"Those Who Cannot Abide" Topic

Got a PM today from someone who informed me he was leaving TMP and not coming back.

He assumed I knew who he was and why he was leaving. Actually, I have no idea. The membername did not ring a bell. I really would like to individually know every single one of you, but the memory only goes so far! Maybe Editor Gwen will know, I'll check in with her when she is next on duty.

He did mention some frustration with forum members who discuss a certain topic. Is it too much to expect people to exercise some self-control, to not click on topics they know perfectly well will offend them? Why do some people demand the right to censor what other gamers post about?

I hope that all of us can see the 'good will' in others, to allow others the same freedom of discussion that we expect for ourselves, to not be so easily offended, to not be the one who throws the tantrum when the TMP community doesn't conform to your expectations.

And if you broke a forum rule, and you know you broke the rules, be a man about it and own up to your mistake. Don't make excuses. Don't be a martyr about it. Act like the men of maturity and experience that most of you are or should be.

Thanks for letting me get that off my chest.

++

You need to set your expectations a little lower Bill.

Wolfhag

Can't keep everybody happy. I do just what Bill suggests. I don't click on topics I don't want to see and I have stifled one person.

Works for me.

Tom

You can tell what's coming from the subject line! Take your own advice… don't even bother opening those messages!! Delete and "good bye!"

I am with Bill, but I agree with Wolfhag. (But also, "be a man"? I think we have women on the site, right? Not to be a politically correctish pain in the behind but…?).

You can tell what's coming from the subject line!

Not necessarily. How about the topic "Historicon – Strange Photo". Nothing about gaming, or Historicon.

I've no idea who Bill is talking about, but I suspect he's not take offended at the various topics, but rather he's offended at various topics that really have nothing to do with miniature gaming.

I'm guessing this because that refrain had been mentioned by a lot of members lately.

I'm one of them.

I have come for over 20 years to read and see historical/fantasy/SF posts about miniatures and related subjects. Not to stumble across or to my own chagrin wade out into deep waters responding to some stupid political screech or conspiracy pile of dung. My bad then, but it effects my interest in even attempting to avoid the political and anti-science posts and wandering from an original post subject, by spending less time on the web site. It has also dented the reputation of the site and influenced a number of gamers I know to retreat from visiting.

There are many good things about the site, but the steady drift over the past few years towards allowing the narrow minded, the conspiracy driven, political insults, non gaming posts or comments, have all tarnished what should be a focused site about miniatures.

Just my 2 cents, for what its worth.

Me, I couldn't give a monkeys about the non-gaming stuff.

Thing is though, some people DO care. It's the same on every forum.

For example, a cycling forum I use has just dumped their 'other stuff' board because people kept talking politics which inevitably ended up causing ill will between members. I've seen similar things on car forums and so on.

The old 'don't click on a thread that might upset you' line doesn't work either. Some threads you can't tell from the title, but mostly, well, it's people just being people innit.

Ultimately it's up to Bill to weigh up what he gains from non-gaming and 'political' threads against what he loses by people not coming here because they are put off by those same threads.

You win some, you lose some…

We are grown men and play with toys. It's not surprising some get their feelings hurt over what is written here but for the life of me I don't understand how. If a toy soldiers forum can upset you then I cordially invite you to live in my world for a day or two. You may come to realize the real world is indeed scary but TMP is a very safe and fun place to hang around.

Oh, I was shot in September so bring your plate carrier.

Bill, thank you for all you do with TMP. I really appreciate this place and many of it's denizens.

I am in agreement with Cerdic on this matter.
Well put together thoughts.

martin

I guess I could have made this the title:

"HMGS officers and staff violate own mask rule photos", but it seemed a bit long.

If you would like, I can start a new thread as I have now been sent other photos and videos of the above mask mandate violations by other like minded individuals who did attend the con.

Don't think that is necessary as I have made my point on masks at the con and not looking to "shame" anyone.

Will try to be clearer in the future.

…what should be a focused site about miniatures.

There's your problem right there. The TMP community has repeatedly voted to not have narrowly focused forums.

And if you think forum rules are being violated, please use the Complaint button.

I think we have women on the site, right?

Hard to know. Some payments come from people with 'female' names, but that's probably where the spouse has the PayPal account. Maybe time to run that poll again?

According to Facebook, the TMP page there gets an audience of 97% men.

There used to be quite a few female members here, but many seem to have disappeared. A pity, some of the most adept wargamers and game developers I know are women.

I'm not overly fussed about the non-wargaming posts here. In the main they provide a great deal of light relief :)

"Mewling from the crib" would be an excellent thread title for some of the posts here. :D

The Dude abides.

++ Dan Cyr

OK. "Man up" works for me then. (I should have said my previous post was a bit tongue-in-cheek. Sorry.)

I don't click on anything which has nothing to do with gaming. Therefore I am never offended.

Agree, Cerdic, well said.

There used to be quite a few female members here, but many seem to have disappeared. A pity, some of the most adept wargamers and game developers I know are women.

One chose to leave when her proposal to change the forum was rejected by the membership.

I wonder where and why all the others went?

We seem to have about the same number as we ever have, but individuals come and go.

Having clicked on this topic I wish to inform you that I am offended, having been informed earlier that when God was making my face He threw a 1.

Folks, when relaxing in the haze of the post-Christmas dinner food coma this year, contemplate the scene of a face made disconsolate by being told that, when a certain person's present was being delivered, Santa threw a 1.

Perhaps more women on the site would be a thing if we disallowed the somewhat crass "women warriors" threads, clearly aimed at leering at those women, judging at the comments.

The environment created by the members is what welcomes or turns away any demographic.

+1 Choctaw

As I always have said, no one has to click on any thread here AFAIK …

We seem to have about the same number as we ever have, but individuals come and go.

Most of the time I don't know what biological gender someone is. Why should it matter ? You discuss a topic, add your 2 Cents, post a link, etc. Male or female … who cares ?

Perhaps more women on the site would be a thing if we disallowed the somewhat crass "women warriors" threads, clearly aimed at leering at those women, judging at the comments.

Very much an over reaction IMO. Personally, normally I don't look at those Warrior Women threads. I don't have a problem with it. If I do look, I'm interested the beautiful females as well as their uniforms, weapons, etc. Again terms like "crass" and "leering" are a bit over the top IMO. Maybe too PC/woke for me …

So yes, I do like to see photos of beautiful women. I'm a straight male … always have been. Everybody should do what works for them.

From what I can tell most of the members here are male(?). That is the demographic. And again no one forces anyone here to look at any thread.

Those threads 100% are about those women as objects of desire. Imagine you're a prospective female poster and you see them. Would you feel welcome posting here?

The boys club attitude keeps women out, not some biological imperative that only men play war games. My local game store started instituting policies against sexist language, threw out a creep or two, and hired two women cashiers, and wouldn't you know, Tons of women now shop there.

Don't assume things are good just because that's how they've always been. We create the conditions here, and if women aren't feeling welcome here, it's on us to fix that.

+1 Bellerophon1993

Those threads 100% are about those women as objects of desire.

"objects of desire" ? Really ? Isn't that a bit outdated ?

Imagine you're a prospective female poster and you see them. Would you feel welcome posting here?

Well I would not click on those posts. Like I do when I see any other threads that does not interest me.

Would you feel welcome posting here?

Well I guess being a male … I can't tell you that. As I have never been or never will be "an object of desire" … AFAIK.

The boys club attitude keeps women out, not some biological imperative that only men play war games.

Has anyone done a study of that ? Or is that just an old school attitude ?

Tons of women now shop there.

That is a bit of an overstatement to fit your narrative ?

We create the conditions here, and if women aren't feeling welcome here, it's on us to fix that.

Do we know these conditions exist to make females feel not welcome ?

Do we have any information to back up this theory ?

Has anyone asked these gamer females ?

Do the smaller number of female members reflect the fact that fewer females are involved in this hobby ?

All that being said … again … I rarely click on those threads. And again I very much like girls/women/females. Guess I'm old school …

I really don't care who you are if you like wargames … That is a common thread here …

+1 Legion. I would certainly welcome any female miniatures enthusiast here. If they existed in numbers, their influence would be felt here.

But I think its the basic content itself that keeps their numbers small, not crass attitudes. We wargame. The great majority of people do not. Of those who do, hardly any are women, I'm guessing. They are mostly not here to begin with, they have been socialized over time not to be interested in the topic, IMO.

Yes that is my point … Many/most people don't play war games. As well as very few females do. So seems to me our target audience is small any way. Because let's admit it … we are still playing with toy soldiers. Not normally something that comes up when talking to females. As pointed out in the scenario of women going to hobby shops that carry war game products.

But yes, I welcome any female, that is interested in our hobby. But very, very, few are. Posting pics of attractive women in the military, should not keep a female who is interested in wargames away, IMO.

Yes we all can't look like movie/TV stars, fashion models, etc. I know ! So if you are mature and well adjusted, etc. photos of beautiful members of a military should not upset you, IMO. They are fully clothed … as well.

If looking at something offends you….don't look!!
If reading something offends you….stop reading it!!!
If what I'm saying offends you TS!!!!

We create the conditions here, and if women aren't feeling welcome here, it's on us to fix that.

You can always ask for a community vote.

Personally, I'm willing to let women see me as the object of their desire and I have very low standards too.

Wolfhag

Von Schwartz +1

You can always ask for a community vote.

We have not voted on that yet ?

Wolfhag … very well said … As I too are in the same boat/foxhole/AFV, etc.

A community vote would be pointless… the community is such that it is not welcoming to those who would oppose it. Might as well have a vote on zebra rights in the lion's den.

At some point y'all need to take ownership of the sort of community you want. Women do play miniatures games. But they don't post here. Ask why.

It's not about "offends" or "woke" or "virtue signaling" whatever buzzwords (which are RW political speech buzzwords!and probably shouldn't be allowed except in the blue fez due to the no politics rule). It's about common decency and holding ourselves accountable.

Treat women with respect. Period.

Also, legion, you've never been to my local game store, so claiming I've overstated something is just more of you pulling things out of thin air.

It's about common decency and holding ourselves accountable.

Never said otherwise … did anyone here ?

Treat women with respect. Period.

Don't know if anyone here, including me, didn't show women respect… period.

Talk about pulling out of thin air ?

you've never been to my local game store, so claiming I've overstated something is just more of you pulling things out of thin air.

No I have not but I've been to may gaming stores, conventions, etc., in the past.

So I'm still going with the phrase, "tons of women now shop there" … That is clearly not an accurate estimate. I.e. a ton is : Short Ton = 2000lbs … Long Ton = 2200lbs … IIRC. Thats a lot of women, based on each of their estimated weights. Having never been to your gaming store, I could make a SWAG, of about a dozen + or -.

Regardless … again … Most of the time I don't know what biological gender someone is. Why should it matter ? You discuss a topic, add your 2 Cents, post a link, etc. Male or female … who cares ?

Bill could try giving females a free supporting membership for a year and see if that drives up their numbers. Of course how would he know if someone really is a female … or not ? Some could lie … people do that you know. And often in my experience …

And again … I'd think photos of attractive fully clothed female soldiers, shouldn't upset anyone? Would it make a difference if they were not "attractive" ?

Might upset ugly guys, like me, who will never be with a female that attractive … ?

Now if the pics were like the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue. I can see how that could upset some. BTW I generally don't look that issue, just the cover in the check out line, some times.

It's not about "offends" or "woke" or "virtue signaling" whatever buzzwords (which are RW political speech buzzwords!and probably shouldn't be allowed except in the blue fez due to the no politics rule)

Virtue signaling and woke are LW terms. The word offence appears frequently in LW discussions related to the other two.

Also, legion, you've never been to my local game store, so claiming I've overstated something is just more of you pulling things out of thin air.

Yes. So as a critique, you should provide your emprical, validatable data to support your assumption.

At some point y'all need to take ownership of the sort of community you want. Women do play miniatures games. But they don't post here. Ask why.

Why do you think they don't post here?

They could be posting up a storm, and you wouldn't know, would you? What if I told you that several of our most prolific posters were women?

Etothepi, technically virtue signalling and wokeism are types of behaviour associated with the left, they don't use those terms to describe their behaviour. Their opponents on the right use those terms in a derogatory way to describe what the left wingers are doing. As such, they are terms used by the right.

On women in wargaming, we certainly see plenty of women at UK and European shows. There are a higher percentage of women at sci-fi and fantasy events, but historical events are seeing increasing numbers. A friend of mine ran a game at Partizan ago nearly half if the people turning up to play were women.

Yeah, if someone is using the terms woke and VS, I assume they're trying to dogwhistle to let their buddies know where they stand.

Regardless of whether you think it's right or left, it's 100% political speech, which means it shouldn't be allowed on the forum.

Why do you think they don't post here? grin

They could be posting up a storm, and you wouldn't know, would you? What if I told you that several of our most prolific posters were women?

Exactly … as I said … Regardless … again … Most of the time I don't know what biological gender someone is. Why should it matter ? You discuss a topic, add your 2 Cents, post a link, etc. Male or female … who cares ?

And again … I'd think photos of attractive fully clothed female soldiers, shouldn't upset anyone? Would it make a difference if they were not "attractive" ?

As is often said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" … yes ?

Might upset ugly guys, like me, who will never be with a female that attractive … ? 🤔😞

As I said before …
Now if the pics were like the Sports Illustrated swim suit issue. I can see how that could upset some. BTW I generally don't look that issue, just the cover in the check out line, some times.

Seems today… some look for differences between two groups instead of concentrating on similarities, IMO.

Again no one knows who is on the other end of a post here … it should not matter.

If someone is upset about photos of female soldiers fully clothed in their uniform. I think that is a bit thin skinned, etc. There are pretty & ugly people everywhere. I can say that as I am one ugly Muth'a ! 🧟‍♂️

Regardless of whether you think it's right or left, it's 100% political speech, which means it shouldn't be allowed on the forum.

Wait … I know I am a [fat] old white man . But with all these terms floating about in the media, etc., e.g. woke, diversity, inclusive, equity, PC, SJW, etc., etc., … is there a glossary, index, etc. somewhere that explains all the "new" definitions, etc. of words in our language ? Including which of these words are political, insensitive, woke, etc., etc. Or IMO some/many are just plain silly …

Much of it reminds me of Orwell's 1984 … change the definitions of words to fit a certain narrative, agenda, etc. The definition is "flexible" based on who is using the word … or so it seems.

technically virtue signalling and wokeism are types of behaviour associated with the left, they don't use those terms to describe their behaviour. Their opponents on the right use those terms in a derogatory way to describe what the left wingers are doing. As such, they are terms used by the right.

You mean like the RW Huffington Post?

link

Where they give the modern history of the term, or the RW The Converstation?

link

Also pointing out that this is a modern revival of a 60's Civil Rights Monement term.

A mere ten years ago, the discussion witihn the LW was the white LW appropriating the term from the black LW.

Virtue signaling has a similar history from the early 2000's , which originating on Facebook, doesn't have easily accessible references. It evolved out of people encourging others to signal their virtues. In 2015, a British RW journalist pulled the rug out on the term by pointing out the ludicrousness (and often hypocracy) of the practice.
I agree that today it would be rare for a LW person to use the terms about themselves, but that's beause the terms have been undermined by the behaviour of the people who used them.

The reason both terms are anathemas to their own communities is the insertion of social media to the public discourse. Social media redefines terms based on the actions of the most prolific posters and the most followed individuals, not necessarily the most emblematic representatives of a group.

it's 100% political speech, which means it shouldn't be allowed on the forum.

Conducting VS or making a woke argument shouldn't. There's nothing in the rules against discussing the existence of the political practices (without engagging in them) any more than there is is discussing the existence of any other political belief or practice.

For example, the top of this post does not argue "for" or "against" woke philosophies, it simply points out the historical origin of the term.

In practice, members of this forum use it as a way to insult LW posters and signal to their RW buddies that they're "anti-woke" as a badge of honor and it's frankly tedious. There are other areas of the internet where you can engage in mutual self-pleasure, why must a wargames forum be subjected to it.

Yes … and vis versa … it is tedious …

But to quote Bill from one of his earlier post here …

The TMP community has repeatedly voted to not have narrowly focused forums.

And if you think forum rules are being violated, please use the Complaint button.

Also there is a

Nude and Semi-Nude Figures – NSFW – For discussion of nude and semi-nude figures, excluding pornographic subjects.

here on TMP …

That might upset some too ? Just say'n …

it's frankly tedious

You have a stifle button I suggest using it liberally so people don't offend you. Looks like you have the solution to your problem already.

In practice, members of this forum

In practice, using a non-specific term like "members of this forum" is one of the foundational methods of propaganda. If two people have every done the thing, it is technically a true statement. However, it creates the impression that the behaviour is perrvasive. Cine the statement itself is a simple declarative and technically true.

To counter, an opposing view has to lay out a far more complex argument that includes definition of the terms in your argument. The length of the reply often turns off people from reading it, especially in the 120 charater world. And by not defining your own terms (numerator and denominator, in this case), you create the opporuntiy to nit-pick a reply with numbers of non-substantial counters.

Hav you, by chance, taken my information operations class?

In response to your statement, can you provide the empirical data on the number of occurrence of the term, its usage, and the verified political affiliations of the posters?

Have you, by chance, taken my information operations class?

I haven't but would like to.

Wolfhag

You have a stifle button I suggest using it liberally so people don't offend you. Looks like you have the solution to your problem already.

Very True and I agree …

In practice, using a non-specific term like "members of this forum" is one of the foundational methods of propaganda.

Propaganda plus narrative & agenda as well …

and the verified political affiliations of the posters?

Good point …