0

Maybe if you keep making your anti-American comments and continue to insult our country's beliefs as you join forces with us in the Middle East, you won't look like such an elitist fool.

@Glass Joe

When the hell did I make any anti-American comments? When did I insult your country's beliefs? I made a comment on the inapproprate use of 'rights' to justify the sale of a computer game. A fool maybe. Elitist? Anyway, does this paragraph make sense? Join forces with you in the ME? My brother just came back from there. He got the brave gene - while dodging bullets, he refrained from buying any computer games.

1

After reading through a few days of rather intense conversation on this matter I figured I'd toss in my 2 cents worth here for any who care to read it.

1) A recurring point that seems to be coming up is whether or not the U.S. Military has the right to ban the sale of a product within establishments that fall within their jurisdiction on their property. First, it's U.S. Military property, they have the right to say that bars of soap are not allowed to be sold there if they want to. Second, contrary to popular belief, the U.S. Military does not answer to or have to abide by civil legal or constitutional standards. They have their own legal code and rights standards in place and are a separate entity from the rest of the country in that regard.

2) Another point that seems to be at issue is whether or not it is right to play as the bad-guy in a military video game. This argument is particularly strengthened by the fact that it just so happens to be a recent bad-guy in our world's history. While I can admit to a level of distaste in the idea of playing as a 'terrorist' even in a fictional sense, can you honestly say it's any different from playing the Russians or N.O.D. or any other bad-guy in any other military style game that's come out where cross-faction play has been possible?

3) People have made a big deal over the fact that the U.S. Military is simultaneously making the claim to protecting the civil rights of their countrymen and denying those rights to their own servicemen. See point 1. While it may be hypocritical, it's a relatively minor point as all that is being banned is the sale of the game(s) in question, not the ownership or ability to use/play them.

As a final note here, I would like to point out that I do understand that some people may feel very strongly about these issues. Having said that, using the in-forum reputation ratings as a weapon to attack people because you disagree with their point of view is not only childish but also goes a long way toward invalidating your point(s) of view as it shows an extremely lowered level of maturity on your part and only serves to lower peoples' willingness to view and respect your opinions.

In the end, for proponents of the game being freely available, if servicemen wish to obtain it, they will still find a way. For those against it, hate to burst your bubble but it's already been made, it's not likely to be changed, and throwing a tantrum about it now is not likely to make a difference.

Please try to remember that this is a publicly accessible forum. Personal attacks on others and open flame wars only serve to lower peoples' opinion of the forum if they happen to be viewing it for the first time while reading threads like this one.

Ok, was more like $1.50 than $0.02 but there it is :)

Votes + Comments
Well put.
0

If I had to call out one particular line, it would be this one, which is particularly vacuous and worthy of any traditional demagogue:

"Aren’t these soldiers fighting for our freedoms and sensibilities, the same ones that constitutional rights uphold and protect? My heart goes out to their valiant souls and their unnerved families, as they sit and pray for the day their loved ones will return home."

That's playing to the grandstand, my friend.

Hello Jon. I made the latter part of that comment so people would understand I wasn't some callous, mentally deficient sociopath who enjoys seeing our soldiers die in the Middle East. Now that you know this, and considering it was a cornerstone to your viewpoint that I'm some sentimentalist, which you deduced after misinterpreting something from a single line out of everything I've typed, where to next? Also it's interesting to note how you leave out the very next paragraph which helps tie in the "sentiment" I used, making my statement that much more applicable: "Haven’t these noble enlistees earned the right to do whatever they please?" And as for "Aren’t these soldiers fighting for our freedoms and sensibilities, the same ones that constitutional rights uphold and protect?" -- it still applies and makes glaring sense.

I don't think there is anything hollow behind any of the "rhetoric" here. So your definition of grandstanding is to have adamant opinions and beliefs and to articulate said views firmly and definitively? So who am I grandstanding to exactly? The developers of a game I'll never meet or the readers of the posts I don't know? If anything is hollow, it's sidestepping the points I've made and avoiding any sensible form of rebuttal.

The question never was if the US military had the right to ban what they so chose fit, because as common sense would tell us from simply reading the title, they have the power to obviously do just that. The bottom line is that these soldiers are adults. They should be able to decide for themselves what affects them or what doesn't.

As for ardav and your so-called "abuse" of the reputation ratings, I have seen his posts littered across the forums, many with no real reason behind them other than to berate and mock posters with a very condescending nature and tone (see replies to amtote). Anti-military, anti-Obama, constant digs at people from the states--I've read it all. I suggest you read some of his xenophobic rants here for yourself. So in all actuality, I'm using the negative rep button for what it's intended for. I mean at least everyone else posting had some sort of genuine thought or feeling behind their stance and chose to express it, even though I may not have agreed with it. Then he types such gems as "I think your founding fathers or whatever they were" and "How the hell did Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize?" to really set himself apart from anyone else here. At no point do you see me coming in and going "Well, I'm right about Medal of Honor because British people are big dummy faces and we threw their tea in Boston Harbor!" To call this an "opposing view" is even generous when it's not even a view at all when compared to the scope of the debate. Don't condemn me when he unwittingly has condemned himself. I can agree to disagree with everyone here and get on well with my day. In fact, it's something I've had to bite the bullet and learn to do with most of these replies. But when things of that nature get said for no good reason at all, I'm not afraid to break the glass and pull on the "In Case of Emergency" negative rep button if I disagree.

But it's not even about ardav in the end, because that's his opinion, and at the end of the day, what is an opinion other than somebody else's viewpoint? It doesn't have to be my viewpoint for me to still uphold my own, so more power to him and everyone else for feeling as adamantly as they do about their views as I do mine. Conflicting stances doesn't mean the world is ending, contrary to popular belief here. If I had known reporting on this stupid ban would have caused such a civil unrest on this forum, I would have put it in a bottle and sent it out to sea or on a rocket to the damn moon. There is nothing wrong with a lively debate, but when you bring politics or military stances into something, it turns into a meat grinder for all that is holy and nobody wins, as we can see evidenced here by all the ground beef patties being tossed on the grill. Great--now I'm offending vegetarians.

Regardless, your $1.50 was appreciated and I will be depositing it in my piggy bank for a rainy day ;)

Edited by Glass_Joe: n/a

0

>>The bottom line is that these soldiers are adults
You have obviously never been in the US military :) adults my foot! The majority are 18-25 year olds and often need to be treated as a child. They are far away from home (mommy and daddy), alone, lonely, and have not seen their loved ones for quite some time. Young people like that get into lots of trouble (such as alcohol and drugs) if it weren't for Big Daddy military brass who carry a big stick. Even General of the Armies Dwight Eisenhower referred to them as "enlisted swine".

0

I'm using the negative rep button for what it's intended for

My statement about the improper use of the reputation feature of this site was note solely directed at yourself.

If you scroll through the posts in this thread you will see that MANY of them have been unnecessarily hit with multiple negatives for no better reason than personal disagreement with opinion.

Ironically, while my post was as non-threatening as they come, someone still came along and anonymously down-voted it which makes me chuckle as it more or less proves my point.

The use of the reputation feature, to the best of my knowledge, was designed in order to show the perceived quality or lack thereof of a post in relation to the thread it was posted in. As an example... If someone asked for help in how to connect to SQL server via ASP.Net/C# and someone came along and tossed a completely incorrect answer in an unrelated programming language, that would likely deserve a down vote as it was non-helpful and unrelated. Alternately, if someone's viewpoint is different from your own, or you disagree with their stance or the way they say something and you're dealing with an 'opinion' related thread... voting them down simply because you don't agree with their mindset is not appropriate.

I can personally see that this topic (and ones like it) are definitely going to have a lot of people on either side of the line and many of them drastically so. Some people may be indifferent. But I repeat my assertion that using the tools of the site to 'punish' others for their viewpoints (as much as you may not appreciate or agree with them) is an abuse of the 'system' and not something that belongs in the forum. Essentially it is the same as having a disagreement with somebody at your workplace and then going into the manager's personnel file and lowering their monthly review to get even with them.

That being said, I've contributed my bit to this conversation, I can't see much else I'd need to contribute beyond that. The same arguments are now circulating repetatively and the conversation has gotten to a dead end with finger pointing and name calling. I'm going to step off the train now and I wish you all the best with the rest of your trip :twisted:

0

>>If you scroll through the posts in this thread you will see that MANY of them have been unnecessarily hit with multiple negatives for no better reason than personal disagreement with opinion.

And the problem with that is what? That's one of the reasons rep system exists.

>> someone still came along and anonymously down-voted it which makes me chuckle
Apparently someone else came along and upvoted it. So now you';re even.

>> I can't see much else I'd need to contribute beyond that
Agree - this thread has run its course.

0

If that's a purpose of the rep system, I'll bow out. I really don't need a counter of how many people think I've agreed with them or supported their opinion. That seems childish and petty in my book.

AD, you've got some massive rep on this site. Does this reflect, do you think, your ability to give good advice and good argument, or is it more a reflection of your ability to convince others that you agree with them?

0

I hope is a reflection of the amount of work and time I have spent helping other people in the C and C++ forums. It doesn't reflect a thing in Community Center because all we get there is either up or down votes without actually affect anyone's rep points. And since this thread is in Geek's Lounge I'm not concerned about affecting anyone's rep points with my down vote(s). I down vote a little more liberally here than I would anywhere else in DaniWeb.

In other DaniWeb forums if I disagree with something someone wrote I would normally just down vote the post instead of also subtracting from his rep points -- afterall 16 negative rep points is a lot to overcome. On the otherhand, if I agree then I will most likely also give then 33 deserved positive rep points.

1

> As for ardav and your so-called "abuse" of the reputation ratings, I have seen his posts littered across the forums, many with no real reason behind them other than to berate and mock posters with a very condescending nature and tone (see replies to amtote). Anti-military, anti-Obama, ...blah blah blah .... Then he types such gems as "I think your founding fathers or whatever they were" and "How the hell did Obama get the Nobel Peace Prize?"

OK, before you get your knickers in too much of a twist, I'm NOT anti-USA. I'm anti some weird ideas that sometimes come out of your country (well, weird to me anyway - civilians with guns for example!). You quoted me correctly, "Founding fathers..." was not however meant to be derogatory. I'm no historian - were the founding fathers the guys who wrote your constitution or did they come later on. No idea. Obama - Peace Prize - $$$ Arms Sales to Saudi - big news this side of the pond. Just trying to put this into context. It's wrong for the military to ban selling a game, but perfectly right for them to sell stuff to a 'moderate' Arabic state, possibly destabilising the whole area, regardless of Israel's comments on the matter. Is laughing at the irony of having Obama getting the peace prize and then finding out that he's selling a shedload of pointy things a crime or being anti-US? I don't think I'm alone in thinking that he's a bit of a dope. From your polls, half your country think he's underperforming or an idiot. If our PM had done the same thing, I'd be extracting the urine out of him.

I have, it is true, been on opposing sides of debates with some friends from the US. Again, this doesn't make me anti-US - I just don't have the same attitude to certain issues.

As for being anti-military. No. My brother's returned from Iraq. I was set for a career in the Air Force before a late change of heart. I used to go regularly to a US/RAF base in Pembrokeshire for weapons training (7.62SLR/.303). I'm just against daft decisions. Certainly against those shady politicians that try to defend daft decisions as they line their own pockets and leave our young men and women to die for their greed. Simple.

If I disagree with you, so what? If you want to downvote me - I don't care, carry on. However, if I have caused genuine offence, I apologise, this was not my intention. If you think I've gone overboard, Flag Bad Post is just a click away. Get a mod to 'give me an infraction point' or something. That's how it works.

Edited by diafol: n/a

0

Oh, hah hah hah. Haven't seen that one before! Thanks AD. If it's any consolation, there have been a number of questionable awards over the last 20 years. This is just the latest. Perhaps leaders should not be deemed worthy until they are no longer in power so we can judge their performance over the full term of their leadership. Anyway, I'll shut up now, this is going off-topic.

0

>> Perhaps leaders should not be deemed worthy until they are no longer in power so we can judge their performance over the full term of their leadership.

I think the whole point of them giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama was to get him to accept it, which would then make feel him feel the need to do something to justify the award. After all, when accepting the award, Obama himself said he hadn't done anything to merit it yet. I know it's expected for award recipients to pretend they haven't earned their award, but in this case it was obvious to everyone that it wasn't just humility. He was only in office a few months. Really, how much could he have done by then?

And you can't underestimate that it was just as much intended as a dis to Bush as a compliment to Obama. Who knows? Maybe he'll actually get a deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis in these peace talks. Not holding my breath, but if he did that (and both sides actually keep up their end of the deal), he'll have earned it.


ardav, you never struck me as anti-American. Just more of an "Americans are from Mars, Brits are from Venus" deal. You should come over here, bring a few friends and a few thousand bucks, buy some guns, get drunk, go to a ranch, buy some old cheap fancy vases at a thrift shop, line up all the empty bottles and whatever else, and just start shooting like a bunch of teenagers. You'll feel silly, but it's harmless and it's fun, ESPECIALLY for someone who never did it growing up as a kid, and I honestly think you'll leave poorer, but with a better understanding of the culture. I'm joking, but I'm actually not. It's a rite of passage. A stupid rite of passage, but a rite of passage nonetheless. Probably like rioting at soccer games when you're young where you live.


As for guns, I think you'll find some wisdom in this:

http://books.google.com/books?id=PZDcoEchkIAC&pg=PA84&lpg=PA84&dq=phil+gramm+i+own+more+shotguns&source=bl&ots=rrQO3NE68F&sig=DeWzeQZ6VD3YyZETJ_i8Ib36e7I&hl=en&ei=YxuUTLDbIofUtQOU8_HuDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=phil%20gramm%20i%20own%20more%20shotguns&f=false

1

Cheers VD. BTW - Soccer is for girls. Rugby for men. We don't riot. We just have a drink together after the game. As for shooting - hell, I enjoy blasting cans as much as anyone - just don't like the idea of somebody using my head as a can as I walk down the street. Just joking. Would love to come to the US again - haven't been for over 30 years. Had a great time in the South, DC and NY. Wife won't fly and I can't afford the cruise. Shame. Anyway enough of this off-topic stuff, or I'll get an infraction.

Votes + Comments
Infraction insurance. :)
0

Only people who have never served in the military would be shocked at the banning. Such a thing is actually pretty common. I recall one time the Base Commander banned a Cheek and Chong movie because it involved drugs.

I served in the military for 10 years and was in Iraq. While in Iraq, we had a few game systems, and would play games like medal of honor most nights. I don't find it to be offensive at all to myself, any of the other soldiers who played it, or any of the soldiers who I have seen die.

I find it quite unusual that the military would go so far out of it's way to try and keep a game out of it bases and not do anything about a web site that leaks confidential military secrets.

If a soldier wants to play MoH, just order it off the internet.

Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.