy on comment deletion. \$\endgroup\$ – AceCalhoon Dec 15 '11 at 20:35
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah, my main comments to @Chad are a) I could care less about the rep and b) going all white knight for some chick that may or may not exist is a waste of mental effort. There's no "truth" here, there are questions and answers to questions. The question was well down the path of handling drunk players based on all the answers; was that the "real" problem Blueberry had? Maybe not, but by that point too late. Open a new question - I think people were finding value in the question that was there. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Dec 15 '11 at 22:08
  • \$\begingroup\$ Furthermore, all mods here also participate in the site heavily - we're not going to not take needed mod action because of that. I get the most flak for it because I communicate the most - I saw Ace had rolled it back but I made the announcement on the behalf of the mod community. I could communicate less, or fret about it, or us mods could all be in a dither about who's going to do what, or I could not give a good Goddamn. I opt for the latter. \$\endgroup\$ – mxyzplk Dec 15 '11 at 22:10
  • \$\begingroup\$ @mxyzplk - My point was not that you did something wrong(The action was right IMO). It was that because you did have the best answer to the original question, but your answer did not fit the revised question or what came out through the comments, the appearance is that you used your mod power to "Make you Right" again. - It APPEARS heavy handed. That is not good for the growing community. Again I agree with what you did It just looks really bad. I doubt we will see anything like this again but if we did I would hope you would ask another mod to take action. \$\endgroup\$ – user2015 Dec 16 '11 at 16:19

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .