125 replies to this topic

[TheSilken]

I think that this thread should be removed or locked as the initial post's question was successfully answered and because it will continue to cause issues.

[Nightmare1]

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

So you agree that you cannot simply choose not to look. Disconnecting would be something you would then have to do, even before knowing if there is anything offensive to keep away from. If anyone ever has to do this, we have already failed. Because then someone has been forced away from something that is public space.

No, you can choose not to by choosing not to spectate. Just disco if you're emotional state is really that weak. However, like I said, if you are so sensitive that seeing a flag may cause you to unravel, then you probably shouldn't be playing this game.

What is this, "We have failed" business? That implies that we, as a community, have an unifying objective to accomplish as a whole. Last I checked, the only objective we have in-game is beating the enemy team, which could hardly be described as communal since it is only limited to 12 people at a time.

When you say that someone has been forced away from a public space, you are implying that the potential for there to be offensive content in-game is enough to deter people from remaining in the game. Based on a lot of the behavior I have seen in-game, I find it very hard to believe that someone would disco over a cockpit flag. Furthermore, I doubt very much that there are many people who would disco because they may risk seeing a flag before they would rage-quit disco because of how they died.

Frankly, since cockpit flags were introduced, I've only seen about seven in-game. They just don't seem to be all that popular. That, more than anything else, is probably the main reason why PGI has not incorporated more of them. That being said, the chance of seeing a potentially offensive flag is so low that I think most people are willing to take their chances.

Like Lily said previously, that's what ratings are for, and you enter the game with full knowledge that some of the content might be offensive for you. Complaining about it after you're in is a bit like trying to shut the barn door after the horses have escaped.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

You cannot forgive or ignore before already having taking offense at something. To forgive or ignore is the response we choose to the offense. And that's stressful. And while it should be expected when you enter a forum like this because we discuss things here, in the game you just want to have fun and relax. So even if you do ignore it, the game has already been less fun.

You may look at something and go, "Huh." The next instant, it is up to you to decide whether you shall feel any emotion with regard to that sight. Personally speaking, I do not allow emotions to control me, and select the ones most appropriate to my environment. When I play MWO, I do so with the knowledge that I may encounter potentially antagonistic material (such as getting killed by the enemy team). I decide beforehand that I will not allow any offensive material or experiences in MWO to cause me stress or frustration. Then, if and when such events happen, I am able to ignore them with little or no emotional response because I have already walled off that part of my emotions. It's remarkably simple and allows me to play the game for fun without becoming irritable.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

It's not much different than saying that team killing is okay, because you can simply ignore or forgive it.

You know you're not supposed to talk about TK'ing on the forums, right?

That being said, accidents happen. Is it worth getting your pants tied up in knots over an accidental TK?

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

But then we actually had an example where everyone could see how you didn't want to see that compared to a certain flag that many probably didn't care about.

That sentence was a mouthful. I'm still not sure what it means.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

And most would take more offense to a dead baby than a flag except perhaps if they had been at war with that nation, who knows. The level of offensiveness makes a difference.

Exactly! And, speaking of levels and probability, a bit of digitized fabric is more likely to be significantly less offensive than TK'ing, dying in general, losing, getting cussed out, having to deal with trolls, etc. Why the big deal over something so trivial? If your quality of life is not being actively (or has been in your lifetime or your near relatives' lifetimes been) threatened by the nation represented by the flag, then you really have no reason to take offense at it.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

But then I'm being discouraged to take part in a part of the game that should be accessible to everyone. This way, only the ones who takes offense at nothing are the ones able to spectate. And it would only lead to the game becoming more toxic.

I highly doubt that the presence of a bit of digitized fabric will increase the toxicity of the game. Like I said, I've only seen about seven flags since they premiered. I have one flag in one cockpit out of my 60 BattleMechs. I've yet to have anyone complain about it and have actually received two compliments concerning it. I also run some mocked-up, Patriotic Paint Schemes on four of my Mechs. Again, nothing but compliments as to how my Mechs look. I've yet to receive a single toxic comment regarding any of my five Patriotic pieces (two of them, the flag and a paint job, overlap on the same Mech). I just don't see this as an issue anywhere except here on the forums where people have time to brood over it and nurse grudges before tapping out some self-satisfying, pontificating post.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

I know several people who don't play online games simply because of how toxic ingame chat is in most online games. Why should it be any different with cockpit items.

Perhaps because in-game chat is different from cockpit items? I can't exactly reach into a Mary Poppins bag and pull out cockpit items limited only by my imagination to intentionally offend spectators like a person can by typing things in chat or saying them over comms.

[Gauvan]

The potential problem is not hurt feelings by people with delicate sensibilities, it is stuff like this creeping into MWO:

http://en.wikipedia....acks_on_Estonia

That's not a jab at Russia or Estonia, it's just a good example of how on any given day a lot of the world is on the edge of a serious international incident. There is simply no good business reason for PGI to open their game up to that sort of headache for decorative knick-knacks. This is especially the case in a game with an international audience.

[Savage Wolf]

Alright, I'll sum up because this multi-quote talk makes us repeat ourselves a lot.

First of, no, right now this is not a big problem in the game. I also very rarely if ever see a national flag. I think I've seen one, but really I can't remember, because I personally don't care about them. That's why I used a dead baby as an example because I could relate to that. So yes, it's a small if at all a problem currently.
But we only have a handful of flags currently. The more flags the bigger the problem and that was the initial suggestion. Well it was specifically the isrealy flag, but if that should be included why not others? And then why was the ones that was left out being left out? That could only be solved by including all the flags. But already there I think PGI would look at it and say, "not worth the hassle" and they should. But even if they did include all flags that would just be more problems. Small ones, yes, but many small problem sum up. And regardless it's going the wrong direction.

And as to the "we have failed" thing, I think we as a community has an obligation to be inclusive. Not that anyone really says we have to, but it's to our own benefit. If we are not inclusive, we will have fewer new players. Our potential fanbase and playerbase will be smaller and probably not able to sustain itself in the future.
If we want this game to be a success and spawn other games, get into e-sport or just have enough players so that the match maker has more people to work with, then our only option is to be inclusive and civil.

And offensive content and toxicity is a major problem that many game companies are trying to deal with. You see it in Hearthstone (where communication is limited to emotes) and League Of Legends where many efforts have been done to minimize toxicity that drives many players away from the game. The fact that so many game companies are taking such huge steps in fighting this problem shows how important it is. If it was simply a few sensitive players that whined, they would waste time on it. Reality is probably the opposite.

And it might not be a problem for you. You might be strong willed or you are the type of player that actually enjoys some banter among enemies. It's a well known player type known as "killers" who are in it to win (I swear, I did not come up with this name). Very competetive and are often good at the game, but also uses all weapons available, including social and emotional ones. Other "killers" don't mind and fight back. All other players are discouraged by it feeling attacked for trying to have fun.

And it might not be something that affect people enough to make them disconnect or rage quit the game altogether. But it will still make that game a little less fun that it otherwise could have been. I keep playing despite plenty of players having to attack their team for being noobs. But it would still have been a better game if they acted civil.

Also a friend of mine came up with a better example than dead babies. Or one harder to dismiss as a bad example. The flag for BDSM and gay rights. It might not offend me or you, but it will most certainly offend someone.
Or even better! A flag that says "**** BT lore!" lets have that and see if everyone will be able to ignore that.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 02 December 2014 - 11:49 AM.

[Kalimaster]

I have no problem with someone having a flag in their Mech.

[Nightmare1]

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Alright, I'll sum up because this multi-quote talk makes us repeat ourselves a lot.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

First of, no, right now this is not a big problem in the game. I also very rarely if ever see a national flag. I think I've seen one, but really I can't remember, because I personally don't care about them. That's why I used a dead baby as an example because I could relate to that. So yes, it's a small if at all a problem currently.

So it's a non-issue that people are making into an issue here on the forums. I mean, really, it's so trivial!

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

But we only have a handful of flags currently. The more flags the bigger the problem and that was the initial suggestion. Well it was specifically the isrealy flag, but if that should be included why not others? And then why was the ones that was left out being left out? That could only be solved by including all the flags. But already there I think PGI would look at it and say, "not worth the hassle" and they should. But even if they did include all flags that would just be more problems. Small ones, yes, but many small problem sum up. And regardless it's going the wrong direction.

...And the incredibly small presence of flags in-game leads me to believe that adding one or two or even a half-dozen more won't lead to a significant increase in said, in-game presence.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And as to the "we have failed" thing, I think we as a community has an obligation to be inclusive. Not that anyone really says we have to, but it's to our own benefit. If we are not inclusive, we will have fewer new players. Our potential fanbase and playerbase will be smaller and probably not able to sustain itself in the future.

Ah, the "all-inclusive" delusion. When people speak of inclusiveness, they are actually referring to their unwillingness to include things with which they disagree. Case in point, you do not want to include the Israeli flag and would be most happy if all flags were removed. Where is the inclusion in that? In addition, the game is supposed to prohibit minors from playing. Again where is the inclusion? What about the losers each match? Where is their inclusion in the winner's circle? I think you get my point.

Besides, if you try to please everyone, you will wind up pleasing no one. There are so many people in this world, each with his/her own unique beliefs and preferences, that you cannot include them all or please them all. Personally speaking, I become annoyed whenever I hear someone speak so naively about inclusiveness. It's become more of a code for, "Restrict your freedoms and privileges because they may offend someone else."

Please, pardon my freedom. Here in America, we have the 1st Amendment that is (supposed) to forbid the abridgment of free speech. I recognize that PGI is not bound by this, so please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. In my country, we are accustomed to being faced with views and opinions with which we disagree. Our 1st Amendment Right prohibits the government (although it sometimes does it anyways) from interfering with a person's right to express offensive opinions. It is up to us to decide whether or not we will take offense at these views, thus my previous dialogue about personal choice.

When I look at flags as cockpit items, I see an utterly minuscule issue that has been blown way out of proportion and absorbed too much of my time. The flags will not have a marked impact on anyone's psyche in this game and, on the off-chance that they might, the impacts of the game's violence, profanity, and vulgarity will overwhelm it.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

If we want this game to be a success and spawn other games, get into e-sport or just have enough players so that the match maker has more people to work with, then our only option is to be inclusive and civil.

If that were true, then games would not come with ratings and there would only be about three or four different types. The very diversity of games in today's markets suggests that "inclusiveness" is not the key to making a profit. Appealing to target markets is. Again, the flags in question will have little to no impact on MWO's profitability or it's ability to spawn secondary games. I do not know of a single person who has quit, or is willing to quit, MWO over the flags; do you?

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And offensive content and toxicity is a major problem that many game companies are trying to deal with. You see it in Hearthstone (where communication is limited to emotes) and League Of Legends where many efforts have been done to minimize toxicity that drives many players away from the game. The fact that so many game companies are taking such huge steps in fighting this problem shows how important it is. If it was simply a few sensitive players that whined, they would waste time on it. Reality is probably the opposite.

Those are real issues that grossly outweigh this one and are of a different nature.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And it might not be a problem for you. You might be strong willed or you are the type of player that actually enjoys some banter among enemies. It's a well known player type known as "killers" who are in it to win (I swear, I did not come up with this name). Very competetive and are often good at the game, but also uses all weapons available, including social and emotional ones. Other "killers" don't mind and fight back. All other players are discouraged by it feeling attacked for trying to have fun.

Well, if being a "killer" entails verbal abuse, that definitely isn't me, although I am pretty good at killing Mechs.

Banter is fine and a great part of games in general, whether it is in RL or the virtual realm. It is when the line is crossed that things get out of hand. A cockpit flag hardly constitutes a crossed line though.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And it might not be something that affect people enough to make them disconnect or rage quit the game altogether. But it will still make that game a little less fun that it otherwise could have been. I keep playing despite plenty of players having to attack their team for being noobs. But it would still have been a better game if they acted civil.

Exactly!

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Also a friend of mine came up with a better example than dead babies. Or one harder to dismiss as a bad example. The flag for BDSM and gay rights. It might not offend me or you, but it will most certainly offend someone.
Or even better! A flag that says "**** BT lore!" lets have that and see if everyone will be able to ignore that.

Those are both better examples, although they are both slightly off still since neither are nations to which people may express Patriotism, and the second example is obvious profanity.

I do understand where you are coming from when you talk about the potential for offense. I'm simply saying that, since the flags are already in game and many have been purchased, it is too late to change course. Furthermore, as important as Israel is to the world to day (love it or hate it), it doesn't make much sense for PGI to deny them a flag unless it is unprofitable to implement it.

My whole point in this, is that people need to get over themselves and quit racing to take offense over minute things that shouldn't be offensive.

[Nightmare1]

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Alright, I'll sum up because this multi-quote talk makes us repeat ourselves a lot.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

First of, no, right now this is not a big problem in the game. I also very rarely if ever see a national flag. I think I've seen one, but really I can't remember, because I personally don't care about them. That's why I used a dead baby as an example because I could relate to that. So yes, it's a small if at all a problem currently.

So it's a non-issue that people are making into an issue here on the forums. I mean, really, it's so trivial!

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

But we only have a handful of flags currently. The more flags the bigger the problem and that was the initial suggestion. Well it was specifically the isrealy flag, but if that should be included why not others? And then why was the ones that was left out being left out? That could only be solved by including all the flags. But already there I think PGI would look at it and say, "not worth the hassle" and they should. But even if they did include all flags that would just be more problems. Small ones, yes, but many small problem sum up. And regardless it's going the wrong direction.

...And the incredibly small presence of flags in-game leads me to believe that adding one or two or even a half-dozen more won't lead to a significant increase in said, in-game presence.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And as to the "we have failed" thing, I think we as a community has an obligation to be inclusive. Not that anyone really says we have to, but it's to our own benefit. If we are not inclusive, we will have fewer new players. Our potential fanbase and playerbase will be smaller and probably not able to sustain itself in the future.

Ah, the "all-inclusive" delusion. When people speak of inclusiveness, they are actually referring to their unwillingness to include things with which they disagree. Case in point, you do not want to include the Israeli flag and would be most happy if all flags were removed. Where is the inclusion in that? In addition, the game is supposed to prohibit minors from playing. Again where is the inclusion? What about the losers each match? Where is their inclusion in the winner's circle? I think you get my point.

Besides, if you try to please everyone, you will wind up pleasing no one. There are so many people in this world, each with his/her own unique beliefs and preferences, that you cannot include them all or please them all. Personally speaking, I become annoyed whenever I hear someone speak so naively about inclusiveness. It's become more of a code for, "Restrict your freedoms and privileges because they may offend someone else."

Please, pardon my freedom. Here in America, we have the 1st Amendment that is (supposed) to forbid the abridgment of free speech. I recognize that PGI is not bound by this, so please do not misunderstand what I am about to say. In my country, we are accustomed to being faced with views and opinions with which we disagree. Our 1st Amendment Right prohibits the government (although it sometimes does it anyways) from interfering with a person's right to express offensive opinions. It is up to us to decide whether or not we will take offense at these views, thus my previous dialogue about personal choice.

When I look at flags as cockpit items, I see an utterly minuscule issue that has been blown way out of proportion and absorbed too much of my time. The flags will not have a marked impact on anyone's psyche in this game and, on the off-chance that they might, the impacts of the game's violence, profanity, and vulgarity will overwhelm it.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

If we want this game to be a success and spawn other games, get into e-sport or just have enough players so that the match maker has more people to work with, then our only option is to be inclusive and civil.

If that were true, then games would not come with ratings and there would only be about three or four different types. The very diversity of games in today's markets suggests that "inclusiveness" is not the key to making a profit. Appealing to target markets is. Again, the flags in question will have little to no impact on MWO's profitability or it's ability to spawn secondary games. I do not know of a single person who has quit, or is willing to quit, MWO over the flags; do you?

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And offensive content and toxicity is a major problem that many game companies are trying to deal with. You see it in Hearthstone (where communication is limited to emotes) and League Of Legends where many efforts have been done to minimize toxicity that drives many players away from the game. The fact that so many game companies are taking such huge steps in fighting this problem shows how important it is. If it was simply a few sensitive players that whined, they would waste time on it. Reality is probably the opposite.

Those are real issues that grossly outweigh this one and are of a different nature.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And it might not be a problem for you. You might be strong willed or you are the type of player that actually enjoys some banter among enemies. It's a well known player type known as "killers" who are in it to win (I swear, I did not come up with this name). Very competetive and are often good at the game, but also uses all weapons available, including social and emotional ones. Other "killers" don't mind and fight back. All other players are discouraged by it feeling attacked for trying to have fun.

Well, if being a "killer" entails verbal abuse, that definitely isn't me, although I am pretty good at killing Mechs.

Banter is fine and a great part of games in general, whether it is in RL or the virtual realm. It is when the line is crossed that things get out of hand. A cockpit flag hardly constitutes a crossed line though.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

And it might not be something that affect people enough to make them disconnect or rage quit the game altogether. But it will still make that game a little less fun that it otherwise could have been. I keep playing despite plenty of players having to attack their team for being noobs. But it would still have been a better game if they acted civil.

Exactly!

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 11:34 AM, said:

Also a friend of mine came up with a better example than dead babies. Or one harder to dismiss as a bad example. The flag for BDSM and gay rights. It might not offend me or you, but it will most certainly offend someone.
Or even better! A flag that says "**** BT lore!" lets have that and see if everyone will be able to ignore that.

Those are both better examples, although they are both slightly off still since neither are nations to which people may express Patriotism, and the second example is obvious profanity.

I do understand where you are coming from when you talk about the potential for offense. I'm simply saying that, since the flags are already in game and many have been purchased, it is too late to change course. Furthermore, as important as Israel is to the world to day (love it or hate it), it doesn't make much sense for PGI to deny them a flag unless it is unprofitable to implement it.

My whole point in this, is that people need to get over themselves and quit racing to take offense over minute things that shouldn't be offensive.

[Marvyn Dodgers]

You are now under the watchful eyes of the birds folks, please grab some cake on the way back in

[Mike Forst]

Hello thread

[TheSilken]

Big cheese in the house! (The Dev dummies)

Edited by TheSilkenPimp, 02 December 2014 - 06:18 PM.

[Mike Forst]

Who?

[Savage Wolf]

I'll sum up again. For the same reasons.

The fact that this thread exists, the drama going on in it and that it needed to be stashed away, proves that it's an issue. You simply can't deny that. The fact that there are few flags actually out there tells nothing about how offensive they actually are. It just means there are few of them. Did you expect that something offensive by nature would be abundant?
And don't use the "It's trivial" because if that was true for any of us, we would be here discussing it. On some level it matters to us, even if it's just symbolic.
Nor should you use the failed argument about "we cannot do this 100% so lets not do it at all" when concerning inclusiveness. Nothing can be accomplished 100%, but it's an ideal that one can strive for. And just because it cannot be perfectly done is a bad excuse not to try. And inclusion is about people, so it's more important to include more people than including flags.
And then you bring up freedom. Here's something you are forgetting about freedom: You are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you do not hurt anyone or limit their freedom. Detering people away from spectating simply so that you can be a patriot is limiting someone else's freedom.
If you want total freedom that is called anarchy and that's something far different. And even that often ends in small kings taking away the freedom of others. So you see, we cannot achieve 100% freedom and by your logic concerning inclusiveness, we should simply drop this freedom thing altogether.
And freedom of speech is much the same. You can say what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or limit their freedom. Mostly it means, you can't say stuff about other people without justification. Saying that PGI was taking too long to finish CW is justified and a protected right. Saying they steal from orphans is a lie and therefore unjustified and is then not protected by free speech. Might even be a crime.
And no, I think it is highly unlikely that someone quit the game solely because of a flag. I don't think anyone has quit the game solely because of any source of toxicity. It's the sum of it that gets you. And it doesn't matter what makes you snap in the end, it all helped getting you there. So do I believe that a flag could have contributed to someone quitting the game? Absolutely!

But what would be the most best course of action that PGI could do right now? I think that they should completely ignore the flags. Don't add any, don't remove any. Doing so would only draw attention and drama to it no matter what direction they are going. And if there is something we can learn from the low numbers of flags around is that they are probably not selling well.

Quote

Personally speaking, I become annoyed whenever I hear someone speak so naively about inclusiveness.

Then as you put it, you should ignore or forgive. It's your own fault for being phased by it, according to yourself.

Edited by Savage Wolf, 02 December 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[Alaskan Nobody]

That was a summary?

Pretty sure Mike is not gonna read that

[Savage Wolf]

It was shorter than it would be if I had to use quotes. But yeah, lots to comment on. Lengthy discussions mean lengthy posts.

[moderatepudding]

TheSilkenPimp, on 29 November 2014 - 09:45 AM, said:

It's just easier for them to avoid it all together. Then people would want a Palestinian flag (even though they have no right since they aren't even a culture) which would open the door for issues. I wish that they would add it but it's unlikely.

[Heffay]

Nightmare1, on 02 December 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

My whole point in this, is that people need to get over themselves and quit racing to take offense over minute things that shouldn't be offensive.

Says the guy with the Dixie flag in his signature.

[Nightmare1]

Heffay, on 03 December 2014 - 04:23 AM, said:

Says the guy with the Dixie flag in his signature.

Hey, it's a part of my history and culture. All the people in that conflict and alive at that time are dead. I keep the flag as a reminder and a testament to that period of history.

Today, there are too many that are ready to scrub such things from our society in the interest of "inclusiveness." When you do that, you lose a piece of yourself. It may not be the best part of our history, and some may still find it objectionable, but it is a necessary piece that we cannot afford to ignore or forget.

Besides, where I'm from, it's redneck enough that even the Blacks wear the flag and participate in reenactments!

[Nightmare1]

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

I'll sum up again. For the same reasons.

The fact that this thread exists, the drama going on in it and that it needed to be stashed away, proves that it's an issue. You simply can't deny that. The fact that there are few flags actually out there tells nothing about how offensive they actually are. It just means there are few of them. Did you expect that something offensive by nature would be abundant?
And don't use the "It's trivial" because if that was true for any of us, we would be here discussing it. On some level it matters to us, even if it's just symbolic.

Actually, I think the ratio of availability of the flags to the number in-game is very telling. They aren't as popular as other, more immersive cockpit items, so PGI doesn't sell as many. I believe that is more key than any perceived offensiveness.

And really, compared to the nature of this game and the report-able content that we frequently encounter, the issue of adding one flag to the mix really is a trivial one. It's a bit like struggling with whether or not to add a bumper sticker to your car when you're having problems with the engine. While each may be important, in their own right, to involved individuals, the issue of the engine will far outweigh that of the decal.

...But, overall, whether or not an additional flag is added will be most likely based on an economic evaluation of whether or not it would sell enough to cover the cost of making it.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

Nor should you use the failed argument about "we cannot do this 100% so lets not do it at all" when concerning inclusiveness. Nothing can be accomplished 100%, but it's an ideal that one can strive for. And just because it cannot be perfectly done is a bad excuse not to try. And inclusion is about people, so it's more important to include more people than including flags.

And then you bring up freedom. Here's something you are forgetting about freedom: You are allowed to do whatever you want as long as you do not hurt anyone or limit their freedom. Detering people away from spectating simply so that you can be a patriot is limiting someone else's freedom.

I'm not going there with you because that is off the topic. Suffice to say, your definitions are...off...

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

If you want total freedom that is called anarchy and that's something far different. And even that often ends in small kings taking away the freedom of others. So you see, we cannot achieve 100% freedom and by your logic concerning inclusiveness, we should simply drop this freedom thing altogether.

When did I advocate anarchy?

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

<p>And freedom of speech is much the same. You can say what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone or limit their freedom. Mostly it means, you can't say stuff about other people without justification. Saying that PGI was taking too long to finish CW is justified and a protected right. Saying they steal from orphans is a lie and therefore unjustified and is then not protected by free speech. Might even be a crime.

I'm not sure where you're from, but you don't have a very good handle on the U.S. First Amendment. Again, that's another and separate issue that I do not feel inclined to delve into on this thread.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

And no, I think it is highly unlikely that someone quit the game solely because of a flag. I don't think anyone has quit the game solely because of any source of toxicity. It's the sum of it that gets you. And it doesn't matter what makes you snap in the end, it all helped getting you there. So do I believe that a flag could have contributed to someone quitting the game? Absolutely!

The sum of it may cause someone to snap? That sounds a bit like you're clutching at straws. Frankly, if you use that as justification, you could pretty much include whatever you like in your argument. That's a bit like the straw man fallacy.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

But what would be the most best course of action that PGI could do right now? I think that they should completely ignore the flags. Don't add any, don't remove any. Doing so would only draw attention and drama to it no matter what direction they are going. And if there is something we can learn from the low numbers of flags around is that they are probably not selling well.

Frankly, it doesn't really matter to me whether or not additional flags are added. The only ones I have an interest in purchasing are the U.S. ones. That being said, I simply couldn't leave so interesting a discussion alone.

I do agree though that the flags probably are not selling well. To me, this is enough justification not to include additional ones.

Savage Wolf, on 02 December 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

Then as you put it, you should ignore or forgive. It's your own fault for being phased by it, according to yourself.

Yep! You got it!

Overall, I have control over whether or not I am going to allow someone to put me off my game and ruin my day. If I let "the sum of things" make me "snap,: then the fault is mine. Ultimately, people can pick and prod, but it is I who controls whether or not I let such antagonism affect me.

Mike Forst, on 02 December 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

Hello thread

Well Hi!

Edited by Nightmare1, 03 December 2014 - 05:33 AM.

[Heffay]

Nightmare1, on 03 December 2014 - 05:15 AM, said:

Hey, it's a part of my history and culture. All the people in that conflict and alive at that time are dead. I keep the flag as a reminder and a testament to that period of history.

Today, there are too many that are ready to scrub such things from our society in the interest of "inclusiveness." When you do that, you lose a piece of yourself. It may not be the best part of our history, and some may still find it objectionable, but it is a necessary piece that we cannot afford to ignore or forget.

Besides, where I'm from, it's redneck enough that even the Blacks wear the flag and participate in reenactments!

I'm fine with you displaying it, as long as you're fine with me judging you.

[Nightmare1]

Heffay, on 03 December 2014 - 06:23 AM, said:

I'm fine with you displaying it, as long as you're fine with me judging you.

Sounds like a fair exchange!