several players appear to be expressing a displeasure in the level of
poker discussion at the game ... they don't appreciate every aspect of the
game being analyzed while the game is playing. ... if you notice that only
one or two other people are interested in the topic, then sometimes you
should either change the subject or reduce your volume so only those
interested participants need to tune in.
That's understandable. Indeed, as you suggest, I worked hard to change
the conversation to be about other things, and found that was unwelcome as
well. I talk about poker a lot there because it appears to be the only
shared interest of the whole group. Perhaps people just aren't as
interested in poker there as I thought. You're right, it's not an
academic poker group, and I certainly learned my lesson about trying to
make it one. I lament that I haven't been able to get interest going for
one, which is why, particularly when Nick's there, that the poker talk
gets so intense, since I have failed in attempts to build another outlet.
My bad, of course. I have obviously learned my lesson the hard way that
it isn't the right venue.
Greg added:
now, you are certainly free to discuss whatever you want at a poker game,
be it poker, politics, sports, or sex.
Well, I'm not sure I have good input on other interests that overlap with
the interests of people there. Nick's and my attempts to start
conversations last week only further angered people, including two
discussions: one about computers and one about literature. I was
surprised at people's annoyance, since I don't see how those conversation
were as offensive as the homophobic remarks that were made at another
point in the night, but different people react different ways to things.
My feeling has evolved over the past few days that it might be better to
approach this social situation like I do those at casinos. In those
situations, I rarely say anything (something I learned by watching roryk and Steven actually, and have found it useful). I just
take the opportunity to study the human animal and why they do things. I
find it rather isolating, but interesting. Nevertheless, that casino
experience is worth it, of course, in the right context. It's just hard
to mentally adjust, having seen Greg's game evolve since it was a goofy
$1/$2 game for total fun and poker discussion to a mini-Foxwoods.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
on the last point.
Date: 2005-01-03 06:36 (UTC)That's understandable. Indeed, as you suggest, I worked hard to change the conversation to be about other things, and found that was unwelcome as well. I talk about poker a lot there because it appears to be the only shared interest of the whole group. Perhaps people just aren't as interested in poker there as I thought. You're right, it's not an academic poker group, and I certainly learned my lesson about trying to make it one. I lament that I haven't been able to get interest going for one, which is why, particularly when Nick's there, that the poker talk gets so intense, since I have failed in attempts to build another outlet. My bad, of course. I have obviously learned my lesson the hard way that it isn't the right venue.
Greg added:
Well, I'm not sure I have good input on other interests that overlap with the interests of people there. Nick's and my attempts to start conversations last week only further angered people, including two discussions: one about computers and one about literature. I was surprised at people's annoyance, since I don't see how those conversation were as offensive as the homophobic remarks that were made at another point in the night, but different people react different ways to things. My feeling has evolved over the past few days that it might be better to approach this social situation like I do those at casinos. In those situations, I rarely say anything (something I learned by watching