"Don’t tell me how to play the game"

Let me tell you a tale: Once upon a time ...

Two men are sitting in a park. Let’s call them Dave and John [1]. Dave wants to read a book. John switches on his mobile phone, starts playing music and turns the music volume way up. Dave asks John to reduce the volume. Johns responds that he likes it that way. Dave points out that the music in its volume is distressing him. John demonstrates a lack of empathy and states that there’s no law prohibiting him to play music and if he would feel like it he would certainly have the right to do so. He suggests if Dave dislikes the music (or its volume) he should go somewhere else to read his book. To that Dave objects that he likes this place and don’t acknowledge why John’s right to play music should overrule his right to read a book without being exposed to loud music.
Stand-off ...

What would you suggest should happen? Should John give Dave a right hook („Dodge this“) and then examine how Dave’s book handles Fahrenheit 451? Should Dave kick John in the balls and convert his mobile into a submarine in the nearby pond?
Or should both perhaps do something radical and strike a COMPROMISE?

I’ve been in some interesting discussions over the years. Being the Opinionated Bastard™ I can’t help but share my convictions when I feel it’s called for. Other parties involved occasionally feel different

On some instances these discussions come across points where somebody (Chances are: The Author) suggests a certain manner of conduct, discourages the use of certain tactics or recommends the increased usefulness (or conversely the uselessness) of certain classes in a specific context [2]. It’s pretty much a safe bet that at some point of such a discussion somebody stands up and disclaims that he doesn’t want to be tutored: „Don’t tell me how to play the game.“ [3]

Here in this editorial I don’t want to delve into the specifics which usually prompt such a statement to come up, but rather examine the mindset behind this sentiment and the inherent problem with it.

As mentioned above this objection is usually brought forward when somebody suggests that players should alter their gameplay; compromise in the choice of classes and tactics in favor of the common good of the team or a fairer and more enjoyable overall gameplay.
In other words, this attitude [4] is triggered by the suggestion that people should accept restrictions to the way they play the game. Please, it’s important to note that I refer to an attitude, and not to any particular situational reasons. Under specific circumstances a player might have a good reason to choose a class, to apply a certain tactic or act in a certain way, which under a different set of circumstances would be wrong or lame.

But the „Don’t tell me how to play the game”-faction insists on having the right to basically do whatever they want regardless of any specific circumstances without having to subject themselves to the wishes, interests or demands of others. [5] That consequently establishes - one has to assume - that these people have no particular interest and intention to compromise in order to improve the game in any way (unless they might generously feel like it).

However, what these people neglect to realize or to admit is that a certain amount of compromise is one of the prerequisites of any kind of group/team-based sports or recreational activity. For many people this is common sense and is usually applied in real life without much problem. People might quarrel about the way a compromise is made, but they usually don’t question the necessity in general.

But sadly we are talking about the bloody internet here!
We are talking about a single person, sitting in a room far, far away from anybody else who this person is talking to or playing with. And chances are that this fact influences his perception of the matter and the people he’s dealing with: He sees primarily himself, in that room. And consequently might only care about himself, because everybody else is far, far away.

This person might not like the idea of compromise. He might not like the idea of being subjected to limits. He might not like the idea to arrange with others, especially people he might barely know and who he will most likely never meet face to face. Because compromising might diminish his pleasure and might prevent him from doing what he feels like doing. [6] And if somebody suggests otherwise this person says „Don’t tell me how to play the game“. [7]

But that’s a slippery slope. And at the very bottom of that same slope you have the cheaters, the lamers and the grievers. They might be a different kind of person, but the attitude and the reasoning is the same: „Don’t tell me what to do. I’ll do whatever I want.“

And therein lies the rub: When you defend the right of a player to be the fourth sniper on a team which wouldn’t even need a second one you are basically also defending the right of the griever to interrupt and obstruct the game of others. Your intention might be different, but your line of argument (which usually contains only the colours black and white because it’s exactly the shades of gray people like you want avoid) also serves the wrong people and helps to justify the actions of the bottom dwellers of our community. [8]

The problem is caused by the lack of personal accountability (told you it would be a reoccurring theme ). One person in a lonely room, with everybody else far, far away.
No social pressure. No social control. Nobody to slap his wrists if he misbehaves. Nobody to (figuratively) kick his ass if he really goes off the deep end. It’s the dickwad theory all over again (thx r007) [9]. The closest thing to social control is aforementioned server admin, who might kick a player who’s out of line.

The main effect is quite simple: All this (at least indirectly) promotes and nurtures a general lack of respect for the other people one plays with.
And that’s the point which leads me right back to the “regular” representatives of the TF2 population who advocate the „Don’t tell me how to play the game“-doctrine. With their line of argument they display an equal lack of respect towards the other people on the server by insisting on the right to put their own interests above those of everybody else.

Author’s Note: The editorial above was something I had been battling with for many, many months. I was never satisfied with the way I built my case; always felt that some of the steps within the line of argument were either weak or badly developed. I wrote several drafts and tried to come up with a better approach.
Consequently I don’t think this editorial is very good. However, I still think the topic itself is quite important (well, important in a Fort-kinda way) and so decided to publish it anyway.