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.

Hi all.
Just wondered if the title should be , win at all costs and the polorisation of GW games.

Quite simply when gamers get to freely pick from the hundreds of game systems available.
Like minded gamers tend to pick similar games.

However,when they are limited to GW 'sci-fantasy' or GW 'fantasy' obvoiusly ALL the wide diversity of playstlyes are FORCED in to one inadiquate game.

And as Old GW was all about inspiring creativity,and New GW is all about inspiring minature sales... there is a diametricaly opposed point of view depending on what GW mind set has influence the gamers most.

IMO GW pretending they are a complete replacement for the wargame hobby ,(The GW hobby tm).Has enpowered the view of the elistist gamers , that seem to think thier way is the only proper way.
As long as they spend money on GW products GW plc is NOT going to upset the arrogant elistists that deter from other peoples enjoyment.
Things GW will never say but should...

'The background in the book are JUST EXAMPLES to inspire you to be creative, stop bieng so 'fething' anal about the background and get a life!

'Its just a game for ages 11 and up, who gives a 'feth' who wins or looses you sad little individual.'

Lanrak wrote:Hi all.
Just wondered if the title should be , win at all costs and the polorisation of GW games.

Quite simply when gamers get to freely pick from the hundreds of game systems available.
Like minded gamers tend to pick similar games.

However,when they are limited to GW 'sci-fantasy' or GW 'fantasy' obvoiusly ALL the wide diversity of playstlyes are FORCED in to one inadiquate game.

And as Old GW was all about inspiring creativity,and New GW is all about inspiring minature sales... there is a diametricaly opposed point of view depending on what GW mind set has influence the gamers most.

IMO GW pretending they are a complete replacement for the wargame hobby ,(The GW hobby tm).Has enpowered the view of the elistist gamers , that seem to think thier way is the only proper way.
As long as they spend money on GW products GW plc is NOT going to upset the arrogant elistists that deter from other peoples enjoyment.
Things GW will never say but should...

'The background in the book are JUST EXAMPLES to inspire you to be creative, stop bieng so 'fething' anal about the background and get a life!

'Its just a game for ages 11 and up, who gives a 'feth' who wins or looses you sad little individual.'

Lanrak I don't often agree with your opinions of GW but I think you are pretty much on the mark with these comments. I still don't think, in this information age, that new or existing gamers are as blinded by GW's offering to the exclusion of all else but I agree that GW's fence sitting of recent years is having a negative effect on the community.

At the place I play at, most people have a whole bunch of models ready to go, ask what i play, then make a list best suited to kill me. It irks me, but that feeling has been eroding cause i do alright with lists that have a whole lot of anti-whatever i deploy. I usually have too much fun laughing with my opponent to care how the game goes though. I haven't seen the type that sits at the store all day and schemes over the best possible lists yet. I don't have any tourny players where i live though, only one guy out of my group has been to ard boys but other than that, no tourny players.

This just in:

List tailoring is not the same thing as competitive gaming.

Just thought I would point this out.

Yup. List tailoring may or may not be employed in competitive gaming. While obviously the purpose of it is to compete, a lot of competitive gamers eschew it, as their preferred form of competition includes using a list which can take on all comers.

The point seems to be that we are only discussing tailored lists, power gaming and ultra casual gaming in relation to GW, which is what worries me.

WAAC power gaming probably has no place in casual gaming but I tell you something. I never see GW staff complain when they hold events in store and these mega builds are brought out and gamers ruthlessly crush the kids. It just means that store is going to sell more warbikes or cadians, or Terminators/Landraiders etc. The same company make rules that Allow twin lash Vendeta/vet spam, Rhino Rush etc then refuse to show these builds played in the pages of their magazine. If Twin lash can table a balanced studio army then they should show us. If Nob Bikers clean house show us how. Printing rules that allow Uber powerful cheese armies then not showing how to build and then counter them sends us gamers a mixed message.

I had a White dwarf from last year that I remember had two guys from GW stores playing each other at WHFB, because they were in the pages of White Dwarf they toned their lists down, crazy! especially when GW want to sell more minis.......

The best WD battle reports have always been when they had actual gamers in using their actual armies.

If you play Warhammer, there's a fantastic independent magazine out now called Tales of Battle. I've only got one issue so far, but it's highly recommended.

http://www.talesofbattle.com/

Of course, there is a very simple solution to list tailoring - if you know someone has a track record of doing it, and they ask you what you're fetching, then lie.

It ain't big, and it ain't clever, but letting them think that you're playing Orks (for instance), then dropping mechanised IG on them might give them pause for thought.

If it hasn't worked by the third or fourth time, then you may have to take the "Don't play the guy" approach, and make it known why.

DISCLAIMER: This approach will only work if you've got access to multiple armies.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I don't know how things are where you guys & gals play, but I see a creeping trend of elitism getting into the game.

Hi, welcome to gaming. Since you're obviously new at this I'll give you fair warning. This isn't a growing trend, it's the way things are.

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:

And don't get the impression I don't win either... I'm not whining because I don't win. If I don't win, there's 1 of 2 reasons: 1) I'm missing something in my list 2) My opponent is cheating. Currently my bugs are on a 8 game win streak with two draws and my eldar are winning in 60% of their games. I just want things to be in perspective.

Well no, actually, there are more reasons: bad luck, good luck, player just is better then you, you have a brainn fart during game and forget an objective.

There are more reasons. I doubt its just two.

Tyyr wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I don't know how things are where you guys & gals play, but I see a creeping trend of elitism getting into the game.

Hi, welcome to gaming. Since you're obviously new at this I'll give you fair warning. This isn't a growing trend, it's the way things are.

No it's not.

I agree with KK... it's not like this everywhere. There's a group of gamers around here that are pretty elitist... and I steer well clear of them. It's a major turn off...

That said, I thought malfred's first post was a great point, too- sometimes there's a lot you can learn from people with a different style of gaming. That's different than gamers with a bad attitude, or a chip on their shoulder, however...

I've considered two potential strategies for when I'm asked 'What are you playing?'

1) Pull out my army list and put it FACE DOWN on the table. "That." is my reply. If he reaches for it, I ask him what he's playing. No answer? No game.

2) Just take the opporunity to learn from the loss. And if I can manage to beat his 'anti-me' list, then I feel fully justified to laugh in his face.


I think I'm leaning toward option 2, personally. I can think of few things more satisfying than to clobber some munchkin who can't figure out how to win other than tailoring his list to beat the list his opponent is bringing.

Vulcan wrote:I've considered two potential strategies for when I'm asked 'What are you playing?'

Having read the replies and comments, I think there's only one strategy needed:

Simply ask the other guy "Why do you want to know what I'm playing, and by the way, what are you playing?"

Tyyr wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I don't know how things are where you guys & gals play, but I see a creeping trend of elitism getting into the game.

Hi, welcome to gaming. Since you're obviously new at this I'll give you fair warning. This isn't a growing trend, it's the way things are.

It isn't, its centred around the users of GW rulesets. Other publishers and their products do not seem to be affected in the same way. (Warmachine does seem to be getting that elite WAAC vibe though).

If I walk into a GW or FLGs and suggest rule changes for a SINGLE game where marine choices are limited but there Bolters count as S5 and cc's as rending I will get laughed out of the store but not without a discussion about the ruleset and whether I am right or wrong in attempting a change.

If I go to gaming group and take a ruleset for ww2 skirmish or alternative sci fi and suggest a totally unbalanced game
maybe one where some mechs take on zulus I will get a game, no question. I can then have a more competitive game within the same group, and not have an issue and I can do this wherever I set foot.

I also do not think that had Cityfight, Apoc, Planetstrike and now Spearhead not been released that the players would have designed and agreed on similar rules. Can anyone also imagine T.O.'s.creating totally unique house rules for 40k and WHFB? and I don't mean adaptions.

It seems that if GW is your main game maker of choice that you rely on GW to 'come up with the goods' something that I'm sure GW realises with its current strategies.

Mr. Burning wrote:
WAAC power gaming probably has no place in casual gaming but I tell you something. I never see GW staff complain when they hold events in store and these mega builds are brought out and gamers ruthlessly crush the kids.

I know right! I totally think that every player should have their army lists checked by an employee for uber cheesy lists before they are allowed to game , and if the build looks like its dangerously likely to win, the perosn who brought it should be slapped around the face with massive trout! That'll teach those people to DARE to build a legal but difficult army, right?

I wonder what percentage of GW game players were brought into wargaming by GW games, and whether they have played any other games.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Tyyr wrote:

Grunt_For_Christ wrote:I don't know how things are where you guys & gals play, but I see a creeping trend of elitism getting into the game.

Hi, welcome to gaming. Since you're obviously new at this I'll give you fair warning. This isn't a growing trend, it's the way things are.

No it's not.

When I was learning to play chess at age 8 I occasionally played people who took things way to seriously and got more joy than warranted out of beating an 8 year old novice. I've played CBT for about two decades and I've run into the exact same type of players described in the OP the whole time in about the same proportions the entire span of time. Same since I started with 40K, same with every other game I've played. It might be a growing trend at a game store that until that time had been fairly free of it but on the whole its the way it is anytime you start to play a game where there are winners and losers. Some people are going to take it way too far.

Of course there have always been such people in every hobby. I haven't particularly experienced it myself but I am an older gamer and mostly play historical games. We are both arguing from personal experience which is necessarily anecdotal.

Ketara wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:
WAAC power gaming probably has no place in casual gaming but I tell you something. I never see GW staff complain when they hold events in store and these mega builds are brought out and gamers ruthlessly crush the kids.

I know right! I totally think that every player should have their army lists checked by an employee for uber cheesy lists before they are allowed to game , and if the build looks like its dangerously likely to win, the perosn who brought it should be slapped around the face with massive trout! That'll teach those people to DARE to build a legal but difficult army, right?

I have no issue with WAAC or casual fun gaming.
I have no issue with opponents crushing one another with super powerful cheesy lists.
However I can see inconsistencies in the GW approach, which driven by the charges for sales, is opening up huge chasms.

GW promote balanced and fun fluffy gaming in their publications and their events whilst at the same time enabling arms races.

What GW are also doing is creating a wealth of gamers who have no other frame of reference other than the GW hobby. these gamers look to GW to police their actions and activity and when there is no instruction they interpret what they think GW want them to do.

Look at RAI VS RAW arguments, evangelical is the very best that you could say about some of the arguments. When in fact their need not be any kind of problem, either GW create rules with few ambiguities and where core rules are inviolable no matter how a new codex interprets interactions or GW get around to telling their zealots that you can actually make your own minds up and hey even use some of your own rules (gasp!).

GW have no business interest in the latter and until something drastic happens the former option is unlikely too.













Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Of course there have always been such people in every hobby. I haven't particularly experienced it myself but I am an older gamer and mostly play historical games. We are both arguing from personal experience which is necessarily anecdotal.

I think that the older gamer is more aware of some of the potential pitfalls and can avoid them.

Regardless of the debate about how much winning the game matters or should matter, or how hard one should try to win, I think the real thrust of the argument is whether or not gamers have gotten ruder and more elitist as a whole, and whether that matters to the subculture.

I think the answer is unequivocally yes. I have gamed in various fashions, from RPGs to miniatures, from tabletop to online, for nearly 20 years now, since I was about 11 or 12. This is more than some, and not nearly as much as some others, but it spans a length of time over which the gaming subculture has taken a lot of radical turns. The internet, which for most gamers has always existed, has really expanded the gaming subculture (and many others) - in the past, gamers and other small groups that existed on the fringes of society rarely communicated en masse for extended periods. There were a few lines of communication, usually through extended social networks, occasional gatherings, and central meeting places, typically the local gaming store, but nothing compared to the vast collective communication you find on forums such as this. The same has become true of many other subcultures - on the internet, you can find the few other people anywhere in the world who are interested in the same bizarre things you are, be it obscure antiques, even more obscure authors, wacky sexual practices, nerdy games, or insane conspiracy theories.

Putting people with common interests who would otherwise never have met together has led to some great, many good, and a whole lot of downright amusing things. Unfortunately, it has also laid bare a couple of unpleasant home truths about the human condition. The first is that humans are by nature inclined to be tribal, and to seek to emphasise divisions between themselves much more than any commonalities. We are a hierarchical lot - we want to establish pecking orders, divide ourselves into winners and losers, and to ostracise those who don't think, look, or act like us. The sharpest and most violent disagreements throughout history have rarely been between those with radically different backgrounds or philosophies. Often the most fanatical disagreements have been between sects or subsets of small subcultures, such as sects of the same religions, or small neighbouring provinces. Even when the small subculture in question was themselves persecuted, they still often found it more important to purge their own heretics than to seek common ground. It's how we are. People in relatively small subcultures, such as gamers, are inclined to want to eat their own, to divide gamers into further and further subgroups so you have more people to look down on, be they 'WAAC types', or 'carebear types', or 'elitist jerks', or 'n00bs', or 'wargamers', or 'roleplayers', or 'card gamers', or whatever. This is exacerbated in gaming, because gaming is massively dominated by young males, usually with very little female influence. Young males, as you can imagine, are especially inclined to seek out a pecking order - to establish themselves in some sort of hierarchy so they know who's above them, and most importantly, who's below them. This doesn't have to be as clear cut as winning or losing or placing first or second or third - all that matters is that there is a clear pecking order and everyone knows where they stand. As long as 'your kind', be that competitive gamers or casual gamers or wargamers or roleplayers or whatever, is better than 'those other guys', gamers know who they can talk to and who to look down on, who doesn't look at things the right way and who does.

The second unfortunate truth that the internet reveals is that, sadly, most people are dirtbags. That may seem excessively harsh. Perhaps it is. But take a look at any medium to large forum or chatroom, or other internet gathering place. It doesn't have to be a gaming one, though you'll find it there - look at a political blog, or a MMO forum, or a sports blog. Heck, open any random page of Youtube comments. The internet, as a whole, is full of vile, nasty places filled with vile, nasty people. You might think, come on, that's an exaggeration, most people just get a bit snippy sometimes, but it's just a bit of text chat. To that I say, if you were sitting at a dinner table, and someone tossed off the most mild or casual insult or flame that you would find on any page of this or any forum, what do you think would happen? At the very least there'd be an awkward silence. Someone might blush. If it was more than really mild, someone might walk out. And if there was a bit of back and forth, it might come to blows or worse. I wager that if the 'discussion' that took place on any internet forum happened in real life, someone would get punched in the head well before it got to the level that even the most prudent Mod would put a stop to it.

Some will argue, well, that's just how it is online, that's not how people are. I disagree. Someone once said, 'Character is who you are in the dark'. It's absolutely true. The strongest test of who you really are is the sort of person you are when nobody's there to see you, when there are no consequences to what you're doing. If nobody would ever know that you picked up and pocketed that twenty, would you do it? That's how the internet is. It's a land of no consequences. It's a land where you can be as much of a douchebag as you like and there are basically no ramifications. And, sad to say, the vast majority of people on the internet fail that test of character. They demonstrate that when there are no consequences to being a total tool, they will happily indulge their baser instincts. Not everyone is a complete troll. Some will just flame a little, or denigrate anyone else who deviates a little from the accepted groupthink. But the vast majority will happily indulge in pettiness and maliciousness that would get them shunned or assaulted in real life.

Or, should I say, would normally have these consequences. I think one of the overall problems in the internet age as a whole is that people are gradually starting to become more accepting of the vileness that they experience online, and that some of these mannerisms are starting to creep out and gain acceptance in day to day life. Nothing too obvious or overt, not like that - more just an extension of the attitudes and bullying that people are content to indulge in and observe around them while online. This lack of civility is becoming most apparent in subcultures such as gaming, for which the internet plays a significant role, and, again, which is heavily dominated by young males, a species that has never been known for civility.

So yes, gamers and people in general are getting more elitist. And more prone to bullying, cliquishness, and poor sportsmanship and ill manners in general. Partly it is the nature of the times, and partly the general drop in public discourse and ethics that seems to have come with the internet age. I see no real solution save the persuasive power of a good example.

Or maybe I'm just old.

You're old.

Seriously though, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that wall of text there Relic, thanks. Personally, I believe you've really just described 4chan and other lesser 'out-there' websites. And yes, pretty much every Youtube Comments blog out there.

However, here on Dakka I have not, apart from some occasional unpleasantess, ever witnessed anything that would result in people coming to blows in real life. Even topics that concern religeon, which are universally flame-prone, are ussually at least argued a sense of serious discussion before the mudslinging ensues.

Might I point out that, despite a decent arguement concerning the devolvement of the internet, you haven't really made your point clear as to how this affects or relates to gaming as a topic.

BTW, I have heard a similar quote. "The true measure of a man is what he would be willing to do if he was absolutely sure that he would get away with it." True enough in my opinion.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You're old.

Seriously though, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that wall of text there Relic, thanks. Personally, I believe you've really just described 4chan and other lesser 'out-there' websites. And yes, pretty much every Youtube Comments blog out there.

However, here on Dakka I have not, apart from some occasional unpleasantess, ever witnessed anything that would result in people coming to blows in real life. Even topics that concern religeon, which are universally flame-prone, are ussually at least argued a sense of serious discussion before the mudslinging ensues.

Might I point out that, despite a decent arguement concerning the devolvement of the internet, you haven't really made your point clear as to how this affects or relates to gaming as a topic.

BTW, I have heard a similar quote. "The true measure of a man is what he would be willing to do if he was absolutely sure that he would get away with it." True enough in my opinion.

No, he pretty much described Dakka. A pile a teenage dirtbags that fight to establish their own pecking order. Mods > Their Friends > everyone else.

And this relates to gaming because most gamers are maladjusted social misfits.

Emperors Faithful wrote:You're old.

Seriously though, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that wall of text there Relic, thanks. Personally, I believe you've really just described 4chan and other lesser 'out-there' websites. And yes, pretty much every Youtube Comments blog out there.

However, here on Dakka I have not, apart from some occasional unpleasantess, ever witnessed anything that would result in people coming to blows in real life. Even topics that concern religeon, which are universally flame-prone, are ussually at least argued a sense of serious discussion before the mudslinging ensues.

Might I point out that, despite a decent arguement concerning the devolvement of the internet, you haven't really made your point clear as to how this affects or relates to gaming as a topic.

Gaming as a whole has grown in parallel with the internet. Prior to the mass availability of the net, gaming was a very local and provincial thing - our local gaming group, our local gaming store, maybe a few friends we kept in touch with we met at a larger convention. The gamers in your local area, maybe even just your school or at the game store you frequented, were the only ones you knew, or at the very least the only ones you had any regular interaction with. With the advent of message boards and forums, gamers can now exchange opinions and discuss with other gamers they would never have met, and indeed will probably never meet, such as we are doing right now.

The real power of the net is the creation of communities based on something other than geographic location, religion, or strong ideology. It facilitates communities of those kinds too, but only with the internet do you have large communities based on nothing more than common interests. Gaming is just one of the subcultures that would not exist in a larger form without the internet. Hence, the gaming community as a whole reaps the same benefits, and suffers the same devolution, as the internet.

Furthermore, the majority of gamers are, shall we say, societal misfits. (A much more polite epithet than 'basement-dwelling mouthbreathers'.) I mentioned that smaller subcultures, even ones with great difficulty fitting into the mainstream (eg. gamers), have historically tended to not try to seek out common ground among each other, as might be logical, but instead to try to further emphasise differences and sectarianism. Gamers are no different. Establishing a pecking order and making sure you have people to look down on is, if anything, more important in these little subcultures than it is for society as a whole.

I digress, however. The original point of the thread was how gaming as a whole was suffering a drop in the level of public discourse. Dakka is by no means a cause or even a case in point of this - it's a gaming community on the internet, no different from any other gaming community. Indeed, Dakka is no different than any other internet forum. I don't know about any pecking order based on mods, friends, or anything like that, but I do know that you couldn't possibly say any of the stuff you can find on every other page in YMDC or even the Tactics forums in real life without an awkward silence at the very least. I am absolutely certain that if any of the nasty little vermin that so casually fling about insults on these or any forums were to try it in their day to day life, their natural charm would make them excellent sprinters. But that's not really any different from any other gathering place on the net. My point is that these attitudes are starting to slowly bleed out into everyday life - the actual comments and behaviour might not, but the attitudes certainly are.

Like all internet communities, Dakka is a place to establish and confirm a pecking order, mostly through groupthink. All internet communities, be they based on hobbies, politics, sports, or whatever, will tend to establish a groupthink that is mostly created and/or guided by the most forceful personalities (and/or biggest bullies, loudest trolls, or maybe even smartest voices), and before long that groupthink becomes a sort of orthodoxy, a way to tell the insiders from the outsiders. Newcomers either quickly learn to accept the groupthink to varying degrees or at the very least to not challenge it, or accept a level of ostracism. It is, if you like, a pecking order of sorts, or at the very least a way to separate those on the inside, those who are 'citizens' of the community, from those who are not. Again, look at YMDC, look at the Tactics forums, or indeed any of them. Look at any political blog, any MMO forum. It doesn't have to be teenaged males, though they are usually more susceptible to these attitudes than anyone else. There are tons of supposed 'adults' on this and other forums who are just as bad.

I don't know that there's a solution, though. Human nature is what it is, sadly, and as a whole we have demonstrated that we fail that test of character. As I said, the only real solution is the persuasive power of a good example.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way Relic. I really don't see that going on in our FLGS. (Apart from our distaste of kids 12 and under, but even then it's just the rude/annoying one). As far as I know there is no real 'pecking order' in our community as such. That means we must be a notable exception in society and am actually a nice person (unlikely) or I am completey oblivious to social clues. (highly likely)
Well, if that's how it's going to work then...

Howlingmoon wrote:

No, he pretty much described Dakka. A pile a teenage dirtbags that fight to establish their own pecking order. Mods > Their Friends > everyone else.

And this relates to gaming because most gamers are maladjusted social misfits.

Nice try though, mate.

Howlingmoon wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:You're old.

Seriously though, I thoroughly enjoyed reading that wall of text there Relic, thanks. Personally, I believe you've really just described 4chan and other lesser 'out-there' websites. And yes, pretty much every Youtube Comments blog out there.

However, here on Dakka I have not, apart from some occasional unpleasantess, ever witnessed anything that would result in people coming to blows in real life. Even topics that concern religeon, which are universally flame-prone, are ussually at least argued a sense of serious discussion before the mudslinging ensues.

Might I point out that, despite a decent arguement concerning the devolvement of the internet, you haven't really made your point clear as to how this affects or relates to gaming as a topic.

BTW, I have heard a similar quote. "The true measure of a man is what he would be willing to do if he was absolutely sure that he would get away with it." True enough in my opinion.

No, he pretty much described Dakka. A pile a teenage dirtbags that fight to establish their own pecking order. Mods > Their Friends > everyone else.

And this relates to gaming because most gamers are maladjusted social misfits.

You forgot this part.

Howlingmoon>Mods>their friends>everyone else

That's how you see it, right?

Emperors Faithful wrote:Well, I'm sorry you feel that way Relic. I really don't see that going on in our FLGS. (Apart from our distaste of kids 12 and under, but even then it's just the rude/annoying one). As far as I know there is no real 'pecking order' in our community as such. That means we must be a notable exception in society and am actually a nice person (unlikely) or I am completey oblivious to social clues. (highly likely)

It could also be the natural superiority of Australians. I do need to get a Mod to switch my flag.

Seriously though, I'm not upset or annoyed, just agreeing with the original poster that there is a general devolution of civility in gaming in general, and offering a few explanations why. I don't mean to suggest that all gaming communities are entirely populated by pimple-faced retreads puffing out their flabby chests and picking on anyone who doesn't know the secret handshake. Most FLGS are just that - friendly local communities of gamers. However, just because everyone in a community does not spend every moment comparing metaphorical penis size does not mean there isn't a pecking order, or an unspoken orthodoxy.

And believe me, if your local gaming community is anything like the 15 years of local Australian gaming communities I remember, there's definitely a pecking order.

Howlingmoon wrote:No, he pretty much described Dakka. A pile a teenage dirtbags that fight to establish their own pecking order. Mods > Their Friends > everyone else.

And this relates to gaming because most gamers are maladjusted social misfits.

OK, then why are you here?

There is always a pecking order established in society, because humanity is by its very nature, hierarchical. Something to do with the way the human mind works, we like to know who's above us and below us. It's something very heavily ingrained in the subconscious.

I would not ascribe the slow degradation of manners in life to the internet wholly though, relic, I believe you could blame a number of other influences for that, such as television. Indeed, I believe it could be disputed that there is a 'drop in the level of pubic discourse' at all. After all, such a view is highly subjective, and it is more than possible to argue that it is simply the natural evolution of society, and that society x number of years was just as bad in its way.

Ketara wrote:
Indeed, I believe it could be disputed that there is a 'drop in the level of pubic discourse' at all.

No, given the explosion of venereal disease and teen pregnancy, there probably isn't much of a drop in that level.

Anyway, after that little drop in the level of this public discourse, no, I don't think it's solely due to the internet. I do think that the vileness you do find online, which would never have been countenanced in modern society prior to that, is starting to affect people's attitudes in real life. But as I say, I may just be getting old. After all, considering the attitudes of young males to be appalling is hardly new.

'The youth of today love luxury; they have bad manners and contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. Youth are now tyrants, not the servants of their households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up food at the table, and tyrannize their teachers.' - Socrates