TOPIC: Time to Revisit Age Policy?

Donald Rients wrote: Is it confirmed for sure that there will not be any runs on Sunday?

I don't know if it's set in stone at this point, but the current plan is to start teardown Saturday night, finish Sunday morning, and have a riddle reveal at 1 pm on Sunday..

Donald Rients wrote:

jedibcg wrote:

Donald Rients wrote: Some observations and comments:

1. Sunday’s at Gen Con are Family days. Good day for open allowance?

Maybe except there won't be any Sunday TD runs this year at Gen Con. Thursday through Saturday only. I hope everyone knows this already and I am not letting a cat out of any bag.

I had heard that from someone who says they got some newsletter stating that. I hadn't seen it. Is it confirmed for sure that there will not be any runs on Sunday? This is when my family does the runs since they are easier to get a set of ten that day. This is the 50th year for Gen Con, the 15th for TD, but the runs are going to be cut down by one day even though the tickets are basically sell outs in the first place? Noting how late Gen Con is this year will limit Jr. High and High School kids running on Thursday and Friday. My Jr. High and High School kids are in school that Thursday and Friday since school starts that week. I had already bought 4-day passes for us all, and now Saturday is the only day we can run? Good luck getting tickets that day due to the increased competition for them. Now I am seriously rethinking about going to Gen Con this year. Looks like I have until July 2nd to dump those six four day passes (I hadn't bought the other two yet).

There are more runs added to each day to make up for the loss of Sunday. Not saying that solves your issue just attempting to give you information.

Druegar wrote:

Donald Rients wrote: Is it confirmed for sure that there will not be any runs on Sunday?

I don't know if it's set in stone at this point, but the current plan is to start teardown Saturday night, finish Sunday morning, and have a riddle reveal at 1 pm on Sunday..

From the message I got from Jeff it is a done deal. Again I thought this was common knowledge at this point so if I shouldn't say anything can someone tell me to shut up.

"Sorry we had to drop the Sunday morning events at Gen Con. There is not enough time to tear it all down and still do events on Sunday. "

Incognito wrote: Okay. I think whenever someone under age X is in the dungeon it is equivalent to asking volunteers to babysit, and volunteers shouldn't babysit, please let me know if you agree or disagree.

We've hit bedrock!

If a child is attended at all times by a guardian, then I don't think volunteers are being asked to babysit.

Before volunteers are chosen (or applications submitted), TD is welcome to unilaterally change the rules or guidelines. People are then aware of those before deciding whether or not to volunteer.

Once volunteers are confirmed, if TD changes any rules or guidelines that affect the scope of the volunteering duties, then volunteers should be allowed to withdraw or modify their volunteer commitment because TD has changed the initial working terms.

I agree partially in principle, but think volunteers need to also be flexible. Stuff changes.

Pretty much any thing TD changes will affect the scope of volunteering duties to some degree. For example, if character builder app X was made an acceptable official app and thus eligible for a +1 HP bonus that would be a change that affects coaching.

Would you think such a change entitles all coaches to cancel without reprecussion?

If TD announced that the minimum age was increasing from 12 to 14 should volunteers be able to cancel without repercussion?

I don't think any volunteers should be forced to do something they are not comfortable with or did not agree to do (especially because, you know, they are "volunteers"). If TD wants them to do something that is outside the scope of what was originally agreed upon, the volunteer should be allowed the opportunity to withdraw (though that may make things complex with free badge, hotel room, and other compensation) because TD is changing the terms. It would be like bait-and-switch.

Agreed.

This is especially relevant because TD's own explicit policies establish an Age Limit and specifically state that "Infants & toddlers are absolutely not allowed to go in the dungeon." Also, DM training emphasizes "consistency."

You seem to think I'm arguing that players can / should violate TD policies.

They should not.

I broadly agree with your assessments of the impacts children can have on people around them. However I think your demonization of parents (self-centered, narrow-minded) is beside the point and unhelpful to your argument to boot. We should argue policy based on its impact on the game, not on the negative character traits of the players.

As I've argued before, it *is* self-centered and narrow-minded to think "as long as my group is okay with it, then it's okay to do it" precisely because it is not considering the perspectives of anyone outside of your group.

So - do we make policy based on the impossible to discern internal character attributes of people, e.g. that they are self centered and narrow minded?

Or do we make policy based on their behavior.

I think we should make policy based on their behavior.

If we do this, then we can simply say:

"Having underage children in the dungeon results in a disproportionately negative customer experience for other players who may be impacted by a temper tantrum or frightened child."

We don't have to layer onto it that "therefore we make moral judgements about the characters of the parent."

The second element doesn't do any work in establishing whether this is a good or bad policy for TD, but does serve to inflame people.

This is a genuine question: Is it okay to swear in front of babies, especially because they probably won't understand it?

I'd say so. Of course if the guardian disagreed and wanted to leave, I wouldn't fault them.

On the other hand, if someone is spewing a constant stream of F-bombs in the dungeon at high volume, I think it's reasonable to ask them to reign it in regardless of whether babies are present.

This behavior could be every bit as disturbing to other adult attendees as a crying child.

Is it okay to maturely talk about adult topics in front of either babies or young children?

Since none of my proposals would but young children in this scenario without their guardians, why don't we let them decide, and leave if they don't like it?

Your comment was simply about "behave[ing] within some reasonable bounds of decorum" but there are plenty of adult discussions that can be had within the bounds of decorum, that nonetheless would not be appropriate for young children (or possibly babies) to hear.

Agreed. Let the guardians of the children decide and leave if they don't like it.

jedibcg wrote:

Druegar wrote:

Donald Rients wrote: Is it confirmed for sure that there will not be any runs on Sunday?

I don't know if it's set in stone at this point, but the current plan is to start teardown Saturday night, finish Sunday morning, and have a riddle reveal at 1 pm on Sunday..

From the message I got from Jeff it is a done deal. Again I thought this was common knowledge at this point so if I shouldn't say anything can someone tell me to shut up.

"Sorry we had to drop the Sunday morning events at Gen Con. There is not enough time to tear it all down and still do events on Sunday. "

I guess we'll see how Saturday tickets go. May be a bust this year. Yes, we play Thursday and Friday's. But none of my family can make it during those two days this year - Wife - watching kids, oldest Son and oldest daughter and her husband working until weekend, three younger kids in school. Though my second oldest daughter doesn't start college until that coming Monday. My three other friends that come with me would be there Th and F and we do play with another team of four on those days but then we will be short, and without the family runs I don't know. So if not Saturday it kills a lot of the reason to go.

Druegar wrote:

Brad Mortensen wrote: which problem are we trying to solve?

I don't think the issues you mentioned are mutually exclusive.

True, but some trump others. If Liability is on the table, then it doesn't matter what the people who bought 10 tickets want to do, IMO.

And having a policy that is waived for some people but not others could result in a civil discrimination suit. "You only stopped my ten-year-old from playing because he's a ginger, and you let all those other kids play!"

Maturity and decorum and parental involvement only carry so much weight when the threat of lawyers is on the horizon.

Wow no Sunday runs......now I may be able to help with tear down!

Ok. So we're changing the age limit to 30, right?

Ouch - no Sunday runs is going to hurt with how late GenCon is this year. A couple of the guys in my group are teachers - and the school year starts that week - so they can't make it til Saturday.

Now we have to try to get tickets for all 4 runs on that one day

Or hope we can get at least one run of each for them to try...

I'll miss the Sunday fun....it was nice the last few years getting my last run or 2 in on that Sunday.

I wonder if that means the Sunday True Dungeon Auction might return.

Mike Steele wrote: I wonder if that means the Sunday True Dungeon Auction might return.

Now that would be a sight to behold!

Matthew Hayward wrote:

Incognito wrote: Okay. I think whenever someone under age X is in the dungeon it is equivalent to asking volunteers to babysit, and volunteers shouldn't babysit, please let me know if you agree or disagree.

We've hit bedrock!

If a child is attended at all times by a guardian, then I don't think volunteers are being asked to babysit.

That really depends on the parenting style of the guardian.

Some parents are very attentive to their kids and watch them like a hawk. In those cases I don't think the volunteers are babysitting. For example, there is another parent I know (through DDA) who has brought their child on runs but the parent was quite conscientious of what the child was doing and was quick to correct the child when they were behaving inappropriately.

But there are also other parents who are off doing their own thing (within the dungeon room) and it is up to the DM or the other players to keep an eye on the kid.

Before volunteers are chosen (or applications submitted), TD is welcome to unilaterally change the rules or guidelines. People are then aware of those before deciding whether or not to volunteer.

Once volunteers are confirmed, if TD changes any rules or guidelines that affect the scope of the volunteering duties, then volunteers should be allowed to withdraw or modify their volunteer commitment because TD has changed the initial working terms.

I agree partially in principle, but think volunteers need to also be flexible. Stuff changes.

Pretty much any thing TD changes will affect the scope of volunteering duties to some degree. For example, if character builder app X was made an acceptable official app and thus eligible for a +1 HP bonus that would be a change that affects coaching.

Would you think such a change entitles all coaches to cancel without reprecussion?

If TD announced that the minimum age was increasing from 12 to 14 should volunteers be able to cancel without repercussion?

Well, all volunteers are participating on a voluntary basis, of their own free will. They should be able to cancel at any time. BUT, any such decision may entail repercussions (most likely scenario: being on the blacklist and not getting invited back in the future). Even if you have very good reasons for canceling, there may still be repercussions.

Volunteers *should* be flexible. But if they can't handle a change, then they should withdraw. And maybe they weren't the right choice to begin with.

Suppose you made the official app a requirement for player coaches to use. Well, some volunteers might not have the technical skills required. Or maybe some volunteers have religious beliefs where they shun such technology.

If TD increases the minimum age, then maybe a volunteer who was only attending GenCon so their 12 or 13 year old could play, would completely cancel their trip to GenCon. So in that case, the volunteer might choose to cancel their volunteering.

I don't quite know what you mean by "without repercussion". Just about everything has repercussions.

This is especially relevant because TD's own explicit policies establish an Age Limit and specifically state that "Infants & toddlers are absolutely not allowed to go in the dungeon." Also, DM training emphasizes "consistency."

You seem to think I'm arguing that players can / should violate TD policies.

They should not.

Well, many players *are* violating TD policies, as evidenced by the underage kids and babies that are entering the dungeon.

And volunteers are supposed to abide by all rules and regulations established for Volunteers for TD. And those rules clearly indicate that infants and toddlers are NOT allowed.

This is a genuine question: Is it okay to swear in front of babies, especially because they probably won't understand it?

I'd say so. Of course if the guardian disagreed and wanted to leave, I wouldn't fault them.

On the other hand, if someone is spewing a constant stream of F-bombs in the dungeon at high volume, I think it's reasonable to ask them to reign it in regardless of whether babies are present.

This behavior could be every bit as disturbing to other adult attendees as a crying child.

Don't be such a baby!

Is it okay to maturely talk about adult topics in front of either babies or young children?

Since none of my proposals would but young children in this scenario without their guardians, why don't we let them decide, and leave if they don't like it?

Your comment was simply about "behave[ing] within some reasonable bounds of decorum" but there are plenty of adult discussions that can be had within the bounds of decorum, that nonetheless would not be appropriate for young children (or possibly babies) to hear.

Agreed. Let the guardians of the children decide and leave if they don't like it.

I agree with you. If the guardians have a problem with it, they can leave with their children.