Stop This Event!....Please Read

[-=Squid=-]

Poor analogy:

My weiner dog fell through ice on a frozen pond and died. Im horribly offended by ice skaters.


Seriously people... this wasnt even a reenactment. It was supposed to be a followup on the happenings at nine 11. Did you guys even read the thing?

[coolcatpete]

splatter zone ran a scenerio at my local field that I ref at and it was horrible and the guy who runs everything is a complete jerk. I really hope this and splatter zone gets shut down.
Splatter zone runs really bad buissnes. They were going to come help build our field with 20 people for their scenario, and then they showed up with 3, the main guy, his wif, and is 10 year old boy. They were in charge of advertising, and they did not do so and we ended up paying for a radio commercial, then he complained to us that there was not enough advertising. He then tried to rip us off and he stole our gas. Splatter zone is really bad so for all your scenario stuff go to MXS. Boycott Splatter Zone.
Pete

[TheDuelist]

Re- creating these events is no different than the Civil War re-enactments that go on throughout the country every year. I have yet to hear anyone saying they should be stopped due to insensitivities to history and the thousands of lives lost there. While I don't agree with the 9/11 theme, I have no problem with historical re-creations based on events in the history of warfare.

[1ofkind]

Haha, we'll thats what happens when news media controls how 80% of the world thinks of things. My father joked around about this happening once a while ago, the cool thing was that alot of actual terriost would probably show up for you to play agaist, so it would be like the real thing. Look at the ww2 games, there are alot of hardcore nazis there. In my sense ultimently this a bad idea. Whoever wanted to do this has some guts.

[-=Squid=-]

Haha, we'll thats what happens when news media controls how 80% of the world thinks of things. My father joked around about this happening once a while ago, the cool thing was that alot of actual terriost would probably show up for you to play agaist, so it would be like the real thing. Look at the ww2 games, there are alot of hardcore nazis there. In my sense ultimently this a bad idea. Whoever wanted to do this has some guts.

And thats all I have to say about that.

[/forest gump]

[Pickle]

Re- creating these events is no different than the Civil War re-enactments that go on throughout the country every year.... While I don't agree with the 9/11 theme, I have no problem with historical re-creations based on events in the history of warfare.

Can you say "contradiction"? If it is no different than why do you have a problem with the theme? If you don't have a problem with historical re-creations why do you have a problem with the 9/11 game?

Look at the ww2 games, there are alot of hardcore nazis there.

WHAAAAT! Granted I have only played on the West Coast. BUt I find this statement very suspect. And how do you know they are "hardcore nazis"? What does a "hardcore nazi" look like?

This thread was beginning to get a bit old. Now, I think, it has taken an interesting turn.

[1ofkind]

WHAAAAT! Granted I have only played on the West Coast. BUt I find this statement very suspect. And how do you know they are "hardcore nazis"? What does a "hardcore nazi" look like?

Haha, we'll people camped out there and had gaint nazi flags on ther camp sites. Some were dress as officers with every bid of detail, its amazing how they were able to obtain some of these things. One guy even "skinned" his head on the middle of the game. I could go on and on.

Anyway why you trying to put a smackdown on this thread?

[Lohman446]

I looked at this, and my first response was simply that I was not attending. I have watched this thread now and I really really want to disagree with Squid and the others who have sided with him.

The problem is, every argument I can make for disagreeing with this must also be made for events like... well every military event except D day (I'll get to why I did not include this later). The fact of the matter is, everything I have to disagree with them is emotional, and I cannot come up with a good logical fact.

As pointed out above, teaching history through events that the outcome is not predetermined is a joke. The reenactors who know the outcome, know the strategies used, and play to that, using era weaponry, may be teaching history, playing paintball with 20BPS markers, 200 round hoppers, etc. does not teach about the civil war.

The fact of the matter is this... there is not a good logical explanation for this - the best I could come up with is well, the perpatrators of 9-11 are still at large, we should not be glorifying them or helping them recruit through such an event. But I fail to see how this event really does that. My disdain of this event must all be emotionally based.

Now, why did I exclude D day? Keep in mind that I am not saying this event is wrong, I emotionally disagree with it, I will not support it. This is the same stance I have with SP products - there is not a good logic based reason, I have my money and I can choose how to spend it. Don't like it . Now.. back to excluding D-day. D-day, in my opinion, is the epic battle of modern warfare. Both sides were heavily armed, and both were heavily supported. Both sides expected heavy losses, and both sides found heavy losses. It was the armies of the world, prepared for battle, and battling. It was deadly and many lost there life, lets never forget that. However, if we are going to recreate a battle, with either outcome possible and have reasonably "fair" teams (through numbers vs position) D-day is it, IMHO. And the reason D-day would be acceptable to me if every other was not, is that looking back in modern history, D-day is the greatest (if any battle is great) battle there was.

I must close in saying, that I do not have a problem with the idea of historical battles being themes to scenario games in general. I do have a problem with people telling me, with a straight face, how much history they teach. They may teach some.. but these are not history lessons. I can also say that I do not support or condon the use of 9-11 even though I may support other historical basis of scenario games. My reasoning is not logical in the end, it is emotional - and I have a right to that thought, even as I acknowledge the plurality with which I judge some events.

[1ofkind]

Does any1 really read those long responses? I skim them thats really all. Anyway don't turn this into a I'm right and your wrong and a sick minded freak argument. If you do you'll see a hand pop out of your computer screen and slap you across the head! (j/k don't sue me please)

[Pickle]

Haha, we'll people camped out there and had gaint nazi flags on ther camp sites. Some were dress as officers with every bid of detail, its amazing how they were able to obtain some of these things. One guy even "skinned" his head on the middle of the game. I could go on and on.

Then please do. The promoter should have asked these people to change their attire, flags or leave. When MPP and Jungle Island had their first WWII re-creation these rules were laid out flat! No one crosse dthe line.

Anyway why you trying to put a smackdown on this thread?

The thread was getting stale. Although, I have to admit, better than any pbnation thread. I like to see new ideas and thoughts.

As pointed out above, teaching history through events that the outcome is not predetermined is a joke. The reenactors who know the outcome, know the strategies used, and play to that, using era weaponry, may be teaching history, playing paintball with 20BPS markers, 200 round hoppers, etc. does not teach about the civil war...


Now, why did I exclude D day? Keep in mind that I am not saying this event is wrong, I emotionally disagree with it, I will not support it... D-day, in my opinion, is the epic battle of modern warfare. Both sides were heavily armed, and both were heavily supported. Both sides expected heavy losses, and both sides found heavy losses. It was the armies of the world, prepared for battle, and battling. It was deadly and many lost there life, lets never forget that. However, if we are going to recreate a battle, with either outcome possible and have reasonably "fair" teams (through numbers vs position) D-day is it, IMHO. And the reason D-day would be acceptable to me if every other was not, is that looking back in modern history, D-day is the greatest (if any battle is great) battle there was.

I do have a problem with people telling me, with a straight face, how much history they teach. They may teach some.. but these are not history lessons. I can also say that I do not support or condon the use of 9-11 even though I may support other historical basis of scenario games. My reasoning is not logical in the end, it is emotional - and I have a right to that thought, even as I acknowledge the plurality with which I judge some events.

No argument there.

[Pickle]

Does any1 really read those long responses? I skim them thats really all. Anyway don't turn this into a I'm right and your wrong and a sick minded freak argument. If you do you'll see a hand pop out of your computer screen and slap you across the head! (j/k don't sue me please)

Yes. Granted they can be a pain to read sometimes but let the man get his idea a cross. Besides, you are doing yourself and others a diservice by "skimming" them and then replying to what you have skimmed. One must have full knowledge to what he is fighting for or against.

[1ofkind]

The thread was getting stale. Although, I have to admit, better than any pbnation thread. I like to see new ideas and thoughts.

Okay, well you don't have to be here. I guess someone has to say that to you...

[Pickle]

Okay, well you don't have to be here. I guess someone has to say that to you...

LOL I think you either misunderstood me or I explained myself poorly. AO, IMO, is the best forum out there, hands down. From newbies asking "noob" questions and not getting flamed to people having extremely intelligent and thoughtful discussions on anything from physics to dirt bike racing. This thread had degraded to two viewpoints of pople saying the same thing. Sometimes in different ways. Now look where it has gone. . So, if you felt that I was taking a shot at this forum, I am sorry that was not my intention (see first sentence of paragraph ). I was actually making a negative comment on pbnation.
Other than that annoying dancing banana, this forum has nothing in common with PBN.

[Jaremy Rykker]

Perhaps you should look at this in perspective, and take a glance at similiar venues that have explored this area. Many extremely successful video games have looked directly at historical wars, and although not completely accurate, have been able to illustrate aspects of war. Let's see how the public response has been to games based off different wars.

World War One-Let's face it. These are far and few, and generally little known. The public sees little, if you want a public response, refer to World War Two.

World War Two-Honestly, the public has had little issue with this. Games like, Battlefield 1942, Allied Assault, Castle Wolfenstein, Call of Duty, and dozens of others have all been set during World War Two, and they are as much making a game of World War Two as a paintball scenario game. Even more, the public doesn't mind this, because the war wasn't controversial. It is a "we were right, they were wrong" mentality, and it is almost completely unanimous in our country.

Korea-"The Forgotten War". Personally, I find it an extremely interesting war, but tell me if you find a video game on it.

Vietnam-We start to get into issues here. Vietnam is to this day a controversial war, that we ended up losing when we withdrew, and has not yet to date been settled or justified. The country is in a terrible shape, and we effectively lost the war. Vietnam is extremely controversial, and although several new games have come out regarding Vietnam, these have been slightly more controversial in the public eye. Some look at it like Full Metal Jacket, and others have the perspective of Platoon, and between them they have all recieved varying levels of criticism, although it has been different.




The point is that World War Two is an easy war to run a scenario or "game" as you will with. It is non-controversial, and as we can see there is little public opposition to it. On the other hand, many more recent wars such as Vietnam, Operation Iraqi Freedom (not so much, but very recent), Operation Just Cause, and happenings such as 9/11, Bloody Sunday, or many of the events in the current war on terrorism are simply too controversial and touchy a topic to safely touch right now.

[TheDuelist]

My problem wit the 9/11 theme is the fact that civilians were the target. I don't have a problem with any re-creation that is based on a military operation where there are two or clearly defined (historically) opponents such as a WW2 or Civil War scenario. When it come to scenarios based on cowardly actions launched by a terrorist organization, I tend to have a problem with it.

[cockermongol]

It may just be my comprehension of this subject but... Why does everyone keep referring to this scenario as a reinactment? It's not. It is simply a scenario - a "what if" game, if you will. In this case alQaeda is attempting an assassination of the President and you are called to defend him. There are two clear sides, it is a non-civilian target, and it shouldn't offend you because it has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

[Pickle]

and it shouldn't offend you because it has NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Actually I disagree with that. Al-Queda carried out 9/11 and Al-Queda is included in this game. There are pictures of the burning twin towers on the event poster. The promoter obviously is linking the two.