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.

Most of us use the term "veteran" to describe a gamer whose been around, usually for a few years or more, and has built up a set of hobby skills that separate him from the lay person. GW stores have veterans' nights, and people regularly explain that "WD isn't aimed at veterans" and the like.

My concern, and maybe this is just me being overly sensitive about labels and titles, is that when I think of Veterans, I think of people who have served in the armed forces, not simply experienced gamers. I've never seen a Uniformed Vet take offense or anything, but it's a term that to me is one of respect that frankly I'm not sure our hobby deserves.

I try to use the term "experienced hobbyist," but like most PC labels its far longer than the term it replaces.

Does this bother anybody else, or am I just being weird?

You're being somat wierd:

Veteran:

n.

1. A person who is long experienced or practiced in an activity or capacity: a veteran of political campaigns.
2. A person who has served in the armed forces: “Privilege, a token income . . . were allowed for veterans of both world wars” (Mavis Gallant).
3. An old soldier who has seen long service.

adj.

1. Having had long experience or practice: a veteran actor.
2. Of or relating to former members of the armed forces: veteran benefits.

Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

The word has multiple definitions, and thus can be used for multiple groups of people. The freedom to express ourselves is one of the things our war vets fought for (at least, some of them. I'm sure that each had their own reason to fight, but the end result is a degree of freedom enjoyed by the populace). As long as you're respectful and polite to retired soldiers, I doubt they'll begrudge our use of the term in casual conversation in our hobby. Those that do, well, they're not likely to be around the gaming table, and if they are, a simple apology is like to suffice.

Well, maybe it is just me. I certainly don't' think it's an incorrect usage of the word, and I don't think it's insulting, I just had that though a few months ago, and it's been bugging me since.

As described above, Veteran has many meanings. No reason not to use it to describe veterans of the hobby.

Of all the 'labels', it's the least assuming and least possibly offensive. It's the labels of 'Casual' and 'Tournament' gamer that need to go.

It has never occurred to me to think that ex-soldiers might be annoyed by the use of the word veteran to describe long-time gamers.

As said above it is not a specifically military term.

In the UK we only call soldiers veterans who have been in combat. The rest of the armed forces just become ex-armed forces.

Polonius wrote:Most of us use the term "veteran" to describe a gamer whose been around, usually for a few years or more, and has built up a set of hobby skills that separate him from the lay person. GW stores have veterans' nights, and people regularly explain that "WD isn't aimed at veterans" and the like.

My concern, and maybe this is just me being overly sensitive about labels and titles, is that when I think of Veterans, I think of people who have served in the armed forces, not simply experienced gamers. I've never seen a Uniformed Vet take offense or anything, but it's a term that to me is one of respect that frankly I'm not sure our hobby deserves.

The one part I agree with you about is that our hobby deserves no respect.

i think you're probably being a little over sensative. but ut's a nice sentiment

Kilkrazy wrote:It has never occurred to me to think that ex-soldiers might be annoyed by the use of the word veteran to describe long-time gamers.

As said above it is not a specifically military term.

In the UK we only call soldiers veterans who have been in combat. The rest of the armed forces just become ex-armed forces.

Never been offended by the term and I have seen my share of blood and guts, dont worry about it folks
It is simply a word. The real meaning behind it , is if it embodens a sence of respect.
To some it does , and rightly so. In some respects it is a nod to those who have experience in a matter we do not.

Btw .. Help for Heros , If you feel so - could do with all your support
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Polonius wrote:Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

In the modern era, being able to fight, means being able to put lead on target.

I can do that.

Agamemnon2 wrote:The one part I agree with you about is that our hobby deserves no respect.

I have to ask - are you like this in real life, or is the morose-we're-all-doomed shtick just your internet persona?

Well, given his penchant for posting it in seemingly every thread I'm following, I can just imagine him going door to door bumming people out.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

In the modern era, being able to fight, means being able to put lead on target.

I can do that.

no, it doesnt. i think that maybe the lack of respect op was talking about

Disabled USMC vet here, having "veteran" hobbyists doesn't bother me in the least.

If me and my scars are ok with it, no one else should be getting their panties in a bunch over it.

diablarist wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

In the modern era, being able to fight, means being able to put lead on target.

I can do that.

no, it doesnt. i think that maybe the lack of respect op was talking about

Agreed, that was more disrespectful than anything else said in the thread.

I can understand the OP's sentiment and I too felt using the word 'veteran' is a bit silly/strange (I'm an injured Marine) although like mentioned earlier its a word with multiple definitions although imo there's no denying, especially in America, that veteran is a term usually meant towards people who served in the armed forces.

Imo thats how the term 'veteran' got passed down to wargamers in the first place not to mention that there are more 'realistic' wargames out there (WW2, etc); this is also a hobby where you get a lot of excuses from guys of why they didn't/couldn't serve and by the community's nature its filled with armchair generals and military wannabe's. Its cooler and more bad ass to be thought of as a 'veteran' and go to 'veteran nights' for this hobby community which is understandable since we're toy soldier generals although at its core is silly and potentially offensive.

I personally don't use the term 'veteran' to describe wargamers in person although online is a different story but even then I rarely use it.

Cane wrote:
I can understand the OP's sentiment and I too felt using the word 'veteran' is a bit silly/strange (I'm an injured Marine) although like mentioned earlier its a word with multiple definitions although imo there's no denying, especially in America, that veteran is a term usually meant towards people who served in the armed forces.

Imo thats how the term 'veteran' got passed down to wargamers in the first place not to mention that there are more 'realistic' wargames out there (WW2, etc); this is also a hobby where you get a lot of excuses from guys of why they didn't/couldn't serve and by the community's nature its filled with armchair generals and military wannabe's.

I personally don't use the term 'veteran' to describe wargamers in person although online is a different story but even then I rarely use it.

That's maybe a better explanation of my feelings.

"Grognard" is a common term among historical players, referencing to the veterans of Napoleon's armies.

Kilkrazy wrote:"Grognard" is a common term among historical players, referencing to the veterans of Napoleon's armies.

That's the word! Yeah, I know I've heard that in relation to even GW gamers.

Do I get added points for being a veteran in both senses of the word?

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Agamemnon2 wrote:The one part I agree with you about is that our hobby deserves no respect.

I have to ask - are you like this in real life, or is the morose-we're-all-doomed shtick just your internet persona?

Well, that's for me to know and you to ponder about.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

In the modern era, being able to fight, means being able to put lead on target.

I can do that.

That is a load of unadulterated horse gak. You are either trolling, or you are merely vaunting your prowess on the shooting range.

Polonius wrote:Most of us use the term "veteran" to describe a gamer whose been around, usually for a few years or more, and has built up a set of hobby skills that separate him from the lay person. GW stores have veterans' nights, and people regularly explain that "WD isn't aimed at veterans" and the like.

My concern, and maybe this is just me being overly sensitive about labels and titles, is that when I think of Veterans, I think of people who have served in the armed forces, not simply experienced gamers. I've never seen a Uniformed Vet take offense or anything, but it's a term that to me is one of respect that frankly I'm not sure our hobby deserves.

I try to use the term "experienced hobbyist," but like most PC labels its far longer than the term it replaces.

Does this bother anybody else, or am I just being weird?

I think you are just being a little weird. You here such a referance in sports all the time, refering to the "old guard", people who have been around the sport for quite some relative time.

R3con wrote:Disabled USMC vet here, having "veteran" hobbyists doesn't bother me in the least.

If me and my scars are ok with it, no one else should be getting their panties in a bunch over it.

Game. Set. Match. And thanks, R3con.

As far as the word grognard; didn't it mean "grumbler" or some such? It was used in Napoleonic times referencing the vets, who were the ones usu. more apt to grumble. I think. Verification?

Yeah, I guess you do hear about a "crafty veteran southpaw" and the like in sports all the time.

I think I just conflate the term with the military affectations many people (not just hobbyists) seem to have when they never served.

DO you think this is possibly some kind of reflection of an opinion you carry about yourself for never having served? I'm not trying to say that like it's some kinda shame or crime, but hey none of us are ACTUALLY attorney/astronaut/surgeon/CEO/sportstars all-in-ones with billions of dollars to blow on our harem. Some people always wonder what it might have been like if they had done something else.

grizgrin wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Polonius wrote:Hmm, maybe. I dunno, I think it's just the relationship to armed combat the hobby has, coupled with the grotesque inability of many of us, myself included, to actually being able to fight, makes it seem inappropriate.

In the modern era, being able to fight, means being able to put lead on target.

I can do that.

That is a load of unadulterated horse gak. You are either trolling, or you are merely vaunting your prowess on the shooting range.

I have no need to troll - I actually am pretty decent shot at the range.

Of course, it is fair to note that the targets don't shoot back...
____

And it is also fair to note that GW themselves label their older / longer-term players as "veterans" rather than "grognards", hence the adoption by the community.

I've also been described as a veteran fishkeeper, I don't think the terminology is limited to this hobby due to it's military links and I don't believe it's offensive to those who have served in our armed forces (at least in English english, dunno about American english). It really does just mean someone who's been doing something for a long time.


In other news

Agamemnon2 wrote:

grizgrin wrote:DO you think this is possibly some kind of reflection of an opinion you carry about yourself for never having served? I'm not trying to say that like it's some kinda shame or crime, but hey none of us are ACTUALLY attorney/astronaut/surgeon/CEO/sportstars all-in-ones with billions of dollars to blow on our harem. Some people always wonder what it might have been like if they had done something else.

No offense taken, and yeah, I think it's probably just my own residual guilt about not serving. Good call on that.

@ MGS: that might win the thread.

Aww, I love Eeyore.

Language evolves constantly. Whereas the term veteran might have once applied to those with a strictly military background, it's evolved to the extent that it's now applicable to any skill. You can have veteran lawyers, veteran gamers, and veteran politicians. There are many other professions/skills it could be applied to as well.

In my eyes, the term 'veteran' has replaced the term 'journeyman'. It refers to someone who has acquired a certain level of expertise and skill in the chosen field.

If you have so much heartburn about not serving in the armed forces, why don't you? You can pick up an officer commission if you qualify for OCS and survive it until you are pretty old in the Army, I know of guys in their late thirties who have. For the Army, Navy, and Marines, it is a three year contract after OCS, which is pretty manageable.

I'm just saying this because from what I've seen in civilians, regret over not serving isn't the sort of thing that eventually fades in time. Shoot me a PM if you are considering it.

And veteran isn't really offensive at all. My Dad is a veteran surgeon, because of his long service. And even though I'm an officer and he is a civilian, since I'm so light in gold braid nobody really calls me a veteran, even though I am. Savvy?