Author Topic: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff) (Read 355 times)

lowspark · « **on:** February 14, 2019, 12:46:19 pm »

Quote from: Lynn2000 on February 13, 2019, 12:39:44 pm

I'd be curious to read advice about when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't, so I could consider what I felt comfortable with, and what to say to my friends next time--rather than just be told I was flat-out wrong for even wondering.

This is an interesting question that Lynn posed in the thread about swingers, and also the example of bringing out pot brownies to share after the kiddos have gone to bed. I thought it might be a good discussion in its own thread.

But we don't have to focus on things that are out of the mainstream or illegal.

For example, you are invited over for a game night, then someone starts up some dance music in another room and it's suddenly a dance party and game time is over. Or vice versa.

It can be a difficult situation for the host because if the majority of the guests are suddenly wanting to dance, is it ok to let them, even though it now excludes those guests who came specifically for games and do not like to dance? Or does the host step in, turn off the music and say, Sorry y'all, but this is a games party so dancing is out for the evening.

Lynn2000 · « **Reply #1 on:** February 14, 2019, 01:40:02 pm »

Thanks for starting the spin-off! I'm really curious to hear what others have to say. I'm not sure I have a good perspective on it because I dislike parties in general, and I get through them partly by knowing what to expect. So if I'm expecting X and it turns into Y later on, on the one hand I don't like that, but on the other, it's a good time for me to leave, if I can. (If I can't leave, then I'm just stuck not liking it!)

I know some people who are pretty serious about board games, and I think they'd be pretty ticked if, during a game party, someone (like the new SO of a regular gamer) tried to switch on some music and change the main activity. It really seems like the one person is just bored and is trying to disrupt the stated activity to improve their own entertainment. On the other hand, if for some reason a lot of guests start joining in with the dancing, there's a tipping point when it's the host fighting against the majority and it's probably best to just go with the flow, otherwise the host starts to come off badly, like a 6-year-old demanding everyone play the way they want (but they'd still remember and be mad later). I find those kind of group dynamics fascinating.

Winterlight · « **Reply #2 on:** February 15, 2019, 10:07:42 pm »

I think it's a case of the host reading the room and seeing if they can compromise- maybe gamers in one room and dancers in another? Or has the mood shifted enough that even the gamers are in the mood to dance? Or is it one person lobbying for dancing (or gaming?) There doesn't seem to me to be a hard and fast single rule.

Lynn2000 · « **Reply #3 on:** February 18, 2019, 10:25:10 am »

Yes, like if the gaming host is trying a new game, but people are getting bored or frustrated with it, the guests might be more inclined to do something else that presented itself, and it would be much better for the host to go along with that in the moment, even if later they felt like the evening hadn't gone well.

But, another twist that's more in line with the original scenarios is that it's the HOST who decides to change the tone of the evening, not the guests. Like everyone is invited for Game Night, but partway through the host is like, "I also wanted do some dancing tonight!" and they put away the board games and start up the music. Or a Game Night kind of slides into just sitting around drinking a lot, which the host seems fine with.

As a guest I feel I don't have much control over what happens, and my only choices are to either go with the flow or say a polite goodnight, if I'm able to leave. And since I don't have my own car, usually I'm dependent on someone else who is either picking me up at a certain time (so I have to wait there anyway), or they're also at the party and probably enjoying the new activity and don't want to leave. So I'm not too thrilled with the party turning from the activity I was prepared for into something else that I probably enjoy even less. But, I don't know if that's just my personal preference, or something that's rude in a larger sense.

Winterlight · « **Reply #4 on:** February 23, 2019, 09:46:38 pm »

I think if the party morphs, that's one thing. But if you've asked fifteen people to come do sacred circle dance, you're not going to have a happy crowd when you break out Call of Duty and demand that everyone play. Can you do it, well, yes. Is it going to make your guests come up with excuses to flee, probably.

I don't think you should radically change the event once it's underway without a really good reason. If you've invited people for gaming and ten minutes in the power goes out, sure, break out the s'mores and dance outside to someone's drumming. You genuinely can't follow through with the original plans, and if people want to keep dancing when the power comes back on, so be it. But announcing an evening of A and then switching to B after your guests are there just because you want to is a bad plan.

Polite Paradise

News:

Author Topic: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff) (Read 355 times)

lowspark

"when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff)

Lynn2000

Re: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff)

Winterlight

Re: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff)

Lynn2000

Re: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff)

Winterlight

Re: "when shifting the tone of a party is rude, and when it isn't" (spinnoff)