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.

Sqorgar wrote:The appearance that a hobby is a toy, or meant for children, is dangerous to the hobby, not my self esteem. I don't care if you think I'm childish, but the miniature gaming industry is so small, with margins that aren't particularly large, that in most cases, an extra step of bureaucracy in time and cost would be devastating to everything that wasn't FFG or Games Workshop. A ratings system for miniature games would require each and every new release to be reviewed and rated, at some cost, meaning that we'd ultimately get fewer, more expensive miniatures less often. Plus, fear of getting high ratings will cause miniature companies to second guess their own design sensibilities. Is this model too violent? Is this pose too sexual? And they'd err on the side of safety and produce lower quality goods that were compromised versions of their true vision. Moreover, places with different standards than the US may have difficulty bringing their products over due to these standards being a requirement for release (see also, certain video games which have been banned from sale in Australia for drug use, or Japanese games banned from the UK for perceived sexist content).

It is important, I think, to remember that these aren't products for young kids. They require adult supervision. They require hobby blades and clippers, glue and magnets, and the models themselves are not tested against child safety standards (nothing GW produces passes the puncture test). If we start acting like these things are meant for children, then these things will start being held to the standards we have for children's products. I'm talking physically, but it also applies to things like the model design, game art, novel contents, and so on.

I know what the point of the original comment was. It was an attempt to poke fun at the fact that we are being way to serious about something that is ultimately trivial in the grand scheme of things. Maybe it is, but there is a difference between trivial and childish, and I happen to like my miniature games with sharp edges. The best defense against someone trying to censor your hobby is to say, this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously. If the wrong person interacts with it the wrong way, it is not due to negligence on the industry's part, but a personal choice that they made against common sense.

Nice gatekeeping there but I don't know where you got that lofty definition from. This hobby is not only for serious people who qualify to your standards. Because if that were true then I wouldn't have gotten into it at such a young age. It's just toys, like video games (again something I got to play early in my life before I was a teenager, the only real gatekeeping happening was my parents saying I was playing too much). Ask around and a good chunk of us got into this via boardgames before the age of 10 even if a GW box says 12+ (or whatever it has to legally say today) many of us were below that age and managed to have fun with scalpels/clipper/glues/brushes/paints without major injuries while assembling metal miniatures (and not even being 10 years old).

Sure I didn't buy highly fragile and expensive resin miniatures at that age but the hobby in general tries to get kids as early as possible. That was one of the aims of GW in the late 90s early 00s (churn through young teenagers until they find other interests, read about it in their old yearly financial statement) and what partly got them into quite a dominating position in the industry. This increase in customer base is also what later made all these smaller companies that compete with GW possible. When GW started focusing on their main games, other smaller games had a chance to prosper and I can't remember any of those games pushing anybody away for not being serious enough about it like you describe it. If they did that they would have died right there. Being inclusive (even in a rather restricted way) is what grew miniature gaming into what it is today (the "little brother" to board gaming) and being exclusionary and saying "this is a hobby for serious people who take all aspects of it seriously" is the way to an early grave (and that's from me, someone who was pissed about what AOS did to Warhammer Fantasy and still doesn't love the new setting too much).

And this "best defence" statement is absolute rubbish. That way you don't end up with a uncensored hobby but with a hobby that's dying because nobody new finds a way of entering the hobby. How avant-garde, daring, violent, or extreme a product is depends more on the scale it is sold and not on your vague fears. If a video game company wants to sell millions of units they'll make an as lukewarm, generic, and non-offensive game as possible, the same goes for miniature games, books, movies, music and literally everything else in the world (like fashion: from generic "off the rack" to unique "custom tailored"). The more millions of dollars they spend on making something the more they aim at the lowest common denominator and if you have a small group that works on some passion project of theirs they can have the freedom to not need to appeal to a big market and thus they can make something more wild (and care less if some part is too violent or whatever).

All the rating boards are just defence mechanisms to make it simple for million dollar companies to access a big audience. If you are expecting daring works as the default from huge companies in a billion dollar industry then your perception of how markets works is rather skewed. You are conflating the realities of companies that got bigger audiences and thus got more conservative because they want to stay profitable with your idealised version of creators and their creation. If you want more diversity in the creative expression of creators then find ways of increasing the audience because that makes it possible for smaller, odd, and "unfitting" projects to be viable without being too risky. If you just recede into this siege mentality then you are just starving yourself and—a few steps further—also the creators who otherwise might create something daring that you and only a few others might like. But it could be an audience that's big enough to sustain this odd little project and make it grow until a few years later it needs to become more conservative to stay profitable like the rest of the established industry (and you again get to whine about them "second guess their own design sensibilities"). It's the natural cycle of companies looking for economic stability and growth that leads to more conservative designs, not me not taking my toys as serious as you think I should.

Within miniatures, for example, KD sells on its boutique appeal (and got a bit bigger with their KS) while GW doesn't. Even simpler, even more board-game like games sell to an even wider audience while (limited edition) resin miniatures sells to a tiny but dedicated audience. How innovative/risky/unique the products they are willing to make are, is more of a function of their economic situation and has nothing to do with how serious we—the consumers—are taking them, their products, or our hobby.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist.

Let's rephrase that: Using the most effective threats against a specific target, of which certain tactics are more effective than others. The fact that they are women and the most effective tactic is threat of rape is immaterial. If they were hamsters and the most effective threat was destroying their hamster wheel, it wouldn't make the person making the threat hamsterist.

It trivializes sexual assault women face.

We're talking about people sending threats over the internet. I don't think they care.

The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

That study kind of bothers me. For one, they don't publish the exact questions asked, nor the responses of the participants, but report a summary that is potentially conflating a bunch of different things together. For instance, it is not clear that the participants were instructed to separate drunk/conconscious rape from forced rape, meaning it is possible that they are counting the same event as two different counts of rape. This data has restricted access subject to approval by the human research board. Understandable, but a bit frustrating. They've could've included the specifics in an anonymous fashion, as other surveys on sexual violence have.

I also have a problem with the amount of weighted estimates. Generally speaking, they have access to a statistically significant amount of data. They don't need to estimate. But you have weighted estimates based on weighted estimates, which produces values that are pretty much made up. They go into some detail about the weighting formulas used for some things (but not others), and I'm not sure that the formulas really work out in a meaningful way. Raw data would've been better and more accurate, but they seem to go out of their way to avoid providing it. It's frustrating. But you are correct to say they "estimated that 1 in 5 women" - the actual statistic is probably less than that, and less still if you were to remove some of the things they are lumping into that estimate that may be inflating it.

Over 50% of the respondents are over the age of 45, and if you look at the incident rates for the last 12 months, it is at 0.5%. Without further details, I can only assume that this means that the study is at least partially representing the rape statistics for different generations. For instance, it is possible that the statistics were considerably worse in 1980 and are much better now, but the survey conflates 50-60 years of rape data into one statistic. That's like saying how safe Central Park is by averaging the pre-clean up years in with the current. It tells you that things were unsafe at some nebulous point, but does not provide any commentary on how safe you would if you walked through Central Park right now.

I read somewhere else that something like 45% of all sexual assault occur to people before they turn 18, and overwhelmingly involve members of their own family. Familial molestation is a serious and terrifying problem, to be sure, but I'd consider it a very different category (and different problem) than forced penetration by a peer or superior. I just don't know how useful a sexual violence report is that doesn't consider child molestation among its findings. That's not a knock at the report, per se, but I find it a particularly strange omission for a report that includes "begging you over and over until they wear you down" as sexual coercion.

I'm not discounting the report, but I find it frustrating. But that's neither here nor there. I just like reading studies. There's no doubt that sexual assault is a serious and ongoing problem with the human race that disproportionately affects women. It is absolutely worth studying, understanding, and seeking to prevent were possible, so long we do so in a demonstrably responsible and effective way. Banning video game characters with sexy clothes, for example, is neither responsible nor effective.

I just don't think the issue of rape is specifically a sexism issue. Like a lot of things that involve gender, it is something that may disproportionately affect one gender, but it is not due to a worldview that involves the premise that women are inferior. You can be completely pro-equality and still a rapist (as some male feminist allies have proven in the past year or so), and I think it is important not to attribute sexism where inappropriate. It could end up causing more harm as people end up tilting at windmills while the actual problem is woefully untouched.

I am glad to see the thread turning back to reasonable(ish) discussion, not sure were all the comments on the last few pages came from, mechanics, racist jokes, whatever....

Two main comments I have to add to the discussion.

Women are not a monolithic block of herd mentality, they are individuals, so please stop referring to what women want, are scared of ectr, I am sure you can recognise and treat them as individuals and not a monolithic group.

Personally I prefer inclusive mindset, unfortunately those that advocate a mantra of stopping what you do because it does not align with what I want are exclusive ideologues not inclusive, if you do not like what you see, create your own thing make it a success and there we go we have more stuff that people like and more people happy, an inclusive outcome, if on the other hand someone advocates that things people like need to change to conform their worldview they are excluding the group that was already happy with what they had and morphs what they had and liked to something they do not, this is exclusionary approach.

Don't like what you see? make yourself the things you like if you do it well and your vision is popular enouph it will be successful, if not, maybe your vision is not popular for some reason, never hijack popular things that have no resemblance to your vision to turn them into your vision.

And a minor side comment

If people seriously debate the place of men and women in 40ks Imperioum, then they clearly do not understand the post apocalyptic dystopia the Imperioum of man is, there are no men and no women in the imperioum ony imperial citizens and they life a soulless existence as cogs in the giant machine.

Of course there are female guardsmen Imperioum does not care about your gender only about body-count and both genders can die for the god emperor.


Just to clarify, the main argument of the thread is not why she is there, or why she will talk, or what she will talk about, it is that she is a guest of honour and people do not see why she is a guest of honour or why any of the many female employees of the industry are not selected.

A side note since it has been discussed, the computer game industry always had female game designers, some quite influential, it is sad their work is discounted to push the narrative that the game industry was always male dominated and only now we have female game designers.

Mario wrote:
Nice gatekeeping there but I don't know where you got that lofty definition from. This hobby is not only for serious people who qualify to your standards. Because if that were true then I wouldn't have gotten into it at such a young age. It's just toys, like video games (again something I got to play early in my life before I was a teenager, the only real gatekeeping happening was my parents saying I was playing too much). Ask around and a good chunk of us got into this via boardgames before the age of 10 even if a GW box says 12+ (or whatever it has to legally say today) many of us were below that age and managed to have fun with scalpels/clipper/glues/brushes/paints without major injuries while assembling metal miniatures (and not even being 10 years old).

Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.

What I'm saying is that we treat this as an adult hobby in which children are welcomed, at their own judgment. That is to say, a child who can not handle the content in Warhammer 40k should not play Warhammer 40k, and one that can handle it should. That's different than saying that all miniature games must be designed to meet the needs of all children and the ones that don't must go through an expensive process to get a label saying so. The ESRB has limitations to how video games of certain ratings can sell their product - where they can be placed on store shelves, who their television commercials can be shown to, and what other games they can be advertised with (you can't, for example, advertise an AO game on the same website as non-AO games, so most visual novel publishers are forced to have two different online stores for their adult games and non-adult games).

I'd rather see miniature games treated like books. No ratings. No restrictions. It's up to the booksellers, publishers, and customers, and not some intermediary organization - and that requires an assumption of a basic level of maturity, like books have. Not every book is appropriate for every customer, but there's a certain understanding that they won't be.

It's not about being exclusive. You can still be inclusive without pandering.

 Sqorgar wrote:
"We don't have enough women, it must be because of the neckbeards that make game stores so smelly

Neckbeards are smelly though,

 Formosa wrote:
How you got white supremacist from that boggles my mind.....

Because of escalation.

I've said it before, but they've robbed the words "racist" and "sexist" of any power they had. Once that's done the only thing they can do is escalate, so what was once someone screeching "racist", it's now "white supremacist" or, if they're particularly deluded, "nazi". You can't be sexist any more, because you're not a "misogynist".

Words have power, and the more these moral busybodies inject themselves into things they know nothing about and attempt to change them to their liking, the more they dilute the words of the very things they claim to be fighting against.

What is the pot at for the bets that she turns her appearance at Gen-Con into her own Private narrative and turns it itno a shitshow? 55 to 25? What are the odds at?

 Grot 6 wrote:
What is the pot at for the bets that she turns her appearance at Gen-Con into her own Private narrative and turns it itno a shitshow? 55 to 25? What are the odds at?

Honestly, I don't think anybody has been buying her snake oil for a while, and the last couple times she made the news, it was because she was being a jerk to others. A lot of her biggest and most influential supporters have turned out to be hypocrites, liars, and rapists themselves, and without them acting as her megaphone, I doubt anybody will care. If Anita Sarkeesians cries harassment in an empty room, does she make a sound?

Personally, I'm more concerned with what her appearance means for GenCon that they would consider her an industry guest of honor. Does this mean they think the industry needs to change, or that it already has? Worse yet, she may find a new set of megaphones that aren't quite as disgraced as their video game counterparts (yet).

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
I'm sorry, but you can't be serious. Using rape threats specifically against women because you know that it terrifies them is sexist.

Let's rephrase that: Using the most effective threats against a specific target, of which certain tactics are more effective than others. The fact that they are women and the most effective tactic is threat of rape is immaterial. If they were hamsters and the most effective threat was destroying their hamster wheel, it wouldn't make the person making the threat hamsterist.

The issue with this stance is that it assumes these people who willingly send death/rape threats approach it from a rational perspective. Is rape any less scary for men? Why not just send death threats equally? Am I to assume these people have researched the most effective way to be threatening or just follow the logic of "if its a woman, I'll threathen to rape her"? Is it that hard to believe that a number of these comments come from a sexist place?

And honestly, you would have a hard time arguing that rape threats don't come from an ingrained sexist mindset regarding the treatment of women's bodies as objects. The reason why women fear rape has a reason, whether people care where the reason comes from or not when using it is on them. If you use the N word to scare black people you have to face the underlying attachment that comes with the use.

 Sqorgar wrote:

It trivializes sexual assault women face.

We're talking about people sending threats over the internet. I don't think they care.

And that is exactly the issue, whethet they care or not, it can still be seen as a sexist expression. People in the gaming community trivially using the word rape is how the rape culture in gaming got started. Is a lot of it serious or just influencable kids? Probably more towards the latter, but it still shows a lack of understanding and compassion to 50% of the potential gaming population. Which is why to the general public it was so easy to paint the whole community as sexist.

 Sqorgar wrote:

The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

That study kind of bothers me. For one, they don't publish the exact questions asked, nor the responses of the participants, but report a summary that is potentially conflating a bunch of different things together. For instance, it is not clear that the participants were instructed to separate drunk/conconscious rape from forced rape, meaning it is possible that they are counting the same event as two different counts of rape. This data has restricted access subject to approval by the human research board. Understandable, but a bit frustrating. They've could've included the specifics in an anonymous fashion, as other surveys on sexual violence have.

I also have a problem with the amount of weighted estimates. Generally speaking, they have access to a statistically significant amount of data. They don't need to estimate. But you have weighted estimates based on weighted estimates, which produces values that are pretty much made up. They go into some detail about the weighting formulas used for some things (but not others), and I'm not sure that the formulas really work out in a meaningful way. Raw data would've been better and more accurate, but they seem to go out of their way to avoid providing it. It's frustrating. But you are correct to say they "estimated that 1 in 5 women" - the actual statistic is probably less than that, and less still if you were to remove some of the things they are lumping into that estimate that may be inflating it.

Over 50% of the respondents are over the age of 45, and if you look at the incident rates for the last 12 months, it is at 0.5%. Without further details, I can only assume that this means that the study is at least partially representing the rape statistics for different generations. For instance, it is possible that the statistics were considerably worse in 1980 and are much better now, but the survey conflates 50-60 years of rape data into one statistic. That's like saying how safe Central Park is by averaging the pre-clean up years in with the current. It tells you that things were unsafe at some nebulous point, but does not provide any commentary on how safe you would if you walked through Central Park right now.

I read somewhere else that something like 45% of all sexual assault occur to people before they turn 18, and overwhelmingly involve members of their own family. Familial molestation is a serious and terrifying problem, to be sure, but I'd consider it a very different category (and different problem) than forced penetration by a peer or superior. I just don't know how useful a sexual violence report is that doesn't consider child molestation among its findings. That's not a knock at the report, per se, but I find it a particularly strange omission for a report that includes "begging you over and over until they wear you down" as sexual coercion.

I'm not discounting the report, but I find it frustrating. But that's neither here nor there. I just like reading studies. There's no doubt that sexual assault is a serious and ongoing problem with the human race that disproportionately affects women. It is absolutely worth studying, understanding, and seeking to prevent were possible, so long we do so in a demonstrably responsible and effective way. Banning video game characters with sexy clothes, for example, is neither responsible nor effective.

I just don't think the issue of rape is specifically a sexism issue. Like a lot of things that involve gender, it is something that may disproportionately affect one gender, but it is not due to a worldview that involves the premise that women are inferior. You can be completely pro-equality and still a rapist (as some male feminist allies have proven in the past year or so), and I think it is important not to attribute sexism where inappropriate. It could end up causing more harm as people end up tilting at windmills while the actual problem is woefully untouched.

There are other statistics, which I can't access on my phone right now. But it does show that rape is predominantly faced by women. Its hard to argue that this is not due to sexism in some way. You can't be a feminist and a rapist. If a man can rape women he is not a feminist. I think arguing on the basis of a few anacdotal stories of male feminists doing that is not the hill to die on.

The ownership over womens bodies and objectification through rape is inherently sexist. I think you would find it hard to argue that rape is not some expression of female inferiority. Its like saying the MeToo movement isn't due to sexism. If something is so widespread, its hard to argue it is not in a sense an ingrained worldview that it is acceptable to treat women in such a manner by a decent chunck of society. Just look at Brock Turner's dad if you want anacdotal, describing his son's rape trial as destroying his future for a few minutes of fun.

 Ouze wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?

what the actual hell, man.

I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.

OK, that's a fair rationale.

It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish. If games are to be perceived as more than childish then they must be willing to tackle adult themes, and not just by throwing in genitals and dismemberment. Thinking that gore and sex makes you mature is a childish perspective in itself. What is the less childish game, Doom or Heavy Rain?

It's like the people asking for video games to be treated as art while decrying the inclusion of politics in games. Art is political.




More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues. Think of how effective a video game could be at depicting the horrors of the Holocaust. Why hasn't it been made? We've made plenty of games set in World War 2, after all. Because of the idea that games should not tackle those political issues. Which is bs, games absolutely should be free to tackle those issues like any other form of media.

TL;DR
If you want your gaming hobby to be taken seriously, then do not ask for it to be kept safe from politics. Engaging with politics is a huge part of maturing and denying it that opportunity will do more to ensure it is regarded as childish than pretty much anything else.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Wait a minute, for the first 10 odd pages of this thread, you had a guy generalizing the tabletop gaming community as smelly, disgusting incels who would do anything for a "a pair of teats" who would "potentially give them a peepee touch", and that was pretty much OK, but one dude refers to tabletop games as toys and you pop your monocle and call for your fainting couch?

what the actual hell, man.

I explained why I consider referring to the hobby as childish is potentially dangerous to its future in a previous post. At some length and consideration. As for the peepee comment, I kind of expected a mod to take care of it, honestly. I didn't think anybody actually agreed with him on the incel thing and that he was being purposefully over the top, while I suspect that many people here are okay with referring to this hobby as childish.

OK, that's a fair rationale.

It isn't though. He is arguing that his hobby shouldn't be treated childishly while at the same time arguing that politics should be kept out of his hobby. Arguing that such a large part of adult life shouldn't be in a particular hobby is the opposite of asking that hobby to not be regarded as childish.

It's like the people asking for video games to be treated as art while decrying the inclusion of politics in games. Art is political.

It’s completely fair, being able to disassociate your political ideals for a few hours while playing a game is a good thing and teaches a good life lesson on appropriate behaviour in appropriate places, something you all claim to support, can’t have it both ways.

If you are completely unable to leave your political ideals away from the gaming table... I think you (general “you”) have bigger issues that this game.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.

Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.

Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.

I mean look at battletech or flames of war. Both are their own war games, but real world politics both inspires and plays a heavy role in it (to the extent Dakka has had discussions on what level of fascination with making a German army is still healthy, of course it is for the overwhelming majority). Sure maybe certain war games don't lend themselves to all topics, but you would be hard pressed to argue that Wargame: Red Dragon can't be a place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

More mature creations are needed to transform a perception of a type of media from being for children to for adults. That doesn't mean more violence and more sex, FATAL did nothing to make RPG gaming seem more mature. It means tackling more complex ideas. It means not shying away from politics because you are "just making games". It means tackling hard issues.

The setting of a game about giant space men fighting green football hooligans might not be the best place to have a discourse about Chinese foreign policy.

There is a time and place, wargames aren't it.

Disagree. That's exactly like saying the setting of a game about men running around in spandex shooting lasers out of their eyes or cutting people up with claws is not the setting to discuss the Holocaust or segregation.

Also, the setting of 40k is already political. It's criticism of theocracy, rigid bureaucracy etc. are all political.

And there lyes the problem, the fluff was written with small nods to politics of 30 years ago and has been played down since, the fluff of current 30/40k has its own politics within the setting, and that’s a fine discussion to have, then people try throwing their own current political ideals in and trying to change it to suit their aims/goals/motives whatever, that’s not ok.

Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.

 Formosa wrote:

Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.

Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?

Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.

Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?

Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.

Historical politics is not the same thing as modern social politics and you know it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.

Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?

Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.

Discussing HISTORY during a HISTORICAL game is not the same as discussing sexism/racism etc. During a FICTIONAL fantasy game, you seem like a smart person so I know you know this, stop trying to muddy the waters.


Back on topic, there is a good reason people say avoid certain subjects in social situations, it’s to lower the chance of conflict, you may be getting along fine with your opponent and then mention that causes an issue, suddenly you are argument over the pros and cons of gender politics or some such, where as if you had kept it out of the game ... it’s kind of obvious.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.

Wow, things sound out of control in the States. Here in Germany 6 year olds still walk home by themselves from school.

Although my daughters friend did cause a ruckus on the train last month. She is 8 and was catching the train home alone, she has natural platum blonde hair and shiny blue eyes, then a very dark african man sat next to her and proceded to listen to some music on his headphones.... well the police were notified and my daugfhters friend had to wait with them at the train station until her mother collected her.

No one was arrested though.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

Then there is the issue that some of you are incapable of understanding that there is and should be a disconnect between PLAYING the game and having your political ideals, right or left I could not care less, the LCG, GW etc. Are not appropriate venues to discuss your politics, if people want to discuss these things while playing a game they have so many other more appropriate places to do it, here is quite appropriate... obviously in the correct forums of course.

Why shouldn't politics be discussed whilst playing a game? If a game has political themes (and most will), why shouldn't they be discussed?

Playing a game of Wermacht vs Red Army seems a fine time to discuss the political manoeuvres that resulted in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Don't see any reason not to, unless the person you're playing with doesn't want to in which case they can say so. Imposing some arbitrary rule that politics should not be in games or that the political content of games shouldn't be discussed is about as childish as it gets as it seems to rely on the assumption that players cannot engage with such themes in a responsible way.

For several reasons.

Most importantly why does your opponent care to discuss such matters with you? if they do, does the game make any real difference? or they would discuss it anyway and the game just happened to be there? at what point does the mechanical nature of the game enable the political discussion? was the game designed for political discussion to happen?

For example 40k's political background hardly comes in the actual gameplay that is far removed from the background, so why would a player want to discuss 40k politics while playing? or WW2 politics when playing a WW2 game for that matter? gameplay is not attached to the politics, Twilight Struggle on the other hand? more possibilities.

Computer Games and RPG have more agency to convey political messages and if they are well made, political discussion because they can give give a narrative for example papers please! unfortunately many modern games that have political messages are so entrenched in their world view discounting any other perspective than they do not enable political discussion far from it they undermine the world view they try to show as the best because they turn it into a joke.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

You should be ashamed to publish this garbage. The study was heckled heavily for askin incredibly vague questions and fiddling numbers to support their narrative. Meanwhile,

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

This study, made by no one else than the Bureau of Justice Statistics, spearheaded by two women (so you can hardly yell misogynist bias) points out that the peak of sexual assaults. reached in 1995, was 5 in a 1000 and that currently it sits at roughly 0.25%.

That's too many? Yes, let's be honest, this shouldn't happen in truth, but it's not "an issue faced overwhelmingly by women" and certainly not in a degree too above the rate of men also suffer sexual assault.

 StygianBeach wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
Yes, and I'm sure that when you were 10, that was fine. But can you say the same thing about how we treat 10 year olds today? I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say we have hundreds of new regulations and laws concerning what is acceptable for children than we did 20 or 30 years ago. When I was a kid, I could walk to the park by myself. I read a story last year about a women who was arrested for allowing her daughter to that.

Wow, things sound out of control in the States. Here in Germany 6 year olds still walk home by themselves from school.

Although my daughters friend did cause a ruckus on the train last month. She is 8 and was catching the train home alone, she has natural platum blonde hair and shiny blue eyes, then a very dark african man sat next to her and proceded to listen to some music on his headphones.... well the police were notified and my daugfhters friend had to wait with them at the train station until her mother collected her.

No one was arrested though.

You need to remember that the media loves nothing more than scaremongering and the US is basically a nation controlled by the media. If the media were to be believed everyone you don't know and ESPECIALLY those you do know could be a potentially child murdering rapist nazi transphobe.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The CDC once estimated that 1 in 5 women had faced attempted or actual rape compared to 1 in 71 men. It is an issue faced overwhelmingly by women.
https://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf

You should be ashamed to publish this garbage. The study was heckled heavily for askin incredibly vague questions and fiddling numbers to support their narrative. Meanwhile,

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fvsv9410.pdf

This study, made by no one else than the Bureau of Justice Statistics, spearheaded by two women (so you can hardly yell misogynist bias) points out that the peak of sexual assaults. reached in 1995, was 5 in a 1000 and that currently it sits at roughly 0.25%.

That's too many? Yes, let's be honest, this shouldn't happen in truth, but it's not "an issue faced overwhelmingly by women" and certainly not in a degree too above the rate of men also suffer sexual assault.

You should be ashamed to make statements about garbage when you don't know what you're talking about. The 1 in 5 estimate is over a lifetime in cooperation with the CDC. The 5 in a 1000 you post is what is known in a single year. What happens when you extrapolate that 5 in 1000 number over 10 or 20 or 30 years and take into account reporting statistics not representing the actual amount? The total number of victims overall is much more likely to be in the realm of the CDC study (I mean even 1 in 10 is huge) then just 0.25% of the total female population

But keep crafting that strawman narrative I guess
Saying only 1 in 400 women face sexual assault isn't the hill you want to die on man...

So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

At any rate, this thread has devolved heavily. The title speaks of a particular person being invited on a tabletop gaming convention. How does the topic correlate in any way with swashbuckling surveys on sexual assaults to see which is more relevant?

I call for a mod to put this thread back on topic. Please open another one if you want to discuss gender wars.

topaxygouroun i wrote:
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?

Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?

As opposed to using turbulent and fudged data? Or as opposed to my statement that it wasn't acceptable?

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The 1 in 5 estimate is over a lifetime in cooperation with the CDC.

And yet, still garbage.

 Disciple of Fate wrote:

topaxygouroun i wrote:
So no one is allowed to die on a hill that does not fit your narrative?

No, he shouldn't die on a hill that is build from badly reading his statistics, unless you agree with his reading of it?

Its drifted from rape threats to this. But it still isn't about gender wars. Let me just ask a question related to the community. Does your local community use the term raped to mean winning or winning overwhelmingly? A lot of women are pretty uncomfortable with that, my partner plays 40K but refuses to participate in the local community because she is that uncomfortable with the local atmosphere. Isn't that an issue faced by the community in your opinion for example?

No that’s an issue of personal accountability and challenging said person or persons and holding them accountable, it is in no way representative of the community at large as some are claiming, use some moral courage and integrity to make sure that these things don’t happen.

Trying to blame a whole community for a minority of offenders is apparently what being “preogrssive” is all about, and yet, as we have seen in this very thread, that does not happen and people are more than happy to attempt to write off a whole community based on thier own political bias even if it contradicts the tenets of the politics they claim to support.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Disciple of Fate wrote:
The 1 in 5 estimate is over a lifetime in cooperation with the CDC.

And yet, still garbage.

Oh good, its the factual feminist. Talk about a sell out on the level of Sarkeesian

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2018/03/08/christina-hoff-sommers-cant-take-single-line-criticism

In my community it is very casualy to honor your defeated enemy with "you just ate a dick", mostly if you managed a particularly lucky roll that turned the game around. It is also customary for the defeated person to initiate with "I ate a dick" - it symbolizes that he understood his strategic mistakes and that he will strive to improve upon them.

Nobody finds it insulting. We don't have any women in our group, and I suspect that if we did the custom would stay strong. Nobody suggests actual intercourse - the term is simply floating above the battlefield and stays strictly within its 6'x4' boundaries.

And I very much like it. I have eaten my fair share of dicks and I have become a better player because of this.