I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
I would not recommend running games at a LGS that won't let you eject players. As for this specific situation, I assume the OP would not be asking the question if they didn't think they had the authority to do something.
I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
The GM has the ultimate authority -- nobody can make them run a game. It's not even normally a job, just something they do for fun. If the owners want to run games where only those they choose to ban are banned, they should run the games themselves.
Also, if they don't want interpersonal conflicts driving paying customers away, cracking down on players like J who drive others away is the bare minimum they ought to be doing. That policy pretty much guarantees you'll have some regulars who are passively driving other players (and GMs) away through various forms of unpleasant behavior, but as long as they're polite to the owners, they get to play.
While both of these are true, neither of them give this DM the authority to ban anyone from playing at a venue that is not their own.
The proprietors' counter to the idea that they should run their own game if they want to be in charge of who gets to play is that if DM's want to ban people from their games, they should run them in their own homes rather than someone else's place of business. It's a fine balance where both positions have legitimate reasoning--compromise and mutual respect are essential. It's unfortunate that there are those who cannot comport themselves in a civil manner and take advantage of others' good will. In the grand scheme, L has made the most sensible though not particularly fair choice to withdraw from the situation that makes them uncomfortable and where they cannot control the behaviour of others.
I don't see where you actually have any authority to ban a player from your table. At my local FLGS, the DM's don't have the power to ban people from playing, only the proprietors do and the proprietors don't want silly interpersonal conflicts like this preventing anyone from spending money in their store.
The GM has the ultimate authority -- nobody can make them run a game. It's not even normally a job, just something they do for fun. If the owners want to run games where only those they choose to ban are banned, they should run the games themselves.
Also, if they don't want interpersonal conflicts driving paying customers away, cracking down on players like J who drive others away is the bare minimum they ought to be doing. That policy pretty much guarantees you'll have some regulars who are passively driving other players (and GMs) away through various forms of unpleasant behavior, but as long as they're polite to the owners, they get to play.
While both of these are true, neither of them give this DM the authority to ban anyone from playing at a venue that is not their own.
They give the DM the authority to ban somebody from playing in their game. What happens at other tables is outside of their control, but the DM still has to be willing to play with the people at hand.
The proprietors' counter to the idea that they should run their own game if they want to be in charge of who gets to play is that if DM's want to ban people from their games, they should run them in their own homes rather than someone else's place of business.
One of these two parties is doing the other a favor. This isn't using the game store's tables to play with your friends; it's providing a service that attracts customers. In return, you get to... run D&D for random people? Obviously, people who do it enjoy it, but this is not a symmetrical relationship.
It's a fine balance where both positions have legitimate reasoning--compromise and mutual respect are essential. It's unfortunate that there are those who cannot comport themselves in a civil manner and take advantage of others' good will. In the grand scheme, L has made the most sensible though not particularly fair choice to withdraw from the situation that makes them uncomfortable and where they cannot control the behaviour of others.
And if the DMs can't bounce players, they keep losing Ls and keeping the Js. And also K, who whines whenever things don't go his way, X, Y, and Z, who reliably hit on every female player who sits down, Q, who's very upset with WotC for "censoring the new star frontiers", A, who thinks 1st edition AD&D was the height of game design and won't stop putting down the game everyone (including them) is actually playing, B, who's buddies with the store owner and knows that means he can get away with anything, etc. etc. etc. And eventually the free-play games are mostly these people and a rotating cast of newbies who mostly don't stick for some reason.
In isolated incidents, it's a "this isn't to happen again" and move on. It's not your job to police out-of-game contact, if the harassment gets that out of hand the player getting harassed has multiple options that don't include a DM's involvement as well.
If it's repetitive behavior, or one that you perceive could repeat, best to tell the player in question thats not the community you desire to run, and if it continues they aren't welcome.
I don't think it needs to get too much more complicated beyond that tbh. the venue, table, etc argument is for the person asking the question to take up with their local shop. If the local shop affords them no ability to moderate their table, i'd be 100% gone in a moment without notice, just saying.
1) The OP added some details about the discussion ... however, the discussion wasn't the issue and that was resolved by the group at the table.
2) The real problem that you seem to have missed is: "This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out."
The real issue wasn't the discussion at the table but J taking the discussion offline and private and verbally assaulting/harassing L to the point where "As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us."
In my opinion, this is the unacceptable behavior in this situation. The off-colour topic of discussion was handled by the folks at the table.
This is exactly what I mean, and what I'm talking about: You have the word of one party, and no one is asking the other. And anyways, my opinion remains entirely unchanged. You need to ask those two to sort things out as adults, and stay away until they have.
Anger is never a particularly valid or wise reaction, but I kinda get it. I have a temper too, although it rarely get's the better of me. And never in e-mails. But if I feel myself misrepresented - if someone claims I said something other than I did, or they spew their interpretation of what I meant like it's a fact - that pisses me off no end. But I'd never send an angry e-mail about it.
Regardless, unless the GM is in possession of all the facts, he should stay out of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
1) The OP added some details about the discussion ... however, the discussion wasn't the issue and that was resolved by the group at the table.
2) The real problem that you seem to have missed is: "This weekend, L posted on our group discord that, after he got home that night, player J contacted him and proceeded to cuss him out."
The real issue wasn't the discussion at the table but J taking the discussion offline and private and verbally assaulting/harassing L to the point where "As a result, L has announced he will no longer be playing with us."
In my opinion, this is the unacceptable behavior in this situation. The off-colour topic of discussion was handled by the folks at the table.
This is exactly what I mean, and what I'm talking about: You have the word of one party, and no one is asking the other. And anyways, my opinion remains entirely unchanged. You need to ask those two to sort things out as adults, and stay away until they have.
OP is far closer to a neutral party than is usually available in these matters. (I am taking OP's description at face value, because what's the point otherwise?)
I'm not at all sure what you consider to be a satisfactory resolution to them attempting to "sort things out as adults". Is there one besides "L agrees to play at the same table as J again"? Deciding you're done with the other person is a legitimate, adult action. L is under no obligation to forgive J, much less game with them again.
Anger is never a particularly valid or wise reaction, but I kinda get it. I have a temper too, although it rarely get's the better of me. And never in e-mails. But if I feel myself misrepresented - if someone claims I said something other than I did, or they spew their interpretation of what I meant like it's a fact - that pisses me off no end. But I'd never send an angry e-mail about it.
Regardless, unless the GM is in possession of all the facts, he should stay out of it.
And what does "staying out of it" entail? Do nothing? Then J continues to play, and L does not. Ban them both? Then the offender is punished, but so is the victim. A double ban would only make sense if both parties have done something wrong.
This is a low-stakes, easy-mode version of a problem that happens in social groups all the time. (It's easy mode because J has admitted to it.) When one person harms another, remaining neutral favors the offender, because the victim wants to avoid the offender, and the offender does not want to avoid the victim. You invite them both to a party, and only the offender shows up. You invite neither of them, and you're isolating the victim for being victimized.
If you actually read what I said, you wouldn't need to ask.
Without complete information, the GM does ....... not ...... know who is the victim - if anyone. For that reason, he needs to - as you correctly say - do nothing. And ban both players until they figure things out between themselves.
What you're saying is "take the word of one part over the word of the other, for no discernible reason". And I'm saying "don't rule based on bias!" I'm sorry, but I think I'm obviously right here. I'll happily agree to disagree though =)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
If you actually read what I said, you wouldn't need to ask.
Without complete information, the GM does ....... not ...... know who is the victim - if anyone. For that reason, he needs to - as you correctly say - do nothing. And ban both players until they figure things out between themselves.
Banning both players is not "do nothing". There is nothing you can do in this kind of situation that counts as doing nothing, because deciding not to do anything is still acting.
From the original post:
J is saying that this was a culmination of bad blood that has been building between him and L for months, and this incident just finally pushed him over the edge. J insists he never would have complained about another player if they had brought up a content issue, only L.
J is literally saying "I did the thing", and you're saying "we can't know anything".
And, even when these sorts of situations are way more unclear, they're almost never even close to symmetrical. They're "offender and victim", not "two people fighting". Your "ban them both" approach is punishing somebody for being victimized. Even if the claimed victim is completely making things up (which is by far not the typical scenario), you're still punishing the actual victim for being falsely accused.
True neutrality is not possible, and attempting it covers for offenders and/or punishes victims.
This may be a victim/offender situation. It also might not. NO ONE, but the OP, can make that claim, because NONE of us know what the actual statement was.
The original statement doesn't matter. It might have been over the line, it might not. The problem is
L states (on a public channel) that J called him to cuss him out.
Once again, without knowing what was said in this side convo, no decision can be made, no assignation of guilt or innocence.
If L's description of the situation was inaccurate, J could have disputed it. Instead, he chose to try and justify it. We don't need to know more than that about the side convo.
Sure it is. "I accept no hostility among players at my table. Unless you can agree on what happened and who's to blame, which is unlikely, you'll have to sort if out yourselves. Until you do, you cannot play at my table - because I do not tolerate ANY form of hostility among players ... at my table!"
That is doing nothing. They can sort it out in few seconds flat, or two weeks, or never - and either way it's fine.
What you cannot do is blame one player over another based on incomplete information. And I do not accept the statement that ... was it J ... simply folded and said: Yea, sure, I'm a terrible person and I just called L to make sure he had an awful day. That is not what happened - not unless J magically shows up here and says that it was.
Propably no surprise to anyone - I deny that we know anything. We have at third or fourth hand that someone admitted he was mad at someone else. That's not solid proof of anything.
The only thing we propably know is that there may be a GM who has problems with hostility within his group. This being the internet, I'm not taking anyone at their word, but it's ... overall likely to be true. Or at least it's not such an outrageous claim that it hasn't happened in my own group.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
What you cannot do is blame one player over another based on incomplete information. And I do not accept the statement that ... was it J ... simply folded and said: Yea, sure, I'm a terrible person and I just called L to make sure he had an awful day. That is not what happened - not unless J magically shows up here and says that it was.
J's response to the claim was "Well, it was justified because of prior conflict". Which is, in fact, admitting that the claim was true.
The conversation in question between J and L occurred via text over Discord. L posted screenshots in his post this weekend as part of his explanation on why he was quitting the group. I chose to not post those screenshots here. But yeah, it's a bit hard for J to deny it ever took place.
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
But yeah, it's a bit hard for J to deny it ever took place.
I'm not saying it didn't. I'm saying passive aggressive is no better than openly aggressive - frankly, I prefer the latter, but then I'm likely biased. I'm saying that it's actually 100% ok to be angry, and to express anger. And I'm going to repeat, yet again, that if two players have a problem with each other, that is between them. I'm not helping god damned adults sort out their petty god damned grievances. They can either man up, or get out.
But .. that's me. Doesn't have to be you.
I don't know the players in question. But if there are two types of people in the world, and one type is likely to go 'NOW I'M MAD!' and the other type is likely to plan to quietly stab you in the back, I'd rather have the guy who's open about it.
But that's me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Well, our next session is in three hours. At this point, I am not going to ban J. However, we will be having a group discussion on the situation before we begin and go from there to the best of my ability.
Thank you everyone for your input. I genuinely appreciate it. It is kinda nice seeing the arguments I've had bouncing around in my head for days be picked up and carried by people I don't know. (That probably sounded weird... I don't mean it to be.) At the very least, it validates that I'm not overthinking it.
Whether I'm making the right decision is another issue.
I will post later (maybe not tonight, but if not, definitely tomorrow) on how it turned out.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
This may be a victim/offender situation. It also might not. NO ONE, but the OP, can make that claim, because NONE of us know what the actual statement was.
The original statement doesn't matter. It might have been over the line, it might not. The problem is
L states (on a public channel) that J called him to cuss him out.
J does not dispute this.
Therefore, we should assume (1) is true.
(1) is unacceptable.
Once again, without knowing what was said in this side convo, no decision can be made, no assignation of guilt or innocence.
I feel like your argument is based weirdly in some kind of quantum state where nothing can truly be known ever, which like sure maybe but if that's the case the very nature of the discussion and the idea of giving advice based on anything that may or may not have happened is completely pointless.
Assuming that it *is* possible to know knowledge, and running with the understanding that the information that has been relayed to us exists, then Pantegruel is correct and I feel like you're trying to take the opposing side for no real reason.
Like yes, maybe OP is actually a sasquach that's found a laptop in the woods and never actually played dnd, WE CAN'T KNOW THEY AREN'T, but in that case, giving any advice, even the wrong advice, is harmless, so even then your line of debate is fairly pointless.
To quote a popular meme, "it's OK Socrates, you know some things... that's a tree."
Yup...the ones that work behind your back, are always the worst.
Obviously I agree, but I think the jury is still voting. It's just so much easier to spot the angry loudmouth than the quietly plotting, politely passive aggressive snake.
And I'm not calling everyone who's passive aggressive snakes. I have close personal friends who are the most amusingly passive aggressive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
I'm sorry, I said I was going to post yesterday, and then I completely forgot to post.
J read a statement before the session on Wednesday explaining why he reacted the way he did. While some of the players expressed that they thought the situation was not handled well by J or L, they seemed to accept that it was a conflict between J and L. And I did say that I wanted the table to be a safe spot where people could express the content concern without fear of being attacked for it, and the next time someone seems to attack another player after they bring up a content concern, the person who did the attacking will be banned from my table.
=========================== Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters: Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
If you actually read what I said, you wouldn't need to ask.
Without complete information, the GM does ....... not ...... know who is the victim - if anyone. For that reason, he needs to - as you correctly say - do nothing. And ban both players until they figure things out between themselves.
What you're saying is "take the word of one part over the word of the other, for no discernible reason". And I'm saying "don't rule based on bias!" I'm sorry, but I think I'm obviously right here. I'll happily agree to disagree though =)
We are discussing a post by a DM on this forum regarding a situation he was involved with, saw develop at the table and spoke with both of the involved players after the events occurred. There is NO way that anyone on this forum can have any idea of exactly how much the DM is aware of. Presumably he spoke with both and has presented the information neutrally and at face value. Based on the information presented, the behavior of one of the players is unacceptable. (How the DM handles it will be up to him ... and after reading the rest of the posts I noted that the DM followed up with a description of the actions taken [ thanks for that by the way :) ] ).
Your entire argument that the DM does NOT know who the victim is ... is completely bogus. You have no idea. Neither do I. However, based on the information presented the situation is pretty clear. The DM does know. The only way any other poster would have the additional information needed, beyond what the DM has posted, in order claim that the DM is taking the word of one over the other or has insufficient information and should stay out of it ... would be one of the other players involved. Unless you are one of the players involved and you have information that the DM has not presented ... then your suggestion that the DM do nothing because they don't know the situation well enough is entirely bogus.
I would not recommend running games at a LGS that won't let you eject players. As for this specific situation, I assume the OP would not be asking the question if they didn't think they had the authority to do something.
While both of these are true, neither of them give this DM the authority to ban anyone from playing at a venue that is not their own.
The proprietors' counter to the idea that they should run their own game if they want to be in charge of who gets to play is that if DM's want to ban people from their games, they should run them in their own homes rather than someone else's place of business. It's a fine balance where both positions have legitimate reasoning--compromise and mutual respect are essential. It's unfortunate that there are those who cannot comport themselves in a civil manner and take advantage of others' good will. In the grand scheme, L has made the most sensible though not particularly fair choice to withdraw from the situation that makes them uncomfortable and where they cannot control the behaviour of others.
They give the DM the authority to ban somebody from playing in their game. What happens at other tables is outside of their control, but the DM still has to be willing to play with the people at hand.
One of these two parties is doing the other a favor. This isn't using the game store's tables to play with your friends; it's providing a service that attracts customers. In return, you get to... run D&D for random people? Obviously, people who do it enjoy it, but this is not a symmetrical relationship.
And if the DMs can't bounce players, they keep losing Ls and keeping the Js. And also K, who whines whenever things don't go his way, X, Y, and Z, who reliably hit on every female player who sits down, Q, who's very upset with WotC for "censoring the new star frontiers", A, who thinks 1st edition AD&D was the height of game design and won't stop putting down the game everyone (including them) is actually playing, B, who's buddies with the store owner and knows that means he can get away with anything, etc. etc. etc. And eventually the free-play games are mostly these people and a rotating cast of newbies who mostly don't stick for some reason.
In isolated incidents, it's a "this isn't to happen again" and move on. It's not your job to police out-of-game contact, if the harassment gets that out of hand the player getting harassed has multiple options that don't include a DM's involvement as well.
If it's repetitive behavior, or one that you perceive could repeat, best to tell the player in question thats not the community you desire to run, and if it continues they aren't welcome.
I don't think it needs to get too much more complicated beyond that tbh. the venue, table, etc argument is for the person asking the question to take up with their local shop. If the local shop affords them no ability to moderate their table, i'd be 100% gone in a moment without notice, just saying.
This is exactly what I mean, and what I'm talking about: You have the word of one party, and no one is asking the other. And anyways, my opinion remains entirely unchanged. You need to ask those two to sort things out as adults, and stay away until they have.
Anger is never a particularly valid or wise reaction, but I kinda get it. I have a temper too, although it rarely get's the better of me. And never in e-mails. But if I feel myself misrepresented - if someone claims I said something other than I did, or they spew their interpretation of what I meant like it's a fact - that pisses me off no end. But I'd never send an angry e-mail about it.
Regardless, unless the GM is in possession of all the facts, he should stay out of it.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
OP is far closer to a neutral party than is usually available in these matters. (I am taking OP's description at face value, because what's the point otherwise?)
I'm not at all sure what you consider to be a satisfactory resolution to them attempting to "sort things out as adults". Is there one besides "L agrees to play at the same table as J again"? Deciding you're done with the other person is a legitimate, adult action. L is under no obligation to forgive J, much less game with them again.
And what does "staying out of it" entail? Do nothing? Then J continues to play, and L does not. Ban them both? Then the offender is punished, but so is the victim. A double ban would only make sense if both parties have done something wrong.
This is a low-stakes, easy-mode version of a problem that happens in social groups all the time. (It's easy mode because J has admitted to it.) When one person harms another, remaining neutral favors the offender, because the victim wants to avoid the offender, and the offender does not want to avoid the victim. You invite them both to a party, and only the offender shows up. You invite neither of them, and you're isolating the victim for being victimized.
If you actually read what I said, you wouldn't need to ask.
Without complete information, the GM does ....... not ...... know who is the victim - if anyone. For that reason, he needs to - as you correctly say - do nothing. And ban both players until they figure things out between themselves.
What you're saying is "take the word of one part over the word of the other, for no discernible reason". And I'm saying "don't rule based on bias!" I'm sorry, but I think I'm obviously right here. I'll happily agree to disagree though =)
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Banning both players is not "do nothing". There is nothing you can do in this kind of situation that counts as doing nothing, because deciding not to do anything is still acting.
From the original post:
J is literally saying "I did the thing", and you're saying "we can't know anything".
And, even when these sorts of situations are way more unclear, they're almost never even close to symmetrical. They're "offender and victim", not "two people fighting". Your "ban them both" approach is punishing somebody for being victimized. Even if the claimed victim is completely making things up (which is by far not the typical scenario), you're still punishing the actual victim for being falsely accused.
True neutrality is not possible, and attempting it covers for offenders and/or punishes victims.
The original statement doesn't matter. It might have been over the line, it might not. The problem is
If L's description of the situation was inaccurate, J could have disputed it. Instead, he chose to try and justify it. We don't need to know more than that about the side convo.
Sure it is. "I accept no hostility among players at my table. Unless you can agree on what happened and who's to blame, which is unlikely, you'll have to sort if out yourselves. Until you do, you cannot play at my table - because I do not tolerate ANY form of hostility among players ... at my table!"
That is doing nothing. They can sort it out in few seconds flat, or two weeks, or never - and either way it's fine.
What you cannot do is blame one player over another based on incomplete information. And I do not accept the statement that ... was it J ... simply folded and said: Yea, sure, I'm a terrible person and I just called L to make sure he had an awful day. That is not what happened - not unless J magically shows up here and says that it was.
Propably no surprise to anyone - I deny that we know anything. We have at third or fourth hand that someone admitted he was mad at someone else. That's not solid proof of anything.
The only thing we propably know is that there may be a GM who has problems with hostility within his group. This being the internet, I'm not taking anyone at their word, but it's ... overall likely to be true. Or at least it's not such an outrageous claim that it hasn't happened in my own group.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
J's response to the claim was "Well, it was justified because of prior conflict". Which is, in fact, admitting that the claim was true.
The conversation in question between J and L occurred via text over Discord. L posted screenshots in his post this weekend as part of his explanation on why he was quitting the group. I chose to not post those screenshots here. But yeah, it's a bit hard for J to deny it ever took place.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
I'm not saying it didn't. I'm saying passive aggressive is no better than openly aggressive - frankly, I prefer the latter, but then I'm likely biased. I'm saying that it's actually 100% ok to be angry, and to express anger. And I'm going to repeat, yet again, that if two players have a problem with each other, that is between them. I'm not helping god damned adults sort out their petty god damned grievances. They can either man up, or get out.
But .. that's me. Doesn't have to be you.
I don't know the players in question. But if there are two types of people in the world, and one type is likely to go 'NOW I'M MAD!' and the other type is likely to plan to quietly stab you in the back, I'd rather have the guy who's open about it.
But that's me.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Well, our next session is in three hours. At this point, I am not going to ban J. However, we will be having a group discussion on the situation before we begin and go from there to the best of my ability.
Thank you everyone for your input. I genuinely appreciate it. It is kinda nice seeing the arguments I've had bouncing around in my head for days be picked up and carried by people I don't know. (That probably sounded weird... I don't mean it to be.) At the very least, it validates that I'm not overthinking it.
Whether I'm making the right decision is another issue.
I will post later (maybe not tonight, but if not, definitely tomorrow) on how it turned out.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
I feel like your argument is based weirdly in some kind of quantum state where nothing can truly be known ever, which like sure maybe but if that's the case the very nature of the discussion and the idea of giving advice based on anything that may or may not have happened is completely pointless.
Assuming that it *is* possible to know knowledge, and running with the understanding that the information that has been relayed to us exists, then Pantegruel is correct and I feel like you're trying to take the opposing side for no real reason.
Like yes, maybe OP is actually a sasquach that's found a laptop in the woods and never actually played dnd, WE CAN'T KNOW THEY AREN'T, but in that case, giving any advice, even the wrong advice, is harmless, so even then your line of debate is fairly pointless.
To quote a popular meme, "it's OK Socrates, you know some things... that's a tree."
Obviously I agree, but I think the jury is still voting. It's just so much easier to spot the angry loudmouth than the quietly plotting, politely passive aggressive snake.
And I'm not calling everyone who's passive aggressive snakes. I have close personal friends who are the most amusingly passive aggressive.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
i would say at least tempopary suspending J would be best option, and then possibly upgrade it to ban depending from J reaction on suspension
I'm sorry, I said I was going to post yesterday, and then I completely forgot to post.
J read a statement before the session on Wednesday explaining why he reacted the way he did. While some of the players expressed that they thought the situation was not handled well by J or L, they seemed to accept that it was a conflict between J and L. And I did say that I wanted the table to be a safe spot where people could express the content concern without fear of being attacked for it, and the next time someone seems to attack another player after they bring up a content concern, the person who did the attacking will be banned from my table.
In the meantime, I'm keeping my eye on J.
===========================
Laugh at life or life will laugh at you.
Current D&D Characters:
Kromen Flintfist, Hill Dwarf Order of the Scribes Wizard/Armorer Artificer
Eiphrok, Half-Orc Oath of Glory Paladin/Draconic Bloodline Sorcerer
We are discussing a post by a DM on this forum regarding a situation he was involved with, saw develop at the table and spoke with both of the involved players after the events occurred. There is NO way that anyone on this forum can have any idea of exactly how much the DM is aware of. Presumably he spoke with both and has presented the information neutrally and at face value. Based on the information presented, the behavior of one of the players is unacceptable. (How the DM handles it will be up to him ... and after reading the rest of the posts I noted that the DM followed up with a description of the actions taken [ thanks for that by the way :) ] ).
Your entire argument that the DM does NOT know who the victim is ... is completely bogus. You have no idea. Neither do I. However, based on the information presented the situation is pretty clear. The DM does know. The only way any other poster would have the additional information needed, beyond what the DM has posted, in order claim that the DM is taking the word of one over the other or has insufficient information and should stay out of it ... would be one of the other players involved. Unless you are one of the players involved and you have information that the DM has not presented ... then your suggestion that the DM do nothing because they don't know the situation well enough is entirely bogus.