ZigguratCon

[athelind]

This June, in the middle of the Iraq occupation, the first RPG convention will be held in a war zone.

"Here in Iraq, we do many things on the different Forward OperatingBases to help keep our spirits up," said SPC David Amberson, the Con'sorganizer. "Here at Camp Adder/Tallil Airbase, we have lots of sportsactivities -- baseball, football, dodgeball, kickball -- and we workwith many marathons across the US like the Boston Marathon. This is agreat way to improve morale among the troops, but what about those whoprefer Role-Playing Games?"

Big Name Geeks like muskrat_john and wilwheaton have been talking this up, saying what a wonderful thing this is, and pledging to donate game materials to be used as prizes.

I, um...

I think this is horribly inappropriate, and I'm embarassed for my hobby.

EDIT: Locking this, now. You didn't play nice.

Comments

[cargoweasel.livejournal.com]

Hey, it could be a LAN party. Maybe some Counterstrike deathmatching!

[silussa.livejournal.com]

I can actually envision something like this happening on a M*A*S*H episode, complete with interruption in the middle.

[scarfman]

Beat me to it.

I don't see why RPGing is any different than any other activity the serving men and women bring with them (except that this activity may be new enough that this is the first war it's been brought to), and I don't see how this is any different than if they were having, say, a bridge tournament. Are bridge tournaments inappropriate?

[richardf8]

I'm no fan of the war, but I regard the troops as people who are stuck in an adverse situation for no good reason, whose lives are being made to suck by an incompetent chimpanzee of a president and his cynical trainers. If having an RPG con gives them comfort, pleasure, and relief from the misery bestowed upon them by an administration that has broken faith in every imaginable way with the armed services, then rejoice that they are getting it.

[circuit-four.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I've been a pretty staunch opponent of the war since day one, but I really don't get why this is inappropriate.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

I can see Athelind's point in that a gaming convention in what is, for all purposes, a war zone seems really out of place.

However, a LOT of things go on in war zones that aren't "in place", either. IIRC, our bases also have fast food outlets like Burger King....definitely not something you'd expect to see in a war zone, either.

[silussa.livejournal.com]

Okay, I have to speak up with regards to referring to the President as an "incompetent chimpanzee".

I've never seen an incompetent chimpanzee, but I suspect you've insulted them by that comparison.


;)

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

I'm largely with Richard on this one. Soldiers do a lot of inappropriate things during a war and gaming, IMO, is one of the least inappropriate they could be doing. The only blood spilled will be imaginary, and if it raises their spirits enough so that even one of them, even one, doesn't suffer horrible PTSD or get so freaked out they accidentally light up a bus full of schoolchildren it'll be worth it.

But I also figure the most inappropriate thing that soldiers can do during war is, uh, war. ;)

[stalbon.livejournal.com]

I see both ways on this, but I'm more with the 'why are they doing this?' crowd. If they planned this to 'let the troops relax, enjoy some form of comfort from home, and get together with one another', then why don't they just let the soldiers have such items and get-togethers on their own bases, without need for calling attention to it like this? I have no doubt that many soldiers at that particular base will enjoy the opportunity to get their heads out of the current situation, but I'd think it would only alienate America's troops from the natives even more, and just be a waste of our money. It's like saying 'How about we throw an RPG convention in the middle of the Tsunami relief effort, so we can let those volunteers and victims not think about their current situation.'

[pyat.livejournal.com]

The soldiers organizing the con contacted game companies for swag, and the companies and professionals donating items are the ones spreading the word, AFAIK.

[athelind.livejournal.com]

But I also figure the most inappropriate thing that soldiers can do during war is, uh, war.

Best answer.

[galis.livejournal.com]

As the typically internet-shunned conservative type, I do have to make the mandatory comment about being careful of overgeneralizations ;) It might be clever to say "the most inappropriate thing that soldiers can do during war is, uh, war." but keep in mind if that were US policy all around, the Jewish people would likely no longer exist in any significant numbers, and all of Europe would be suffering under either facism or a collapsed communistic system depending on how a Russia vs Germany faceoff, and the Chinese would have been ethnically decimated by Japanese biological weapons and conventional warfare. Democracy would never likely even exist anyway though, since the Persians would have destroyed its roots in Greece.

The honest fact of the matter is all through human history there have been people willing to destroy the lives and well-being of others for gain. There is no such thing as just 'refusing to fight' that's compatible with surviving when that happens. If one people is intent on destroying another, the others refusing to fight doesn't make them morally superior - it makes them extinct.

A soldier doing his job kills people. A military doing its job kills many more and forces nations and cultures to accept terms they would not otherwise accept. These are not automatically a bad thing. Their moral relevance is wholy dependent on what terms and why it was necessary to kill people.

The U.S. military's job is to conduct war in accordance with international law, in particular LOAC. Incidents such as Walter Reed and Abu Ghraib are failures of the military's job. However, the war in Iraq itself is not in any way a failure of the /military/ no matter whether the war is moral or not, because /it is not the job of the military to decide who to fight/. This is a VERY deliberate seperation by the founding fathers, because a military who decides who to fight has a tendency in human history to decide to make the rest of the government's decisions as well. It is the job of /Congress/ first and foremost of all 3 branches to decide who the military should fight.

The executive branch has far less power under the Constitution than people realize. A great deal of the failings of the current administration are not so much the fault of Bush as they are the fault of a spineless legislative branch too corrupt and self-interested in petty affairs to uphold their end of the checks and balances system. The founding fathers foresaw greedy and ambitious leaders who would try to take more power than they should; the system can defeat that by setting the branches against eachother. What they did not foresee was a branch giving up its own powers without a fight in order to take less work upon themselves.

[galis.livejournal.com]

"However, the war in Iraq itself is not in any way a failure of the /military/ no matter whether the war is moral or not,"

Before I get a bunch of comments about the mucking heck of a situation over there, I'm refering to the decision to go to war in Iraq, not the state of the war. As for the state of the war, I should comment that historically, the military performs far better (both in objectives accomplished and in minimizing damage and death to civilians and property) when the politicans keep their side to "go fight these guys" and not micromanage. And Iraq is pretty heavily micromanaged.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

Bullshit. Politicians have always been deeply involved in all phases of the war. It was true of the invasion of Normandy, it's true, now.

[cpxbrex.livejournal.com]

No, war is the worst thing that happens during war. I suspect you're not shunned because you're a conservative, but because you're, well, an idiot.

First, the tedious comparison between World War II and Iraq. Iraq isn't WWII. Hussein wasn't Hilter. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We're not there because Iraq was involved with 911. We're not building a democracy. WWII was also sixty years ago, and US policies have dramatically changed between then and now.

A soldier "doing his job" doesn't mean that a given soldier kills people. It used to be that people thought the primary job of a soldier was deterrence -- that a soldier was doing their job best when they DIDN'T fight.

The rest of your political ramblings range from the merely factually wrong (for instance, you identify Congress as the branch who "should" decide whom we fight, but that authority is clearly in the President's hands) to the obvious (yeah, Congress is spineless -- what's new?), but war is the ugliest thing that happens in war regardless of WHY the soldiers are fighting it. All wars represent a fundamental failure somewhere along the line with horrific consequences. While it is true that identifying the failure is important, and it is true that the fault doesn't fall on the soldiers doing the fighting by and large, war is still the most inappropriate thing that happens during war. Which, I suspect, is a rhetorical bit that you won't be able to wrap your brains around, because like most conservatives you probably disagree that all war represents failure on some level.

[galis.livejournal.com]

I figured I'd get one of these replies, where you don't really read what I said and just attack the heck out of my character, as well as putting as many words in my mouth as possible. Always seems to happen ::shrug::

"First, the tedious comparison between World War II and Iraq. Iraq isn't WWII. Hussein wasn't Hilter. There were no weapons of mass destruction. We're not there because Iraq was involved with 911. We're not building a democracy. WWII was also sixty years ago, and US policies have dramatically changed between then and now."

I did not compare Hussein to Hitler. Please find that in my post. I didn't mention 911. Please find that in my post. I mentioned WW2 because in terms of human history it was a relatively recent war (sixty years is almost nothing in the scope of human history) with fairly obvious just cause on the Allies' side. All wars are intrinsicly shades of grey morally, so to try and avoid a reply like yours for my example I picked one as close to right vs wrong as possible. Naturally, you just jump to the "OMG HE MENTIONED WW2 TIRED EXAMPLE!!" concept without actually adressing any of the POINT of the example: that sometimes your neighbors aren't nice enough to give you a choice to fight or not that doesn't end with your own people destroyed.

"...factually wrong (for instance, you identify Congress as the branch who "should" decide whom we fight, but that authority is clearly in the President's hands)"

The President has the power to deploy troops for a limited time for the purpose of emergency response. ONLY CONGRESS MAY DECLARE WAR. I point you to section 8 of article 1 of the US Constition, the powers held by Congress:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

Check your facts before you lambast someone. That the president has been able to extend the WPR (which allows him to deploy troops for up to 60 days, 90 if a withdrawel, but must have congressional approval after that) indefinitely is a failing of Congress and a violation of the intent of the Constitution.

"While it is true that identifying the failure is important, and it is true that the fault doesn't fall on the soldiers doing the fighting by and large, war is still the most inappropriate thing that happens during war. Which, I suspect, is a rhetorical bit that you won't be able to wrap your brains around, because like most conservatives you probably disagree that all war represents failure on some level."

Thanks for the personal insults as you skip and dodge the actual points of the argument in favor of character attacks, that certainly shows you're the more intelligent person. OF COURSE war is a failure of of policy. My point was that failure is not always avoidable in the face of a foe who DOES NOT CARE NOR WANT ANYTHING FROM YOU BUT YOUR DEATH OR SUBJUGATION, and to pretend such people and groups of people do not exist is to ignore most of human history.

I was not trying to make the war in Iraq the example of a 'good war'. By /any/ standard it's an awful war; it naturally follows if you're against the war, and even if you're for the war it's clearly being mishandled. The purpose of my post was to raise this point: If one group is intent on destroying the way of life of another and diplomatic solutions lead to appeasement (which never works and ultimately gives the aggressor everything he wants), then war is likely to follow and it isn't innappropriate for a people as a nation or culture to defend themselves.

[tombfyre.livejournal.com]

Yeah... Wrong place and wrong time for that kinda thing. Wait until people have stopped blowing eachother up. :p

[paka.livejournal.com]

Yeah, but why not?

The guys in charge of this country continually lengthen how long our fellow geeks are stuck in Iraq collecting more and more interesting varieties of PTSD, whilst committing to sending even more dweeby twenty-somethings over there and simultaneously making sure that once the same dweeby twenty-somethings get back here, there'll be nothing for them but pollution, crap veteran benefits, and a recession. You can't blame anyone for thinking hey, there's no end in sight, may as well have a game convention. Heck, I've given up at seeing the government get people out of there, and I'm still doing the write-in-end-the-war-thing now and then, years after I burned out on going to protests.

Besides, as mentioned, if the military is going to encourage baseball, football and Manly Pursuits (TM), it's about time they acknowledged to that large an extent that not everybody in uniform digs sports.

[galis.livejournal.com]

Troops over in Europe in WW2, Korea, Vietnam and the first Gulf War had their USO shows. Moral events are /important/ for the troops, it helps with homesickness, dealing with shock and loss, and the like. These people aren't robotic automatons, they need rest and recovery time just like anyone else. More so, the work they do is exhausting and draining; it's often difficult for them to organize their own clubs and such, so it's important that command try to fill any holes they perceive in the support of their troops.

Commanders tend to know the people who work for them. Their likes spread up the chain of command; if some soldiers were playing RPGs on their own their bosses likely knew and mentioned it to their bosses and such, until enough notices got to someone high enough up the chain of the command to figure enough people liked it that it'd be beneficial for moral to do an organized event.

The only reason this is getting press is because it's 'geekier' than a typical USO show, and thus some companies are making a bigger deal out of it. I think it's a GOOD thing because it shows the commanders are reaching out more to individual tastes rather than making every entertainment event either sports or music based as tends to be the trend.

It's also a good thing because soldiers who feel their command doesn't care, and have been doing nothing but combat duty with no respite are also far, far more likely to stop caring about the rules. This is true for any profession; unhappy, unmotivated employees often do shoddy work or cheat the system or embezzle, etc. Except in the military, doing that sort of thing can cause people to get killed, and the rules they might become callous towards include rather important things like, oh, the Geneva conventions and LOAC (Law of armed combat).

[athelind.livejournal.com]

Of coruse, in the military, doing your job RIGHT kets people killed, too.

And in this particular conflict, the contempt and disregard for the conventions of international law don't come from the trenches, but from the very top -- from someone who's taken MORE R&R time in his tenure than any other individual to hold that office.

[galis.livejournal.com]

But I have to ask, how does any of that relate to not letting soldiers get R&R?

I'm not gonna go into it with you about the military, since I like you and respect you and I know we won't see eye to eye on this (given I'm in the military), and I don't like to be villainized.

So like I did in my original post, I'm going to focus on the matter at hand and not try to insert comments about the rest of the war. Can you tell me why it's so bad to let soldiers have a D&D convention in their time off instead of say, going to a musical number or a sports game as per traditional options?

[galis.livejournal.com]

Here's an analogy to explain what I mean. People don't all agree with drilling for oil in Alaska. It's controversial. But the elected government of the united states feels the benefits outweigh the disadvantages so they're doing it, and doing it as carefully as they feasibly can. That doesn't of course stop it from being controversial, and there's nothing wrong with controversy.

But just because it's controversial, would you feel it appropriate to deny the oil workers the chance to enjoy their hobbies? Doesn't it seem a bit like punishing people arbitrarily because you disagree with a governmental decision?

[wy.livejournal.com]

As a troop (well, former, for army), and a gamer ... If I was in Iraq I'd love to have a get together with all the other gamers who are stationed over there. It's an escape from what we're doing. And hell, if we can get free swag and some recognition, so much the better.

Are you guys saying that .mil folks shouldn't game? Or that gaming might not even be .. *gasp* beneficial in understanding other people's points of view? (as long as it's not a hack and slash dungeon crawl, that is)

[araquan.livejournal.com]

Given that it's Iraq, you're sure RPG doesn't stand for Rocket Propelled Grenade?

Sorry, couln't resist.