Dear Chomley and Headshot, perhaps I wasn't as clear as I thought I was. I was not attempting to score points off either of you or criticise in any way. I was simply pointing out that many people misunderstand the issue and so in Headshot's case - yes you will need to keep explaining it. Until you get fed up that is. 
. Chomley, I only used your opening proposal as an example of why I think some people are misinterpreting the issue and please 
I do understand about debate. I'm simply pointing out that some folk are not doing so hence Headshot's dilemma.
Best regards,
Cheeky.
Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill, he was a better skater than Churchill . . .
Gottcha. 
Cheers Chomley. I've just seen this :-
Gunman said,
I also think the topic is to easily misreadable, i did think when I started reading it and other threads, it was a 'LETS BAN FACE MASKS FROM WW2' and my first feeling was...GET f**ked!!NOT ON MY WATCH then after reading the whole bloody thing again and the other threads (CW could you just itemise these threads from now on and ill get my people to talk to your people ) I realised what a fantastic consept and direction this was taking the game.
The first part of the quote is in line with what I was trying to say regards people getting it wrong. As I myself did to start with 
.
Turned out nice again.
Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill, he was a better skater than Churchill . . .
Well, it's true, no matter how carefully crafted the words, and even if "A DEBATE" was in the forum title, forums get misread or half-read. Meh, such are forums. It's always best to read forums with a level head, a keen eye, a sense of humour and a pinch of salt. And make sure you have a real life 'cos there are more important things to get worked up about!
"I don't care what I say, do I?" - The Cheeky Chappie - Max Miller
"Turned out nice again" - George Formby
Do we have to, once again, describe the meaning of discussion and debate? No-one's trying to win the argument or shut down those to have a different opinion. Craig's interested in running an event where face masks aren't accepted. For some, that will be a factor that makes them decide whether they want to go, or whether they don't.
The argument isn't ludicrous, it's an opinion that someone holds that should be respected.
Headshot no need to worry, I'm well aware of the reasons for the thread/poll/discussion. I was merely taking part in the debate (late as usual though I'm afraid, sorry).
Plus, I was pointing out that Martin's argument is flawed, not critisising his opinion. He is using a rather transparent debating tactic here known as a Strawman. In this case the opposing view is that certain people consider a sympathetically done face mask to be a higher priority than immersion in the game. Martin, by jumping on the term "safety first" pretends that the opposing view is that certain people consider their overall safety (not just the risk of being shot in the face) to be the single overiding consideration, and that ANY risk is therefore unnacceptable. The pretend argument is clearly bunk, because, as Martin pointed out, if that were the case none of us would ever play the game! He therefore refutes the pretend argument he set up, and by extension, claims to have refuted the real argument (which he hasn't). Hence my view that his argument is ludicrous.
I do of course respect his opinion that he would prefer not to see face masks.
I hope I've made that clear, sorry for boring everyone.
And of course, the avatar is Arthur Askey.
“Fascinating.†Spock, Star Trek.
Hitler was a better dancer than Churchill, he was a better skater than Churchill . . .
Do we have to, once again, describe the meaning of discussion and debate? No-one's trying to win the argument or shut down those to have a different opinion. Craig's interested in running an event where face masks aren't accepted. For some, that will be a factor that makes them decide whether they want to go, or whether they don't.
The argument isn't ludicrous, it's an opinion that someone holds that should be respected.
Headshot no need to worry, I'm well aware of the reasons for the thread/poll/discussion. I was merely taking part in the debate (late as usual though I'm afraid, sorry).
Plus, I was pointing out that Martin's argument is flawed, not critisising his opinion. He is using a rather transparent debating tactic here known as a Strawman. In this case the opposing view is that certain people consider a sympathetically done face mask to be a higher priority than immersion in the game. Martin, by jumping on the term "safety first" pretends that the opposing view is that certain people consider their overall safety (not just the risk of being shot in the face) to be the single overiding consideration, and that ANY risk is therefore unnacceptable. The pretend argument is clearly bunk, because, as Martin pointed out, if that were the case none of us would ever play the game! He therefore refutes the pretend argument he set up, and by extension, claims to have refuted the real argument (which he hasn't). Hence my view that his argument is ludicrous.
I do of course respect his opinion that he would prefer not to see face masks.
I hope I've made that clear, sorry for boring everyone.
I have no idea what all that meant but it was epic! Martin, I've just put a bag over my head and I'm now standing in the corner to save you the hardship lol.
I love you guys x
Heer Schmidt
Do we have to, once again, describe the meaning of discussion and debate? No-one's trying to win the argument or shut down those to have a different opinion. Craig's interested in running an event where face masks aren't accepted. For some, that will be a factor that makes them decide whether they want to go, or whether they don't.
The argument isn't ludicrous, it's an opinion that someone holds that should be respected.
Headshot no need to worry, I'm well aware of the reasons for the thread/poll/discussion. I was merely taking part in the debate (late as usual though I'm afraid, sorry).
Plus, I was pointing out that Martin's argument is flawed, not critisising his opinion. He is using a rather transparent debating tactic here known as a Strawman. In this case the opposing view is that certain people consider a sympathetically done face mask to be a higher priority than immersion in the game. Martin, by jumping on the term "safety first" pretends that the opposing view is that certain people consider their overall safety (not just the risk of being shot in the face) to be the single overiding consideration, and that ANY risk is therefore unnacceptable.
Unless I've missed something (which is highly likely) I haven't seen Martin argue that ANY risk is unacceptable - I think that's your strawman, he's just said that the other risks involved in the game are possibly higher and that in the context of airsoft, if people worry disproportionately about risk of injury to their faces, and don't consider the other risks then perhaps they need to re-evaluate their risk assessing abilities. Thus, if people put a lot of time and effort into choosing a face mask perhaps they should put as much effort into other aspects of risky behaviour to mitigate against that too, or even divert that effort into other aspects of their overall attitude to WW2 airsoft - such as mindset, fitness, ability, following orders etc.
(FWIW, fitness is something that I regard as very important in WW2 airsoft, especially the more intensive events. This is one thing that really prevents injury or health issues. It also makes sure you get the most out of the day and that you support your fellow team mates well.)
The flawed argument is that a mask increases your perceived safety at the event overall, when perhaps there are many things that people aren't even considering from the angle of safety. As an organiser you consider all the safety issues and potential for injury and make a judgment on how to mitigate against that. From that point of view, the danger of facial injury at the sort of events we ran was minimal so we never insisted on the use of full face masks. If you saw our safety precautions around the pyrotechnics you would see how much time we put into making that bit as safe as possible. Sometimes it was too much and was to the detriment of the flow of the day or to the authenticity of the event (warning tape, exclusion zones etc) so we didn't bother with large set pieces.
Craig has taken this a step further by deciding he doesn't want face masks at events because he feels that they detract from his immersion, and many agree. It doesn't exclude anyone from the game because of any elitist attitudes (my own strawman coming in there) but it does ensure that the organiser is attracting the sort of people who think in the same way as them, which is, after all, what most organisers who are motivated by the altruistic side of event-organising want to do.
Do we have to, once again, describe the meaning of discussion and debate? No-one's trying to win the argument or shut down those to have a different opinion. Craig's interested in running an event where face masks aren't accepted. For some, that will be a factor that makes them decide whether they want to go, or whether they don't.
The argument isn't ludicrous, it's an opinion that someone holds that should be respected.
Headshot no need to worry, I'm well aware of the reasons for the thread/poll/discussion. I was merely taking part in the debate (late as usual though I'm afraid, sorry).
Plus, I was pointing out that Martin's argument is flawed, not critisising his opinion. He is using a rather transparent debating tactic here known as a Strawman. In this case the opposing view is that certain people consider a sympathetically done face mask to be a higher priority than immersion in the game. Martin, by jumping on the term "safety first" pretends that the opposing view is that certain people consider their overall safety (not just the risk of being shot in the face) to be the single overiding consideration, and that ANY risk is therefore unnacceptable.
Unless I've missed something (which is highly likely) I haven't seen Martin argue that ANY risk is unacceptable - I think that's your strawman, he's just said that the other risks involved in the game are possibly higher and that in the context of airsoft, if people worry disproportionately about risk of injury to their faces, and don't consider the other risks then perhaps they need to re-evaluate their risk assessing abilities. Thus, if people put a lot of time and effort into choosing a face mask perhaps they should put as much effort into other aspects of risky behaviour to mitigate against that too, or even divert that effort into other aspects of their overall attitude to WW2 airsoft - such as mindset, fitness, ability, following orders etc.
(FWIW, fitness is something that I regard as very important in WW2 airsoft, especially the more intensive events. This is one thing that really prevents injury or health issues. It also makes sure you get the most out of the day and that you support your fellow team mates well.)
The flawed argument is that a mask increases your perceived safety at the event overall, when perhaps there are many things that people aren't even considering from the angle of safety. As an organiser you consider all the safety issues and potential for injury and make a judgment on how to mitigate against that. From that point of view, the danger of facial injury at the sort of events we ran was minimal so we never insisted on the use of full face masks. If you saw our safety precautions around the pyrotechnics you would see how much time we put into making that bit as safe as possible. Sometimes it was too much and was to the detriment of the flow of the day or to the authenticity of the event (warning tape, exclusion zones etc) so we didn't bother with large set pieces.
Craig has taken this a step further by deciding he doesn't want face masks at events because he feels that they detract from his immersion, and many agree. It doesn't exclude anyone from the game because of any elitist attitudes (my own strawman coming in there) but it does ensure that the organiser is attracting the sort of people who think in the same way as them, which is, after all, what most organisers who are motivated by the altruistic side of event-organising want to do.
I fully understand what Headshot is trying to say and what he and the others are trying to achieve at their rifles only game with their re enactor pals.
There are no re-enactors at the game, just airsoft people. I haven't even mentioned it on any re-eanctor forums or owt.
I assume you are insinuating that either it is a game done for those people who 'airsoft like re-eanctors' - who count stitches and tell people they have the wrong bag for 1943; or else that is just a game run for our friends, a secret handshake gathering of those who have had mysteries revealed.
As I caught a bit of the West Wing the other night I remembered a quote "
Don't you see, it is a gift that they are going to see him as arrogant no matter what he does, because he now can be.
" (or something).
Well, no matter what 'we' say, 'we' are still always labelled as elitist. As the stitch counters that don't let you play unless everything is 100% accurate. As the Non-inclusive ones who sacrifice YOUR fun for our desire to prance around looking moody and accurate.
Well, if I am going to be seen as arrogant no matter how I act, I may as well act arrogant and get something out of it 
, So:
Either way your insinuations are right.
I want people who 'care' about getting 'it' right. Yes, that means they aim for a correct uniform. People who want to do research into what they should be wearing, how they should be acting. People who find doing that fun are the people we want there. People that are only interested in 'finding a role for their own 'load-out' in my game are not wanted so much.
Likewise yes, I want 'friends' there. I run this in my spare time and don't want to be an airsoft Marshal. So I want people I have played with before, people who I trust to play 'my game' without supervision. All it takes is one person who thinks 'Get Down!' means 'crouch behind a bush with their gun up' and that's the ball game (as some idiom may have it).
So, yup. From your point of view this is a game for my 're-enacting pals', and it will be a great day because of it.
I want people who 'care' about getting 'it' right. Yes, that means they aim for a correct uniform. People who want to do research into what they should be wearing, how they should be acting. People who find doing that fun are the people we want there. People that are only interested in 'finding a role for their own 'load-out' in my game are not wanted so much.
I still see myself as new to all this and had no previous background in airsoft or re-enacting but I sort of thought that this was the point of WW2 airsoft anyway. If it's not about actually trying to get it as close to WW2 as possible isn't it just airsoft?
I have a small skewer hidden in the collar of my jumping jacket, and a razorblade in my gaiter, as well as my knife.
Can I humbly request that this thread now be locked as I'm starting to lose the will to live...
