Hiroshima Event - The Day After

[MAKG]

So, if I mention in a post about a flight in Atlanta that I flew over the Coca-Cola factory, the moderators should delete it?

Wow. You've lost sight of the point.

I was asserting that real people need to make SUBJECTIVE decisions about such things. Any absolute rule will allow advertisements about penis enlargement to swamp anything useful.

You asked what I would propose as an alternative to "anything goes" (as if that really were the model; see above). I gave you an answer. You make it quite clear that you asked that just to have something to shoot at. That's intellectually dishonest.

I doubt anything will come to a vote for little reason other than a rigorous and meaningful vote is effectively impossible in context (no, a poll isn't even close to the same thing -- look up "self selection"). And there are several other models possible. I gave you an example, which is what you asked for. And I'm sure if I didn't, I'd be accused of being a complainer with no alternatives. I've seen that bit of rhetorical nonsense before.

To summarize, the points are that censorship occurs now for accepted reasons on the board, and that community requires basic community standards, a very obvious one being "be nice to each other." I believe I've proven both points. And the Hiroshima event was not "being nice to each other," most obviously because it drove a significant developer away.

[asdfasdf]

I just recently finished reading a book on WWII for school. It really makes you think about what you are 'symbolically' promoting when you pretend to be a Nazi soldier or be an amircan pilot trying to drop an Atomic bomb on the Japanese. I'm sure if you gave a holocaust survivor, who spent years hiding in an attic only to have his wife and kids captured and killed in a German camp, the oppurtunity to participate in this event, he would be shocked. But the problem is that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with this simulator and you cannot change that. If yourgod wants to simulate the atomic bombings no matter how much you ask him, plead him, urge him, threaten him, an attack him, he can still log on to the mp server anytime he wants and do whatever he wants. If yourgod wants to simulate the killing of thousands of people, let him because even though it is horrible, he can still do it. If every mp events has to be approved by you, and we have to make sure that it offends no one then we are going to get no where, and we will just waste a whole bunch of time. If an event offends you, IGNORE IT. I don't why MAKG, you keep saying we must bring the issue up and ignoring makes it worse if all this threads do is cause arguments and all sides are offended in the end. If some random people you don't know and haven't even seen in real life pretend to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, it will do nothing to you. You will not be physically harmed or tramatized in any way. You might not even be aware of it if you would just ignore the people who offend you. The problem is that you are stubborn and insist on controlling everyone and bringing back these old threads and cause the community to start another argument. Why is it that you can practice your free speech by bringing up these sensitive subjects but people can't participate in any mp event that you find the slightest bit offending.

[MAKG]

I just recently finished reading a book on WWII for school. It really makes you think about what you are 'symbolically' promoting when you pretend to be a Nazi soldier or be an amircan pilot trying to drop an Atomic bomb on the Japanese. I'm sure if you gave a holocaust survivor, who spent years hiding in an attic only to have his wife and kids captured and killed in a German camp, the oppurtunity to participate in this event, he would be shocked. But the problem is that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with this simulator and you cannot change that. If yourgod wants to simulate the atomic bombings no matter how much you ask him, plead him, urge him, threaten him, an attack him, he can still log on to the mp server anytime he wants and do whatever he wants. If yourgod wants to simulate the killing of thousands of people, let him because even though it is horrible, he can still do it. If every mp events has to be approved by you, and we have to make sure that it offends no one then we are going to get no where, and we will just waste a whole bunch of time. If an event offends you, IGNORE IT. I don't why MAKG, you keep saying we must bring the issue up and ignoring makes it worse if all this threads do is cause arguments and all sides are offended in the end. If some random people you don't know and haven't even seen in real life pretend to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, it will do nothing to you. You will not be physically harmed or tramatized in any way. You might not even be aware of it if you would just ignore the people who offend you. The problem is that you are stubborn and insist on controlling everyone and bringing back these old threads and cause the community to start another argument. Why is it that you can practice your free speech by bringing up these sensitive subjects but people can't participate in any mp event that you find the slightest bit offending.

Umm, if you would read the thread you object to, you would discover that I did not start it.

And your assumptions that no one is hurt are wrong. As are your assumptions that the only way to have MP events is for anything to be OK. There are many ways to manage such things.

[asdfasdf]

I just recently finished reading a book on WWII for school. It really makes you think about what you are 'symbolically' promoting when you pretend to be a Nazi soldier or be an amircan pilot trying to drop an Atomic bomb on the Japanese. I'm sure if you gave a holocaust survivor, who spent years hiding in an attic only to have his wife and kids captured and killed in a German camp, the oppurtunity to participate in this event, he would be shocked. But the problem is that anyone is allowed to do anything they want with this simulator and you cannot change that. If yourgod wants to simulate the atomic bombings no matter how much you ask him, plead him, urge him, threaten him, an attack him, he can still log on to the mp server anytime he wants and do whatever he wants. If yourgod wants to simulate the killing of thousands of people, let him because even though it is horrible, he can still do it. If every mp events has to be approved by you, and we have to make sure that it offends no one then we are going to get no where, and we will just waste a whole bunch of time. If an event offends you, IGNORE IT. I don't why MAKG, you keep saying we must bring the issue up and ignoring makes it worse if all this threads do is cause arguments and all sides are offended in the end. If some random people you don't know and haven't even seen in real life pretend to drop an atomic bomb on Japan, it will do nothing to you. You will not be physically harmed or tramatized in any way. You might not even be aware of it if you would just ignore the people who offend you. The problem is that you are stubborn and insist on controlling everyone and bringing back these old threads and cause the community to start another argument. Why is it that you can practice your free speech by bringing up these sensitive subjects but people can't participate in any mp event that you find the slightest bit offending.

Umm, if you would read the thread you object to, you would discover that I did not start it.

And your assumptions that no one is hurt are wrong. As are your assumptions that the only way to have MP events is for anything to be OK. There are many ways to manage such things.

It does not matter who started it. I know that people are offended by the event but after all you tried to stop yourgod, he still did it, so you might aswell ignore it.

[Armchair Ace]

As a (Half) Japanese person, I do find it rather amusing how (If I use the archaic Japanese term) you "foreign devils" seem to be arguing this out so much.

If you're going to drop an IMAGINARY nuke, then why not. I mean, as far as I know nobody has modeled a nuke for FG yet, soo you cannot even see an explosion, therefore the event sounds like a pretty boring and pointless thing anyway. Also, why did you (Yourgod) choose Hiroshima? (did you have Nagasaki for dessert?). Why not nuke London, or Houston, or Pyongyang (oops my hatred for the DPRK is showing a bit ) or even your vaunted home base, Shoreham ?

Why Hiroshima?, has it never occurred to you that you my be behaving like a bit of a self-centered git by repeating atrocities ? What are you going to do next? Firebomb London?, Bombard Berlin?, pound Monte Cassino? or perhaps strafe villages in Vietnam? Has it ever occurred to you that there are people in the FG community who may be from these places, or who have friends or relatives who have been victims of these atrocities?

[kyokoyama]

As a (Half) Japanese person, I do find it rather amusing how (If I use the archaic Japanese term) you "foreign devils" seem to be arguing this out so much.

If you're going to drop an IMAGINARY nuke, then why not. I mean, as far as I know nobody has modeled a nuke for FG yet, soo you cannot even see an explosion, therefore the event sounds like a pretty boring and pointless thing anyway. Also, why did you (Yourgod) choose Hiroshima? (did you have Nagasaki for dessert?). Why not nuke London, or Houston, or Pyongyang (oops my hatred for the DPRK is showing a bit ) or even your vaunted home base, Shoreham ?

Why Hiroshima?, has it never occurred to you that you my be behaving like a bit of a self-centered git by repeating atrocities ? What are you going to do next? Firebomb London?, Bombard Berlin?, pound Monte Cassino? or perhaps strafe villages in Vietnam? Has it ever occurred to you that there are people in the FG community who may be from these places, or who have friends or relatives who have been victims of these atrocities?

There IS that... (I'm FULL Japanese by the way)
And, no offense to NK and Korea Unionists, but I'm kinda feeling Pyongyang-bomb-craving-ish now...

...only where Kim Jung Il is
So, anyways, can we please end the discussion and fly what we want to fly?
Like that F14 that can't show the HUD outside the cockpit for some reason...

[MD-Terp]

You asked what I would propose as an alternative to "anything goes" (as if that really were the model; see above). I gave you an answer. You make it quite clear that you asked that just to have something to shoot at. That's intellectually dishonest.

... except I'm not the one that asked that...

I doubt anything will come to a vote for little reason other than a rigorous and meaningful vote is effectively impossible in context (no, a poll isn't even close to the same thing -- look up "self selection"). And there are several other models possible. I gave you an example, which is what you asked for. And I'm sure if I didn't, I'd be accused of being a complainer with no alternatives. I've seen that bit of rhetorical nonsense before.

No... here's some rhetorical nonsense... (A) you believe that the current standard of "anything goes, and if you don't like it, ignore it," is unaccceptable. (B) Someone asked you what you would propose as an alternative, and you gave an example, "Democracy." Then (C) you just said (conceded?) it "is effectively impossible in context." You then go on to say (D) that "there are several other models possible" (or in another post, "there are many ways to manage such things"); however, fail to describe what these presumably more viable alternatives might be, as if we're just supposed to accept that since you say they're out there, they must be. I've discussed at least one alternative (a panel or board of community members) and stated why I don't consider it a palatable one. And then, (E) although your discussion has basically been to answer a question by proposing an impossible solution, you decry anyone pointing that out as propagating "rhetorical nonsense."

I would ask you what else you would propose as a viable alternative, but I think we've been around that merry-go-round with you already.

To summarize, the points are that censorship occurs now for accepted reasons on the board, and that community requires basic community standards, {...} I believe I've proven both points.

You've proven nothing, because you continue to "prove" your case with examples that don't fit the situation, and then summarize your thoughts by saying "obviously" and "I've proven" and saying what has been "clearly demonstrated"; all the while speaking in circles. Which of us is intellectually dishonest?

[statto]

I think we all need to realize that none of our opinions here matter. FlightGear is based completely on the actions of the users, not on opinions. As a result, so is this community.

For instance, take someone who complains about a problem with the scenery - the correct response (though for obvious reasons not always the result given) is, here are the tools, fix the problem. It's the same with airplanes - saying "this plane doesnt have a cockpit" will elicit a "well, fix it" response. As frustrating as the people who post those things are - and as frustrating as these responses may be to the people asking about them - it just proves FlightGear is predicated completely on actions, not opinions. Don't like FlightGear? Either spend time to make it better or don't use it. Don't like how one of the developers is going about a certain module? There's nothing stopping you from programming a better one.

If someone doesn't approve of the way someone else is using FlightGear, well, they don't have to contribute or continue using the software. The community is the same way - nobody owes anyone else anything, and if you don't like that, you don't have to keep contributing to the community. But again, this post is my opinion, and is therefore irrelevant.

[Mobius1]

Well, people can try, and try, and try...

But no one in the world can come into this topic, say something wonderful, and everybody walks out of the room holding hands and singing "kumbaya". People will never agree on things, and there's nothing wrong with that. It just means we're people. But just to prove my point...


Please. Can everyone just stop hating each other and enjoy the simulation?

[kyokoyama]

Agreed.

And what's Kumbaya?

[Liam]

In opensource projects more than any other, peoples ideas will come and go and not always be taken seriously. But you have to learn to appreciate what each other is saying and not bring negativity to further negativity.

I think a mod should lock this topic.

[MAKG]

I think we all need to realize that none of our opinions here matter. FlightGear is based completely on the actions of the users, not on opinions. As a result, so is this community.

This does not follow. The community is not GPL'd. There are moderators. The board is not inundated with spam. Were it completely based on the actions of users, it would be. Even the source code has a fairly strong form of moderation; most of us do not have write access to CVS. No one can insert a virus into the source code. Anything goes? Not even. We could try to fork a version (as GPL allows that), but it would fail. It would also be highly detrimental to the project as a whole, even if the motivations were called for -- look at the history of the xemacs project for an example.

For instance, take someone who complains about a problem with the scenery - the correct response (though for obvious reasons not always the result given) is, here are the tools, fix the problem. It's the same with airplanes - saying "this plane doesnt have a cockpit" will elicit a "well, fix it" response. As frustrating as the people who post those things are - and as frustrating as these responses may be to the people asking about them - it just proves FlightGear is predicated completely on actions, not opinions. Don't like FlightGear? Either spend time to make it better or don't use it. Don't like how one of the developers is going about a certain module? There's nothing stopping you from programming a better one.

Just to be clear, the logic in that sentence says the appropriate action was to disrupt the event. Given the tools (say, a DOS attack, spoofing names, disabling routers, etc.), fix the problem. Hey, anything goes, right? I don't agree with that in the slightest, but that's the conclusion one gets from your logic. And FYI, making it better is exactly what I'm attempting to do.

If someone doesn't approve of the way someone else is using FlightGear, well, they don't have to contribute or continue using the software. The community is the same way - nobody owes anyone else anything, and if you don't like that, you don't have to keep contributing to the community. But again, this post is my opinion, and is therefore irrelevant.

This is exactly the opposite of what you said in the previous paragraph.

And the correct thing to do is neither of those choices. It is a false dichotomy. One does not need to choose between active disruption and nothing.

[Mobius1]

@kyokoyama

Kumbaya is a spiritual song from the 1930s in the U.S. it's associated with peace and togetherness now, although it is very much used for sarcasm like I used it.

A classic cliche sort of image is 5 hippies with a bag of cannabis and a guitar singing that...

so I've heard.

And...

my point was proved.

[statto]

My point is that opinions don't matter in the sense that opinions of a user or two or one hundred shouldn't be enough to overrule an entire event, given there are people who still want to participate in the event. This event could easily have been ignored by this community - or organized in a different community but still using FlightGear servers - and we wouldn't be having this discussion. In fact, posting the opinion is, in my meaningless opinion, the right thing to do because it puts pressure on the event creator to modify or cancel the event - but it's still his discretion.

Back on topic, the point then becomes, how does this community deal with a posted event that smells a bit funny?

Given offensive events do not tend to spring up very often, I'm not sure we need any sort of democratic structure unless the event is so patently offensive moderators need to use their discretion to remove it - so yes, that would be censoring, but in the same way moderators (and, to a point, users) censor spam - IE it would be quickly reported offensive in the same way spam is reported offensive. If there's an opportunity for discussion - and therefore "action" - I feel that's important.

[yourgod]

I'm only replying to address a new face in this argument and to make sure that person understands the situation fully.

If you're going to drop an IMAGINARY nuke, then why not. I mean, as far as I know nobody has modeled a nuke for FG yet, soo you cannot even see an explosion, therefore the event sounds like a pretty boring and pointless thing anyway.

This is a falsehood that keeps being perpetuated by event opponents. If you go back and read the original event thread you will see that this was not an atomic bombing simulation. It was a conventional bombing run with airports as the target. The event also featured fighter resistance from Zeros so we would have dogfighting and bomber strafing opportunities.

Also, why did you (Yourgod) choose Hiroshima? (did you have Nagasaki for dessert?). Why not nuke London, or Houston, or Pyongyang (oops my hatred for the DPRK is showing a bit ) or even your vaunted home base, Shoreham ?

I chose Hiroshima and Nagasaki because they were WW2 bombing targets, and this was a 1st Combat Squadron event. As a group, we fly WW2 aircraft in WW2 inspired scenarios. We flew over the runways in each city.

What are you going to do next? Firebomb London?, Bombard Berlin?

Those are within the context of what we would do in the squadron. I do plan to organize an attack on Pearl Harbor as my next 1st combat squadron event. Dresden, Berlin, London, and Warsaw will probably all be on the docket for next year.

or perhaps strafe villages in Vietnam?

Since the time this event took place, there was an event that featured a squadron of F-4's bombing Hanoi. I participated in that event as well.

Has it ever occurred to you that there are people in the FG community who may be from these places, or who have friends or relatives who have been victims of these atrocities?

Yes. And while I understand and respect their feelings on the issue, I don't subscribe to the notion that those individuals have sole ownership over those historical events and can dictate how the rest of us experience our collective history. There is no way to explore military applications of this sim without offending someone, somewhere.