Mini-rant ... developers really ought to avoid the net

[vtbub]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I've never been able to understand why Jim's words get parsed within an inch of their lives so much more so than other developers. We -- I'll use the collective "we" for FOFC -- analyze almost every word out of his keyboard in discussions like this: http://dynamic.gamespy.com/~fof/foru...ad.php?t=30356. Good grief, when he posts here frequently it's because he's not working on a game and when he takes some time away it's because a release is close. He could mention that he went and got gas this morning and all of a sudden he's working on Front office Arabian Penninsula Oil Refinery.

I've seen other developers get worked over, but nothing to this extent. I think it's a compliment that his products are more highly anticipated, but I can't quite make a link between sales popularity and "buzz" popularity.

I could be a snob and say Jim gets worked over more because we're a more discerning and critical audience than the fanbases of some other games (insert OOPT fanboy joke here).

I wish I knew what it was. I'm sure Jim wishes he knew too. Doesn't seem to matter what he does. If Jim had said he had a game coming out in the next two months, we would have countless threads based on scraps of information we knew. Yet there are announced releases from other companies coming up soon and they draw nary a yawn even on their own message boards. It's fascinating.

Well said.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

Does it have to be an interaction with you?

In the general sense of my rant, no, it doesn't. If I see a dev. (or a re-seller) being an utter & complete arse to someone else (which isn't incredibly infrequent), it can be to such a degree that I'd be loathe to put money in their pocket. Off-hand, I think there's at least as many who have ended up on my shit-list from displaying their attitude/personality by interacting with others in public are there are that have gotten there with me personally. Heck, I'm almost sure it's actually more on the "with others" list.

Do you not buy products if you don't agree with the politics of ...

From games to restaurants to plumbers, if there's an obvious conflict with someone's beliefs vs my own, particularly socio-political, I will pretty routinely make a concerted effort to avoid giving them a dime. After all, by doing so, I'm essentially funding the opposition cause (however marginally it may be). Doing that has always struck me as being rather stupid, I'm helping to cancel out my own contributions for crying out loud.

Does it somehow detract from your enjoyment of a product if the supplier's is openly different from yours?

Absolutely yes. See above, it's akin to funding your enemy, and that just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Even more upsetting is the fact that I'm conscious that's what I'm doing, rendering the product (from a game to a calzone) unenjoyable for me. Practical reality makes researching every single consumable good impossible (you can't research them as fast as you use them), plus there are some no-practical-alternative situations that you encounter on a regular basis BUT if I'm aware of it, and there's alternatives, then I will avoid it, up to a reasonable amount of inconvienience to myself. ("reasonable" being fairly relative to the caliber of the offense). Another part of the "relativity" equation is how much impact my revenue represents; i.e. I'm more likely to give a disliked national chain store $1.19 for a convienience item than I am to spend $800 for a washer/dryer with a small-town, single-store appliance dealer who I happen to know is a major booster of a hated local political figure.

[lynchjm24]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I've never been able to understand why Jim's words get parsed within an inch of their lives so much more so than other developers.

He's bright, he chooses his words carefully and he is tight with information about new releases.

That leads to people trying to find hints and meaning in what is probably straightforward conversation.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

if there's an obvious conflict with someone's beliefs vs my own, particularly socio-political, I will pretty routinely make a concerted effort to avoid giving them a dime.

So, if a developer opposes/supports the Iraq war (whichever opposes your view) you would refuse to buy their game regardless of the game's qualities?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

So, if a developer opposes/supports the Iraq war (whichever opposes your view) you would refuse to buy their game regardless of the game's qualities?

Do I think they're on the opposite side of the issue? Or do I know it?

If it's the former, whether it impacts my decision is iffy. If it's the latter, the purchase becomes pretty doubtful. If I know they are active in their opposition, the chance of me buying from them becomes virtually nil.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Do I think they're on the opposite side of the issue? Or do I know it?

If it's the former, whether it impacts my decision is iffy. If it's the latter, the purchase becomes pretty doubtful. If I know they are active in their opposition, the chance of me buying from them becomes virtually nil.

I'm speaking of the latter. A developer expresses the view "I was for/against the Iraq war" (whichever opposes your own view) and this alone would cause you to avoid a game that you would otherwise buy?

Assuming this were a common view doesn't this mean you leave the the developer with the choice of either keeping quite or losing approximately 50% of his potential market whatever his view?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Assuming this were a common view doesn't this mean you leave the the developer with the choice of either keeping quite or losing approximately 50% of his potential market whatever his view?

What can I tell you Mac? Life's a bitch sometimes.

[Mac Howard]

But you can see where I'm going with this Jon - an effective denial of freedom of speech. Losing 50% of your livelyhood is one hell of a gag, no? I don't know you well but I have the impression that your'e somewhat a supporter of the freedom of speech principle. Yet you would deny it to a game developer?

It's certainly something that developers have to face up to - Jim posts above that he avoids religious discussions presumably precisely for this reason - and it's certainly something I've thought about. I, personally, refuse to be cowed by such blackmail, possibly helped by not being entirely dependant on game sales for survival, but I find it an unaccptable and unnecessary imposition. There's something of the "taliban" about it

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

But you can see where I'm going with this Jon - an effective denial of freedom of speech. Losing 50% of your livelyhood is one hell of a gag, no? I don't know you well but I have the impression that your'e somewhat a supporter of the freedom of speech principle. Yet you would deny it to a game developer?

On this particular issue, I disagree with JiMG (I think the term "enemy" is a bit strong, in particular), but he's not denying free speech to anybody. He's exercising his own right to spend his money the way he wishes. What's wrong with that?

Edit: Just corrected capitalization on "JiMG."

[Coder]

Holy Crap Jon, that's really drawing the line pretty hard.. do you stay away from filling your car with gas as well? I mean, after all, much of the oil being used to create gasoline is produced in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc, and they're muslims. Some of them fund Al-Qaeda too. Aiding the enemy and all that ;-).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Pumpy Tudors

He's exercising his own right to spend his money the way he wishes. What's wrong with that?

I don't question that - buying whatever you wish is merely another "freedom of expression" option. I question the balance behind the decision, the unacceptable imposition placed on others (freedom of expression doesn't take place inside a vacuum) and the self-denial (we are talking about a game that would otherwise be bought).

I disagree with JiMG (I think the term "enemy" is a bit strong, in particular

Precisely! It's an exaggerated response.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I swear, I'm going to add this to my profile (since it comes up so often)

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=enemy
en·e·my Pronunciation Key (n-m) n. pl. en·e·mies

1. One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another; a foe.

When I said "enemy", I meant "enemy".

[Pacersfan46]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

Some would say create an alias for posting on those subjects. I've never done that on any sports sim board. It just seems cheesy. I don't respect people who create aliases because they don't have the guts to say what they want to say. I think people would say the same of me if I resorted to it. I'm okay with limiting what I say somewhat. It's no big deal.

For you making an alias isn't "not having the guts" to say it, but a business decision. Much different for me anyway. I'd completely understand.

Of course, with me you could come here and say you think Mary Magdalane was Jesus's wife, and pregnant with Jesus's baby. Then to top it off say you feel you're of the direct line of Jesus's blood. I wouldn't care. Fun game = me play

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

the unacceptable imposition placed on others (freedom of expression doesn't take place inside a vacuum)

Mac, it's pretty simple really -- I don't wish good things on my enemies.

I don't want them to succeed, I don't want them to have an equal shot, I want them neutralized. Period. The law of the land means I have to tolerate their existence to at least some degree, but it doesn't say I have to fund their activities (not directly at least, tax laws are a whole different thread).

As for "self-denial", umm ... well ... we're (originally) talking about a game here. Not exactly on the list of requirements for living. Look up the thread a bit, there's a discussion of the role played by relative importance and practicality in buying decisions. Don't confuse my boycotting a particular restaurant down the street because of the owner's stance on an issue with my not eating at all. I'm a little on the skinny side but I'm not starving.

On occasion, I describe myself as an "authoritarian", if someone chooses to say "totalitarian", you might notice that I don't really protest that too much either. But choosing to what ends my own money is put is somehow an "unacceptable imposition"? Damn Mac, that's scary.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

Personal preference. Jim, Arlie, Clay, Markus, Shaun, Gary or any of the others could come over to my house and take a dump in my microwave and it wouldn't impact my enjoyment of their game in either direction for me.

Fair enough - but I'm sure it'd affect the taste of your muffins

[Pacersfan46]

Wow, after leaving to work out for a bit ... I came back and read the rest of this topic.

Jon ... you're paranoid. You make it sound as though if you buy something form someone with a difference in opinion, it makes your own opinion (and anyone else who agrees with you) just magically disappear. As if by buying something from a Muslim, and say you're a Christian (I don't know) that it will magicaly make the Bible disappear to be replaced by the Quran.

Wow, guess I'm the enemy now. Look out, I might manage a Wal-Mart, Target, or Mejer ... better never shop there again. You'll be funding the "enemy" .....

What a sad way to live.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pacersfan46

Jon ... you're paranoid. You make it sound as though if you buy something form someone with a difference in opinion, it makes your own opinion (and anyone else who agrees with you) just magically disappear. As if by buying something from a Muslim, and say you're a Christian (I don't know) that it will magicaly make the Bible disappear to be replaced by the Quran.

Umm PF, Mac's question was specifically about Iraq, so I answered somewhat specifically in that context. And you're overlooking the numerous references I've made to "relativity", and especially the ones with regard to relative impact.

Make no mistake, if I could put a leftist out of business, I wouldn't hesitate, but those opportunities are pretty rare. Still, if I can make his/her life more difficult, have them scrambling for food & shelter instead of donating to their pet cause, then I've accomplished my primary goal (remember what I said about "neutralizing"). Still, opportunities to have that much direct impact are also pretty hard to come by too. Usually the most I can do is what I can to help me look in the mirror with a clear conscience ... and part of that is not giving any more help to those who are diametrically opposed to my values than I can reasonable avoid.

Honestly, I don't see the problem with that. Hell, I'm not sure I can even gin up conceptually the sort of logic or reason or thought indicates that "contributing to the opposition" is, well ... logical, reasonable, or intelligent.
I can probably come up with some version of "well, it just doesn't matter" that could be used to justify it but beyond that, all I can find are thought processes that are pretty well summed up by my sig file.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Pacersfan46

Wow, guess I'm the enemy now.

{shrug}

I can't say that I've paid close enough attention to your politics or your beliefs or your socio-political efforts to know one way or the other.

But I can offer a tip for figuring that out:

If you're actively opposed to my objectives/goals/aims, especially where the different ideals/values/goals cannot co-exist except in perpetual conflict ... then yes, I'd consider you an enemy.

That doesn't neccessarily make you a priority in my life, doesn't make you a target for any particular action, it simply acknowledges the reality of the situation. Damned if I see the problem with acknowledging that, denial wouldn't/doesn't change the truth.

[kcchief19]

I can't cast stones at people who make buying decisions because I know everyone does it to a certain extent. Mrs. kcchief19 won't go to a particularly coffee shop anymore because one day while she was there the owner professed a hatred for gays and lesbians. She won't go to another place any more because the owner parked his truck across two prime parking spaces. I've known plenty of people who won't order a Domino's pizza because Tom Monahan gave so much money to anti-abortion groups.

In that regard, game developers are no different than any other business person. The difference is the environment in which they live. Mrs. kcchief19 went to the coffee shop hundreds of times before this women's feelings came out, and she'd probably still be going there if she hadn't said anything. She now frequents a coffee shop far out of her way in part because On the Internet and message boards like this, there is so much more interaction unrelated to the transaction that personalities are more likely to emerge.

That's good and bad. I think it's a reason why "famous" game designers are well-shielded from the public. Designers for Maxis, EA and other outfits almost never venture outside the edited Q&A format and almost never interact with the consumer base. Independent developers can't afford that.

All said, it's probably a wash. Independent developers probably in most cases pick up as many consumers as they alienate through personal interactions.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

kc, this IS a "front office football" board (and probably the only major one).

I don't think that's it. GDS has a game schedules to come out in theory within the next six weeks. There are no discussions either here or on their message board taking quotes from Arlie and extrapolating lines from his chat and expounding on what that means for six pages.

My theory is that it has something to do with the nature of the fan base. Maybe it's just a few 20-30 hard-core obsessed fans that get the ball rolling. If you like at the GDS site now, you get a lot of what you also see leading up to OOTP releases -- lots of questions about what features will be in, what won't be in and how things will work. Jim gets plenty of those two. But we've had plenty of discussions here where Jim will say something about crazy female teenage drivers and everybody here turns into a cryptographer trying to crack the code.

Maybe it's his love of puzzles.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

That's just it CR, even once the anger is gone (so there's not even the benefit of "content in my anger"), the ability to enjoy is too often unrecoverable for me.
There's basically just a black hole where the enjoyment used to be, or even worse, there's a consistent nagging concern that something else will come up & you'll end up having to go through the same pissed-off cycle all over again.

Thankfully, there's a recent surge of new tabletop games that at least gives me some options right now (currently printing off some stuff for a promising looking MMA-fighting game that I haven't had a chance to tackle yet), but it's still something that leaves me howling overall, something along the lines of a primordial "Would you please try to avoid doing shit that will fuck this up for me?"

Like I said, rants are often pretty personal stuff

jeez, you never fail to confirm the fact that i would NEVER, not once, want to be in the same room with you or trapped on an island with you. i don't want to go to jail, so please dont ever be near me, i couldn't control my urge to strike you hard.

your stupidity and extremist attitude on almost every subject triggers this chemical in me that makes me angered and makes me frown. you're an american version of someone in al quaeda. you're white or balck, but no grey. i can't say "it's a southern thing", cuz while i disagree with many of the decisions SD makes around here he seems to have a devil-may-care attitude on *many* topics. others from the south don't share your politics, so i can't say your posts are a product of your environment.

i wholeheartedly disagree with people who can't separate a developer from his online presence. what one has to do with the other is beyond me. as long as i don't find out that jim is funneling the proceeds of his sales to terrorist organizations - how he or marc or arles or whomever feels about religion, politics or whathaveyou is of no concern of mine. it's people like you who ruin their fun of interacting with their customers. it's people like you who ruins it for fans of these games - because a small percentage of the appeal of supporting small independant developers is the ability to have a conversation with them. you being the way you are makes it so that they can't be themselves.

i feel sorry that you live your life the way you do with that ugly viewpoint of yours. i can only hope that the extreme stances you take on the debates around here is in part due to the anonymous nature of the internet, and that in reality you're a little more even-keeled and reasonable in your dealings with people who don't share your opinions.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

so please dont ever be near me, i couldn't control my urge to strike you hard.

See, that's why I never write you off completely HA ... we have a few things in common.

If anything HA, I'm actually more patient & tolerant here than I am IRL.
That probably has more to do with access than anything else. Here, relatively few of the people that I would like to discomfit in some meaningful way are reachable through practical measures. In close proximity however ... well, opportunity can be a powerful motivator.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Independent developers probably in most cases pick up as many consumers as they alienate through personal interactions.

But I think there's a reasonable question to be asked whether that level of interaction (which you described pretty well IMO) also helps limit them to remaining independent developers.

Granted, all of them don't aspire to be any bigger than they are right now & there's not one thing wrong with that (if it's what they want) but I think it's safe to say that isn't the case with all of them either.

At the very least, I can see an argument to be made that the interaction that makes them more successful as an indy might also inhibit their ability (or opportunity) to move to the next level.

[MalcPow]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

Maybe it's his love of puzzles.

And as was mentioned earlier, his "less is more" approach toward release discussion. No one parses Arlie's words because if he's working on a game, you know about it. Unfortunately back in the .400 days you knew about it through a couple of release delays and other problems, but he takes a straightforward, open approach toward what he's working on and avoids the intrigue headaches of Jim's silence (although obviously Arlie's approach has its own headaches).

With the "enemy" stuff, the word obviously has a more dramatic connotation than its general definition (probably because it's used to describe those that settle their disagreements with lethal violence), but that seems to be JiMG's basic style, he thinks that what's worth believing is worth believing strongly so why mess about with half measures and ambiguous fluff. I don't see anything wrong with that.

As an individual developer you're an odd hybrid when it comes the personal/professional line. There's a reason major corporations try not to do things like come out for or against the Iraq war, or take strong stances (or any) on controversial issues, they'd end up alienating half their customers in the same way Mac seems to fear. You face the same scrutiny as a large company, and probably moreso if you are the lone representative of that company. This isn't something that's unique to independent text sim developers, it's something all businesses face. If you want to further or represent an agenda beyond the scope of your business transactions, you should probably further it in a capacity outside of your usual business capacity. Unfortunately for an almost entirely web-based company, your business and personal capacity is essentially your screenname/web-handle, and there's no separation. If having an alias is something that makes you uncomfortable in what is essentially a forum for discussion and idea flow, then you have to deal with that, but you're also making a conscious decision not to separate the two when you have a clear opportunity to do so (when many professions simply don't have even that luxury).

[jeff061]

you're an american version of someone in al quaeda.

Quoted for truth.

Never thought I'd say that about a HA post.

[Icy]

Umm i dont' think we should mix the threads and discussions with a developer about his product with the discussions with a developer about politics, religion, sports, economy or whatever. Here are my thoughts:

-About boards:

I talk in boards to have fun, meet other ppl and gain a big experience from talking with guys from all around the world with different points of view, something you can't do without internet.

I discuss with anybody when i don't agree, i could even get angry at some but after a few days, i can't even remember the nick of the guy who had a fight with me as we talk in a lot of threads about different stuff, and in one thread i can have a fight with personality XX and at another thread i can agree with him 100% on another matter. I think i had only a big discussion on this board, about hunting if i remember well, and i can't remember who had the fight with me and i really don't care as i'm sure i have interacted with them in other threads and agreed with them on other issues. I can hate somebody who makes something bad to me, my family or my friends in real life, but i can't underestand the hate with a guy who doesn't agree with your opinion on something.

- About game developers:

I love to interact with game developers, i would love way more interaction with us from Jim for example talking about his projects and i had a few discussion with him about that in the past as i don't agree with his silence politic (that threads like this make me re-think about it), but on the other hand i'll keep buying any game from him as all the ones i have purchased from him in the past has been a great experience, i'll keep buying them as long as the quality is there and he keeps the great support. About other things, i dont' care at all about what are his thoughts about politics or any other stuff, i will discuss things with him if necesary, i'll disagree or agree with him depending on the matter, we could even get angry at each other but that won't affect at all my opinion about his games and my desire to buy them.

I buy games to have fun, i like developers interaction to improve that games to provide me more fun. Their opinions or real life acts don't affect at all my fun playing their games in my computer as i don't have the developer sitting at my side discussing with me while i play. If the developer was a free gift included in the game that i had to take to my home, then i would consider to buy the game or not depending on how i like the developer.

I have changed my mind about developers a few times already, for example i was so pissed at the .400ss guys in the past, while i love their projects at GDS now and the way they handle support and interaction, to the point of them being my favourite developers after having way more interaction with them, specialy now, and being able to know more about their personalities.

I also had a bad opinion from Marc Howard in the past, before i joined FOFC forums. My first impression was that he was a bit elitist on his soccer sim ideas when i visited his website some years ago. After reading him a lot of times during this past two years in FOFC, i think he is a great guy and a bit of fresh air in the text sims bussines with his different ideas. I like how direct he is when he needs to say what he thinks, not thinking about if that is good or bad for his sales. This is a proof of how boards interaction could help ppl to know you better.

Of course i need to mention here the great Marc V. as imho he is a prefect example of how being the leader on the sports sim doesn't mean you need to forget about your roots, the fans who helped him to be at where he is now. Compare him with EA, where you can't interact with the developers on any way and they only think on money and bussines. All us have seen him give advice to new developers, share with us his favourite free games etc but at same time to build a bussines that doesn't stop to grow. I have been following him since CM Italy when i was a kid and his game only played by minorities, when i had to order CM97-98 from a foreign company throught a magazine as i couldn't find it in Spain, to the pesent when his company leads the bussines. During all this time i have seen posts from him of tons of different boards, sports, games, programming etc and things have not changed about his personality.

If we didn't buy stuff from the companies we dont' like, probably we would walk nude in the streets and would eat from our own garden. A good product and good support is a good product and good support, no matter how asshole is the company owner or how his ideas differ from yours.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Quoted for truth.

Never thought I'd say that about a HA post.

indeed. i don't mean to say that Jon would drive an airlplane into a building of liberals and non-Christians (i'll give him the benefit of the doubt, at least), but his stance on topics and refusal to give an inch to those who disagree with him, his "you're either with me or against me, and if you're against me then i wish to strike you down and wish nothing but total failure for you and your endeavors" are the same characteristics of a militant extremist wing of terrorists.

sure, i might conjure up some strong feelings by drawing a comparison between the two, but Jon does no better when he randomly throws around the "enemy" tag to those who don't share his beliefs. to consider someone an enemy because you don't agree with them says you have no tolerance. it shows a lack of respect for others who you don't agree with (you can disagree with someone and still respect them, and respect the fact that they're allowed to have their views, however different from yours they may be). it shows that he is, in fact, the one who's paranoid (and not jim, as Jon called him). he's paranoid in the sense that someone who doesn't share his beliefs is someone who wishes him harm (in his mind), which would call for him to take such an extremist, vigilant and hard-line stance.

[jeff061]

Bottom line. He wishes misfortune to those that disagree with him, since this will help accomplish his goal of leaving them powerless and irrelevant to this world. It's a very backwards and simple way of thinking.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by jeff061

Quoted for truth.

Never thought I'd say that about a HA post.

Well, damn. I agree with everything HA posted.

Just when I thought Jon couldn't be any more fucked up in the head, I read another one of his threads.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

...to consider someone an enemy because you don't agree with them

Humor me, at least this once.

Show me how the word enemy isn't a perfect fit, by its very definition.

Once you qualify as "opposing my interests", you're there.

So, please, explain how that's an invalid term. Or inaccurate.

says you have no tolerance.

Umm, HA ... check my sig file re: tolerance.

it shows a lack of respect for others who you don't agree with

Have I ever wasted either of our time claiming such a thing?

(and not jim, as Jon called him).

Out of context violation -- the reference to paranoia was clearly regarding his (apparent) belief that the original post in this thread had anything to do with him.

who doesn't share his beliefs is someone who wishes him harm

Now here's where I'll offer a minor correction, or at least a distinction.
"Disagreement" seems to be a neccessary component of the "enemy" defintion, but it isn't sufficient grounds all by itself (which is what your statement seems to imply).

Simple example of the distinction I'm trying to make:
Ex. 1 -- You think blue widgets are the most beautiful, want them manufactured in great quantity, and hate red widgets. I think red widgets are infinitely more appealing, should be widely used, while blue widgets are an eyesore. We disagree completely ... but you fail the "enemy" test because
our differents views & objectives are not mutually exclusive. The red widgets & the blue widgets can co-exist.

Ex. 2 -- You believe red widgets are so superior to any other color that only red widgets should be produced. I think blue widgets are the only widgets fit for the human eye to behold, all others are an abomination. Assuming we both work toward our own goal, we are enemies by definition ... because our goals are mutually exclusive. Neither goal can be attained without the failure of the other.

Mutual exclusivity is a key component in an accurate "enemy" designation.

[Anthony]

well, we can chalk it up to you not using a word how it's conventionally used. people, on this board for example, have a universal notion as to the meaning of enemy, least of which concerns "opposing one's interests". by your line of thinking i can go around calling poor people "niggers" because one definition of it is: Used as a disparaging term for a member of any socially, economically, or politically deprived group of people: “Gun owners are the new niggers . . . of society” (John Aquilino). we both know what that word is conventionally used for.

so again, i'm perfectly ok with saying you're not using a word properly. if you insist on labeling those in disagreement with you as "enemies", it just goes to prove that people may be right in brushing you off as extremist and unreasonably narrow. it's ok, i'm sure you're a nice person and it's very easy for me to not read things you post, so i'll try in the future to limit my exposure to your rhetoric to avoid angering myself. i just find it odd that you go around parading and are proud of a viewpoint and personae that is generally abhorred by others.

re: your stance on tolerance - just cuz it's in your signature doesn't make it true. say what you want about me, but i have tolerance. i respect other people's right to exist and their right to live as they choose on their own property/country. i believe your signature is faulty, about someone who's tolerant is someone who is without conviction. i hold strong in my beliefs, but i have the clarity of mind and respect to hear others out and perhaps, if they present a good enough arguement - perhaps adjust my own beliefs. our thoughts and beliefs are shaped/created only through experience and knowledge, so unless you know it all and have seen it all you shouldn't discredit those who perhaps have more insight on certain issues. where we differ is i'm willing to listen to reason and am ready to accept when i'm wrong whereas you just want to shoot down someone who opposes you.

hence, we're back to Jon=american version of al quaeda. you don't want to let others exist knowing they don't agree with you. you openly wish them harm (financial harm for sure, the jury is still out if you indeed wish your "enemies" actual harm). you can't be reasoned with, because, as your signature says, for you to tolerate someone else's beliefs would require you compromising your convictions. you can't tolerate coexisting with people who think differently than you, so rather than coexist you want to eradicate them, remove them from your presence. that radical viewpoint is why Iraq hasn't been able to get over the hump, because extremists in that region lack the ability to coexist with others with opposing beliefs.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

well, we can chalk it up to you not using a word how it's conventionally used.

I've got no problem with that. I believe that the word is underutilized because it makes people uncomfortable. It doesn't bother me one iota, so I choose not to avoid it when it's the most accurate word I can find when needed.

it's ok, i'm sure you're a nice person

HA, no offense, but that may be the single most f'ed up thing I've ever seen you post.

i just find it odd that you go around parading and are proud of a viewpoint and personae that is generally abhorred by others.

I'm just me HA. {shrug} Blue is blue, water is wet, I'm me.
To borrow from a current song lyric "Better to be hated for who you are than be loved for who you're not."

[Anthony]

best of luck to you man. i don't like your online personality, but i don't really wish anyone harm, so my wish is that you don't ever run into someone who is as non-tolerant towards others as yourself, because non-tolerant people can't be reasoned with and you might find yourself unable to get out of a potentially harmful situation when faced with someone like yourself. most rational people can be reasoned with. so again, best of luck to you.

and i meant it when i said i'm sure you're a nice person. all people see of me is that i jack off a lot, probably over-sexed and am obnoxious towards others, and most probably think i lack compassion towards others. everyone would be incorrect (except for the jacking off part). these are but slices of a much bigger pie. people wouldn't know from the way i post that my eyes water when i watch romantic comedies with my wife. they wouldn't know that i'm a good listener. they wouldn't know that for someone who constantly makes fun of others online i'm actually quick to be the butt of the joke cuz i like making my friends laugh. you wouldn't know that cuz i choose not to show those sides of myself here, so everyone here couldn't possibly really know me. i don't know the entire Jon, so i don't presume that the way you post here is the way you live your life, my stance towards you (and anyone else here, even someone i can't stand like QS) is that i'm sure you're a nice person and the parts that you choose to reveal to others online are the parts that i don't like. i don't like SD much, but i respect him for being a positive force in his community while people like T.O. insults every one of us by saying he can't feed his family on a contract he just signed last year. see, i can not like someone *and* tolerate them at the same time.

i think we're both clear on this subject though, i'll be the one who steps out of this one. anything else we say to each other will wind up sounding repetitve.

[rkmsuf]

If you cried during Beaches I wish harm on you.

[Anthony]

i said my eyes water, ass, i don't cry at those movies. i didn't see Beaches, fwiw. but yeah, when the guy gets the girl and all is right with the world, sure, i shed a tear or two. my heart pumps blood, not ice. i bleed red if you cut me.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

bmy eyes water when i watch romantic comedies with my wife

Wuss.

[rkmsuf]

Word on the street is at Under the Tuscan Sun he needed a hanky.

[Calis]

For once I agree with everything HA said also, preach on brother. Well, except for the crying during Beaches part, that's for bitches.

When HA is sounding more rational than you, it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate things.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Calis

For once I agree with everything HA said also, preach on brother. Well, except for the crying during Beaches part, that's for bitches.

When HA is sounding more rational than you, it's time to take a step back and re-evaluate things.

all i want is for Jon to re-evaluate things, so you're correct in that regard, just want him to occassionaly concede an inch, that's all. i just want him to go back to being the Jon i liked when this board was still taking off. lately it seems everyone here is a cariacature of themselves, yours truly included. i'm the one who writes about jacking off and likes making people feel bad about themselves. Jon is the strict, rigid extremist who takes a hard line stance towards people who think differently than him. Quiksand is the puzzle guy who always has to interject a nice, lighthearted discussion with over-analytical mumbo-crapo. shorty is the man in a boy's body who can't grow facial/body hair, the one who shouldn't spend a nite in Michael Jackson's house. SD is the pro-South guy's guy. Buccaneer is like Eyore the donkey from Winnie the Pooh, the killjoy and rain on the parade guy. so on and so forth. i think many of us have painted ourselves into a corner here, like we feel we have to play up to our FOFC reputations and online personalities.

before the discussions of politics and religion, before the puzzles and before the direct linking to porn, we talked about everything and anything and while there were disagreements it had nothing to do with people's belief systems and values. we were just "guys" who posted, we weren't forced to act a certain way because prior posts dictated we should. i'm trying to change the way i post here, because i think Hell Atlantic, the guy everyone loves to hate, has made it difficult for me to be taken seriously in the rare times when i'm not trying to make someone feel bad about themself or whatever. in the words of Rocky, from Rocky IV: "i can change...we...all can change".

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic

just want him to occassionaly concede an inch

In respect for your desires, I solemnly promise -- the next time I find myself believing I'm wrong, I'll give one inch.

Theoretically, there would have to be a first time for everything, but I'm willing to take my chances.

[WSUCougar]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In respect for your desires, I solemnly promise -- the next time I find myself believing I'm wrong, I'll give one inch.

Which, in your case, would equate to meeting him halfway.




*rimshot*

[sovereignstar]

Huh!
Yeah, we’re comin’ back then with another bombtrack
Think ya know what it’s all about
Huh!
Hey yo, so check this out
Yeah!
Know your enemy!

Come on!

Born with insight and a raised fist
A witness to the slit wrist, that’s with
As we move into ’92
Still in a room without a view
Ya got to know
Ya got to know
That when I say go, go, go
Amp up and amplify
Defy
I’m a brother with a furious mind
Action must be taken
We don’t need the key
We’ll break in

Something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
’cause I’ll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against ’em

Fist in ya face, in the place
And I’ll drop the style clearly
Know your enemy...know your enemy!

Yeah!

Hey yo, and dick with this...uggh!
Word is born
Fight the war, fuck the norm
Now I got no patience
So sick of complacence
With the d the e the f the I the a the n the c the e
Mind of a revolutionary
So clear the lane
The finger to the land of the chains
What? the land of the free?
Whoever told you that is your enemy?

Now something must be done
About vengeance, a badge and a gun
’cause I’ll rip the mike, rip the stage, rip the system
I was born to rage against ’em

Now action must be taken
We don’t need the key
We’ll break in

I’ve got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
I’ve got no patience now
So sick of complacence now
Sick of sick of sick of sick of you
Time has come to pay...
Know your enemy!

Come on!
Yes I know my enemies
They’re the teachers who taught me to fight me
Compromise, conformity, assimilation, submission
Ignorance, hypocrisy, brutality, the elite
All of which are american dreams

[wbatl1]

Originally Posted by Calis

I agree with this completely, Marc is one and Brian Nichols is another

Um, Brian Nichols? The murderer from Atlanta? Or is there a Brian Nichols who develops games. I am pretty sure FBCB is developed by a Brian, but not Nichols. I don't think I would buy any games from Brian Nichols

[Calis]

Originally Posted by wbatl1

Um, Brian Nichols? The murderer from Atlanta? Or is there a Brian Nichols who develops games. I am pretty sure FBCB is developed by a Brian, but not Nichols. I don't think I would buy any games from Brian Nichols

Err, I'm pretty sure it IS Brian Nichols, what the FBCB website says at least.

I hope they're not one in the same though, going to make further updates a bitch.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

As for "self-denial", umm ... well ... we're (originally) talking about a game here. Not exactly on the list of requirements for living.

But your original rant, Jon, claimed that game playing was one of the few pleasurable things left to you and likening playing a game to going to a restaurant doesn't stack up. There are a million restaurants and avoiding one needn't be a denial. There are not a million text sims for you to play and avoiding one you would otherwise enjoy because of the politics of the designer clearly involves a degree of self denial. Not life-denying, of course, but a denial of pleasure.

On occasion, I describe myself as an "authoritarian", if someone chooses to say "totalitarian", you might notice that I don't really protest that too much either.

That's fair. I used the word "unbalanced" to suggest an excessive reliance on what I believe to be an irrelevant influence on most people's decision:

If I were to ask members of this board why they intend to buy/not buy Jim's next game, I'm sure I would receive a wide range of answers. However, I doubt anyone other than yourself would include Jim's political opinion in their list. I believe virtually everyone would consider his political opinions an insignificant, if not totally irrelevant, influence on their decision. In this respect your view is excessive.

In fairness I think your original rant was not about political opinion but about a designer who responds unacceptably to a discussion about his game. I would not disagree with you on that. There is clearly a requirement for the designer to treat his customers with respect and should he not do that then he deserves to have potential customers avoid his games.

But choosing to what ends my own money is put is somehow an "unacceptable imposition"? Damn Mac, that's scary.

But that's what it comes down to, Jon. I frequent this board because I enjoy the debates that take place. I find them intelligent, enlightening and entertaining. Many times I find myself in disagreement with posts and feel like putting in my 2 cents worth. But there's always this thought that maybe by doing so I may offend posters and this may come around to causing someone who may well have bought my games to decide not to - if others take the same view as you then I face a financial penalty for merely expressing my views. It's not something most posters face. I find this an imposition. I'm sure other designers experience the same thoughts. I generally shrug it off but the thought is always present.

[DaddyTorgo]

i don't even know what i want to add to this discusssion. basically i think my views go something like this.

1) JiMG has the right to not buy a game/frequent an establishment/whatever for whatever reason he wants. I think everyone agrees on that. I think it appears the vast majority of the board feels this is an overreaction, but ya know what guys it's his life. And like HA says, someday he's going to run into the mirror image of himself, and it's going to make him sit up and take notice (possibly, maybe not, who knows).

2) For the vast majority of us, the impact of a designer political/religious/whatever views on whether or not we buy the game is minimal to insignificant.

So I think we just have to agree to disagree here. I don't want to go throwing stones at people. JiMG is free to do whatever he wants, whatever the rest of us may feel about it, and we on the other hand are free to say whatever we want about it. Because that's the society we live in.

I know me personally, I could care less about the views of most people I purchase from. There are notable exceptions though: I won't buy from Dominos because of the abortion-thing, I try to avoid Walmart for the most part because of the way they treat their employees. But I think if you take these sorts of things to the extreme, you end up paralyzed by indecision as it were, like the guy who suffocates himself because he is afraid that by breathing he is going to cause a tornado somewhere that is going to kill someone else (or however that parable-thing goes). A little bit of voting-with-your-pocketbook is fine, a lot just seems, impractical to me. Too many constraints on choices, plus how can you ever really be sure of what that person actually thinks?

I mean Game Designer X could come out and say he is a fanatical liberal, but for all we know it could be a total joke. And then you're witholding $$ not from an "enemy" (assuming one is a republican) but from an ally. See?

edit: or his politics could change as the result of a life event and maybe he wouldn't inform us. And where would one be then...denying support to an ally again. It's hardly a foolproof system.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

In fairness I think your original rant was not about political opinion but about a designer who responds unacceptably to a discussion about his game.

In spite of any other disagreement we have on the other tangents,
I genuinely appreciate your acknowledging that the original point of the rant (and this thread) had nothing to do with the direction it was eventually steered.

But there's always this thought that maybe by doing so I may offend posters and this may come around to causing someone who may well have bought my games to decide not to - if others take the same view as you then I face a financial penalty for merely expressing my views.

And I believe that's exactly how it should be -- I don't believe that there's any legitimate rationale for financing opposition to your own core values.
And that's what I believe is often the basis for many of the socio-political disputes that we see here -- what we argue about are symptoms (for lack of a better word at the moment), the underlying causes, the values that drive our positions on issue X,Y, and Z, are what differ so greatly.

It's not something most posters face.

It isn't something most posters face here ... but that's related to the general theme of the board, not to any sort of unfair burden on game designers/developers. This happens to be where some potential customers for text-sim developers are, so there's a need for caution. But I dare say there's plenty of people here who face the same situation in other venues on a regular basis, be they internet or physical world.

For a developer, exposing your views on a controversial subject here is akin to, say, a caterer holding court on his/her views at a chamber of commerce after-hours dinner. (i.e. a social setting where they have potential customers). They run the same kind of risk & have to exercise the same judgement that you're talking about.

That's part & parcel of being in business Mac, it isn't something unique or even unusual to FOFC, text-sim developers, or the internet.

What you're talking about is something that has been discussed quite a bit over the 12 years I lived in the town I'm in. My wife & I have talked about (and had mentioned to us by numerous others) the tremendous freedom & advantage that comes from having 0% of our income derived from an otherwise largely disconnected hometown. We could piss off virtually everyone in this community & it wouldn't cost us a dime. That generates a great deal of freedom to act upon our beliefs and upon our values.

And it's not really an accidental situation at this point, although I'll admit that we never really dreamed how big a difference it makes until we experienced it first hand. We're currently looking at moving over the next year & this is one of the things that we see as an important issue -- finding a location that is geographically feasible for continuing to work with our clients but that is also far enough removed that our personal life & our business cross paths as little as possible (with less than 1% being optimal).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

A little bit of voting-with-your-pocketbook is fine, a lot just seems, impractical to me.

You just hit on "practical" and/or "reasonable", which is something I've said several times in this thread. I wish it were realistic to be absolute in spending choices (and I'm occasionally troubled by cases where it isn't), but I consistently acknowledge that it isn't.

[thesloppy]

I'm all for a man's right to stick to his principles, but if you're making a software purchasing decision based on not funding liberal minded developers, and you plan to run that software on your MICROSOFT Windows PC...the proverbial pooch has already been screwed upside down and sideways.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm all for a man's right to stick to his principles, but if you're making a software purchasing decision based on not funding liberal minded developers, and you plan to run that software on your MICROSOFT Windows PC...the proverbial pooch has already been screwed upside down and sideways.

hahahaha not bad

somebody with a drumset give this man a rimshot