On Handouts

I read a weekly email newsletter called This Is True (www.thisistrue.com) - which is well worth subscribing to, by the way, and tell them I sent you - and in this last issue was the tale of an IRS staffer called Bill who wanted a free upgrade to the $24-a-year Premium edition. He was rebuffed in no uncertain terms, and was called all sorts of things in the comment thread accompanying his letter when it was published. Maybe he deserved the humiliation, maybe not... probably not. I wouldn't beg for a freebie like that, but without knowing more specifics about his circumstances I'm not one to judge. Anyway, the thread's at http://www.thisistrue.com/blog-hook_a_man_up.html, and - in case you can't find my comment or if it was declined, here it is:

It's curious to see the black-or-white division on this issue - but then, it seems that middle grounds are rare these days.

Can Bill afford a subscription? I don't know. I don't particularly care - that's his business. But five sprogs can't be cheap to raise, and taking in foster kids and trying to give them the best childhood possible is a laudable thing.

Anyway, there are two things I particularly wanted to comment on:

Firstly, someone referred to Starbucks as selling "gourmet" coffee. Now, I'm Swedish - I know good coffee. And Starbucks isn't gourmet, not even close. Oh, it's good, but nowhere near great. The only way to get it anywhere near strong enough is to get an espresso (still too weak, though), and even then it's served in some sort of minuscule thimble arrangement.

Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, one thing I've always wondered about is - and I'll happily cop to a degree of generalisation here - this curious thinking Americans seem to have that only those who serve in uniform are serving their country. Being ex-military myself, I'm an avid supporter of the armed forces, and I'm thinking of joining the police, but their are other jobs that do just as much for the general publics for far less recognition.

Municipal services, for instance - the people who make sure our rubbish goes away, that there are stripes on the roads, that the lawns in the parks get mowed. They get sod all money, and to most of us, they're invisible.

Telephone companies? Granted, in more and more countries they're becoming privatised, but imagine where we'd be without phones. People working for phone companies serve their countries as well.

Even the IRS - or Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs as we call them - do their bit. Oh, we hate them - at least they don't take half your gross income, like in Sweden - and we pick on them, and so on, but they serve their countries. Without taxes, we'd have no roads, no health care, no schools... no money to pay the uniformed services...

Most people who work in civil service don't get paid much. And saying that "they already get our money"... Well, no they don't. Does anyone seriously think the underpaid clerk who records delivery of your cheque gets to keep the cash? Your taxes go to the roads you drive on, not (usually) to keep filing clerks in Bentleys.

Civil servants of all stripes serve their countries with just as much dedication as soldiers. Sometimes less money, sometimes more, and of course they're not usually shot at on a daily basis. But they serve their countries.

Maybe Bill can afford premium True, maybe he can't. Maybe he deserves it, maybe he doesn't. But - speaking, remember, from an ex-military point of view - suggesting that only people who put their lives on the line are serving their countries and/or deserve help and charity is both wrong and, frankly, rather offensive.

Any thoughts?

Ethical Gaming Revisited

In other news, I recently found myself pondering an issue I mentioned a month or two back; that of violence in gaming.

I haven't changed my stance; I still find the dispassionate way we gamers view violence to be somewhat disturbing. I still support age ratings on games and hard policies on not selling games to people below those ages. I still strongly believe that it's up to parents to police what games their kids play. And I still find the thought of governments or special interest groups legislating what games may be made to be even more disturbing than the violence itself.

We have laws against violence. People who commit acts of violence against others without lawful justification are criminals, and are treated as such. People who advocate bans on violence in games, or try to ban games outright because they object to their content... that's not trying to look out for society. That's trying to control how people think. And indulging that, no matter how noble the motives or how good an idea it seems at first, is and always will be a Bad Thing.

Anyway, that's as far as I got on that train of thought. My main point is that... well, I don't really have one. But this is the internet, so it doesn't matter - I can dribble out any mind-numbing ramblings and someone will still find it worth reading.

Anyway, once again my gaming enjoyment has been spoiled. This time it started with Flatout 2, a racing game where drivers can actually be thrown from their cars. There are game modes where the aim is to demolish all the other cars - if drivers are thrown out of theirs, does anyone make a point of avoiding them? Of course not. Unconscious driver lying on the tarmac between you and your target? Sod it, he's probably dead anyway, just run right over him. There aren't many things that disturb me on moral grounds, but that's one of them.

Another casualty was Knights of the Old Republic 2, where I tried - once again - to play through as a Dark Side character. It didn't work. Every time I tried for Dark Side points, I ended up thinking "that would be mean" and saying "You know what, I was going to kill you and steal your stuff, but here, have a hundred credits" instead. I'll never get my black cape at this rate.

And then there was the game adaptation of Pirates of the Caribbean: World's End, which was offensive for so many other reasons, mainly for being so bad. I'm just glad I got it for free with a magazine subscription rather than spending actual money on it. Heaven knows I won't be spending any time on it.

Anyway, another thing that I've found curious on similar grounds has been the Violent Crime Reduction Act, which came into force in the UK in October last year. It prohibits the manufacture, sale and import of "realistic imitation firearms" - in other words, anything made to look like a gun, regardless of whether it can actually fire of whether it's a plank sawn to shape and painted black. So reenactment, amateur theatre, and particularly airsoft are in trouble. We can still keep the guns we have - though there's apparently talk of banning them too - but we're not allowed to buy any new ones. Unless...

Yes. It's a government thing, thus there's a loophole. Of course.

There's a specific defence for airsofters; you're allowed to buy more airsoft guns if you can prove you're a legitimate airsofter. Which is great - personally, I've lobbied for some sort of licensing scheme, rather like a driving licence for airsoft guns. But what annoys me is the definition of a legitimate airsofter. It's someone who is a member of "a legitimate skirmish site". And the guidelines say that a member has to actually play at that site regularly; I'm not sure how often, but before being offered membership you have to play two or three games over the course of a month or two... or something. I can't remember offhand.

Now, this would seem like a fair system - indeed, without being fairly immersed in airsoft, it would be. But not all airsofters are skirmishers.

I find skirmishes incredibly dull; run around in the woods shooting at people? Where's the fun in that? I enjoy milsim - military simulation - and I enjoy the LARP aspects of airsoft. I enjoy playing a character, getting the kit right, getting the accents and mannerisms and background right. I went to a four-day game in Sweden back in 2005, where I fired twelve shots in total.

I enjoy playing the part. I'm as serious an airsofter as any other, I just prioritise other aspects of the hobby. But the government says that someone who plays for the talking - and thus attends a few major "event-type games" a year rather than skirmishing once a month - isn't a serious airsofter, and thus can't buy any airsoft guns. But someone who just runs around in the woods shooting at anything that moves... they''re safe and healthy and wouldn't hurt a fly. Does that seem ludicrous to anyone else?

---

Anyway, on a more cheerful note, I thought I might plug a couple of incredibly funny web comics: DM Of The Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14) which spoofs Lord of the Rings by working on the assumption that the whole thing's a roleplaying game, and Darths And Droids (http://www.irregularwebcomic.net/darthsanddroids/) which does much the same thing for Star Wars: The Phantom Menace. They're both hilarious, at least for anyone who's ever played an RPG.

(Oh, and you may notice the "Current Music" listing for my last entry. The Not So Grand Funk Jam Band is a Finnish band I found after meeting two of their singers at a blues jam in Stockholm. They sent me some of their tunes, and, well, those guys are phenomenal. Pretty much the entire band are in their late teens, early twenties, and they play a great blend of proper old-school funk with hints of rap and modern stuff. A bit of Hancock here, a bit of JB there... Their pronunciation of the English language sometimes leaves a bit to be desired, but I tell you, those guys can groove. They've got some great trumpet licks, too. I'd suggest starting out with 21st-Century Funk, Groupies and Not So Grand Funk Jam Band Jam, but the main thing is that you have to hear these guys play.)

(Also, as you may notice from the "Current Music" for this post, I've recently developed something of an addiction to two or three of Gretchen Wilson's songs. It's weird. Country isn't supposed to rock like this. It's great.)