Poll: Let's take MOH into our own hands.

[holographicman]

from now on i shall be known as
TALIBAN DAN!!!
0.o
but seriously this censorship is unecessary and a negative thing in the long run
people should know who coalition/US soldiers are fighting and why they are fighting them

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

I didn't say it was worse. Though the argument could be made...Call of Duty's thing was (I'm assuming) in the single-player game, it had a narrative, it was part of a story. So it could be argued that it's important. This Taliban is just part of the multiplayer thing, so it doesn't add anything.

But at the same time, you could also say that EA just had better sense than Activision. That's one possibility.

 

[freedomweasel]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

Because words have meaning attached to them. Some people find some of these meanings to be offensive. Pretty straight forward. OpFor doesn't have any/as much emotional tie-in to these people.

 

[Pist0l 07]

I didn't say it was worse. Though the argument could be made...Call of Duty's thing was (I'm assuming) in the single-player game, it had a narrative, it was part of a story. So it could be argued that it's important. This Taliban is just part of the multiplayer thing, so it doesn't add anything.

But at the same time, you could also say that EA just had better sense than Activision. That's one possibility.

It's in the multi-player, Op-For against U.S.M.C.

 

[Soushi]

Quote A: I am not complaining about not being able to play as the Taliban. Trust me, i hate those fear and hate mongering motherfuckers and wish them all a rusty shovel lodged in thier skull. However, EA made a descision to put them in the game, a ballsy move, but there you go, yet when teh heat inevitably got turned on they caved faster than a building made of paper in a rain storm. What i am worrried about, and what this all boils down to, is censorship and political busybodying where it does not belong. I would be saying teh same thing if the opposing team was going to be called "the Kittens" and a bunch of animal rights people got it cut from the game.

Yes, EA made a decision. But what you consider a "ballsy move", many others consider a "misguided move". Some would consider walking up to a cop and punching him in the face to be "ballsy", but let's be honest, it's a stupid one with no benefit.

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

And if that was all that was going on here, i would be satisfied with that. But, the problem is people getting all worked up over taste and turning it into crusades over nothing. You can say it all you want, but you have no right to try and decide for other people what they can and can't see. Jack Thompson's goal was censorship and it seems like he won a victory this time. Video games don't harm people, seeing the lable "taliban' over an enemy won't hurt anybody. Setting a precident that a small group of vocal people with a stick up thier ass can censor or stop something that won't actaully hurt anyone, i would argue that that will cause harm.
If you think all of this is pointless, if you think that this isn't censorship and what not, then fine, that is your opinion and i respect that. However, i'm willing to bet that many can see the dark little clouds of nastiness at the seams of this whole thing. It is those little bits of nastiness that have got me worried enough to bother doing this and discussing this.

 

[AndyRock]

I would do this, if I were buying that pile of shit (seriously, if the beta's still going, play it)

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

I didn't say it was worse. Though the argument could be made...Call of Duty's thing was (I'm assuming) in the single-player game, it had a narrative, it was part of a story. So it could be argued that it's important. This Taliban is just part of the multiplayer thing, so it doesn't add anything.

But at the same time, you could also say that EA just had better sense than Activision. That's one possibility.

It's in the multi-player, Op-For against U.S.M.C.

Then it's like freedomweasel says. "Op-For" means nothing.

 

[Spygon]

I don't really care to name myself "TalibanxxSniper1337xxXXxxxX"

but, I will definitely refer to the Opposing Force as Taliban. Always.

Same here as putting something in your name pretty much is either a show of support or saying your associated with the subject matter.

So i will refer the Opposing force as the taliban but i was going to do this anyway.

 

[Pist0l 07]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

Because words have meaning attached to them. Some people find some of these meanings to be offensive. Pretty straight forward. OpFor doesn't have any/as much emotional tie-in to these people.

My point was more why shoot american forces at all, why do they stay named accuratly and the opposing groups don't. Like instead of Op-For vs. USMC it would be Op-For vs Coalition or something like that.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

But, the problem is people getting all worked up over taste and turning it into crusades over nothing.

Yes, this is exactly the problem! You people are turning this into a crusade over nothing! Glad you and I can finally agree on something.

And yeah, you're too cynical to really have a reasonable opinion on the matter. You've made it clear you don't give a fuck about the families of fallen soldiers, and that the most important thing is your stupid video game and your inflated sense of entitlement.

 

[freedomweasel]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

Because words have meaning attached to them. Some people find some of these meanings to be offensive. Pretty straight forward. OpFor doesn't have any/as much emotional tie-in to these people.

My point was more why shoot american forces at all, why do they stay named accuratly and the opposing groups don't. Like instead of Op-For vs. USMC it would be Op-For vs Coalition or something like that.

Eh, personally as I said before, Red vs Blue, or brownish camo vs darker brownish camo, is all the same to me. To the public at large, I would say it's an issue of MoH is about a current war, whereas COD is only loosely based on reality.

 

[Pist0l 07]

This isn't about censorship. This is about EA recognizing a poor decision and fixing it.

Ok, I can understand that but what about the whole double standerd issue? Why should being Taliban and shooting at U.S. MP skins be worse then Call of Duty's Op-For shooting at american forces?

Because words have meaning attached to them. Some people find some of these meanings to be offensive. Pretty straight forward. OpFor doesn't have any/as much emotional tie-in to these people.

My point was more why shoot american forces at all, why do they stay named accuratly and the opposing groups don't. Like instead of Op-For vs. USMC it would be Op-For vs Coalition or something like that.

Eh, personally as I said before, Red vs Blue, or brownish camo vs darker brownish camo, is all the same to me. To the public at large, I would say it's an issue of MoH is about a current war, whereas COD is only loosely based on reality.

Yeah, I was just saying in MOH if USMC vs Taliban is offensive then shouldn't they change it all to Coalition vs Enemies or something like that. It seems odd that USMC vs Enemy is better because your still shooting at american soldiers.

 

[Soushi]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.

That's right, just keep reinforcing the stereotype. Good work.

Aha, but just like i will never be able to convince you that this idea of mine is good, they will never be convinced that gamers are to be respected, or that we have our own sensibilities that don't need to be reinforced by others, or that we can tell what is good and what is bad on our own.

To me, the choice is clear: Lay down and keep letting these peolpe who don't even play games continue to dictate what kind of fun we have -or- fight back in whatever way we can.

What you wanna do is up to you. If you think this idea is stupid, fine, don't do it. Just keep in mind, if i was like Jack Thompson or any of these other jerks, i would trying to turn my ideas into law, sticking my toungue out and slapping my bum at you when i got my way. Me, i'm sick of having what i can and cannot play decided for me by these people, so i will do whatever i can to be a thorn in thier side.

No, THIS, right here, THIS, is the reason people think gamers are crazy. Extremists on every issue encourage the public at large to think people in that community are crazy. Westboro Baptist Church? Lots of people believe all Baptists to be batshit crazy. If you meet enough Baptists, you'll realize this is false.

If regular people meet enough people that enjoy gaming, and aren't into throwing tantrums, maybe they'll give the community more respect. Or, you could continue to hurt your own cause.

*sigh* you're acting like i am saying we should burn down EA headquarters or something. What i am suggesting is that we do something, any little thing, that will show these people that we have the right to make our own desicions and that we are about done putting up with thier baloney. I am all for a moderate, peaceful dialouge where issues are discussed rationally, but to do that, you have to make an assertion of your side of the issue, exactly what i am trying to do with this idea. Take from it what you will, but i still hold to the idea that if we go to the level of complacent that it will take for these people to not htink of gamers as horrible we would have to pack away the controllers for good.
So, my idea;
arbitrary: probably.
Harmless: Definetly.
Peaceful: Yep.
Chance of sucess: Not particularily high.
Extreme: Well... maybe a tiny bit.
Westbro Baptist Level of Extreme: Not a chance in hell.

 

[Soushi]

But, the problem is people getting all worked up over taste and turning it into crusades over nothing.

Yes, this is exactly the problem! You people are turning this into a crusade over nothing! Glad you and I can finally agree on something.

And yeah, you're too cynical to really have a reasonable opinion on the matter. You've made it clear you don't give a fuck about the families of fallen soldiers, and that the most important thing is your stupid video game and your inflated sense of entitlement.

You're taking the only words in my whole argument that may help you and jumping up and down on it to try and strong arm it into making your point.
You my friend are using the EXACT SAME tactics as the real Taliban.

 

[freedomweasel]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.


....

*sigh* you're acting like i am saying we should burn down EA headquarters or something. What i am suggesting is that we do something, any little thing, that will show these people that we have the right to make our own desicions and that we are about done putting up with thier baloney. I am all for a moderate, peaceful dialouge where issues are discussed rationally, but to do that, you have to make an assertion of your side of the issue, exactly what i am trying to do with this idea. Take from it what you will, but i still hold to the idea that if we go to the level of complacent that it will take for these people to not htink of gamers as horrible we would have to pack away the controllers for good.
So, my idea;
arbitrary: probably.
Harmless: Definetly.
Peaceful: Yep.
Chance of sucess: Not particularily high.
Extreme: Well... maybe a tiny bit.
Westbro Baptist Level of Extreme: Not a chance in hell.

I'm mostly concerned that your response to people thinking gamers are horrible, is act in ways that could encourage the stereotype. If your action is arbitrary and has no chance of success (what are you even trying to achieve?), but serves to further a negative stereotype of gamers, what are you really doing this for?

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

But, the problem is people getting all worked up over taste and turning it into crusades over nothing.

Yes, this is exactly the problem! You people are turning this into a crusade over nothing! Glad you and I can finally agree on something.

And yeah, you're too cynical to really have a reasonable opinion on the matter. You've made it clear you don't give a fuck about the families of fallen soldiers, and that the most important thing is your stupid video game and your inflated sense of entitlement.

You're taking the only words in my whole argument that may help you and jumping up and down on it to try and strong arm it into making your point.
You my friend are using the EXACT SAME tactics as the real Taliban.

Oh is that how the Taliban are killing everyone? Very shrewd....

In any case, you've gone completely off the rails now. And you clearly missed my point.

 

[CheckD3]

I understand why you and many are upset, for the same reasons I am, our games are starting to be controlled by those who don't understand it and those who oppose it are trying to scare us into making their games or stop them all together.

However, I want to say that putting Taliban in your name doesn't really help, it could inspire more terrorism not just in the US, but other parts of the world, and it could be an easy way to get the FBI, or Homeland Security or something else visiting you at home just before you're record breaking win streak, or you're about to unlock something, or whatever.

Doing something like this while playing the game won't help anyone, it just makes you look odd and dangerous to other players. As stated, send EA something, or we can ask 4chan to help us get Jack Thompson, or whatever. The more you do today and now, the better

 

[Soushi]

yeah, but these kinds of people already think we are horrible, so i don't see any harm in doing something that will piss them off a little more, or even show them that we won't tolerate thier bullshit without dishing out some of our own.


....

*sigh* you're acting like i am saying we should burn down EA headquarters or something. What i am suggesting is that we do something, any little thing, that will show these people that we have the right to make our own desicions and that we are about done putting up with thier baloney. I am all for a moderate, peaceful dialouge where issues are discussed rationally, but to do that, you have to make an assertion of your side of the issue, exactly what i am trying to do with this idea. Take from it what you will, but i still hold to the idea that if we go to the level of complacent that it will take for these people to not htink of gamers as horrible we would have to pack away the controllers for good.
So, my idea;
arbitrary: probably.
Harmless: Definetly.
Peaceful: Yep.
Chance of sucess: Not particularily high.
Extreme: Well... maybe a tiny bit.
Westbro Baptist Level of Extreme: Not a chance in hell.

I'm mostly concerned that your response to people thinking gamers are horrible, is act in ways that could encourage the stereotype. If your action is arbitrary and has no chance of success (what are you even trying to achieve?), but serves to further a negative stereotype of gamers, what are you really doing this for?

Your argument seems to be circular. You seem to be suggesting that by standing up and voiceing our concerns in whatever way we can (ie: some harmless name changing), we are enforcing a negative stereotype. So, by standing up for ourselves, we lose. On the other side of the coin, if we don't do anything and let these people do whatever they want, we lose because they will start making our desicions for us.
As for what i am trying a accomplish, just trying to express frustration at what i see as a double standard that is bordering very close on censorship, and encouraging others to do the same. I'm not trying to start a fight, not tryng to get peoples knikers in a twist, jsut trying to express some frustration.

 

[rockyoumonkeys]

(ie: some harmless name changing)

Harmless name-changing indeed.

Except, apparently, when EA does it. ZING!

 

[Soushi]

But, the problem is people getting all worked up over taste and turning it into crusades over nothing.

Yes, this is exactly the problem! You people are turning this into a crusade over nothing! Glad you and I can finally agree on something.

And yeah, you're too cynical to really have a reasonable opinion on the matter. You've made it clear you don't give a fuck about the families of fallen soldiers, and that the most important thing is your stupid video game and your inflated sense of entitlement.

You're taking the only words in my whole argument that may help you and jumping up and down on it to try and strong arm it into making your point.
You my friend are using the EXACT SAME tactics as the real Taliban.

Oh is that how the Taliban are killing everyone? Very shrewd....

In any case, you've gone completely off the rails now. And you clearly missed my point.

Taliban takes excerpts from the Qu'ran and twist them to fit thier own meaning and stereotypes. I am sure that you knew that's what i meant, but i'll indulge you anyway.
As for going off the tracks... nope, i seem to be still on topic so far as i can tell. I have not missed your point, i just don't agree with it. The only idfference is that i haven't broken down into spouting mindless accusations, like saying i don't care about fallen sodliers and all i care about are video games, and have instead been keeping this civil.

However, please indulge me in case i have missed something, what exactly is your point. I assume it is something other than "This is the dumbest idea ever" otherwise you wouldn't be hanging around this topic debating so hard.