I was definitely confused by this article at first, thinking it was some silly guide for law enforcement which can't tell the difference between criminals and LARPers...??
But no -- it's actually about terrorists and criminals trying to claim in court that their criminal planning wasn't that at all, but just LARPing:
> For example, after Kaleb Franks was arrested in October 2020 for plotting to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, he told the FBI he and his compatriots were only LARPing. Franks later pled guilty and testified that this was a lie.
So this document is for investigators to ensure they have a specific framework for being able to collect the appropriate evidence to use in court that prevents a defendent from using a LARPing defense.
Which actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.
It isn't just courts, these are for police officers in general, they say it near the top "which may be helpful to both law enforcement and prosecutors if suspects of targeted violence claim they were playacting".
These standards will likely make officers go after more genuine LARPers than before. These tips are very problematic if police officers start to follow them, for example:
> Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP.
If police officers are going after LARPers then LARPers will start to talk about what to do in those cases.
> The foremost distinction between LARPers and violent extremists is that genuine role players will not care whether others are watching. They may even embrace third-party observation, such as nonplayer characters or a general audience. After all, LARP is a performance.
Lots of people are embarrassed to do things in public, a police officer coming across some people LARPing in private shouldn't be cause for investigation.
> These standards will likely make officers go after more genuine LARPers than before. These tips are very problematic if police officers start to follow them.
It sounds like it might be a dangerous time to LARP about and plan terrorist acts. That could be very problematic for those who enjoy that as a recreational hobby. But in some ways there's a precedent for it with flying. Lots of people used to love to LARP about taking a bomb on a plane and that recreational activity has been significantly curtailed. Maybe we're heading for a world where it's no longer safe to plan the kidnapping of state or national government officials and then practice the steps necessary to carry it out, and where we can no longer joke about a bomb look-alike device that we want to take on airplanes.
I have been interested in planning a bank heist (but obviously not following through). It's sort of the same motivation for lockpicking, LARPing, or even homesteading- an exploration of the criminal world, the fantasy of being a Ocean's 11/Clooney type, the (admittedly, likely false) comfort of being able to make a difference if fascists/Russia/China invaded and took over. I have never given this much thought, as I've assumed this counts as conspiracy to commit a crime or similar.
So, counter to your (ironic?) point, I think the existence of this article will make me more likely to explore this avenue- I have a reference for what I would need to do to avoid crossing the line. And counter to what I suspect may be your actual point, I think it is totally reasonable to want to do things like this.
Yeah, if people who want to LARP as bank robbers could be paired with people who want to LARP as bankers, tellers, and cops, that could be an answer to the incipient commercial real-estate crisis. Just a matter of getting the right people in the same room together.
I would pay money for this, but probably not as much as it would cost (assuming that people who want to LARP as bankers/tellers and can't get those jobs don't really exist).
I would also love to do this, but the closest we'll probably get for a long time is some VR heist game (Payday 2 had a VR mode that was alright, but it comes with all of Payday's unrealism, which is sort of the wrong kind of unrealism for me). It's in that category of "wait for the Holodeck" things.
I agree with the top post that the title confused me. But reading the article I came away with a very different take than you. This person is trying to define the difference between LARPing and being terrorist. That may be obvious to someone who knows LARPers, but not everyone does.
I really don't think that the police are going to be a problem for people in fantasy gear, cosplaying, or re-enacting a historical battle. I have never heard of it. But LARPing shouldn't be an excuse for people who want to don real tactical gear and weapons and plan mayhem.
> I really don't think that the police are going to be a problem for people in fantasy gear, cosplaying, or re-enacting a historical battle. I have never heard of it.
But now with these guidelines police has a reason to go after them. Something like: "I just followed these guidelines, it says you are showing terrorist signs and aren't real LARPers".
They didn't do that before, but guidelines like these changes behavior and can easily make things worse.
You're being histrionic. Nobody is coming for your LotR LARP group.
These guidelines are literally an attempt to distinguish actual terrorists from people who insist on pretending to be terrorists. It's as much good faith as you can hope for from the government, considering the domain.
None of this applies to you even if you're in the park wearing full Orc battlegear, are belligerent, drunk in public, and urinate on the arresting officer.
Here's how low the bar is:
> Among violent extremists, there may be online discussions about and guidance in using LARP as an excuse during encounters with law enforcement,
Actual LARPers don't need to be reminded to tell cops that they're LARPing. The bar is that fucking low. They'll even accept lorebooks and stats sheets as proof.
What motivation do they have to do this? Are you talking about, like, Civil War re-enactors? Pretty sure the police aren't going to roll up on some dudes in wigs and toy bayonets in a park. Those people usually get permits for that kind of thing anyways.
If you're part of a group with a manifesto, ordering weapons and explosives and doing practice drills to take down the US government, then yeah... it's highly likely that the feds are going to pay attention.
> If you're part of a group with a manifesto, ordering weapons and explosives and doing practice drills to take down the US government, then yeah... it's highly likely that the feds are going to pay attention.
And in those cases the "I was just LARPing" defense already doesn't work. This document will not help catch criminals since in clear cases they are already caught, all it does is raise more suspicion against genuine LARPing.
>: will not help catch criminals since in clear cases they are already caught
??? Yea, I can tell you've never actually worked around any real life investigations before.
The difficulty with any real life situation is in a large enough group there will be some portion of the 'fakers' that are actually really motivated to commit illegal actions.
Even online this issue occurs with forms that mock the stupidity of other groups, flat earthers being a great example. If left unchecked a forum can turn from satire to true believers.
The article acknowledges the possibility of people LARPing in a more contemporary context.
I find this plausible, too: I can imagine groups of people getting together recreationally and fantasizing about how they're going to overthrow the fascist mayor, or kill all the Jews, or whatever else. With their real guns and tactical gear, because those look cool. With a badass logo, maybe with some skulls in it. But with no intention of ever actually acting out those fantasies.
It’s a multiplayer game in which players LARP as assassins out to kill targets that they receive secretly at the start of the game.
The game has rules that describe how to simulate various forms of weapons and tactics (e.g. using a rolled-up sheet of paper as a dagger), and the rules are intended to help make it clear to observers that it’s just a game in which no actual crimes are intended, but it still involves people behaving in ways that could be misinterpreted.
I played it some at VCU in the late 1970s. It was fun.
At the end of the day there is no clear boundary between simulation for fun and for practice, the real question is what are you simulating. If some people were playing paintball in an accurate mockup of a government building, with one team taking up the positions of government guards and persons of interest, I don't think it's absurd to view that with some suspicion, particularly if there are other reasons to suspect it is more than just a game.
I'd say paintball is like fencing. The actions are real, but the consequences are minimized by the equipment.
I don't know much about LARPing but I have the impression that the actions there aren't real, just people saying things like "I strike at thee", "I parry and riposte" while pantomiming in slow motion.
Wouldn't it be easy to tell a fencing duel from a LARP swordfight?
Serious LARP'rs make their own swords and chainmail .. the difference between a fencing duel and a LARP swordfight is the shear size of the blades and the weight of the chainmail. *
Now billed as "Historical Re-enactment focusing on the Dark Ages and Medieval times" and has been swinging swords and building trebuchets since ~ 1980(ish) at least.
FWIW, compared to real sword fights, fencing (as practiced in the Olympics et.al.) isn’t generally considered to be “real”. Points scored from tapping toes, foils which bend unrealistically, artificially constrained movements, one winner when both stabbed each other milliseconds apart…
But to your point, yes, most amateur sports could be boiled down to a form of LARPing given enough twisting.
This isn't "seek out LARPers". This is "how do I distinguish a group of people in the woods running around in camo as LARPers or violent extremists". They found the people first.
Stop and frisk isn't "seek out black people", they found the person first and then identified him as black and that means he is a risk and needs to be stopped and frisked.
I didn't interpret the article as "investigate LARPers to make sure they're not domestic terrorists" so I don't really understand your take. Stop and Frisk has obvious racist origins, but the process starts with you suspecting someone of a crime and using that as a foot in the door. This seems the opposite guidance of "before you spend too much time investigating a group, try to build the case that they're not LARPing". Like the whole preface is that terrorists are trying to evade justice by saying it was all a game. Stop and Frisk wasn't created because people carrying weapons and committing crimes were pretending to be minorities so cops wouldn't be suspicious.
You're looking at this from an assumption-of-LARPing.
Imagine an FBI agent looking at evidence of Timothy McVeigh at a gun show in 1994. He's selling a flare gun he claims can 'shoot down an ATF helicopter' and ATF hats with bullet holes in them.
When interviewed without charge, imagine McVeigh claims that it's part of his LARPing activities.
What standards would you suggest that agent applies, in order to avoid a false negative?
Your example just proves that this document doesn't hold water, he did that in public and didn't care about people seeing what he did, so the document would suggest he was LARPing for real.
I don't see how this document would help find criminals and help free innocents. It seems to give way too rigid guidelines that will be misused by many officers.
> Imagine an FBI agent looking at evidence of Timothy McVeigh at a gun show in 1994. He's selling a flare gun he claims can 'shoot down an ATF helicopter' and ATF hats with bullet holes in them.
Not "Imagine an FBI agent looking at Timothy McVeigh building pipe bombs in private". I don't see how this document would have helped stop McVeigh.
I think this might expose (again) the wrong-headed assumptions of law-enforcement for how common terrorism is. It’s rare, but in order to justify the military-industrial investment behind it, we need to be told that we are under constant threat. That terrorism is everywhere, always.
Not only is this a weird generalization, but it doesn't even make sense. Why would a terrorist want to downplay the frequency of terror incidents? That defeats the entire purpose of trying to, you know, inspire terror.
Another way to phrase that first sentence is "assumption of innocence". And while random commentators on the internet are not obligated to honor it, law enforcement is supposed to.
This document is seemingly targeted on the investigation phase, before a charge has been filed, to distinguish what characteristics legitimate LARPing may have vs militia claims-of-LARPing.
Presumption of innocence does not extend to the initiation of an investigation, but comes into play with increasingly invasive methods (and ultimately, charges).
US law enforcement is empowered to initiate duck investigations on things that quack pretty liberally.
Yea, this entire thread really tells me that most people on HN have absolutely zero experience with the investigation phase of law enforcement.
If your in some group that reenacts pointing weapons at each other, or coming up with idea on how to blow up buildings and you have someone overhear this and report it, law enforcement themselves have no idea if you're the real thing our not (statistically, no your not, but investigators deal with outliers all day every day). If there is some kind of audio or video evidence saying something actionable (even though it may be pretend) and that gets in front of a judge, expect a warrant to get issued to tap into just about every part of your life.
Really? I don't think due process and law enforcement have anything to do with one another. Law enforcement arrests people on made up laws all the time just because they are doing something the law enforcement officer doesn't like, there is no consideration of presumption of innocence. Law enforcement's job is to enforce "the law" as they interpenetrate it -unlike civilians where "ignorance of the law is not an excuse" in law enforcement they certainly an go with ignorance of the law as long as the judge thinks it's "reasonable". Let's not forget the police have been embedding themselves in peaceful protest groups for the last 100 years.
>And while random commentators on the internet are not obligated to honor it, law enforcement is supposed to.
This is not the standard actually applied to law enforcement in the US. You can be convicted of nothing other than resisting arrest. Resisting arrest for what? Literally does not matter.
Also if you are arrested and found innocent, you are not compensated in any way for that arrest, which was clearly wrongful. Police in general are simply exempt from unlawful detention, except in cases of a well connected individual.
Assumption of innocence is for the court. The prosecution and law enforcement are not supposed to assume innocence, they are supposed to do everything in their legal power to prove guilt. There are things they can't do without reasonable suspicion, or probable cause, but these are vastly lower thresholds.
To add a counterpoint, that specific example is really a poor choice to get the point across. It’s been established (https://www.insider.com/kidnapping-conspiracy-whitmer-fbi-in...) that the Whitmer plot was run by the FBI itself, in a way having agents LARPing as terrorists.
Also, I would hope the real LARPing community can feel safe enough to share tips on what to do if they run into police while running around the woods with foam swords.
Nothing has been "established" except that a number of those involved got convicted. It's silly to think the FBI can force people to commit crimes they had no desire to commit.
Such things have always been a part of law enforcement repertoire.
When the FBI was engaging in such "entrapment" against Muslim Americans after 9/11, you would never hear the right-wing complaining, but now of course that their own are turning out to be the perps and the targets, suddenly they want to act like they are against law enforcement over-reach and malfeasance. Except of course when the victim is Black, and then they switch back to not caring.
At the end of the day, a good person can't be convinced to engage in terrorism or violence of any kind, whether politically or religiously motivated. The notion that people who wanted to kidnap someone--for the stupidest and most ignoble of reasons--are "victims" here is lacks any moral credibility or seriousness.
And what's more, it's whiny, weak, and hypocritical. If you ask those criminals (that's all they are) or their supporters whether they think masculinity is in decline and under attack in America, they'd probably launch into a whole spiel of grievances, yet when it push comes to shove, those guys wanted to be absolved for responsibility for their actions and for the corruption of their own hearts and minds. Not manly at all. No integrity.
> At the end of the day, a good person can't be convinced to engage in terrorism or violence of any kind
This implies that only full pacifists can be good persons. Because for everyone else, there is a situation in which they will engage in violence, and all you have to do is fool them into thinking they're in that situation.
Instead of morally corrupting someone, all you have to do is fool them about what the facts are.
And that is a lot easier, and it's what the FBI in fact does. From police work, they know exactly the type who can be convinced to not only confess whatever you like, but come to believe it too. The world is full of people with little faith in their own perception, memory or understanding of reality, and they are not any more likely to be principled pacifists than anyone else.
Wait, this is a right vs left wing issue in USA? Explains the very low quality and very tribal discussions here. I thought this was about privacy and government overreach and in those threads the discussions are much better, but apparently all of that goes out the window when you add tribal conflicts...
Republicans endorse political violence when it’s targeted against their political opponents - the plot to kidnap and execute the Michigan governor was “just a joke” (the perpetrators have been convicted and are currently incarcerated).
And seems like Democrats endorse police overreach when it is targeted against their political opponents, since it is them who are all over this thread saying basically "nothing to hide, nothing to fear". I wonder where all of those are in the typical police threads? ACAB except when cops did something I like, then it is "trust the cops to interpret this correctly!"?
Politics is tiring for that reason, most people lose their rational thinking ability when that gets involved, and to an outsider all of it just looks like insanity.
Maybe the real world is a complex place where you have bad actors that need stopped, and in some cases those bad actors are also the police.
If you're trying to reduce any real world situation to a binary set of choices, you're almost always going to be incorrect. When I was a teenager I was working in a shop and a number of people around there had more radical views on the government. A few of them commonly got together and did what we'd consider LARPing now (this was 90s). One of them seems to have more a more violent anti-government take over the others. Wasn't long before the FBI was down there arresting him and he eventually served a healthy sentence over his actions.
Unfortunately Google has become a memory hole on older news like this, and I can no longer remember his name to find any articles on this.
Yeah, I don't see a clear case for either party having more privilege. Democrats have more control over academia, news media, and tech companies. Republicans are the typical party of the 1%, win elections without the popular vote, and often have status quo bias on their side. This makes sense; we should expect both sides to have equal power because, well, duh. That's what lets them be 'both sides' instead of the libertarians and socialists.
Just like terrorism, if the person saying "Let's kidnap a government official" is an FBI agent but you didn't know, you still decided to conspire with that idea. The reason the bar for entrapment is so high is that the societal expectation is that you WON'T DO A BAD THING, even if 30 CIA agents all offer to sleep with you or give you a billion dollars or prepare everything for you and you just have to sign a sheet of paper.
You probably shouldn't conspire to kidnap someone, regardless of who came up with the idea first. You are expected to just not engage with the guy suggesting it.
Friendly reminder that the three-letter agencies are very well embedded in every single "subversive" organizing community in the U.S., be it "left" or "right-wing."
The blatant lying that law enforcement has to deal with on a daily basis is uderappreciated.
The US has a legal system that permits a defendant to say many things, like "My buddies and I were participating in a fantasy scenario where we plotted in detail and collected supplies to kidnap the governor of our state... but it was just a game. Like those other people who play games!"
Good for the authors in making an effort to clearly distinguish between protected speech and non-protected conspiracy to commit a crime.
> The US has a legal system that permits a defendant to say many things, like "My buddies and I were participating in a fantasy scenario where we plotted in detail and collected supplies to kidnap the governor of our state... but it was just a game. Like those other people who play games!"
Which is why our founders had the good sense to bake jury trials right into the constitution. The focus on law enforcement, who in this particular case, were themselves involved in the "LARPing" to large extent, is bizarre.
The purpose of the criminal justice system isn't to punish every single unruly act. It's to match punishments with the actual crimes committed. It's bizarre to see Hacker News blindly cheering on this document, although, understandably it's because most people probably don't personally like those defendants.
So.. of course it becomes the focus of the top comment.
Yes, but I would prefer not to exercise that in court, it would be better if the government behaved itself towards its citizens. You also have the constitutional right to a speedy trial, but in practice that doesn't look hot either.
Sounds like a hyperbolic statement. Most citizens may be more likely to say that they do not have to deal with people who commit crime and lie to them on a daily basis unless you are in a very rough neighbourhood with very little law enforcement.
People who are policing do have to deal with this daily, however there is a change that the police could potentially form some kind of a sampling bias on new encounters with average looking citizens after dealing with so many lying criminals on a daily basis.
A colleague (non-white, of course) in a former workplace would not pull off the Interstate in certain areas of the nation because they didn't trust police. No, they were not paranoid, only regularly cautious, they were from South America.
I'm a white US native and I do the exact same. I made sure I had enough gas to get through Alabama (at exactly the speed limit) without stopping because of the stories I've heard, and those aren't even "that bad" when it comes to bad interactions with police.
In that context, the table they describe is a disaster.
If a group of actual LARPers doesn't want spectators, isn't part of a larger LARPing community, doesn't have rules/character sheets, is concerned about law enforcement (!) then they look like terrorists, based on this guidance.
The problem is that they've commingled a handful of objective facts with a handful of mental states and motives that are only known to the individuals.
The only reliable factor is if they are using live weapons and ammunition. Sadly, law enforcement is likely incapable of using that single, obvious factor to judge the legality of what is otherwise creative expression, and therefore leans into the pseudo-forensics provided here.
And there I was, assuming someone else sees all those militia types and tacticools as LARPing out their war heroism and combat fantasies as adults, only with real weapons instead of wooden ones.
That being said, my wooden "E-11 replica" is still around at my uncles place, 30 odd years later.
> When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.
I think the delineation between the members to that eventually commit violence and the ones who can successfully use the "LARPing" defense is whether or not they committed any crimes. It's pretty simple to me. This sounds, to me, a lot more like a guide on how to convict people who committed no crimes associated with the criminals who did.
Most of us here probably think of LARPing as fantasy-genre LARPing, but I think this is more pointed toward Mil-Sim LARPing.
These are hardcore airsoft guys who go buy comms, night-vision, IR, with airsoft weapons that function like real weapons. There are multi-day events with NATO vs RUS forces. Look up "milsim west" on Youtube and you can get a sense of it.
There's a good amount of folks that just like to have fun, but there is a subset that use it as a type of militia-esque training.
Yeah, I participated in some events in germany and here it is probably especially in a grey zone, because normally in germany everything militia like is strictly forbidden. Paintball is not allowed with camouflage or red paint. And then you can legally go to an event on a former military hangar with bunkers and then there is an actual tank and only people in camouflage and realistic looking weapons..
So if you would want to create a stealth militia in germany, this would probably be the way to go.
And in the events I participated, I knew the orga and I knew they were clearly into LARPing - but with some of the other people who attended, I was not so sure.
So I really hope it stays legal as it is a lot of fun, but I also hope it does not go out of hand, as increasingly with covid, there has been some radicalisation in certain groups ...
edit: to share an anecdote of why it is interesting to me, aside from the shooting:
There was a big event last year, with an apocalyptic setting. Killervirus and Zombies, Military and Civilians.
I happened to be on the military side, which was (by design) better organised and equipped. And during the game, it turned out, that our side was the evil side, who originally released the zombie virus. But what to do? Everyone else was potentially an enemy, who maybe wanted to shoot you and the people around you, your trusted comrades. So you stick with them for survival. As I have never been to the military, this was an interesting inside into how conflict and war crimes works and why people stay in line, despite they distance themself from what they are representing.
The crazy/normal ratio among milsim larpers is EXTREMLY high. Just listen to the language they use in YT videos to describe other participants and general public
There is this odd thing about the human brain that as soon as it is in a group and have tools of violence at hand it will often start planing to take over the society
Luckily individual soldiers without heavy equipment (at least some artillery) are more or less useless in a proper military showdown. Has been the case at least since WW2.
ISIS was a good example, they were being quickly defeated by pretty much everyone involved in the Syrian conflict.
Yes you can wage guerilla warfare for extended periods of time if the conditions are right - i.e. if you have local support of the population, and someone outside is getting you the guns to harass the official administration / occupants.
Now think about whether either of those conditions apply in a particular scenario, then remember you need both. Afghans obviously hated being invaded and helped "their guys", they also had Peshawar.
ISIS overran large portions of multiple countries before major powers started a coordinated effort of local ground operations and precision airstrikes to defeat it, and even then it took years.
The ambushed vehicles will run for max a few weeks without maintenance. Then there is ammo of which they use kilotons (thousands of tons), and you obviously can't really capture such a quantity of ammo. Though you can capture some ammo, sometimes.
The captured vehicles could often be serviced by either side. Also, some vehicles could be traded with foreign partners'. I bet you there are multiple T-90 and even more interesting vehicles in Yuma Proving Ground and other compounds, disassembled to the last screw.
"Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP."
Your resistance proves your guilt. Insisting on your fourth and fifth amendment rights? Noting other cases where innocent hobbyists were threatened and trying to avoid the same? Seems like violent extremism.
I didn't interpret it that way at all. I interpreted it as having familiarity with cases of actual terrorists using a defense of claimed LARPing suggests you researched this to make up a cover story.
> Insisting on your fourth and fifth amendment rights?
This is a good point. When I am in character as a LARP law enthusiast that’s LARPing as a violent extremist, my in-character explanation of why I am not criminally liable for my OC’s OC’s behavior to police are a violation of my rights.
Your rights do not depend on you being "in character" or not. The only state of mind that affects your rights is insanity. Insert the meme about "finding out".
They used the term LARP a lot more literally than I expected.
Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace. Early attempts at such a strategy have been made by a defendant acting alone or in loose cooperation with members of a fantasy group who knew each other only in the virtual world, claiming “artistic expression” to excuse threatening language.
I can see this being a big problem with memes in the immediate future. Does the FBI have a page where they attempt to distinguish edgy memes from genuine calls to violence? This is a relatively benign example, but there are TikToks where users pretend to have fantasies about taking officer's service weapon. Sure they're all jokes, but modern internet humor is deeply ironic; I'd imagine there are plenty of genuinely violent people making seemingly ironic memes. I'd also imagine that there are nonviolent memers disseminating genuine violent ideas and vice versa.
Well fuck the feds for snooping on all our conversations honestly. When we don't have privacy, people collectively engaging in edgy irony to the point you can't distinguish the signal from the noise provides people with a level of free speech.
"Posts on a public site...Complains about privacy"
What the hell you are going on about man. If you post something like "Hey, lets shoot some cops", or hell "lets start shooting ____" online you are giving up your right to privacy. Yes, the US legal system has means of taking the 'evidence' you posted online in front of a judge and getting a warrant. Via the warrant system nearly complete dismantling of your privacy can be compelled.
Neither of those things would be a basis for something like a search warrant because the threat is not specific and credible. It's not a crime to say, "Hey, let's shoot some cops". It would be a crime to say, "Hey, let's hang out in front of the local police station and shoot some cops tomorrow morning. Bring your guns."
In your imaginary world. In the real world telling the difference between a non-specific and credible threat commonly takes investigation, especially when one of the parties is brought up to law enforcement multiple times.
In addition law enforcement agencies, especially the local ones, are based on the whims of elected officials. If the local populace thinks they they aren't being tough enough on crime, then especially in smaller cities, they will be replaced.
Well the feds in this case is around 30 other countries doing the spying for them and then sharing the information so as to avoid domestic laws in their own country. France, Germany, Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, and obviously the U.S. are the current biggest players
It's only fair that the people do not comply, seeing as we know none of these countries have a problem with violating rights whenever they desire.
Because social media has taught people - especially young people - that views/clicks/likes/etc are equivalent to popularity and acceptance, so they need to do outrageous things to get the views.
If I had to guess I would saynpart of the intrusive-thoughts/OCD/impulse-control community. I've seen similar about swerving into oncoming traffic or walking off a ledge.
Intrisive thoughts are fairly common, and not related to a specific community or exclusive to any identifiable subgroup:
> These thoughts are part of being human, and need not ruin the quality of life. Treatment is available when the thoughts are associated with OCD and become persistent, severe, or distressing.
> One example of an aggressive intrusive thought is the high place phenomenon, the sudden urge to jump from a high place. A 2011 study assessed the prevalence of this phenomenon among US college students; it found that even among those participants with no history of suicidal ideation, over 50% had experienced an urge to jump or imagined themselves jumping from a high place at least once. A 2020 study carried out in Germany reported similar results.
I specifically mean the TikTok self-proclaimed community. Search #intrusivethoughts or find some videos and I'm sure the algo will start showing you more.
They don't have a page because they don't make the distinction. And, generally, once they're called in, have the idea of securing a conviction at any cost.
cf mens rea; in the financial context Matt Levine's "Money Stuff" column often points out that if people are doing something dodgy the worst thing (for any future defence) they can do is try to weasel-word it.
Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace.
This is a reasonable concern.
I will note anecdotally not all role players are playing with a full deck -- though I am more familiar with role playing gamers, not LARPers (granted: not entirely separate groups). Some are mildly cracked, sometimes harmlessly -- the guy who exclusively played female characters and might have identified as trans had he been born later -- and some not so harmlessly -- the gal who forged her own sword which she took with her everywhere, even the mall, by concealing it under a cape, and genuinely believed she was the last special warrior of some sort from a fictional series.* She believed she was female to signify she was the last.
So that may complicate sorting out who is just playing games from who is a genuine threat of planned violence.
I thought there was a “has difficulty differentiating LARP persona from real identity” criteria on the list. Seems like that should come into play in the situation you described.
On a psychological level, LARPers temporarily enter a fictional world with characters who reside within it and are separate from day-to-day reality; there is no discomfort in distinguishing between the two.
It implies the opposite -- that violent extremists may have trouble distinguishing -- but doesn't seem to say it outright.
Some key context, provided if you read the article, is that this exists to outline the difference between LARPing and Violent Extremism, especially as some violent extremists have claimed that their plans of violence were only "LARPing" and not bona-fide terrorism.
The exact differences they point out, such as "spectators being welcome" vs "secrecy is paramount" are clear, universal, well thought out, and interesting to read about and consider.
It's not like there isn't a robust history of law enforcement "spectators" trying to railroad participants based on absolutely nothing, including in literal role playing scenarios. Privacy rights exist for a reason.
The article had many good points. But many claims about LARP were not universal or not clear. Some performances are private. Some LARP is solo. The article acknowledged small groups but the table did not. People in many hobbies discuss law enforcement concerns, guidance to each other if confronted by an officer, and criminal cases where the hobby is mentioned. Role players have confirmation bias like other people. Some theatrical presentations have real antagonists.
I did not read the article as being that black and white, rather as a set of rules of thumb. Such as if enough boxes are ticked the investigator should maybe consider that it is not a real LARPer, but rather someone who tries to hide behind a veil of LARPing.
The comment I replied to called the differences universal.
The article said LARP is always group-based. Possibly the authors intended the other claims to be rules of thumb. Certainly their intended audience included people who tend to think in black and white. And several claims I contradicted were faulty rules of thumb.
> To prepare for a violent attack, terrorists possess and practice real weapons and live ammunition. LARPers would have no need for such destructive instruments when preparing for their event.
Nobody loves guns more than LARPers. I know more people into pyrotechnics that play wizards in larps than pretty much any other category of weirdo, and I know a lot of weirdos. It's a power fantasy, but it's one that they love to live out in a small way, and range-shooting is one of the most common expressions of it.
Honestly, based on my life experience, I disagree with quite some criteria that the FBI uses here to distinguish between LARP and Violent Extremism:
Audience: "Spectators accepted or desired" vs "Secrecy demanded"
Quite some LARP people who want to avoid spectators, since quite some conservative or religious people tend to associate some fantasy stuff to be "satanistic" or "sacrilegious". Thus, to avoid really annoying discussions, they prefer no spectators.
Components: "Features of organized gaming (e.g., rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations)" vs "Absence of documented rules, character sheets, scenario scripts, in- and out-of-character designations; all “characters” are frontline fighters or operational support personnel"
There exist LARP system where there exist many rules, but also those where such things are handled in a more "loose"/"spontanous"/"improvisatory" way.
Relationship with law enforcement: "No concern with law enforcement in out-of-character life" vs "Demonstrated concern with law enforcement and prosecutions of similar criminal behavior"
Of course, those who distrust the law enforcement (often for good reasons) are suspicious to be extremists - that is what the FBI claims ;-) . Seriously: there likely exist LARP players with about any possible stance concerning law enforcement.
Equipment: "realistic prop weapons often discouraged in the rules"
It depends on the LARP system whether these are discouraged or encouraged.
Personal grievance: "No personal grievance toward out-group(s) outside the voluntary, fantasy world" vs "Personal grievance toward out-group(s) believed to pose an imminent and existential threat, requiring violent action" and Mood: "Euthymic and joyful; anticipatory fantasy to enjoy the event" vs "Dysphoric and angry; anticipatory fantasy to harm or kill the target(s)"
This depends a lot on the setting of the LARP: of course some cyberpunk, horror or dark-fantasy themed LARP will be much more dark than, say, some high fantasy or utopic science-fiction setting.
As someone who lived in Northern Virginia for a bit and knew some reenactors, I heard some interesting stories about how many issues it caused during the DC Sniper attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.C._sniper_attacks. Lotsa 911 calls when they would start firing, it took a while for them to be able to ease back into it.
Tangential, but still an interesting intersection of law enforcement vs free expression. Thankfully I think that all parties just politely agreed they should just stop while the suspects were still active and at large.
I had to scratch my head for a moment to see if it was an April Fools' joke (it was posted 4 days later).
Regular police investigative techniques can disambiguate intent of (an) individual(s) by searching their items and questioning their plans. Someone LARPing isn't going to play act with live ordinance, contagious pathogens, or actual firearms. They may well carry swords, but then they'd also be wearing padded armor. I think it's up to a judge or jury to decide if the Free Staters of Terrorism were committing terrorism or not in highly-suspicious, ambiguous circumstances.
Leaping to the deep-end of paranoia about mostly innocent play would create a society with a corrosive, suspicious attitude.
Now an awful thought: Although it seems a weird and terrible idea, I could imagine a group of kids going somewhere hopefully unoccupied and unlikely to be patrolled by police LARPing as terrorists, school shooters, or any other taboo archetype.
For the record, a dying (and now late) friend of mine was once violently arrested in a parking lot for playing Ingress in Los Altos, CA.
> Someone LARPing isn't going to play act with live ordinance, contagious pathogens, or actual firearms.
Huh? normal people LARP with actual firearms using live ammunition all the time on tactical training sets. Most of them pay legitimate, taxpaying corporations thousands of dollars for the privilege.
It is very scary to read such an "opinion" pieces on fbi.gov domain.
First, they make it possible to connect any organized activity to "violent extremism".
And then this:
> Meetings may entail impassioned rhetoric and rehearsal of tactical operations for the ultimate future apocalypse when citizens will overtake the government or institute their own community policing.
This quote is fucking insane, imo. "citizens will overtake the government" – aren't citizens already supposed to be in charge of the government? A very strange choice of words. What about all that "We the People" stuff. And second,
"or institute their own community policing" - it is how the policing in the US works. Local police forces account for the majority of police force in the US according to National Sources of Law Enforcement Employment Data [1].
No, (individual) citizens aren't supposed to be that.
Now, all (majority) citizens? Sure. But we established proper procedures how to execute that power, and you aren't supposed to skip those.
Mainly because without those, you cannot guarantee that it's actually majority's opinion, and not loud minority. But even if you have majority of the area agreeing on something, there is no reason why suddenly they should be able to abandon all the agreements, (social) contracts and rules they agreed to before.
Hollywood is notorious for creating gasoline explosions because they make gigantic fireballs. High explosives used in a war zone look totally different.
a phrase used to evade being suspended from advertiser-friendly media platforms by "changing" the intent of your statement from a potential threat to an expression of emotion (express anger at them in a game)
also as equally useless of a defense as 'just LARPing' if any of your other behavior shows different intentions and inconsistency with the group that would use these phrases, i.e. you don't play videogames
it's always felt off that someone genuinely believes that changing their phrasing would fool other people of their intent, like something that an actual child would come up as a legal defense
It's also always felt off that people's right to freedom of expression (modulo threatening violence, of course) needs little-kid-esque suffixes slapped onto them to appease feds online.
A lot of people here, and the original article, don't seem to realize what people that use "LARPing" mean when they say it. It's a disparaging term used to describe when somebody isn't going to actually pursue or follow through on something. Somebody with a bunch of tactical gear that's constantly running shooting drills and talking about joining a war in the Middle East or Eastern Europe, but never actually does, is "LARPing". Somebody that acts like they're getting lots of money and women when they're not, is "LARPing". There's no connection with actual LARPing other than it being the butt of the joke, and anybody saying it about themselves is basically just saying they're a bullshitter trying to pass themselves off as doing something or preparing to do something they never will, which isn't a criminal defense.
> Role players will not discuss law enforcement concerns on social media or provide guidance to each other if confronted by an officer. Also, they will have no demonstrated interest in criminal cases involving claims of LARP.
I disagree with this bit completely. As a practitioner of a weapons based martial art I had to be very familiar with the law to ensure that I didn’t break the law by accident. Ignorance of the law is not a defence.
I think what we most have to be concerned about is when FBI agents LARP as violent extremists in order to entrap some hapless boob so they can meet their terrorist arrest quotas.
It always has been for the FBI. They have long treated any outspoken anti-establishment or anti-authority with suspicion and - especially when combined with a minority race - hostility.
See how they treated anybody who believe socialism was good back in the cold war days. How they kept detailed files on people who spoke against the powers held by the authorities.
Anti socialists claim socialism gives the state too much power. Not too little. Inarguably mixed economies are dominant and stable. Inarguably almost all countries with any history of self described socialist government persist. And American governments have an established history of acting on less than existential interests.
“Live action role play is an old theatrical behavior and a new excuse. The concern that this label can be used as a defense for planning and preparing a targeted attack on a public official, democratic government, or anyone else is a real one.”
Boy is it. I’m gravely concerned the threat LARPing posed to our democratic government.
Cosplaytriots attempting to use LARPing as an excuse is reminiscent of:
> "Never believe that [they] are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. ... They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert." — JPS
Once you realize many individuals see written language not as a means to share ideas and have mutual constructive discussion, but as just another weapon to achieve their ends, a lot of human interactions (especially online) make a lot more sense. It's very dangerous since many of us (myself included) instinctively assume good faith and approach conflicts as possible misunderstandings or opportunities for constructive common ground finding; but the other person (regardless of how they present themselves) isn't interested in any of that at all. They would just as quickly hit you over the head with a club.
That reminds me of Scalzi's interesting post "The Gamification of Rhetoric". He describes how many people are not interested in issues or discussion, but are just trying to win with a sequence of stock arguments. He refers to this as slapping down cards from a "Debate: The Gathering" stack.
If you've not watched the Alt-Right Playbook by Innuendo Studios on Youtube, you should stop what you're doing and watch all 20 or so episodes. One of the most enlightening series on this topic I've seen.
> The foremost distinction between LARPers and violent extremists is that genuine role players will not care whether others are watching. They may even embrace third-party observation, such as nonplayer characters or a general audience. After all, LARP is a performance.
> Conversely, violent extremists or terrorists want secrecy. This desire may contribute to the sense of clandestine excitement that surrounds them and their preparation on a pathway to actual violence.9
What is this? Why is the FBI writing stuff like this and publishing it?
Because they need to provide a reference for when FBI agents in the future have to decide of someone is harmless or not. While this is available publicly, the audience is mostly law enforcement officers and possibly prosecutors. Many law enforcement officers have no familiarity with fantasy hobbies or war reenactment. Pointing out that LARPers use fake weapons and operate in the open is a good thing to point out. It’s not obvious to everyone.
> Pointing out that LARPers use fake weapons and operate in the open is a good thing to point out
So you think it is fine to investigate people who play around on their private property for terrorism just because they don't want you watching? To me that seems very scary and oppressive.
No, I think it’s good to know the difference between LARPers and terrorists so that the FBI doesn’t harass innocent people. It would suck if they were wasting their time spying on a LARP group because they thought they were actually committing violent acts.
if they post images and such providing evidence that they're plotting and have real weapons, if they're plotting the assassination of Lincoln using fake civil war weapons not so much, one clear distinction is members of a larp would only ever talk about police and govt if a real legit LARPer were having some criminal issue valid or not.
Terrorists will seem wary or apprehensive or even combative in regards to police and govt, and have real weapons involved. They might even mention on social media derogatory remarks towards actual living people, LARPers may trash talk at Lord Farquad of The kingdom of Shrek but that's not the same as plotting to kidnap a govt official.
"""The Bulletin provides a forum for information exchange throughout the criminal justice community. Readers consist mostly of midlevel to executive managers in agencies of various sizes worldwide."""
And those will now think that LARPers who want privacy are terrorists? I don't see how this is a good way to separate LARPing from terrorism. It is scary to think that law enforcement thinks that people who want privacy are terrorists.
The whole point is to tell the difference between "find larpers" and "find crime", so the rest of those points doesn't say anything. They found some people who did something suspicious, that is point 1, the next step is this document to help tell the difference.
This article is about how to test the genuineness of claims of LARPing by people suspected of attempting to overthrow governments. If you don't have the precondition of armed bandits circling your seat of government, then the article is of no relevance.
The article is of relevance to anyone who is affected by criminal justice system. This is literally an article on how the law should be interpreted by federal law enforcement.
>Violent and criminal actors, particularly those involved in a conspiracy, could potentially make false claims, explaining that they were merely LARPing and not intending to follow through with an attack. For example, after Kaleb Franks was arrested in October 2020 for plotting to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, he told the FBI he and his compatriots were only LARPing. Franks later pled guilty and testified that this was a lie.5
>Although the history of LARP as a legal defense is narrow, the authors share the concern that it may soon become commonplace. Early attempts at such a strategy have been made by a defendant acting alone6 or in loose cooperation with members of a fantasy group who knew each other only in the virtual world,7 claiming “artistic expression” to excuse threatening language.8
Because rightly or wrongly, for serious violence the law considers not just the violence itself illegal, but also preparatory actions such as planning, sourcing weapons, etc. The bright line "when someone gets hurt" is too late, so analysis like this has to occur so that LARP can be distinguished from practicing before violent action, especially when the latter is claimed to be the former
I've heard that there's a scattered body of (amateur?) scholarship analyzing QAnon as an ARG [1] that the "players" don't realize is fictional. I've only briefly dabbled in "playing" ARGs, so I'm far from an expert, but the dynamic does seem strikingly similar. A few people allegedly even believe that QAnon originated as a legitimate attempt at an amateur ARG and was then hijacked by real-world political interests, though I don't understand how the ARG would have worked given the venue and content of the original "Q drops".
> Why is the FBI writing stuff like this and publishing it?
Violent extremists use a variety of dodges to attempt to avoid accountability for their behavior. You've probably seen examples - it is very common to shout "false flag", claiming rivals impersonated them, for instance[1].
This is just another in a long line of those sorts of things.
The FBI's remit includes investigating and arresting violent extremists. As such, they collect and disseminate information that assists with that goal.
[1] Some of the same people also actually engage in "false flag" operations of their own - for instance, the "Boogaloo Boys" were responsible for violence and arson in Minnesota and murder in California during the George Floyd riots, which was initially misattributed to BLM-affiliated folks.
Remember when DnD was the cover for a nation wide cult that murdered children by the dozen?
Congratulations you're as out of touch as our parents were.
>Individuals can engage in such activity informally or as part of an organized group. Presumably, the earliest formal LARP group was Dagorhir Battle Games, founded in the United States in 1977.
Now if only these experts could use google leaping for 30 seconds before writing an add for their consultancy services.
>Ms. Amman is a retired FBI supervisory special agent, certified threat manager, and private threat assessment management consultant in West Des Moines, Iowa.
Dr. Phil Saragoza
>Dr. Saragoza is a forensic psychiatrist, adjunct clinical assistant professor at the University of Michigan, and threat assessment consultant in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
I think it's worth reading the linked page more closely: the distinction scheme it describes appears to be designed to handle the exact problem you've identified.
(That's not to say that it's good, or that the FBI will apply it effectively or correctly, only that it isn't as simple as "the FBI believes in the DnD cult conspiracy.")
Did everyone forget that the US only exists because of treason and insurrection directly sparked from individuals refusing to allow someone else to determine whether they can arm themselves? Probably. Public school doesn't like to focus on the details anymore.
If Sam Adams existed today, he'd be on an FBI/ATF watchlist.
I get the appeal and why it's happening, but FFS, this is a huge threat to the United States (and other countries), and it seems to be growing day by day. It's easy to dismiss ("it's just LARPing with real guns, dude") but we need to address it head on.
Because this is deeply intertwined with "politics" it becomes radioactive to discuss in polite society (e.g., HN itself), but we'd be well served to find a way to have some dialog.
Does it seem to be growing and is a huge threat in numeric comparison to other negative outcomes because the quantity is actually rapidly increasing or because the media and government are beating a drum about this issue louder than about other issues, regardless of quantitative changes in risk and absolute risk?
VEs are increasing in number and sophistication over time because the social contract of the United States has been cleaved.
On one side you have individualistic capitalists who don't want to be told what to do and don't want to subsidize the existence of others.
On the other you have communal idealists who recognize the scale advantage state actions and programs can have and want to deploy them.
The later are winning and the former do not have a political exit that does not involve secession.
That's the fundamental base.
The heightened media attention being paid to instances of the above are in response to the general understanding that those fundamentals are now in place.
We tried secession before and it didn't work out too well, and I don't see anything indicating it would be better this time.
Edit: my understanding is that the leading idea is not secession but something called Project 2025. Depending on how you look at it, it's either a "rightsizing" of government or a coup.
Regardless of whether it would work or not it would disempower both halves - that alone makes it unlikely.
That is also why conflict is only going to increase over time until one side or the other is decisively defeated (and even then there will be clandestine groups).
But no -- it's actually about terrorists and criminals trying to claim in court that their criminal planning wasn't that at all, but just LARPing:
> For example, after Kaleb Franks was arrested in October 2020 for plotting to abduct Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, he told the FBI he and his compatriots were only LARPing. Franks later pled guilty and testified that this was a lie.
So this document is for investigators to ensure they have a specific framework for being able to collect the appropriate evidence to use in court that prevents a defendent from using a LARPing defense.
Which actually makes a tremendous amount of sense. When armed militia members claim all of their organizing/preparation is just recreational, and totally unlinked to violence that members do eventually commit, it's important to have delineated standards to be able to refute that.