FutbolHead

For those of you who want to see what Hasbro is saying about their game, the following link has an excellent interview with the game's producer Andy Masurek. This interview supports exactly what I have been saying about how they are accurately representing what this game is all about. He even plugs Combat Mission and Close Combat and says how great they are, but that they are different types of games. The one inaccuracy I noted was that he refers to Combat Mission as a real-time game in one segment. He also plainly states that while they attempted to include some of the concepts and ideas of the original Squad Leader, it is not the same game, it is different. This should allow some people to add to the information they need in deciding whether or not this game will be for them. http://www.combatsim.com/htm/2000/09/squadleader/

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl: I didn't take a blind risk. BTS gave me a free copy of the beta demo, like a good pusher, and the rest took care of itself. Had I purchased Hasbro's SL I would have been the victim of a bait-and-switch. "Looky here, we have a computer version of your favorite game" and then it turns out to be unrelated crap. It would be like Avalon Hill putting Chutes and Ladders in the GI:Anvil of Victory box and calling it the third gamette of the SL series. Sure, they can do what they want with the name, and they can even bait and switch on me, but I don't have to buy anything from them again. So it's: a) a cheesy marketing ploy to take advantage of the SL franchise, and short sighted. Anyone who gets burned by the CSL won't likely be forking money over to Hasbro again in the near future. [This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 09-16-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You said the following: "Finds Hasbro's squad leader and in blind excitement orders it." Which indicates you would have purchased this product blindly had it been available. A foolish move on your part, not Hasbro's. You said you would have bought it without reading reviews. Would that have been Hasbro's fault? You never mentioned trying the demo first in your previous post. You said you saw CC one day, didn't buy it then saw CM two days later and did buy it. That's where I got the blind purchase idea. Having the tried the demo first, you made a more informed decision, which I can respect. One interview I read concerning CSL stated that a demo may be available around the time of CSL's release, which again will afford people to make a more informed choice on whether or not to buy the game. Hence, more evidence to indicate truthfulness on Hasbro's part. You already know the game of computer SL is different from the original game, at least you could know if you do minimal research on the web. If you look at any site, web review, interview or anything else that tells you about the upcoming computer SL game, it's plainly obvious that it is different. If they can still pull a bait and switch on you at this point, it won't be Hasbro's fault. Any person with a brain cell can see its different and there is no evidence to show that is what they are trying to do a "bait and switch". If you want to make a case of misrepresenting a product, you need to find one that has merit because this isn't one. But you use the term "victim" here which brings out another interesting point. Our country is full of "victims" these days. The only problem is that most of these "victims" are people who are looking to hold other people or organizations responsible for their own stupidity or shortcomings. Smokers are leading the pack right now in this arena. I can't wait until alcoholics start suing bars, ABC stores and 7-11's for their problems. Let's blame everyone else but not take personal responsible for our own problems. That's becoming the American way as evidenced by many of the opinions in this thread. Personally, I'm considering suing the makers of eating utensils for my extra 30 pounds of weight. I'm a "victim" of the food industry. And yes, if the product fails to live up to consumer expectation, it should affect the future business of Hasbro. But it certainly can't be because Hasbro was misleading anyone about the gameplay. I know that if I decide to buy it, and I don't like it, I will take it back for a refund and possibly share my humble opinion with others. But it will be an informed opinion, not a half-cocked opinion before the game even hits the shelf. [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-17-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl: I've stayed out of this one for a while, but let me paint a realistic scenario (realistic because that's how I found CM): Old (or continuing) SL/ASL player has trouble finding opponents, enough space to play etc, realizes there ought to be a computer version of SL/ASL (with that many pages of rules the computer has no trouble remembering, but I certainly do). Starts looking on the web, initial search is under "Squad Leader" Finds Hasbro's squad leader and in blind excitement orders it. Gets Hasbros squad leader and starts hurling as if Peng showed up at the door in person. I found CM because I was looking for a computer version of SL. I almost ordered CC, but was reluctant to since that evil company in redmond had its name on the box, and figured if it was as good as there other software I could do without. I continued searching for another day or two, found CM, and it's the only game on my HD (and I play at least a turn a day). Had the Hasbro version been available, I would have forked over the cash reviews unread and been sorely disappointed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Which proves my point. You choose the criteria you thought were important in buying this game. They weren't criteria I would have used however. And they weren't criteria that were in any way BTS's fault nor would they have Hasbro's fault. And it's a good thing that CM made it to the (virtual) shelf so that you get to play it. You took a blind risk and got lucky. But the bottom line is, YOU TOOK A BLIND RISK, not the smartest consumer strategy. You let emotional desperation govern your buying experience. How anyone can blame that on a company is beyond me.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pzvg: Again my point gets made for me, How many of the defenders of Hasbro work in the industry? FBH: I'm a cop, I don't work for the industry. I'm not so much "defending" Hasbro (at least no more than I would most other companies under circumstances comparable to these) as I'm saying that people are assuming Squad Leader will be crap when they haven't even played it yet. And the rest condemning it are doing so just because it's not their kind of game. I take any defense of a business's "rights" (when interpeted as screwing people) as either a sad joke, or self-serving propoganda. FBH: You can take it how you like. You have an OPINION just like anyone else. It serves well to have some factual basis for an opinion though, it gives credibility to your opinion. In this particular case, you have offered no evidence to suggest that Hasbro is screwing anyone or that the game is crap. As for complaining about big business doesn't do any good, yes you are quite correct, complaining ABOUT them does no good, You have to complain TO them, counter-culture websites populated by fringe elements do not impress anyone, Market forces are impressed by arguments that involve staying profitable (always issue no.1 with a company) You have to translate it for them, ie; If you screw a thing that I love in the name of profit, I will do my utmost to see that you do not make a profit,or in fact a return. One Email means nothing, 100 emails are a trend, and 1000 emails are a crisis. FBH: I couldn't agree more. At least we are not in total opposition. As for they can make anygame they want, I don't care, Uh HUH, well pal, it's you, Joe Igiveadam, that the market weenies are aiming for, FBH: Which seems to read 'If you make a game I don't like, I don't care if other people like it, it's a crap game. Game companies should only make games that I like.' FBH: The simplicity of this seems to escape most people. It's the consumer who plops down the dough to buy products based on their own criteria for buying that product. If their criteria for buying the product is stupid, that's their problem. Marketing people aren't brainwashing anyone. Marketing people aren't holding guns to people's heads making them buy anything. Stupid people happen. If you want to crusade the stupid people from themselves, by all means, go ahead. But I'm not going to join you. When I have the opportunity, I try to educate stupid people when they make mistakes. Teach them principles of good decision-making, but I don't tell them what to do and I don't do things for them because that accomplishes nothing. When I buy a car, if I want a FORD, it better not come with a Honda engine, Because I do care, If you plan on buying out a title, then releasing some crap in a cheap cynical attempt to capitalize on brand recognition, then I feel perfectly ok about telling people it is cheap crap intended to make a buck, and they shouldn't waste money on it. FBH: That sounds nice, but you haven't proven anything is crap here. Nor have you shown evidence of any plan on the part of Hasbro. Might I suggest all who disagree with this concept go ask Ralph Nader if it works or not. I'm not trying to sway opinion of the game, when it comes out, I will look at what others say about it, and if it deserves my scorn and contempt, then it,and the people responsible will hear from me. Try it folks, you might be surprised. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> FBH: If you are saying be an educated consumer, by all means, I agree. But personally, if you just take other people's words for it, you subject yourself to their preferences not your own, their agendas, not yours and their intelligence, not your own. I'm glad I didn't take the "prevalent opinion" of the game Rebellion. That's one of my favorite games. I could give a rat's behind who else likes it. I can live with the fact it wasn't economically viable to pursue more games along that line, but I'm sure as heck glad it made it to the shelf, and that I took the risk that exists in buying any new product. FBH: Games are about entertainment folks. If they entertain, they have done their job. If they don't, they go back to the store and maybe the company learns from that or maybe they go down the drain. [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-16-2000).]

A little poll: How many people in this forum are going to buy this game simply because it has Squad Leader on the side? I'm dying to know how many people in here will buy it on name alone.

In what respect is Hasbro being immoral? It's not immoral that they choose not to make it an exact duplicate of the board game. Morality isn't even an issue in this discussion. It's a matter of intelligence and preference. You may have a case of making this a moral issue if they slapped screenshots on the back of the box that looked like the board game on computer and then had an entirely different program inside. That isn't the case though. Web reviews and interviews are pretty upfront about what the program is supposed to be like. While some of the points below may have some validity in their own right, they have absolutely no relevance to this debate. The may not be "right" according to whatever your definition is, but you haven't made a case for how they are "wrong" either. However, if you do FEEL they are wrong, don't buy Hasbro's products. But if you want to make a dissuasive argument to those who would support Hasbro, you may find it more successful to base your argument on facts not feelings. FutbolHead <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by elementalwarre: legally hasbro can do as it pleases with the name. it will likely create a relatively PC game since it sees a bigger market there. since i happen to agree that's a bigger market too, i can't very well argue that doesn't make it right legally, some "made in usa" clothes are made by people who are slaves in all but name, working in various US-controlled pacific territories legally, genes are being patented - not just their uses, the gene itself - even though the genes in question are discovered, not created legally, unrestricted capital flow has shattered various countries' economies legally, british forces gassed some iraqi villages before ww2 having a legal right doesn't always make it morally right<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 09-16-2000).]

I'm on the "it's only a name side". I believe they bought the rights to design and market the product however they desire. And if some of you are worried that people will flock to the stores and buy the game simply because of name association, which I really hope the masses of SL and ASL players are smarter than that, those are going to be the people who you always beat in SL or ASL because they are stupid. Anytime you buy anything, you should pay attention to more than just the name. I don't sympathize with stupid people who do stupid things.

Geez, it's pretty simple folks. If you don't like the idea of Hasbro's game, don't buy it. It really doesn't matter what they should have done with the name, they ponied up the dough to buy the rights so they get to do with it what they damn well please. They risk the capital, they try to profit from it. In America, that's supposed to be a good thing which we call Capitalism. If your worried about your investment in it, if you buy it, buy from some place that allows returns. If you want to play real SL or ASL, play real SL or ASL. Although CM comes as close as it gets, it is not exactly like SL or ASL. Personally, I don't see the two competing against each other (CM and SL), they are way different types of games to anyone who examines the two with at least half a brain. I happen to like that type of game (turn based X-COM types), but I won't be playing it because it reminds me of SL or ASL. I will play it because I like that type of game. Anyone else who goes out with the intent to buy it should look at it for what it is then decide. I'm constantly amused (or is it annoyed) at people who knock a game before it comes out. They are the last people I take advice from.

Did you ever see the movie Angus? George C Scott played this kid's grandpa. The kid was rather large and frequently the brunt of jokes and ridicule. George C Scott gave the best advice I have ever heard from an actor in a movie: "Sc*ew them, who cares what they think!" I left a forum one time which is occupational related to my line of work. I posted things that tended by less than popular or agreeable by the masses, but things that I believe bore out lots of truth. I didn't get flamed per se, but I didn't get a whole lot of support for my opinion either. I bowed out courteously and publicly and dropped my membership with that forum. I wish I hadn't. What I had to say at least had the same level of importance as anything else, and in some cases were much more telling about my profession and needed to be heard. There are people who have a maturity-deficit. Don't let them bother you. When complete strangers develop opinions about you that have absolutely no basis in fact, forget them. If you leave the forum, leave for the right reasons. You will feel better about it later.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: As has been said many times, It is something that everyones wants including BTS, but the real world limitations on the code and game engine are proving difficult to overcome. If it can be done it WILL be done though. It is on the list of potential additions. Thats the best answer you will get. Madmatt <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> While I appreciate your response, I was hoping to get a response from BTS. I prefer to hear things "from the horse's mouth", because all to often, second and third hand information is not always reliable. I am assuming that you don't actually work for BTS, is that correct? I guess I will drop it at this point since they apparently won't respond anyway. Here's a thought, since this appears to be a FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTION, maybe a FAQ entry would save me, BTS and other readers some time and frustration. [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 08-29-2000).]

re-bump Anyone there BTS?

bump up

I have asked this before, as well as I'm sure many others have, but I have not seen a response back from BTS. I did a search on this topic and could not find an answer. Are you guys considering adding a feature that would allow you to save a full game as a video file of some sort so we can watch the whole game all over? In other words, something to connect all of the 1 minute segements of turn playback into 1 big playback of the whole game, preferable with a means to save it. This would be a great feature. Thanks

Another one from officer's Perf Revs. This officer has a full six pack but he's lost the plastic thingie that holds 'em together.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juju: Great, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OH Yea, I feel like Jim Carrey in The Mask, "I'm smokin!!!"

I got mine and I'm happy!! Now when I embark on one of my long-winded posts, I can send it about 35 ms faster....

A scant 4 days until my life is further assimilated into the 'net. CABLE MODEM!!!! Then my long winded posts and replies will take 2.5 seconds to send to the forum instead of 3 seconds. Think of all the time I will save!!! Woo Hoo Hamma Down.... Seriously, anyone else here have cable modem yet?

With respect to wargames, CM is on top for me. Right now, Diablo is getting quite a bit of my time as well though. Polls are fickle, don't worry about them. The true test of whether or not this is a great game is whether or not we are still talking about it and playing it six months to a year from now. Just MHO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bugger Stein: [snip] I´m getting confused cause this is the most basic, simple and important question we can ask ourselves, but the answers are never that easy, flip the coins over again and again, and you see what I mean. The question is not whether people are born evil, made evil, misunderstood the social codex, cause some clearly have made "moral mistakes"(sexist, racist, homophobes, animal abusers etc). Just be careful when making assumptions about moral right & might and where it comes from. Gees I don´t know why I posted this, maybe cause I just finished a paper on the subject and this discussion seemed to have something to do with it, maybe I was wrong ? [snip] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that philosophy classes intentional cloud the issue. It's not the purpose (or perhaps should not be) of teaching you what philosophy to believe, it merely presents you with different philosophical models. This may be stating the obvious, but you indicated you were getting confused. It should be said that we as individuals have to "bite the bullet" and pick something to believe in, and as such take responsibility for the consequences should they arise. Obviously, you would think that most people would use education and experience to pick or taylor this system to that which they believe is the most "right" one. None the less, it requires that we make a decision and not just flounder. As I stated before, my belief is that everyone has some inate ability to understand the "greater" ideas of right and wrong. By this I mean, those actions which are invasive or exercise dominion over another individual or group of people for personal gain or edification. Stealing, robbing, assaulting, murder, rape, i.e. the big ones. Some people are stronger in understanding these, some people are weaker. (stick neck out on a limb mode) Listen folks, there is no getting around the fact, as unpleasant or as politically incorrect as it is, some people are born weaker physically, mentally, morally, physiological, and pyschologically, and perhaps in any number of other ways, not necessarily in all those ways but perhaps any combination thereof. {The evidence of this walks around us on a daily basis. Observe life and people.} Nature says, those weaker ones should die off in order to strengthen the species. Humans, who believe the are more enlightened, say, we should help those weaker ones. (neck retraction activated) Back to my line of thinking. Those people who are weaker on the moral scale need people who are stronger on the moral scale. Some choose to seek that guidance (go to church, seek education, follow cults, etc.) and choose not to. Even the stronger types still may follow suit but perhaps more in leadership positions, i.e. priests, cult leaders, etc. Even those on the stronger scale may choose to abandon their sense of morality in favor of personal gain or edification. As an example, John Wayne Gacy. Consider by many a great civic leader, a pillar of the community. He most likely had a very strong sense or understanding of right and wrong because he was able to pass himself off as a genuine caring person. He raped and murdered 33 young boys and buried them under his house. The whole idea of holding people accountable for their actions is dependant upon choice (which requires understanding), action, and intent. Any philosophical model which lessens this concept dooms the people or society who elect to believe it. With respect to who decides which moral code to go by, it is clearly societies role to do so. Any collective of people who decide to live together in relative harmony have to collectively decide on (by majority) those types of behavior which are morally and socially acceptable. There is no way around this. Naturally, the few who find themselves on the more "decadent" end and those who consider themselves great philosophical thinkers will disagree with this application. You can't base society on pleasing the fringe, it has to be the masses. I personally don't believe in the concepts of Globalization. New World Order, all that stuff. Other collectives of people are going to come up with their own set of moral quidelines based on consensus of their majorities. I personally think we were meant to have different societies, different cultures, different beliefs and attitudes about life. Everyone in the world just won't fit on the same sheet of "moral" music. But I do think they basically all figure out the "greater" issues of morality that I explained before. My apologies, I have been rushed in the last couple of paragraphs so I hope I stated my position well. As usual I am subject to challenge and questions which I will address when time permits.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dick Reece: FutBolhead!!! , I have to tell you, this is the best thread I've read on this forum to date, mainly due to [iMHO]and thanks to your contributions as well as a few others [ Fionn,etc.].Very interesting, enlightening reading, and I see many of my own ideas and thoughts expressed in your words.Thanks for the good read. I would,however,like to expand upon one comment which I agree with: <I could give a rat's behind what other's expectations of me are, I have to live with my conscience and what I do. Their hangups are their problems.> I agree with this totally.The problem then boils down to values and morals within ourselves.I used to wonder quite often how in the world people could shoot others in cold blood while robbing them for 2 dollars and 20 cents,or how they could con old people for a living? It finally dawned on me [ so I'm slow, so what ]that these people have no morals or values, or at least not a valid set, and that's why they're able to do what they do.They have no conscience they must listen to, no inner voice other than one continually spurring them on [ Bill Gates comes to mind, or some of the Talonsoft "brains" behind the resale campaign series "add-ons" ] to do whatever it takes to "get ahead".They answer to "self", just as we do,only there "self" has no checks and balances, no roadmap of morals or values. And how was our conscience first formed? By others [parents,relatives,teachers,friends] who explained there "expectations" of us, to us.They also taught us what society expects.The problem is, many weren't taught, and many who were had no guiding inner voice willing to listen,or taught themselves to deny it's existence and obtain there goals by any road possible.The cyber experience is making this much worse I believe, for the reasons you've stated so well in all your prior posts above. Anyhow,again, thanks for a good read . Dick <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Thanks for comments. Regarding the concepts of "morals or values", I heard an interesting commentary about the them one day on the radio. They are not as interchangeable as they may seem. Morals tend to have a basis in behavior which is expressed in terms or "goodness" or "badness" or "character or virtue". Value systems can be anything. You can have a value system that says that your acquisition of wealth is the most important thing in your life, but that's hardly considered noble or in many ways moral. I would hazard a guess that everyone has some sort of "value system". Morals may more closely be compared to virtues. Virtues are what alot of people are lacking in these days, not values. And yes, in large, we develop our conscience from what our parents and others teach us. However, my concept of an "evil" person isn't necessarily one who didn't have the benefit of being taught to have a conscience, but one who knows right and wrong and just doesn't care. From a philosophical standpoint, it is my belief that we have an inate capacity to understand the greater concepts of "right" and "wrong". Some people are probably more in touch with those ideans, some less. There are those that argue you can't have morality without having gotten it from some religious doctrine. Dr. Laura comes to mind. I am very much a fan of listening to her show, but that is a point on which I tend to differ with her. The problem today with establishing my position is that Judeo-Christian morals are so engrained within our society, that it's hard for any individual to show that the development of their moral guidelines were not in some way affected Judeo-Christian morals. I don't believe there is any ethical way to conduct a study on people to see that if they were untainted by the thinkings of previous societies would they still develop a sense or a system of morality or righteousness. Thus, I take this concept on "faith" in the same sense that Christains have faith in Christ. I happen to think they would. It can be shown that around the world in various religions, the guidelines for living "a good life" are generally agreed upon regardless of the diety involved. As a sidenote, I would suggest that Bill Gates, despite his personal acquisition of wealth and power, has done a good for our countries economy and in developing more consistent "standards" for the PC industry even if one would argue that those "standards" may not have been the best. That aside, Bill Gates is an extremely effective business man. I'm not on the Bill Gates Defense League, but I think there is a bigger picture to what he has done than simply what the Justice Dept. has interests in. I would also express my appreciation those who have provided their thoughtful commentary to this thread. I am enjoying it, even if my long-winded tendencies are occupying entirely too much of my (and your) time. I can never seem to summarize my thoughts in a few quick sentences. I guess it comes from trying to reduce the likelihood that others will make assumptions which I would later end up addressing anyway.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: [snip] As for FutbolHead, Ok, fair enough. I would agree that there are loads of ****heads out there who are just mean to everyone in general BUT I think that in online games normally ok males often become raging assholes . The meanies are always going to be mean BUT I think that when a woman decloaks on a lot of online fora she also becomes a target for lots of people who are usually OK enough. Anyways, that's my experience. If yours differs then you've probably been lucky enough to come across some halfway reasonable young males on online games. Lucky you .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In so much as I could hazard to guess the ages of other online opponents (sometimes difficult, sometimes not), I would say that a fair lot of them were not very nice. The ones that I would guess were younger would want the game conditions a certain way, or they would get mad, and "take their ball and go home." Rebellion was a prime example in my experience. I could not play the game fast enough for lots of people. I always thought they must be on speed. Rebellion has adjustable time lengths for turns so that you can take more time during the more strategic elements or busier parts. I'm guessing they wanted to play it more like an RTS. At any rate, when you didn't play like they wanted, they got bent out of shape. I would also agree with another poster who stated that the anonimity provided by the online experience tends to bring out behavior that would not normally be present in face to face encounters. The only addendum I would add would be that it is more and more common for people to be "in your face" these days. The cyber-experience may be eroding people's real life inhibitions. People who tend to push the limits of the rules, usually continue to do so when reinforced by desirable results versus consequence. Those "raging hormones" tend to make them as aggressive and competitive (chest beating) when dealing with guys as it does make them "wanting" of the female persausion. I would suggest adolescent years tend to offer a period of time at which the behavior and character of people tend to tested a little more (by biological means over which no one has real control). This offers no real excuse for bad behavior, at least in my opinion, because in the end, in a civilized society one is still subject to the consequence of choices they make and the resultant actions they take. I might suggest that we may have different tolerance levels of what we consider "reasonable" behavior amongst these young males. Maybe not, but I wouldn't consider my exposure to the "reasonable" ones within the realm of a plethora. I am strongly of the opinion that common courtesy amongst strangers is the hallmark of civilized society. Please note that I don't use the word "respect" in any way synonomous with the word "courtesy". Many people whine about wanting "respect". Respect is an earned quality which (IMHO) no one has earned by default on first meeting. However, they do deserve courtesy until their behavior dictates otherwise. As a another issue of thought, in as much as we would like this to be as free a society as possible, I believe people in general have to accept some responsibility for the situations they place themselves in. As an example, if a female walks into a strip club, she has to expect that she will raise the attention (probably undesireable attention) of the patrons. In an ideal world, it would be great if she could walk in without problems. Likewise, if a guy walks into a meeting full of feminists, he may not be the most welcome person either. A particular case in point was a nice couple who had a very nice house built in a really bad neighborhood. After they moved in, they complained about how bad the neighborhood was. A little diligence and research on their part, would have easily revealed the status of the said neighborhood before they "leaped". At any rate, when all is said and done, I hope the women in this forum are treated fairly, but in kind, they need to act the same.

This whole thread reminds me of the wisest saying to ever come out of my elementary school years. I believe that it must have been banished from school during more recent times. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me." Perhaps it's been updated as follows: "A gun or a knife may take my life, but insensitive comments will cause me years of counseling, recovery, book writing, lobbying and eventual sainthood for the advancement of humanity." I digress. [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 08-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: Michael emrys wrote: FutbolHead wrote: > I would think that it's a fair bet, that if you polled all the women of the world, generally speaking most, if not the vast majority, don't play wargames or like war. In fact, I would say that goes for most men too. (Please note FutbolHead, I'm using your comments as a starting point - I'm not arguing with you!) There may be some biological characteristics of women which make them less interested in war. However, I think society's perceptions of what men should be like and what women should be like, have much more to do with how men and women turn out. I think a lot more women would be active war enthusiasts or war gamers, but they reckon that this is an unwomanlike thing to be doing - in the same way that a lot of men regard it as a manly thing to be doing. It should also be considered that most wargames simulate only men - up until recently, whether women wanted in or not, fighting has been a male pursuit - so this may make women less interested than if there were women soldiers in the game. David<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I wouldn't entirely disagree with you anyway. In fact, I think it's forthright of you to stick your neck out to suggest that biological differences may affect behavior. Many people have been ostracized or chastised for having voiced such opinions regardless of harmful intent. However, it is a simple fact of life that society will deem things within the norm and outside the norm and develop perceptions based on those criteria. It is how "INDIVIDUALS" respond to such perception that determines whether they are offensive, rude, mean, hurtful, etc. On the other hand, not everyone who tells an off-color joke or thoughtlessly makes an inappropriate comment believes the premise of what they said. It may simple mean that they find the different ironies of life humorous or they simply use bad judgement when opening their mouths. We as humans have a very long history of men being the warriors, women being the domestic types. While times may have changed, I think the level of change is astounding in leiu of the short period of time in which the change has been demanded. To expect what may well be a primal instinct to be entirely eradicated from behavior in the span of 50-100 years is wholly unrealistic. However, I agree that we do owe it to all people to understand the nature of human emotion and courtesy.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: Umm FutbolHead, if you hold that view then you mustn't have logged on to some of the online games I've seen really dumb abuse on. You wouldn't believe the amount of totally uncalled for sexual innuendo and almost stalking-like behaviour I've seen on some of those servers. And the continual barrage of "girly" comments just doesn't help either. As for women liking wargames. Damn, I think we need to develop like a secret handshake or something so we can recognise eachother. I don't know one woman IRL who likes wargames. ;(<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I can hold that view, because I never said there aren't sexist people out there. What I said was that there are people out there who are mean in general. The same person/people you saw being sexist may also be bigots, racists, etc. etc. etc. all wrapped into one package, i.e. a mean person. The fact that they harrass the women based on their sex merely means that they attempting to use what they see as a weakness against the target of the attack. For that same person you could likely substitute another other form of what they dislike to be used against the applicable target. I have logged into many online games where I have seen any number of different types of anti-social or rude behavior, including sexist commentary. Your example does not provide evidence that contradicts anything I have said. I'm not sure how old you are, or anyone else in here for that matter, but think back to you school days. Chances are, the guys that treated girls poorly weren't the greatest people in general anyway. Most of the ones I remember were also rude or mean to others as well. This is but one example I use. In my day to day work (I'm a police officer), I see bad behavior in lots of people all the time. I find it hard to single out any particular prejudice in the vast majority of them as their general mode of behavior tends to be anti-social. I dont' claim to be a know-it-all or an expert, but I will assert that my opinion is derived from a fair amount of education and experience in the field of human behavior. I stand by it. PS: As an aside, there is no behavior I find "unbelievable". I think I could shock you with a few stories, depending on what level of experience you have had with the "urban jungle". [This message has been edited by FutbolHead (edited 08-04-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shrapnel: Oh, and I'd appreciate it if people like Zaffod wouldn't generalize about women not liking war or war games. The women you know may not like them, but that may mean you need to hang out with women who are more hard-core. =) There's a whole hidden network of us out here, who are just trying to survive the weight of expectations (from men and women alike) about what we *should* like or *should* be as women -- things are difficult enough as it is without hearing the same old arguments from within the gaming community.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Who exactly are "people like Zaffod"? That's a bit of generalization too, given that the sum total of Zaphod's personality was probably not summed up in the small amount of text he wrote when he expressed his opinion. Zaffod, I for one think your opinion was on topic, I won't ask that you censor it on my behalf. No matter what opinions you state, people will formulate opinions of you (justified or not), so you might as well speak your mind. Honesty is by far a more important characteristic than popularity. I would think that it's a fair bet, that if you polled all the women of the world, generally speaking most, if not the vast majority, don't play wargames or like war. In fact, I would say that goes for most men too. If we were in the days when you would have to wear a scarlet letter and be shunned for playing wargames, then I might be with you on this. But this day and age, anybody, male or female, can let fly the expectations of others and still live fruitful lives. I could give a rat's behind what other's expectations of me are, I have to live with my conscience and what I do. Their hangups are their problems. I'm sure my opinion won't be the most popular one on here, but hey, I don't take polls before I speak. I look at life, people and my experiences with as fair a shake as I can. It's a given that like everyone else, I may be prone to human error. I weigh that in as best I can before I open my trap.