LDS Anger Management Class


#1

Hi everyone. I’m going to make two posts. One is happy. One is not. First, happy.

I had a blast playing LDS, and I don’t take anything at all that happened in the game personally. I watch reality TV, and you know, shit happens. No alliance can ever last forever. So for that reason, I’m not mad at anybody from the game.

Jed helped me at one point, and then screwed me, and good for him! I would have worked that reward challenge power for all it was worth too. I love ya Jed. Ditto for Ian and Marie. I mean, when we started this year, Ian made a joke to me on IM about how he wouldn’t screw me and vote me out early like he did last year. When that happened last year, my life moved on. And though the much-discussed power couple face-off or whatever took a couple of ugly turns, it’s not real life. I made Ian a birthday card because I like him a lot and I’ll make Marie one too. :slight_smile: They’re always welcome at our place.

So yeah. I really wanted those DVDs, but maybe I’ll just shell out to Jason for them. Eh. Kudos to all the players. It was a lot of fun.

Dre


#2

Here is the one thing that upset me about the final round and the ballots.

A number of people made comments about my relationship with Dan in the game that were quite strong. I don’t want to let them go by.

First, a quick note about how Dan and I worked together in the game. Dan and I were allies, but not very strong ones- our spheres of influence didn’t overlap very much. We made no reciprocal voting deals with our allies that included each other. We did not suggest how to vote in our clubs to each other. We helped each other with case ideas, which many allies did (I’m sure Stanford and Patrick can attest to that.) I say with no exaggeration whatsoever that my temporary alliances with Brendo, Patrick, and Ian were much more strategic and time-intensive than the one I had with Dan. We had no long-term strategy to get both of us into finals, to let one person win, whatever.

I have no problem with people thinking something else about our alliance, if that opinion is supported. But what I saw when I read/listened to the speeches and ballots was this:

Stanford?s first speech:

First, there?s Dre who came coasting into finals on the back of her boyfriend.

Jed?s rebuttal:

[Dan]?s puppet, Dre
and
when your boyfriend helped keep you afloat

Propz?s ballot:

rode in on the back of pdano…making her even weaker

RLayne?s ballot:

I have no respect for players that can?t play by themselves…but, you played with your boyfriend.
(this is relevant in that this comment was not leveled at Dan, or at any of the other finalists who all had allies and did not play “by themselves.”)

Soon2BMD?s ballot:

Being able to essentially control two votes/debaters simultaneously gives him a huge advantage.

I do not think I am being unreasonable in seeing a pattern here. At no point is Dan accused of riding in on my back, or am I credited with keeping him alive or controlling his votes. The lack of any support in ANY of the above posts for these claims makes me extremely nervous about the gender implications that might be lurking beneath them.

I now teach LSAT Arguments for the Princeton Review, so several hours a week I do nothing but label conclusions and premises. I see, for the above conclusions, the following premises: 1) Dan and Andrea are dating. 2) Dan and Andrea both played this game. Nothing else. Can you see why I’m a little disturbed?

I note with some interest that when Marie made her awesome run to victory last summer, Ian openly admitted to essentially doing her “dirty work” in the game. This seemed to affect no one’s ballot.

Look, I don’t think you are all dirty sexists. But I think it was irresponsible to make those kind of accusations (the last one especially stings) without ANY, without a SINGLE example of game events that would lead you to believe that. Given that lack of support, I don’t think it’s hard to see how I took offense.

Please comment if you would like. Give the reasons you didn’t give the first time, tell me it was a joke in poor taste, take it back, whatever. I’m more than happy to patch up my slightly hurt feelings and give internet hugs and beers all around.

Thanks,

Dre


#3

Hey Andrea,

I think you’re taking my comment a little out of context. In my RFD for Dan, I do say that he went to eliminate you during your debate. My comment was directed at Dan in the way that I thought he went for the throat, when you played that particular debate less substantiatively (a word I totally made up). It’s a preference, sure. I like aggressive debate (did you not read Dan and I’s round?).:slight_smile:

As for comparing it to Ian and Marie, I didn’t make a ballot last year. This year, I would have voted for my alliance first, then those that I thought played aggressively (Dan showed that by going for the gusto). So, I’m not sure that’s really applicable.

Of course, I never want hurt feelings…so in the spirit of the Olympic games I give both of you gold medals.

Rob


#4

Rob,

I totally understand that opinion about the Starcraft round. I did want to win it; I also did not think the round would be won on the flow (with 3 of our friends judging us) and I was trying to be as entertaining as possible. Aalso, since Amy and Patty aren’t Starcraft experts, something had to balance straight debating. A different way of looking at the same thing. But sure, fine. :slight_smile:

Still though, how does that explain your comment, “I have no respect for players who can’t play for themselves?” I mean, the clear implication there is that someone played for me or influenced me, not that I should have debated more aggressively.

Thanks though.

Andrea


#5

Howdy Dre,

To be quite honest, I didn’t have a lot of ammunition against you. Whereas you feel that my attacks on you weren’t fair, I feel quite the same about your attacks on me. Your claims that I never played the game and had no (to borrow your own terminology) “cojones” were blatantly false. And at the point where you were making false claims against me, I felt it would be best to respond in kind.

Nonetheless, if you look to my second speech, you’ll see the justifications for my claims. And while I’ll be the first to admit that I spun tall tales out of the small facts that I had, there was still nonetheless some backing to my original claims.

To rehash the aformentioned justifications:

[list=1][*]Dan outrightedly told me during the building phases of the final alliance that you were to come first.

[*]You appeared not to even respond to the attack yourself in your final speech. Instead, you said “Please look to Dan’s analysis to see how I played for myself.”[/list=1]
So, you can see that there was no sexism on my part whatsoever. I just responded to your falsities with a few tall tales of my own. And I had very real examples to point to as I did so.

In response to your other question of “Why not Dan?” it’s really simple:

[list=1][*]I had other ammo against him, and

[*]You never:

A. made similar claims of building an alliance for his benefit, or

B. took the time in your speech to respond to attacks against Dan.
[/list=1]
So, you can see that the story wouldn’t have worked in the opposite scenario, as there was no evidence of it…That, and I had more realistic attacks that I could make on him.

Anyway, I apologize if you thought that whatever I said was spun by anything other than my observations of the game. The fact of the matter, though, as you can see above, is that gender played no role in my words.

-M


#6

Sorry if I’m hijacking the thread, but just a response.

Actually, my comment was “I have no respect for players that can?t play by themselves.” :slight_smile: “for themselves” implies that someone was playing for you, which is not what I meant. “By themselves” I think carries more of an individualistic tone.

To that end, I never got a sense, throughout the game, that you were ready to go off it alone. Talking with Dan via IM, watching posts, hearing conversations…it felt more that you were playing for the alliance instead of playing the alliance so you could win. Even when it came down for the final elimination, it felt as if you weren’t willing to knife Dan…which is exactly the time to do it.

Maybe I’m insensitive (I’ve always been one to strive against my stereotypical roots), but I’m not sure why you’re so upset. It’s a game, even the voting was a game. I think you know that because you left out all the comments that praised you as the mastermind behind the duo (stuff they saw and I didn’t)ie. Lucy and Brendo.

A lot of this game is perception oriented…especially when one doesn’t get to see all the key communications between competitors. The perception that was widely shown by you and Dan was that he was running the show. Whether that’s true or not, I have no information as to that extent. I guess the Catfight would have been a great place to detail that, eh?

Rob


#7

I know I can edit, but I don’t wanna.

Finally, I think it’s pretty communicatively irresponsible to label people sexist/racist/homophobic/etc. without a substantially strong case. I mean we throw around these heavily weighted terms as if they were nothing, when the word/label should have a lot of meaning and significant repercussions.

Sure, it puts the rhetorical responsibility on the other speakers to defend themselves…but when someone calls me/insinuates that I am a sexist or heterosexist/homophobic, I get a little pissed (I have no idea why I’d be called a heterosexist). I actually applaud Jed for being more forthcoming with his feelings about being labeled as such and understand exactly why he reacted so strongly.

Rob


#8

First, thanks guys, for your explanations. I don’t want to start rehashing game details and arguing with you about them, it isn’t worth it. I at least appreciate you being willing to have this discussion with me.

(Stanford: Fair enough. I highly respect your cojones. :))

If you read my post again you’ll see that I don’t call anyone sexist. I say that the relevant quotes, because they weren’t given any game context, made me uncomfortable because they could be construed as “the guy was the leader just because.” I asked for comments to help me get rid of that feeling. That’s happening here. Yay, discourse. Dan’s use of that word was rescinded, so there’s no need to get worked up about it.

I think me being honest about my reactions and asking for a discussion to resolve the conflict was the most efficient and communicatively responsible way I could have handled it. My other options were to pretend the words had no effect on me, which is dangerous if they’re meant maliciously, or to insult you all and demand apologies. I chose a different ground.

I love Jed, although I still think Tiffany’s comment was quite uncalled for, and I hope he’s calmer. He’s welcome to react in any way he sees fit, or not at all, to this post too.

Andrea


#9

Dre, first let me say that I understand how those comments could make you upset. However, I do want to say it is entirely possible for the perception that Dan “did the work” or “carried you” to be there without any residual societal sexist gender roles being the underlying cause.

I didn’t play, or even pay that much attention to the game at all once I was eliminated - yet my own perception was that you and Dan had a very strong alliance and that he was putting more effort in the game than you. That perception was fueled by two things in my own case: he did a lot more posting in the game threads than did you (a quick count shows 49 to 32 posts - or about 50% more) and he IM’d me about game related politics several times over the last few months, during which time I never heard anything from you.

I will immediately grant out that you may have been extremely active in other modes of communication with other people, and that you really could have been doing the heavy lifting in your partnership - which is why I let the die decide your fate. But, from my viewpoint, given the “evidence” that I have at my disposal (1. Dan posted way more often, 2. Dan was always (ok, not “always,” but quite a bit) lobbying me via IM for game related stuff, 3. You were doing neither of these, and 4. You’re just a member of the weaker, gentler sex anyway) it could very easily be assumed that he did “carry” you in the game without any sexist notions at all.

So, in conclusion, I think you need to take off your shoes, go back to the kitchen, make dinner, clean up after dinner, and then start making some babies for Dan. :angel

Ok, the serious conclusion, looking at it from your point of view, I can totally understand being upset by the comments. From where you are, you’re right, those comments are 100% unjustified. However, I think the converse is true too - that from the point of view of the people making the comments, they are entirely justified and entirely without a sexist nature. What to do about it? I think everyone should just say, “I’m sorry, I didn’t think about it from your point of view before I wrote/said it.” And they should mean it.

Oh, and you should cook me dinner too - that’d be awesome.

J


#10

Thanks a lot, Jake, that post made me feel really good. Considerate and light-hearted. You’re good folks.

:slight_smile: Andrea


#11

I’m very intrigued how about some of the comments people have made, including my own, and how they relate to their feelings on political campaigns.

Dan