Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hockeyzombie

  1. I honestly can't see why anyone would want him back. Watching him throw a fit over everything was kind of funny, until it got old and he just kept doing it. It stopped being funny and never started again. Everything was somehow both too garbage to play and OP at the same time, and no matter what you played it said something bad about you as a person (triply so if you played an Outrider or a primary turret). Much like another poster in this thread, I realized he was banned when I wandered onto the forum after a while and was trying to figure out why everything seemed so much friendlier. Then I saw people discussing PGS' ban and it immediately made sense. 


    Kind of a bad sign when an entire community seems more pleasant just because one specific person was removed. 

  2. to the OP - yup, you were spot on.  


    I'm going to say it again:  TLT's are going to kill this game.

    I've seen Soontir kill three of them without ever taking a hit. Can't remember what Vader was doing, but the Palpmobile just stayed back and slowly drifted around. TLTs are strong, but they can only influence the meta. They can't outright run it.



    Because there is obviously too much optimism with this new FAQ, figured we needed a little PGS commentary, so I will do my best impersonation:





    Biggs nerfed for Rebels. Scouts nerfed for Scum. Imperial cry babies aren't even touched.


    Hope everyone is excited for even more dominant Palp builds with Palp's training wheels auto evade which saves Soontir from a 4 dice torpedo shot even when all he rolls is blank blank blank focus. But who cares about that now because he wont even need to evade shots like that with torp scouts gone. Now Palp can be used for hyper offense to add a free crit to cripple your Scyks which will still be garbage by the way. Just another band-aid FFG "fix" that doesn't even solve the real problem. Worlds will be great with Palp in every top 8 list or at least you should all enjoy that since you all need Palp to play competitively. Make him epic only and make Tarkin non-Epic and that fixes everything instead of this ****. At least Torp scouts took some skill to play and made the game better. And even though I call you babies for flying Palp Aces/Defenders I'm going to fly them too just to prove how easy they are to win with.


    Oh and **** Dash.


    Are you aware what made Palpaces so out of control was the presence of the UBoats? UBoats were predating on the predators of Palpaces. Now the UBoats out of the way, the old predators of Palpaces will come back, keeping them in check.

    Hush, the entire point of a PGS post is to avoid reasoned counter arguments, while endlessly bemoaning everything.


    And throw in some hate for turrets, along with insults directed at anyone that has ever played a PWT ship or an Outrider. Then, you must insult all who disagree. You must do this even if turrets had nothing to do with the subject at hand. 

  4. I do want to mention that I was interested in the "ethics in gaming journalism" thing because I have my doubts about the fairness of most reviews, but there was a lot of open misogyny even at the beginning and that drove me away. I'm not saying Zoe is necessarily a good person (what little evidence I saw suggests that she very much isn't) but let's not deny that there was some serious woman-hating happening and a lot of people jumped in because it gave them an opportunity to spew misogynistic bile at a "deserving" target.   

  5. ... I'm 100% unwilling to get involved in this particular argument, and will be leaving this thread. Along with the Tims Hortons, Bodypaint and mankini.

    You aren't a real Canadian you don't get to take Timmies with you. 


    I mean, you can take a double double or whatever. I'm not a monster. You just take the Timmies itself. That will stay here with me for the time being. 


    Oh yeah definitely that is a problem that I also do not like.

    By "making the environment more safe for woman"

    I meant stop with the blatantly sexist and awful comments

    something that people should do regardless of whether anyone is there to be offended by them

    (same goes for racist, and other offensive comments obviously but this thread is discussing women mostly)

    And ya ruined it. We had a nice ending going, where everyone was talking about what they learned. But you just screwed it up.


    Well technically I'm threatening to murder Darius, so I ruined it first.

  7. Thank you good sir. I'd include a like but I've been dry for like 8 pages.


    I'm sorry guys. I have no body paint. It was all an elaborate ruse.

    **** it man, I trusted you. Betrayed by a fellow Canadian. 


    I'll see you ride an ice floe out into the Atlantic if it's the last thing I do.

  8. Also, I don't want to go too far with this (for example, I think Darius and I agree on like 95% of this whole thing - it's that 5% that's turning into a bear of an argument/discussion).

    I really don't understand SJW as an insult. To me it's kind of like using socialist as an insult. It just doesn't work. That brings me back to my earlier point. You don't have a right to say what other people find offensive. If someone is offended, they aren't "imagining things," they aren't "too sensitive," they are offended. Sure, the intent may not have been to offend, but the end result was offense. Why is it so hard to apologize? Why do people have to double down?

    Darius and I have both used SJW to refer specifically to people who get carried away. While they mostly exist in the minds of people who are somewhat sexist/racist and don't realize it, there are some people that will lose it at you if you're...I don't know, a white guy with dreads or something? They're sort of a reverse of that guy I've mentioned a few times--he's insecure because he doesn't live up to the pillar of Braum-like masculinity he thinks he has to be and because he can't accept that his divorce hurt him deeply. SJWs (as I define them) are often insecure and lash out at the "normal" people (white heterosexuals) because it comes with less social difficulty than being gay or trans or a minority, and they resent that I and others like me don't have to deal with it. Or sometimes they're just racist. 


    Essentially I think of the term as an insult that means "you have some serious hate issues and resent anyone you think was born into advantages that you didn't have, and you use social causes to vent them because you think it makes you a good person." Admittedly the term has lost a lot of meaning from other people using it for different things and from people who are in the wrong using it to try and deny their own prejudices ("I made one little joke about slavery and this SJW just lost it on me"), so I've stopped using it.

  9. "The goal is gender equality, not taking one gender's side."

    "Automatically believing a victim is unbelievably sexist."

    I'm going to try to tackle both of these things, which appear to be pretty common in this thread. First of all, yes, perfect equality is the goal. However, if you fail to recognize just how far ahead men are than women in this particular arena (and MANY others), then I just really don't think there can be any meeting of the minds on this topic. Women are blamed for their clothing choices, their decision to drink, not doing everything in groups, sending 'mixed signals', having too many partners, not remembering every single detail of an evening that may have involved alcohol, drugs or just sheer exhaustion, the list goes on and on. Our society is inherently inequal, and serious work needs to be done to find an equilibrium. Yes, women shouldn't ogle men in the same way that men shouldn't ogle women. However, mansplaining that into an argument threatens to derail the whole thing. Not talking about it doesn't mean it isn't an issue, it means that trying to find an equivalence between the vastly different experiences of the average man and the average woman is not only an exercise in futility, but it minimizes the very real inequalities that face women every single day.


    One of the big turning points for me was when I was thinking about this sort of topic and thought to myself that while women shouldn't expect to be attacked they should carry mace or travel in groups to be on the safe side...and then realized how ****ed up it is that I felt perfectly safe wandering over to a gas station at 2:00 am, completely unarmed and carrying money. 


    The term SJW is among those that should just die out from online discussion.




    And yet the term gains traction because there are a lot of people out there self-identifying as SJWs who are pretty vile people. In principle, I dislike grouping people by identities and not as individuals, but SJWs make that very difficult for me to stick to.




    For me SJW is a descriptor. See white knight.

    A descriptor should not be loaded with imaginative claims that basically no sane person would make. It's a liberal equivalent of teabaggers. Does not really sound descriptive, and even white knight is loaded with accusations imho.

    On top of that SJW was literally used in this topic for over-sensitive retards already. I mean, that is descriptive, just very rarely fitting for real people and these days it has become nearly a guarantee to derail any reasonable discussion. It's basically name calling because of the stereotype attached to it.


    I've always heard SJW used as an insult directed at people that find racism or sexism where there isn't any and get extremely hostile about it, often displaying a prejudice towards people who are either straight, white or male (often more than one). I usually use "egalitarian" for people working to overcome problems with prejudice that are being reasonable about it. If they focus on a specific group I usually call them an activist. I tend to avoid the term feminist because it has some connotations, which is unfortunate but I still need to be aware of it when speaking. 



    With the publics ability to punish a person for an alleged crime even after law enforcement has exonerated that individual its costs a lot to believe a woman without evidence. You and people like you drove me from my college due to your view that a woman's claims should immediately be believed. Your line of thinking destroys the lives of everyone who has been falsely accused of a crime.

    The worst of it is that even years later I'm still called a rapist by people from that school. So no I refuse to believe a tale spun by anyone without at least some evidence to back it up. Women can be liars and sadistic just like men. The idea that they deserve to be automatically believed is ridiculously sexist.



    I'm truly sorry for what you went through. It sounds like it deeply affected you, and you may benefit from some counseling for it.


    That said, being found -NOT GUILTY- does not mean innocent. Does not mean it did not happen. Yes, there are false accusations, but they are not as prevalent as the internet would like you to believe. I should not have to open my legs or show bruises to prove that there is physical trauma from my assault to someone other than the police. I've done that. And then been told, "Sorry, you did invite him to your room..." (to play super smash brothers on N64).


    So based on that it didn't happen, right? I wish you could tell my flashbacks that.




    Look, I'm not saying everyone is telling the truth, everyone is a victim. But what I am saying is what do you lose by saying, "I'm sorry that happened to you?" No one is saying vilify the accused without evidence either.



    Just don't vilify the victim.


    It may be difficult to apply in a real life situation, but treating any claims of sexual abuse seriously while holding to innocent until proven guilty may be the way to go here. It's unlikely that someone outside the police or another neutral group would have any meaningful contact with both groups, so if (for example) a person I knew was claiming to have been sexually assaulted by some guy I could be supportive towards her while never repeating the name of the person she accused or otherwise identifying him. Likewise, if a guy I knew was accused of such a thing...that one's more difficult but I'd hold to phrasing it as "he was accused of" or "X was done to her, and she thinks he's the guy who did it" so that I can acknowledge that the girl is a victim of something while giving me plenty of openings to remind people that "innocent until proven guilty" is in our justice system for a reason

  12. The dedication and diversity of tactics with which certain people are trying to quelsh this topic has disturbing implications as to why they don't want this topic discussed...

    I see a lot of people talking about sjw culture and over sensitivity and yet so many people are so being offended by the terms used in the article that they are ignoring the actual substance of it. The idea that a victim should have to police their language to avoid hurting the feelings of those in the same demographic is the height of 'polical correctness gone mad!! 1!1'

    Additionally the idea that people should just suck it up because other people have it worse is childish and will never lead to things getting better. We can't stop systematic **** in Africa but we can do a lot to make our gaming communities safer and more welcoming to everyone.

    My criticism of the original article is not meant to deny the fact that we have a problem. My criticism is that the article is counterproductive because it attacks the majority that it wants to change. As a small side effect it also implies that non-white men are never the problem by repeatedly specifying white men as the people harassing or excluding others, even when their race wasn't really relevant. 


    Discrimination doesn't become okay when the less powerful group is the one doing it. As someone else observed earlier, replace "white men" with something like Muslims or black guys and that article suddenly gets a whole lot less acceptable. I understand and grudgingly accept that most gaming communities aren't as friendly to women as mine. I understand and accept that I may not be aware of sexual harassment or other things that would keep women out of my gaming community, because I am oblivious to a lot of things. I do not like that article because it heavily implies that I am somehow responsible for things that to the best of my knowledge are only happening at times and places that I simply have no power to influence. The author wants to fight gender and racial discrimination by accusing people of a specific gender and race of sharing the crimes of other people that happen to also be white and male. 


    I'm not trying to deny her points. I am saying that she presented them horribly and is ultimately preaching to the choir. So far HurricaneMaanen has been the only one really providing a new perspective for me, and that's because she's able to both tell us about some of the awful experiences she has had and not accuse us all of being part of the problem. 


    As I've said before, the biggest thing I know of in my LGS is a semi-regular that hates women because of a nasty divorce he went through (I suspect most/all of the nastiness was his fault, insecurity is a hell of a drug). He doesn't talk about it in front of women because he's too much of a coward to be open about his hatred. Other guys don't take him seriously because it's obvious to us that he's not secure in his masculinity and he's generally crazy even aside from his horrible attitude towards women and all things feminine. Dude has some kind of bunker out in Saskatchewan, thinks society will collapse any day now. 

  13. Thank you, HurricaneMaanen. While the very unpleasant people such as those described in the OP's link exist, we miss the shrapnel in the fireworks. I sure did until you posted this.


    But I do think they are prone to not letting me in their world if I don't know who illustrated that issue of spiderman. Or who originally piloted that ship in the expanded universe. That's the type of sexism I've experienced.


    With all the hyperbole being thrown around (it opened with White Male Terrorists) the important details like this get overlooked.

    My first thought on reading this part was "but if they do that to everyone then surely they're not being sexist?"

    And then I thought about it more.


    We don't do that to everyone. Or rather, not in the same way.


    It's not hostility, it's disbelief.


    There's no sexist intent behind it, but for so many the initial response to discovering a woman in a male dominated interest area is skepticism. The automatic response is to get them to prove it, to ask them for their nerd credentials. How singled out do you feel when you're the only one asked for your ID?


    And there it is. We get so focused on arguing over cases of misogynistic physical threat that we ignore the far more common occurence of unintentionally making women feel out of place.

    Then I guess I have an example of me helping. The idea of a fake geek girl is so strange to me (why would anyone do something they don't enjoy just to get hit on by nerds?)* that when a girl played D&D with my group for months hoping someone would ask her out I didn't understand her real motivation until it was pointed out to me. It was actually kind of sad; she has a condition that put her in crutches and I think she was hoping that having a boyfriend would boost her self esteem. I don't know if she started D&D because she was also interested in the game or if it was because I was playing it, but either way I didn't see any reason to interrogate her on her nerd cred and wouldn't have even if I hadn't met her before. 


    On a side note, guys? It's really awkward being the one doing the rejecting. 


    *I've always heard the term "fake geek girl" used to refer to a girl that takes up nerdy hobbies like trading card games or similar because she wants male attention but isn't attractive enough to "compete" in places where there are a higher number of girls. I have never met such a person, and I'm pretty open about my hostility to people that make these accusations. I usually ignore it when people are being rude to each other, but I really don't appreciate it when people further the "entitled misogynistic nerd" stereotype. 

  14. This is so easy to fix. Everyone, be you male, female, trans, black, purple, whatever you might be - just don't be dicks! Treat each other nicely, and don't bring out your edgy sense of humour unless you know the person you're playing.

    The X-wing community is a pretty good one, but we all see behaviour as referenced in that article from time to time. I don't care if the article is true or not. It doesn't actually matter. Gender discrimination is a real thing and there is no one in the world who wouldn't benefit from reading this and thinking twice about how they come across to new people.

    Part of the problem is people that don't socialize enough failing to understand what qualifies as being a ****. I've done this a few times, though not to the point of sexually harassing someone. I did once make a joke about a prosthetic leg that was not taken well, although an apology was enough to smooth it over. 

  15. I've never seen a gay couple discriminated against by a bakery.  I've never seen an unarmed suspect shot to death by police.  And I don't have to to know those things are wrong and should be talked about and ended.


    Too often, "I've never seen it" is as good as saying "It's not happening."  Your observance shouldn't be a criteria for whether something is really a problem or not.

    What do you want me to do, lecture people that aren't doing any of these things? I'm aware that in other communities there is a problem. The full extent of the problem here is that one guy that won't actually say anything to women, and all the guys think he's a lunatic. I can go on the internet and talk about it, and I admit that as a straight white dude I'm immune to the "you're just oversensitive" argument. But frankly I am not obligated to spend my free time crusading for a social cause, and the fact is I don't really want to argue with misogynistic teenagers if they aren't in my presence.  



    But haven't you heard you can't be racist or sexist against straight white men.



    Yes, us poor, downtrodden white men who have CONTROLLED THE WORLD FOR A THOUSAND YEARS.


    First off, that doesn't make it okay to discriminate. Second, very little of it actually had any impact on my life. Slavery in the US (for example) doesn't improve the life of a Canadian living over a century after slavery was abolished. Thirdly, if white men can be judged by the things done by previous generations of white people than so can other races, and history is an ugly place. It's not looking good for anyone if we can judge a modern person by what their culture did over the last millennium. 


    An important thing to take from this is that we can't dismiss what she's saying because she articulated it poorly. If we get into a cycle of one group saying the other should expunge their posts of inflammatory generalisation, the other saying the first group should look past the inflammatory generalisation and both refusing to budge until the other does we get nowhere.


    Posters of these blogs need to think about whether they'll have the decided impact or backfire, and we need to look past the inflammatory language to what they're trying to say.


    The key points to take from the blog post are thus:

    • Unless you behave in the way described in the post, this is not an attack on you, even if it reads that way.
    • The generalisations in this post are there because they lack the words to describe the specific people and behaviours they're referring to, so they use race and gender. Humanity has been repeatedly guilty of this throughout history. Most of us have probably done this at some point.
    • What the post is asking you to do is to not tolerate the misogynistic behaviour described in it. What it's trying to say underneath the rage and hurt is that if the majority put it up the mistreatment of women, or anyone for that matter, within the tabletop gaming community then that mistreatment by the minority endures. It's asking those who aren't guilty of it not to overlook it.


    "The majority of gamers do not engage in online terrorism, but are instead complicit in lower levels of harassment."


    "Gamers want to believe that they are logical, sensible, and rational. But there is nothing logical, sensible, or rational about making your peers and customers run a gauntlet of bigotry for the dubious privilege of playing a game in a space where people like you (and the people sympathetic to you) are despised."


    "Men can shout all they like that #notallmen harass women, but as long as gamers defend their bigoted behaviour as a “sense of humour” (implying that women who don’t like being groped are somehow at fault), #allmen are complicit in the harassment"


    She kind of is blaming all of us, though. She's not saying that every one of us is sexually harassing women and racially discriminating against non-white people, but she is assuming that we are aware of it and choosing to side with the person who is, and at no point does she ever consider that maybe I've just never seen it happen. "I haven't seen it" is not the same as "I noticed but come on he was totally joking," and it's possible that I'm not seeing it because it wasn't happening when I was a regular at FNM and it hasn't been a thing since we started playing X-Wing on Saturdays. And if I haven't seen these things happening, it's likely that others are either playing at stores where it doesn't happen or are truly unaware of it when it does happen. 

  17. I agree the tactic cards add more depth to combat by not leaving resolution in just the "luck of the dice." This game can last 3+ hours and I merely suggest eliminating the tactic cards to shave time off the overall time. Sometimes life doesn't allow for long game sessions and this could be a way to squeeze in a 2 hour game and not take away from the experience.

    I don't think removing tactics cards takes that much time off the game. It would shorten things a bit, sure. But not an entire third of the playtime like you suggested. 

  18. Some of us believe the post because we've seen and heard similar things happen in person, or because we've heard of too many similar things happening from women we know.  When I read through her story -- and I'll admit, she seems to have **** luck, hit a perfect storm of misogyny, or whatever, but -- as I went from little vignette to little vignette, you know what happened?  Instead of doubting each one, one at a time, I remembered seeing or hearing about each one, one at a time.  "My wife told me about that, one year," I thought, or "Her best friend mentioned something like that," or "I remember when some guys at the game store said something like that," or "Yeah, I saw that at GenCon last year."


    Her post isn't what makes it an issue.  Her post -- incendiary as it is, incendiary as the title is -- is starting the conversation, but it's not the whole story, not the whole issue.  The things that happen just like the things in her post?  That's the problem.  These are things that happen.  Maybe you haven't heard of them before.  Maybe you've heard of them before and immediately denied they could happen.  Maybe no one's told you about them before because they felt you wouldn't listen.  But they happen, and that's the problem.


    And the immediacy with which she gets called a liar, and the immediacy with which we circle the wagons and deny any of those things could ever happen in our hobby, and the immediacy with which gamers get defensive about all of it.


    I should point  out that to someone like me, who has never seen anything even close to what she was discussing, she really does seem like a liar. The worst incident I'm aware of at my LGS was the libertarian guy I mentioned ranting about how women should be legally forbidden from posting or uploading content to the internet ("they can look, but they shouldn't be able to put anything on it or talk to each other"). The owner has a talent for calming that guy down and only let him get that far because they were the only people in the store and the owner enjoys talking to people with extreme opinions. 


    It's likely that some of the other posters have had experiences like mine, and from our perspective it's harder to believe. I'm not saying there's no problem, but I am saying that I suspect there is a great deal of exaggeration or misremembering in that tumblr post and the hostile "white guys are the problem" attitude is hypocritical and counterproductive. 

  19. Also, that tumblr post is maybe the worst way to go about this. Making the majority group feel attacked just makes them feel justified in not speaking up when something like this happens. And as someone else pointed out, they're criticizing racism and sexism by accusing a specific race and gender of sexually harassing people. I'm admittedly skeptical of a lot of those anecdotes as well. I can believe a lot of them, but some of them are a bit harder. In particular, I have trouble imagining a bunch of guys literally chanting that "old enough to bleed..." saying. What seems much more likely is that one guy would say some creepy **** like that and the other guys would be too flabbergasted to do anything before she was out the door (not that I blame her for getting the hell away from such a person as fast as possible). I'm not sure if the incidents mentioned are supposed to all be things that happened to the author or if they were supposed to be a collection of things sent in by others, but I have a hard time believing that that much groping has been directed at a single person. A lot of the people in these anecdotes seem less like people and more like the atheists in those Chick Tracts you might have seen online. I'm not saying these things don't happen, I'm just doubting that these are all accurate accounts of things that happened to one person. 

  • Create New...