Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
sirlynchmob wrote: Also having your own terms & language isn't be exclusive. I'm pretty sure most people would be willing to teach you the terms if you'd ask.
This is the problem with dealing in general concepts, yes, many will be happy to teach as a means to increase members to the group. But the new words and terms act as a barrier to understanding until they are learned = barrier to participation in the group.
In your Ford meeting, they gave you the resource to follow along, that's being inclusive. Did anyone at Ford actually call you a poser? I used to call people 'the new guy' til the got the hang of things, but never heard of anyone getting called a poser.
No, they did not give us the material to follow along, we were warned <edit>(by people in our company that knew better).
They DID have it in their body of documents we had access to, so they had an official document to point to for their correct usage.
We did not have access to that document until we were confirmed in their system as an official supplier (part of the group).
Poser, new guy, newbie, wet behind the ears, on probation, new supplier pre-Q1 certification (Ford) all words for a new member that has not been fully accepted into the group.
Ah! Scribed got a hold of some of it, the official document is still locked away in the Ford ctis site.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/94341190/FORD-Acronyms-Booklet 13 pages and they did not get past "A" yet... <edit>(it has grown a lot since I last saw it)
If they were being exclusionary then the new guy would never be fully accepted, everyone goes through a learning process and once that is done they are fully accepted into the group, showing the group is inclusive.
I'm more curious now as to why you were sent, being so unprepared.
sirlynchmob wrote: I'm more curious now as to why you were sent, being so unprepared.
Oooh! that sounds suspiciously like a zinger...
Was part of a "satellite plant" group so this was our "orientation" and kickoff meeting for the project.
The more experienced personnel in the company had their own plants to attend to (not associated with the project = not the manufacturing facility personnel).
One can only memorize so many acronyms in a few days... "unprepared" would be better described as "culture shock".
When we got past the "corporate types" the Ford assembly plant personnel did not make use of this shorthand.
Funny how dealing with any of the other companies (Toyota, Nissan, GM, Chrysler) we had no such issue.
If they were being exclusionary then the new guy would never be fully accepted, everyone goes through a learning process and once that is done they are fully accepted into the group, showing the group is inclusive.
A certain minimum standard for acceptance has been required though to participate.
Commitment needs to be demonstrated (at least $27 and a fair bit of memorization time!).
Being "inclusive" in this case is conditional.
What gets ugly is if the person has no control over that factor (features they were born with for example).
What kind of difficulty would an outsider have operating on a ship with no knowledge of the language in your book you pointed to?
With your knowledge in naval matters: What makes someone a sailor?
What would be considered the minimum qualifier?
The minimum qualifier to be a gamer seems to be eluding this thread, I still maintain to have a like/care/zeal for gaming is sufficient to be identified as one.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
It wasn't meant as a zinger, it just seemed odd to me that you went with out anyone with you who was more familiar with the lingo. It seemed like you were thrown into the deep end to see if you'd float.
A sailor is usually someone who sails on a boat. Either in the military or a private ship. A gamer plays games, a Sailor works on boats. Most first term sailors in the US navy, have little liking, no caring, and absolutely no zeal for being a sailor, but they are still sailors.
Outsiders get along just fine on our boats. And they are quite common, from family members taking a cruise with the boat, to college teachers or instructors coming on board to fill in the crew on what they've missed over the last 6+ months, to just technical crew installing new things on the boat.
I quite like the definition as being one that is self-applied - I'd consider myself a gamer, but a low intensity one - I play RPG's, I've never played DOTA or LOL or whatever, and I don't keep up with new releases (although "Destiny" has grabbed my attention)
I think there is a tendency to look down on people claiming to be gamers who game less intensively or just differently than you do - for example, I'd raise an eyebrow at someone calling themselves a gamer just because they occasionally play candy crush, but then I'm sure some would look down on me because I don't spend all my free time playing online deathmatches in COD or whatever.
Debating whether that's something that can (or even should) be changed, or whether a level of elitism is inevitable, is for my money, time better spent running yet another Skyrim playthrough
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/11 11:10:23
sirlynchmob wrote: A gamer plays games, a Sailor works on boats. Most first term sailors in the US navy, have little liking, no caring, and absolutely no zeal for being a sailor, but they are still sailors.
Funny, I agree.
Being a sailor really is just the act of spending time on boats: you do not have to like it.
I do it for recreation and enjoy "blow boating" in particular so I now understand my error.
I think I know what went wrong: as you are involved / performing an act you gain a label: As I ride a bike I am a cyclist, As I crew a boat I am a sailor, As I play a game I am a gamer.
When I am not performing that role when do I still get to call myself it (a piece of my identity)?:
"I am an avid cyclist" (they ride every day for leisure), "I am a sailor" (I own a recreational boat and sail every weekend), "I am a gamer" (I spend 70% of my leisure time playing).
I suppose if something is your job, it is sufficient to be part of your identity.
So if I did playtesting as a job could I say I am a "gamer" and possibly not like what I do?
Seems like the right track.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money. We are not are jobs, our jobs are not our lives (unless you want to make your job your life), it is simply what we do to fund the things we like to do. What I do as a job right now is not what I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago, and not what I see myself doing 5 years from now. It's just a job, it pays my bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
A gamer is a person who plays games. Full stop.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
hotsauceman1 wrote: This came up recently. I feel confident that I can call myself a gamer. I love video games, I have a subscription to Game Informer and the like.
but I was told by a co-worker, Im not much of a Gamer because I dont pay attention to things like LoL, DoTA or(Maybe I shouldnt have said this) I knew about nothing from E3 or pax prime, but I also dont know about half the releases on steam
But what makes someone a gamer, is there more then loving games?
Its all bollocks.
Everyone has to have a gang now. Its how we make discussions interesting, but its all a grand nonsense. Same as how everyone always has to tell me what they are "in to" via their shirts nowadays.. I think its all inexorably linked to our trenchant narcissism, but then I'm a miserable old fether.
I think the same about all kinds of things, if you say you are a Muslim but you drink beer and never pray, are you one? Who is to say you aren't? Who makes the rules?
Thus, If you play Angry Birds occasionally and that is your fething lot, but you like to call yourself a gamer, then you are one. Knock yourself out.
feth me its 2014, I think almost everyone is a gamer aren't they? I don't know anyone who doesn't play at least something.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/12 04:55:15
We are arming Syrian rebels who support ISIS, who is fighting Iran, who is fighting Iraq who we also support against ISIS, while fighting Kurds who we support while they are fighting Syrian rebels.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money. We are not are jobs, our jobs are not our lives (unless you want to make your job your life), it is simply what we do to fund the things we like to do. What I do as a job right now is not what I thought I'd be doing 5 years ago, and not what I see myself doing 5 years from now. It's just a job, it pays my bills. Nothing more, nothing less.
A gamer is a person who plays games. Full stop.
Being labeled by job is so commonplace though, it's the norm. Labels are not who we are though, they're a check list for others, and unfortunately you will be treated based on your labels instead of who you are. It's wrong, but it happens and everyone does it. Take the 'telemarketer' for example, when they reveal that label, don't you just want to punch them in the throat, or just take a instant dislike for them? You could be the most honest 'used car salesman' ever, but their label comes with 'dishonest' attached.
To see that you are identified and labeled by your job, try this simple test. Ask your parents about your grand parents, or anyone about their parents. The answer usually goes, their character, their job, other stuff.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money.
So many of us do though.
When someone introduces themselves or get introduced, their job tends to get added to the description.
Funny how again, it appears you do not like your job enough to self identify to it.
You are identified by your job description at work, like it or not.
As others have pointed out, saying your job does not describe you is a bit odd.
This is why I feel the label of gamer is more than the simple act of gaming, it is a personal choice to take-on the label.
A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Why is this diluting the term "gamer"? What does that mean? It seems like you are framing gamer to be exclusionary instead of being inclusive. The reason that some people on thread on hostile with such an approach is that historically, people used such language to delegitize people's experiences. If people game and want to be called a gamer, isn't that enough?
I believe if you play video games then you are a gamer, but I have had my friends tell me I am not a gamer because I don't play certain games like destiny, or GT5 ect, I am more into story, character progression, art style, but not overly complicated either I also like when my games end eventually and what I am always craving for is a satisfying ending I don't really care if it doesn't have a replay value after the first run I just care about if I had fun playing through it, that its memorable and that I feel I got my money's worth.
my friends however think that online game play is the greatest thing ever and it should always be a competition, endless content, and violence, and I believe that they are gamers too, just not the same type as myself, I prefer to stick to my kingdom hearts, mario kart, and bioshock ect.
Psienesis wrote: It is a mistake to to self-identify as what you do for money.
Fighter pilot says, "Wrong."
But yeah, as for gamer? Too nebulous. Whoever wants to claim the title is one, as far as I'm concerned.
And when that pilot can no longer fly, what does he identify himself as then? What is left when he is no longer that job? When a car accident between flights robs him of his sight, what has he become? An invalid? Useless? A waste of a pilot's training?
To identify yourself as your job is to remove from yourself the things that actually make you "you". What was that pilot outside of flying? Was he a dreamer? A writer? A drawer? A joker? A philosopher? A connoisseur and brewer of craft beers? What was it about his personality that made him the person that he is? Is what he was no longer there once he stops flying? If so... what a hollow, sorry existence that must be.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
A lot of people describe themselves as their job even after they retire. I suppose I'm thinking of hte old saying that once you join the marine corps, you never really stop being a marine-- a lot of people whom are proud of their lifestyles feel the same way.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
A lot of people describe themselves as their job even after they retire.
They do, and that's sad. Do people dream of being accountants? Of garbage collectors? (Actually, that pays pretty damn well, maybe they do...)
uppose I'm thinking of hte old saying that once you join the marine corps, you never really stop being a marine
That is the result of a rather effective brainwashing program, which is part and parcel of Marine Basic. The Army has a similar mindset, "Soldier first. Soldier last. Soldier always." That's simply how our military functions.
Of course, being in the military is more than just a job, it is more a lifestyle decision than, say, choosing to work in a call-center is. Or, on the other hand, it is simply that the military doesn't want you to know how badly you're being paid and so builds it up to be such an adventurous thing. Equal chance of both, I suppose.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Just because I call myself a gamer doesn't mean I base my whole sense of self around gaming.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
Indeed. People who do that gets all pissed of when a few internet articles say mean things about gamers. Pretty sad.
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
