Wyrd Responses

In relation to the Emily Garland blogpost, and the article on Vox.com, I reached out to Wyrd miniatures for an interview. They politely declined, due to the nature of the topic.(I'll reflect on this a little later.) They also pointed me to not one, but two statements, one regarding sexism and one regarding community.


Looking at the first statement, they start off well. Not discussing any individual incidents, as some may be under investigation, and color someone's perception in a trial, is wise. Tainted juries waste taxpayer resources, and can get criminals freed(assault, rape, etc.) , not to mention the extra inflicted emotional distress on the victim. Second, moderating the forum with an iron fist is a good step, keep things from becoming inflammatory.  They also state to let them know of any incidents of harassment or discrimination. Again, good play, keep it quiet until it's been investigated, then take action.

Now to the parts of the first statement I have issues with, and it's not pretty. Here are two factors I outright find troubling: first, that they have a Code of Conduct for their henchmen(community organizers). Largely their business, but as Vox Day's SJWs Always Lie tells us, CoCs can easily be abused, and are usually designed for such by SJWs. From the CoC: "Any behavior that is disrespectful of a member of the community (or a potential member of the community) will not be tolerated." There are clear problems with this. Some people are not worth respecting, as they attempt to undermine community, and the whole point of what the group is about. See Mozilla, see Beamdog, see Twitter and Facebook for examples of this. SJWs will collude and slander someone they see as a threat to them, or a trophy to brag about for dissemploying. Then there's this tidbit:"I'd like to take a moment to thank those individuals who have come to our defense, but I'd like to make it clear that questioning other people's integrity is not beneficial.". Um what? If someone is provably a liar, and trusted by certain members of a group, they're likely all liars. People that will lie to your face, and then stab you in the back for a sense of accomplishment POISON communities like those that grow around any game. They also mention some naming controversy the didn't realize they had. Naming a character Lust, and not thinking some might find it offensive? Oh, you weren't talking about Christians.

Onto the second statement. Hmm: "It is because of this that we do not tolerate or condone any behavior that harasses, makes uncomfortable, insults, or otherwise diminishes another person. We don't tolerate it within our company, and we don't tolerate it within our community". Try again, and take a look at your models. It's not hard to see how they might make some uncomfortable. That said, I don't care about their models, I'm not into their game. Denouncing harassment? Sure, but you also state discrimination is always wrong. I'm not allowed to not like to play with an unpleasant person? Rubbish. Yes, I'm going by a strict definition of descrimination based on the Latin: a distinguishing(or differentiating). Merit has a lot to do with discrimination, don't let the SJWs lull you into other belief. There's some nice charts here on the ACT and SAT. Individuals indeed vary greatly, but genetics is a large determinant in IQ. I'm not making a case against minorities, to be clear. I'm making a case that someone might be interested in a game and not have the mental capacity to actually play it. Then, when they're pwned, they can't deal with it, and "harassment" gets thrown into the mix.  

Now as to Wyrd refusing to do interviews: They think they're in big trouble if they talk to anyone. They're pretty much right. Vox and it's ilk would edit and misconstrue everything for a hit piece, they're of the "listen and believe" camp. Someone like me? Well, I'm not well known, but I'm not afraid to make enemies. The mere fact that they talked to me would get some to abandon them, once I was pointed out to SJWs. That they're caving on some points of creativity tells me they're already infested at some level, and willing to sacrifice their game to the people they believe are their audience.  Have fun with the sales drop you'll eventually see.

My recommendations? Play with people you know. Have witnesses that you can trust. Record everything where it is legal, get permissions to do so if required by law. Now that this has been officially entered into the SJW playbook, you'll need to watch for it at tournaments and conventions.

When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

Malvertising, and how to stop it

I'm going to take a slight departure and write about a law I'd like to see passed. It hasn't, to my knowledge, been written yet.  I generally think new laws should be avoided, as they weaken respect for rule of law.

In recent years, a new type of advertising has risen online, commonly known as malvertising.  The biggest issue is that most companies don't vet the ads themselves, they source it out, and trust these companies they don't know. Some have better reputations than others, and some disappear shortly after their first batch of ads.

I'd like to see companies responsible for the ads they host. By that, I mean if a malvertisement downloads to your computer, the site hosting that "ad", should be liable for the damages, (scrubbing the hard drive or replacing if it's too far gone).  This would have two benefits: 1. companies would start checking every advertisement that goes on their site; 2. companies would not object to ad replacement software that vets their own ads. I'm not begrudging them income for their content, just the lack of responsibility they face.

Here's a letter I composed for your perusal. If you desire, feel free to use it or modify it yourself.

Senator/Congressman:
As internet security becomes a larger and larger concern, websites should be responsible for their place. It's not polite, but the old saying is, “You don't shit where you eat.”. A great many are making their money off of advertisements, and I do not begrudge them their right to income. However, there is a growing sector of internet advertising, known as malvertising. These ads self download into the viewers system, quite often bypassing any permissions, and quickly begin slowing down their system anytime they're online. Ultimately, this reduces computer performance to the point of being unusable, and the software is difficult to scrub from the system.
I call on you to sponsor legislation forcing companies to be liable for damages that advertising they host directly causes. Credit card information gets stolen. Technical service time is expensive, and replacing machines poses an even greater expense. And for the technically adept, it still costs time and frustration. This legislation should be written to encourage companies to at the least vet their advertisements so that it is known they aren't harmful.
Lest you or your aides not believe me, I encourage you to to read the articles at the following sites:
https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2016/04/12/massive-malvertising-attack-poisons-288-sites/http://www.wired.com/insights/2014/11/malvertising-is-cybercriminals-latest-sweet-spot/http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34541915
This affects citizens worldwide, and you can help lead the way in making the internet safer by creating an incentive for ads to be safe and honest.
Sincerely,

When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

Vox buys the bait, as usual

Well, it's been a little over a week since the Emily Garland post went up (Latining), and now Vox.com has taken their usual "listen and believe" route. Of course, the Winnipeg Free Press, and the Minitoba Human Rights Commission did as well, so they can claim precedent from more legitimized sources.

I'd like to thank Vox.com for doing some of the legwork for me, emailing Garland and linkeing to the WFP, as now I can do more than just see an asinine tumblr blog without doing work: I can now look at both a hit piece and a real article. This might get messy, as it also leads to the Canadian "justice" system, a system that disenfranchised George Alan Eliot for three years, and he likely has no recourse for false arrest and loss of livelihood and reputation.

I'm going to start with Ms. Garland's "historic case". The Manitoba Human Rights Commission is not a proper court. Trials are ruled on by 10 people, appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council for terms of three years. In the case, Mr. Tackaberry stated that Garland was a  compulsive liar, and later told the WFP that the HRC's process was a kangaroo court. Looking at the decision, it appears to at least be run in similar fashion to a criminal court, but if the defendant's acts were such, I find myself incredulous that it did not result in imprisonment. This is telling in that they are making citizens fearful of speaking "the wrong way", reducing public freedom. By the way, the Code of Human Rights in Canada does not allow for free speech. Stereotypes are forbidden.

While at the University of Manitoba, Ms. Garland claims to have received several death threats, both via email and slipped under the door of her office as a grader. The police allegedly refused to even fill out paperwork, a clear sign of lack of evidence. Why the WFP didn't investigate further, well that might require journalism, rather than collecting a couple of statements.

Garland told Vox.com that she was frozen out of one game store, and harassed out of another. By harassed, I assume the gamers there felt unwelcoming to her. Nobody has to be your friend, Ms. Garland, and you ruined one gamer's life already. Why would anyone want to play with you?

You're upset that there's more male figures in a WAR GAME? I just checked an article based on 2012 DOD numbers, and the US military is only 16% female. So, why not get those numbers more in line with reality? Oh, you're complaining with 50/50 representation, because you think female models are oversexualized? I personally don't like the aesthetic of Malifaux these days, as I don't care for some of the anime stylizing. But no, you went after their portrayal of females specifically, not the overall art direction of the game.

As to her complaints about harassment, they had no place on the company's website unless the company was running the event. Send a letter to the store, and a copy of the letter to the police, and you're on the right track.  Given the level of nagging and conflating, I can understand why Wyrd stopped talking to her. If you stop outraging every day, you might actually get what you want.

Vox.com did contact Wyrd, which has issued it's own statement regarding community and harassment. Their spokesperson also stated they investigate all claims and that no employee has engaged in harassment. Another Wyrd official stated that after a year, they had yet to be presented any evidence or been approached by authorities. Again, a lack of criminal complaints reduces creditability.

Here's a great line from Vox.com's article:

This sounds like a case of "same shit, different geek community." Are things actually changing?

Of course, they aren't realizing that we might say that about games journalism.  If they spent some time among gamers, at a convention, it might be realized that we don't really care about race or gender that much, we want a good game.  I don't want sex in my games, I want conflict. Us supposed orthodox gamers don't dislike someone for being a minority; we dislike slander and stupidity. We largely don't want to care about the "Social Justice" issues(not to be confused with charity to the poor and helping with employment), we want to play our games.

Ms. Garland, while you might be proud of creating another front for SJW's, you fail to realize you're just going to make another GamerGate group. We have alternative creation platforms already in place if companies fold to your demands, game design is a sub hobby for many of us, and you WILL lose, as our side gains exposure to the world at large.

When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

Dragon Awards

I'm sure that the few that read this little and infrequent blog already know that DragonCon has decided to create their own awards for SF and Fantasy content. I say content because this covers several categories of novels(excellent news), comics/graphic novels, and a few game categories. Please note a work is only eligible for one category, not multiples, in accordance with Dragon Award Rules.  Due to the fact that this Very Prestigious Award has not been ruined, and is free to nominate and vote, here are my personal nominations:

Best SF Novel: Somewhither by John C. Wright

Best Fantasy Novel: Son of the Black Sword by Larry Correia

Best YA Novel: Calamity by Brandon Sanderson

Best Military SF/Fantasy Novel: Warship by Joshua Dalzelle

Best Alternate History Novel: A Long Time Until Now, by Michael Z. Williamson

Best Apocalyptic Novel: Ctrl Alt Revolt! by Nick Cole
Update: My bad. I just realize Ctrl Alt Revolt misses eligibility by 6 days. Apologies to Mr. Cole. I recommend his The End of the World as We Knew It in it's stead.

Best Horror Novel: Honor at Stake by Declan Finn

Best Comic Book: The Black Hood #1-#5, 2/25/15-8/26/15

Best Graphic Novel: Invisible Republic,  by Gabriel Hardman and Corinna Bechko, August 26, 2015

Best Episode in a series(it's really a series as a whole nom.): The Flash

Best SF/F Movie: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Best SF/F PC/Console Game: The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt by CD Projekt RED

Best Mobile Game: no recommendation, as I don't play them currently

Best SF/F Board Game: Talon by GMT Games

Best SF/F Minis/CCG/RPG: Mouse Guard 2nd edition by Archaia Studios Press

These are of course only my opinions, and not suggestions that anyone do likewise or otherwise.


When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

If you get rid of the white males in tabletop games, you won't have any games.

It's been awhile. I've been remiss in my writing, and haven't finished the Kyle Gabhart interview.  SJWs have interfered with my writer's block, though.

So this week, a post decrying sexual harassment in tabletop gaming has been making waves. You may read it here. The laughable part is the sheer improbability of all the stories. In fact, I've seen more harassment from women in game stores than men. Why? They can get away with it. But, since I hate whinging liars, I'm going to address each of these stories. Apologies if this gets old, they don't provide much material to really work with.

The author's story about Malifaux and Wyrd miniatures: MIGHT have some truth to it. Of course, I'm of the opinion the author is confusing highly defensive game designers with threats of violence. After all , she(self-identified) wrote to the company and Wyrd did nothing. Which tells me that either: 1. She's lying and didn't provide documentation, or 2. She can't tell a fraudulent account from a real one, and has been conned, or 3. She thinks they can't tell a fraudulent account from a real one. Disagreement is not threatening.

The 13yo and the 40k players: NO SALE. Any store owner I know would not act such, and the 40k players I know would beat up said owner, not join in the chorus. BTW, I don't like 40k; the players I know are largely cool.

Terrorism charge: That's good stuff you're on. Death threats are not terrorism. They are illegal, and if police aren't willing to do paperwork, you're not being emailed threats, or you'd be able to provide them with information they need. Real names aren't necessary for the report, just the one on the email. You have an address, and good computer techs can get IPs pretty easily. The UN paper on cyberbullying was such a joke they retracted it. The days when you can  quote yourself, directly or indirectly, are over in such areas.

Keycon rape: A friend hands you the Pepsi, and you wake up with a strange man's hand in your pants? Are you still friends with this person? Is Keycon code for a frat sex party? I have problems believing in Canadian gamers that would do this. You're likely a drunken slut; regret is not rape.

Police reports: Doubtful. Most of us know police are not for our protection, they're for government's. As to intimidating women out of filing reports or pressing charges, if you find questions intimidating, you shouldn't leave home. Lawyers will cross examine you, and if you are lying, you will be torn to shreds. See the recent trial of John Gomeshi.

2009 game store: It was 2009. Were you unable to get a webcam to RECORD EVERYTHING? You won a human rights case against him, but criminal cases require documented evidence, not he said, she said. With planning and preparation, you could have imprisoned the guy, IF he did what you say he did.

Low visibility: I'd say you just made yourself highly visible. With your IP(findable), and your stories, it can be found out exactly who you are, and the veracity of your words will be checked. Gamergate is very thorough. As to gaming being unsafe for women, poppycock. I know a few high profile women in the gaming world who have no such stories, even after hanging out with people they only know online.

Find another hobby: Women should stay away from psychopaths. But to call gamers losers is nothing we haven't heard for DECADES. If you are not capable of identifying psychopaths, you should stay home. And not leave. We don't need you, and you clearly hate us.

Self defenseless: Yes, if you have to defend yourself physically, you've experienced a crime. Doesn't matter if you're a man or woman, crime doesn't care. Self Defense is a good idea. As to the drama, everything I've read there says she's stirring up drama.

Pokemon WC: Mentally unbalanced people are dangerous, no doubt. If asylums and sanitariums were open again, they'd be full of those not inclined to crime but incapable of coping with reality. Blame the ACLU, not white men.

White male terrorism: I get the feeling you have a fetish for appearing as the victim in a snuff film. Not that you wish to die(I don't know that), but the portrayal turns you on.

Models like me: I can actually believe this one. It's not criminal, though, just social awkwardness and a lack of manners.

Drop in RPG session: See previous statement.  If there's enough market, start your own store, and you can cater to the minorities.

Comics and groping: Not buying it.

Gaming justice: Look, Pimp: the Backhanding is sketchy, sure. It's also a joke. These same people also love Cards Against Humanity. Learn to take a joke, but also, get some taste.

No straightmen games: Never seen groping at a store that wasn't between a couple in a relationship, and haven't seen much of that, thankfully. Or are handshakes harassment, now?

Legion/Circle/Goose: Never seen that, and I'd expect the offender to be kicked, male or female. Where did Privateer Press touch you?

Oh, look, you invited the Sad Puppies and GamerGate. No hate for the Rabid Puppies?  Yeah, you made yourself fair game. Cosplay is not Consent is a bit silly. Sure, they have the right not to be groped, etc., but photos? Get outta costume if you don't want to be in photos.

I-Con: Given your SJW credentials, I'll need to see proof you OWN A SKIRT. Then we can talk about the fact that wargamers gonna wargame, not grab your ugly ass.

Predators: Go read the Safe Space as Rape Room articles from Castalia House, once it's back up.  The predators are liberals, not conservatives. I'm not a fan of Ben Shapiro, but he was right in saying "Facts don't care about your feelings." . The fact that you discuss perceived reality is telling as to your grip on it, or rather, lack thereof.

Game free from harassment: Agreed. Quit nagging us, you lying, ignorant slut.


When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

Interview with Nat Levan, designer of the game New Bedford

Nat got back to me this week, and I've been busy and had headache issues. Comments post interview by me will be in italics.

1. Can you give us an overview of New Bedford, for those unaware of the game?

New Bedford is a game about the development of the town of New Bedford in the 18th century alongside the growth of the whaling industry. Part of the game is sending workers into town to collect resources and build more buildings, which gives players even more powerful actions to take and earns points. At the same time, you’re sending out ships to catch whales for points, while trying to make enough money to pay your crew when the ships return. As you catch whales, you see fewer and fewer, representing the historical effects of over-hunting.


2. Tell us about the disclaimer you and the publisher put in the campaign.

    When we first made the video for the campaign, we made sure to explicitly state that we don’t condone or support whaling, even though we think the history is really interesting.

    It’s really there so that if you are quickly reading through, you know that we aren’t ignoring the issue of modern whaling, but that the game isn’t about it either. I don’t think the backers needed that statement to know we don’t promote whaling, and I don’t think including it was what convinced anyone to support us. That wasn’t the intent. More than anything, I think it shows that we considered all aspects of the subject, not just the ones that were convenient or easy, in order to make the best game possible.


And a fair number of people ignored the disclaimer, and posted on BGG in rage.
 
3. Describe some of the reaction, and how that made you and Dice Hate Me Games feel.

    Overall, we heard very few complaints about the game. I don’t remember any negative comments on the Kickstarter campaign itself. A few people said they were interested but wouldn’t buy it because they didn’t think they’d be able to get it to the table due to the theme. It’s impossible to know the overall impact from people who quietly decided it wasn’t for them.

We did get a few comments on BoardGameGeek online about how whaling is a horrible idea for a game. I definitely tried to engage people to both understand and (hopefully) educate. When I was able to have a conversation with someone, I didn’t find any outrage. There were lots of people who felt like making it a game makes light of the subject, and people who didn’t think it was appropriate to have fun while pretending to participate in such violence. I don’t agree with those positions, but I understand why they feel that way. So that experience actually helped me to talk more intelligently about the game and reach people I wouldn’t otherwise have been able to talk to.

The worst response to get is when someone rejects the game without really looking at it. It feels like people are calling you a horrible person for even having an idea, and you don’t have a chance to try and change their mind. But at the same time, these are the responses you have to worry the least about, because there’s nothing you can or could do.




I think I may have seen more of the reaction than Nat, as I subscribed to the boards that ended up with the most dismissive comments. I wonder how many consider the violence in RPGs they play in the same light, or do they not equate in their minds. Also, I'm of course reminded of the Sad/Rabid Puppies campaigns, and their dismissive, name-calling opponents. Nat may also be trying to be diplomatic as not to alienate future game purchasers.
 
4. What do you feel is at the root of the vitriol?

The answer to your question is that I really don’t know. The people who engaged had very understandable reasons behind their opinions, even when we disagreed. But the people who didn’t engage? I think anger is often a defense mechanism. I don’t know if people feel like the game is criticizing them, or trying to attack them, or exclude them. And certainly none of those feelings were intended. It’s just me trying to share a subject I thought was interesting in a way I find enjoyable.


5. Any games you have in development that you would like to tell us about?

    Well, I’ve just announced my next published game, Time Management which is also coming from Dice Hate Me/Greater Than Games, which will be on Kickstarter April 1st. Later this year, I have a game with the Game of the Month Club from Buttonshy Games [https://www.patreon.com/buttonshy], no spoilers. And I’m going to be at Unpub 6 in April [http://unpub6.unpub.net ] testing a game called One Card Wonder and several other designs.


6. Did the Nantucket museum get back to you/DHMG?


We actually had contact with several groups. The New Bedford Whaling Museum is the first group we tried to contact, because we figured they would at least be interested in the project if not the product and that it might be a good relationship. But to my knowledge, we never heard anything through formal or informal channels. It would have been neat to partner with the museum.

We were also contacted by some people connected to the Nantucket Whaling Museum. I don’t know if they had any official authority with the museum, but they were interested in at least doing an informal game night at the museum/library there on Nantucket, which was neat to see.

Besides the museums, we did get in touch with the town about using the town seal, which would have made awesome art for the game, but apparently that has legal restrictions that make it impossible. And I did a brief interview with the local newspaper, a little bit about the game, and a little bit about the hobby in general. It was neat to see the interest that the story generated locally.

Pity the NBWM doesn't want to engage people more broadly. Hopefully the Nantucket one does something on occasion.

Again, thanks to Nat Levan for his time. I was one of the backers of the game, and seeing the reaction on BGG surprised me greatly, one of the reasons I'm trying to do this blog.

When you play Social Justice, the world loses.

Upcoming

I'm trying to work up my interview for Kyle Gabhart about his game Arctic Scavengers. I haven't heard back yet from Mr. Nat Levan, but will send him a query about that shortly. Fell free to suggest any questions you may have for either.