Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Liam said:
You have to edit the maps to insert the spray.
I think a points system would help a *lot*.
After installing my own dedicated server and running beetles mod on it I had the admin option of placing decals around the map. It was awesome and retarded at the same time. I also didn’t have to download a new map or anything after this was done. I can join other servers with tf2 just fine. I see server with an ad in their spawns all the time an I don’t have to actually download a new map to see it.
The beetles mod came with a decals folder and those decals somehow spray onto the maps I guess sorta like a spray does. Again I’m a noob at configuring servers but this mod did give me a lot of options as a noob ^^.
The only reason I bothered mentioning 24/7 2fort is because most Good 2fort servers seem to have a growing community. If we aren’t populating it we may as well try something new. I know that community and getting to know people is the key. It was just a suggestion. I personally don’t want the server to have to do 24/7 but I also want it populated.
——> Either way, we need a fairly large group of people to “successfully” schedule a tf2 time on the server so we can get people to populate it.
a couple skill demos can take out any medic/soldier combo before they get close to the middle of the base ^^. If im on defense I prefer to have 2 demos forcing medics to use their uber early, thus protected the sentries within. There are many good ways to do this
. (This is only for CTF maps – for the most part). Although demos are still pretty good at taking down a medic, even if it costs the demo his life.“Xmas” is actually a Christian abbreviation, one whose origins date back at least a thousand years. The term derives from the Greek letter chi, which resembles the English letter X and is the first letter in the word Christ as it is spelled in the Greek alphabet. References to “XPMas” as an abbreviation for “Christmas” can be found as early as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle in 1021 CE. (The P is the Greek letter rho; the chi-rho combination is an ancient Christian symbol known as the Labarum.)
Look it up
.Renton said:
haha that white guy in the back belongs in there like a crayon in a box of cutlery/lol i agree
You are right ephram, my logic in that regard is flawed. Parents can still buy the game for their children. However politicians, as they always do, will use this law as a stepping stone for more control out of a needless fear that the youth of the nation will turn into freaks of nature. Below I talk about the newer laws proposed that seek to give government control of the ESRB. This isn’t needed because the ESRB is doing its job. Given that this kind of law is already being proposed, the needless law for fining a manager because an employee sold an M-Rated game to someone under 17 would only give it more strength in being passed.
Oh and that picture doesn’t help my argument because of how the guy looks? Hell my brother looks like an emo depressed suicidal freak but hes smarter than most people I know. I see no flaw in his actual statement and I’m sorry but I try not to judge a book by its cover.
I think that most M-Rated games end up in kids hands because of dumb parents or an older friend/relative buying it for them. Most kids don’t have the resources to actually get to a store and buy the game on their own.
Since there is no proof to a threat in the child’s safety the government has no place getting involved.
As far as carding goes, I’ve been carded to buy every mature game this year. WalMart is die hard at carding me and the few times I made the trip to Gamestop I also got carded. I can see me at 60 with white hair getting carded for the latest game! xD.
Moving on the the real issue:
The new thing that politicians are trying is to get government control over the ESRB. Politicians have been treating the ESRB like it isn’t doing its job without any evidence of their claims. In fact all the evidence points to the fact that the ESRB is doing more than any other rating organization. If the government starts controlling how games are rated, what is allowed in a game, etc… then a lot of companies will be forced to cookie cutter their games based on some guidelines for what can and cannot be in a game. What if they decide that blood and gore should be AO content? Then the US never gets any games because console makers don’t support AO rated games and stores in the US won’t sell them. Since consoles are localized you can’t buy a foreign version and expect it to work. Above all else, I want games to be fresh and new with new ideas that aren’t limited because of some regulations that tell gaming companies what is appropriate and what isn’t. I think the government having control over the ratings system isn’t part of their jurisdiction unless the ratings pose a real threat to our society.
How many people never saw porn until they were 18?
How many people never saw violence until they were 17?
How many people never heard cursing and hateful language before they were 17?
28.2% of gamers are under the age of 18 and the average player age is 33 according to the ESA. Laws that are proposed that would limit content allowed in games is aimed to protect children. I simply don’t want it to turn out that I can’t play a game with its full content because little Johnny’s parents are too stupid to raise their child properly. Total censorship is wrong. The ability to control the content from the console or computer is the best solution. Laws are stepping stones, once one is passed a new one with more restriction will be proposed. This always happens and we have to be careful when we start supporting and throwing out laws just because they make things a little easier. With the current progress of the ESRB there isn’t a reason to have the law. Companies are abiding by the carding rule most of the time. Even with the law there still wouldn’t be a 100% guarantee that a kid can’t buy the M rated game. I know lots of underage people that have always found ways to get porn, cigarettes, and alcohol. We don’t need the law. Our youth aren’t going to be crazy gun shooting maniacs. (Well some of them might because they are crazy)
No matter what laws we make, our children will still be exposed to the content. At least in gaming, it isn’t real. A kid can better distinguish real from fake in a video game than they can from a live action movie, the news, or any television show. For any console game the parents CAN put parental controls on. Even if their kid buys the game, they can’t play it if it is mature. A kid cannot play the game in the middle of the night, without the code. In the case of playing at a friends house, this will still be a problem regardless of a law forcing retailers to card for M rated games. (Which they do most of the time anyways).
I stand by the fact that laws won’t prevent a kid from playing a game but having informed parents will.
The ESRB is doing its job. The game stores are getting better and better at carding. Why should the government get involved? I have yet to hear a good reason. We don’t need to give the government a precedence on which it can ultimately control the gaming industry through controlling the ESRB. One law always leads to a more strict law. Parents need to be informed, kids should be carded, between the ESRB, parents, and the game stores we can regulate this without government involvement.
I don’t want the government having any say in this industry unless the gaming industry poses a real threat to society. The fact is, it doesn’t, and the government has no place getting involved.
Either way, I’m not trying to convince anyone one way or another. I simply believe that this law is not needed given the gaming industries progress with regulating its game distribution and its ability to rate games. I support the gaming industry fully. I support the ESRB fully. Given how the government has mismanaged many other things in recent memory I don’t think giving more responsibility there is a good idea. The more red tape we put in front of the gaming industry the longer it takes to create content and the less freedom there is for new creative ideas to be put into games. These are just things to think about.
-Kappa
Kuros said:
Well as a guy that’s going to be a dad in a mere 2.5 months, I wouldn’t want my son going into a game store and picking up some crazy game and me not know about it. Let’s say his friend’s mom takes them and she’s less than up to speed on what ratings are and what is in video games. Now my kid has a game I don’t want him to have at his particular age because there was nothing to prevent him from getting it. I think it should be regulated to protect kids. Just a parent’s POV. I’m all about freedom to put whatever you want into a video game. I just don’t think that some games are for all ages, and I’d like to know that the gaming community has my child’s interests in mind.Thats why the ESRB exists, to regulate the sale of games. Your child will be more likely to get into an R rated movie than be able to buy a M rated video game. He will be a lot more likely to be able to buy a unrated or R rated movie before being able to buy an M rated game. There is even a greater chance that he will be able to buy an explicit CD. The ESRB is the best in the business for regulating ratings and they are getting better.
No law is going to prevent a kids, friends, parent from buying a game and him/her being exposed to it. That will simply be up to each individual parent to control as best they can. It is the parents responsibility, especially in their own home, to monitor what their child plays/does.
I find it pretty hard to believe that my kid will be able to get the transportation and the money to buy an M rated game without me knowing about it. If he/she is that resourceful and I’m that blind then I would think they would find any means to get the game, regardless of the laws against the store. If he has the money and it disappears I’ll be suspicious and look into it. Really there is no excuse for a parent not knowing that their child is playing some game they don’t want them to be playing. With the parental controls on consoles and the ability to limit what is installed on a PC, I really don’t see this being a problem for a responsible parent.
Also, based on my personal experience of not being limited what I could watch/listen to/play when I was a child, I have not once thought of killing another person. I have never wanted to steal a car. I get queasy at the sight of real blood or bad injuries. My personal experience is part of my own decision that games are an outlet and not an influence, at least not an influence to any lasting degree. At most a person will be upset in an immediate sense of losing a game, but thats normal for any game, digital or not.
The way I see it, the parent is the only real control over games. The fact that there isn’t any ‘proof’ of harm to a minor when playing an M rated game makes it impossible for any law to be passed currently. I guess I feel more inclined to parental rights and parental responsibility over the government telling me what media is safe for my child. Hell the news is often more harmful, because its real, than most M rated games. But thats just my opinion.
Either way, let the parents be parents. *edited* nanny states.
A link to the ESA website. If you want to know about any research done based on gaming/violence/who plays what the go here.
The ESA – All the facts you need to know about Gamers and Violence
The ESRB is not controlled by the Government. It is a self-regulated entity of the gaming industry.
I support the ESRB… There is not good reason for the government to get involved with the sale of video games to minors. No evidence exists to support any claims linking violence to M rated games. Every piece of legislation that has been proposed has been a waste of tax payers money, even a few judges have expressed their concern of this very issue. Violent crimes are down, game sales are up, games are more violent. Explain how this can be with so many ‘minors’ buying violent video games?
First off, in response to Kuros, it is not illegal to sell an M-Rated game to a Minor. It is regulated and agreed upon in the same way that movies and music are. The stores agree with the ESRB not to sell them to minors.
Second, I care because I am going to be a parent. I am involved with this group because of that fact. Do not take out personal attacks on me or this organization without any reason.
Parental Statistics: Go Here
Regardless of this, the percentage of minors buying games has dropped from 85% to 42% since 2000.
Violent crimes amongst teens and children is low, especially when compared to the sale of video games.
If it isn’t illegal to go to a R movie called SAW I, II, or III, then why should it be illegal to sell a game rated M to a minor? I don’t think its the governments right to keep the game out of the child’s hands. It is the parents responsability and right to decide what their child plays. The last thing I want is for the government to start telling me that I’m not allowed to buy X game for my son because there are dumb*edited* parents out there too stupid to care. If I deem him/her mature enough then it should be my choice.
Currently there is 0 evidence linking violent crimes to video games.
Games don’t breed violence
Muskogee Daily Phoenix, OK
June 20, 2006
“…Violent behavior is harmful to society and must be curbed, but despite many claims that violent movies and video games lead to violence, no one can make a direct correlation. It’s more complicated than that.
“Some have decried motion picture violence for years, but violent crime in the United States has declined in recent years. And if even 10 or 20 percent of the children playing violent video games and watching violent movies — just as children in the 1960s watched the Three Stooges batter one another — exhibited violent behavior, then we would be experiencing many more problems with violence than we see right now.
“Simply stopping the sale of violent video games to minors and hiding the games behind counters won’t stop them from getting into the hands of minors.
“…The game industry has established a rating system, and parents are responsible for managing their households and the things to which their children are exposed, and parents should be observing the warning labels.
If the rest of the entertainment industry is self regulated then why can’t the gaming industry be that way as well?
State shouldn’t assume parent’s role in picking which games kids play
The Delaware News Journal
March 21, 2006
“… Not too many years ago critics were blamed teen violence on rock and roll. Plenty of children have played these video games without any effect — other than wasting time. To link an argument about the proper way of raising children to a claim about brain waves does a disservice to the argument. Human beings, even young ones, are more resilient that that.
“The responsibility belongs squarely on the parents.
“…And if the state takes over this function, what kind of police powers would be involved? Will the state be supervising play dates? Would the state actually be effective in enforcing such a law? Or would the law become another dead-letter restriction that is revived periodically when someone raises a stink?
“Video-game supervision belongs in the family, not in the halls of the legislature.”
Rule of the games
Los Angeles Times
December 28, 2005
“When it comes to regulating violent video games, lawmakers are like slow-fingered players who never find the key to the next level. Last week, a federal judge in San Jose placed a temporary hold on a new California law that would make it illegal to rent or sell certain types of violent video games to minors.
“The courts have been unanimous on the issue, with U.S. District Judge Ronald M. Whyte’s ruling being the sixth to find such laws unconstitutional.
“The issue is free speech… The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that states had a ‘rational basis’ for barring shopkeepers from selling sexually explicit magazines to minors, regardless of the 1st Amendment. But the courts have never applied the same rationale to explicit depictions of violence.
“The standard for laws against violent movies, lyrics or games is much higher: States must demonstrate that they have a compelling interest in limiting violent expressions, and that they’re using the least restrictive means to do the job. States cannot ban game sales to minors unless they can show a strong link between game playing and violent behavior, which has yet to be done to any judge’s satisfaction…
“Given the courts’ approach, however, it’s time for lawmakers and game manufacturers to find another way to address the issue. The industry has a more detailed ratings system than Hollywood’s, as well as agreements with numerous retailers to enforce those ratings. And the next generation of game consoles will enable parents to use the ratings to limit which games their kids can play.
“Ultimately, it is a parent’s duty to keep children away from inappropriate video games. Lawmakers who have tried to shift that duty to store clerks are now 0 for 6, and their average isn’t likely to improve — no matter how many times they swing.”
Locked In Mortal Combat With The Media Monster
By Paul K. McMasters
September 21, 2006
First Amendment Center
“….As much as political leaders, advocates, researchers and some parents would like to hope otherwise, sure proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between media content and bad behavior among adults or children remains elusive…. [W]e must not lose sight of the fact that millions upon millions of adults and children play video games….yet they never take up a gun and start spraying bullets into a crowd of innocents.
“….To argue that violence in media causes actual violence, or that indecency in media causes harmful sexual adventurism, is to argue that the cleansing of movies, TV, radio, video games, comic books, the Internet and even books will remove crime, perversion and other unpleasantness from our midst.
“….There should be no surprise or shock that human beings gravitate toward entertainment that reflects life, stimulates the senses, sparks a laugh, offers an excuse to waste a bit of time. It is somewhat of a surprise to realize that so many of us lack the confidence in our own ability to distinguish between life and fantasy or between cause and effect.”
America the Parent?
By Brian Glidden
July 12, 2006
Hawaii Reporter, HI
“…The gaming industry has already created an effective self-regulatory system. This system’s primary goal is to help parents make the decision about what is appropriate for their children by providing adequate information about the content of such games, on both the packaging and in various product reviews.
“…Particularly in an environment in which computer gaming companies have taken it upon themselves to inform their customers of what they are buying, the creator’s rights to freedom of expression enshrined in the Constitution should be protected from political interference.
“…Parents, not video games, raise children. Video games, like movies, music, and novels, represent an escape from reality. Parents have the opportunity and responsibility to teach children fundamentals about fact and fairy tale, right and wrong, good and evil. Without these fundamentals, children will fail the test of life even if video games were banned altogether…
“Parents, who know their children better than do Washington lawmakers, must choose what is appropriate for their children. There is no need for new burdensome, impractical regulation that undermines the principles of liberty on which our country was founded—especially when the rules won’t work and are unconstitutional, anyway.”
Think twice before bashing video gamers
By Brian Slupski
July 2, 2006
Northwest Herald, IL
“…In case you missed it, video games have surpassed rap music as the leading bogeyman out to suck the innocence out of America’s youth.
“The theory goes that kids will play violent video games and become violent…
“I always have been incredulous about such arguments. Kids today seem the same as kids in the past.
“…Surely, if violent video games are a dangerous influence on this nation’s youth, there should be some indications of that. Juvenile violent crimes, particularly homicide, should be getting worse.
“So I went to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, which is part of the Justice Department. My findings were shocking.”
“From 1994 to 2003, violent crimes by juveniles dropped 32 percent.
“…Murder committed by juveniles declined by 68 percent over that time period [1994 to 2003]. In fact, the number of juvenile arrests in 2003 was the lowest since 1987. Even more good news, the number of juveniles murdered in 2003 was at its lowest since 1984.
“…We often tend to focus on the negative. And we often tend to think that the times we live in are uniquely bad, while nostalgically thinking that yesteryear was uniquely good. Neither is true.”
Fact and Fiction in the Debate Over Video Game Regulation
Progress on Point, The Progress & Freedom Foundation
Adam Thierer
March 20, 2006
Complete report text at: http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop13.7videogames.pdf
Adam Thierer, Senior Fellow and Director of PFF’s Center for Digital Media Freedom, identifies six myths commonly used in support of government regulation of game content and points out why each is flawed:
*
Myth: The industry’s voluntary ratings scheme fails to provide comprehensive information and is not stringently enforced.
To the contrary, the industry’s self-imposed ratings system is the most sophisticated, descriptive, and effective ratings system ever devised by any major media sector in America. In addition to a standardized ratings structure, the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) also provides over 30 descriptors with detailed information on game content. The ESRB also imposes corrective action, including monetary fines, when marketing or rating industry standards have been breached.
*
Myth: The majority of video games contain excessive violence or adult-themed material.
In reality, the vast majority of video games sold each year do not contain intense violence or sexual themes. In 2005, less than 13 percent of electronic games received a “mature” or “adults only” rating from the ESRB. Moreover, over 80 percent of the top twenty selling electronic games over the past five years have been rated “for everyone” or “teen” by the ESRB.
*
Myth: Proposals to restrict the sale of violent video games will be deemed constitutional in the courts.
State and local laws attempting to regulate video games have been struck down as unconstitutional. Of the six of the cases detailed in the paper, all the decisions cited First Amendment concerns, vague legislative language, and lack of scientific evidence of a link between aggressive behavior and video games.
*
Myth: Federal regulation will build on the industry’s ratings system, not install a burdensome regulatory regime.
Congressional intervention could cause game developers to abandon the industry’s voluntary ratings system because of fear of legal liability. If enough developers do so, it could lead to the adoption of a federally mandated regulatory regime / ratings system. Any government ratings system would raise serious First Amendment concerns.
*
Myth: There is a direct correlation between exposure to violent video games and decline in social and cultural indicators.
No correlation between video games and aggressive behavior has been proven. Moreover, almost every social / cultural indicator of importance, such as juvenile violent crime, has been improving in recent years and decades. These improvements have occurred even as media exposure and video game use among youth has increased.
*
Myth: Video games have no social or educational value and instead reflect a new societal preoccupation with violent entertainment.
Contemporary electronic games often require the player to use complex cognitive skills, such as analyzing complex social networks, managing resources, and tracking subtle narrative intertwinings and patterns. Some scholars also believe games can have cathartic benefits. Finally, contrary to what some critics claim, violent themes and images have been part of literature and other forms of entertainment for centuries.
Thierer concludes that legislative proposals to regulate electronic games are driven by myths and misinformation regarding ratings, content and possible effects of the games. The industry has established an independent, comprehensive ratings system that provides extensive descriptive information about game content. This system has so far been effective. A federal regulatory regime could prove to be cumbersome, unconstitutional and have a “chilling” effect on expression and creativity.
A bill of rights for parents, not the feds
Philadelphia Inquirer
By Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert
January 4, 2006
In the waning weeks of 2005, four different federal courts across the country issued rulings that, viewed collectively, reinforce the right of parents to make private choices regarding their children’s lives, free from government-imposed intermeddling.
While these cases should be heralded by pro-family organizations that routinely rail against government interference into the parenting process, they instead are lambasted by these same groups, as well as some sympathetic lawmakers who find political expediency in catering to a small yet vociferous faction of the electorate…
When it comes to video games depicting images of violence, it is somewhat easier to sympathize with legislators wanting to impose government-mandated ratings on the games and to prohibit minors from purchasing them. Many adults, after all, would find the content of some games such as Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas offensive, disagreeable or repulsive.
But that is precisely the point. Since we cannot all agree on what speech is offensive, disagreeable or repulsive, we should not allow the government to impose its determinations and ratings about those subjects on consumers, including parents.
…When the government imposes its own ratings on video games and determines what’s appropriate entertainment for minors, it has stepped firmly and deeply into the culture wars and interfered with decisions affecting the First Amendment freedom of speech. Once again, the proper arena for setting the bounds of personal culture is neither the courts nor the schools nor the legislatures. Rather, it is the home, and the right and duty falls to parents. We should trust parents to make their own decisions about what games their children should or shouldn’t be allowed to play.”
I argue that the government has no place in regulating the video game industry. There is no proof or evidence of a causal relationship between video games and violence. The government currently has NO control over any electronic entertainment and I see no point in its involvement with the gaming industry.
The Xbox 360 has parental controls that allow you to set a password stopping the play of M rated games. It also has a way for parents to limit the amount of time spent playing per day. The ESRB is doing more now than it ever has to keep games out of minors hands without the permission of the parent.
I say that if the parent deems his/her child mature enough to play the game then it is not the place of the government to say otherwise, unless they have proof that it is damaging to the child.
No evidence exists to support government regulation. No laws should be passed that stifle gaming creatitivity and tell me what I can buy for my children.
-Kappa
PS: Please have some facts before you start responding off of emotion. I have studied and kept up with this topic for about three years. If you don’t know what your talking about, don’t waste your time here.
If you want to know what legislation I’m talking about, go HERE
There is a lot of legislation trying to go through about video games. I keep up with it through several gaming news sites and a lot of the time the things proposed are based on unfounded reason.
It isn’t necessarily only government. The most recent thing I can think of is Here.
But really, that link to the photos comes from the main site. Video Game Voters
An interesting letter from Will Wright is Here.
There is a lot of legislation that gets put out each year trying to regulate, censor, and protect us from video games. The downside to this legislation is that most of the proposals would prevent adults (the majority of gamers) from actually playing non-censored games. The only reason I care is because I’m tired of politicians talking about video games as if they are drugs/malicious.
You say that you find it funny that there is a group of people who care about how games are legislated. How would you like it if a game you wanted to play effectively got banned or censored due to government regulation or if the gaming environment was regulated to the point of less creativity / fun in games? The problem is that politicians are trying to find a cause for a kids bad behavior and since children tend to play video games it must be the problem. No way could it be the fact that their parents aren’t being good parents or that the some people are just plain mental.
I don’t believe the government needs to be involved with the gaming industry. It doesn’t regulate music. It doesn’t regulate movies. It shouldn’t regulate games either. Leave the regulation to the ESRB and the gaming industry. This is essentially what that ‘wall of protest’ is against. Sorry if it seems stupid but some people actually care about whether or not good and interesting games are able to be produced without the government trying to control them.
Things like a federal tax on games are the reason I’m trying to stay informed, sorry that it seems stupid to you.
-Kappa
Apologies for the website comment.
I was unaware of any meeting on Monday. I’m sure someone knew about it but I didn’t.
We need more information on our requests and we will do that in the future. I can see how ‘funds for event’ without anything detailed and no one present to answer questions at any point in time could cause confusion.
As far as I know, prizes are paid for by the sponsors. If the gaming club does fund any part of the prizes I want to make it clear that they are a very necessary part of our LAN event. Essentially our LAN event is for anyone to attend and a majority come to play in tournaments. The winners of these tournaments are the recipients of the prizes. The prizes give the people that attend our events a goal to achieve and a reason to get better so that next time they might win the prize. It adds a level of depth to the tournament that does not exist otherwise, it puts something at stake. I would say that prizes and community are two of the biggest reasons people attend our events. These LANs are an opportunity for currents students to ‘get away’ from the academic life and indulge themselves in a care free day of community, gaming, and a chance to win something. For me to say that these aren’t necessary would be a lie because I have experienced about 12 different LANs around the east coast and none would have been nearly as successful without the inclusion of prizes.
I believe that prizes are donated by sponsors but I could be mistaken and will find out.
I do not know the exact numbers of our expenses but since they are needed I am certain our club will gather the required information.
I am pretty sure one of our fund raisers, hosted on this forum, brought in quite a bit of money for upgrading our gaming server. Next to our LAN events the gaming server is the most expensive part of our organization. If most of our fund went into maintaining/upgrading that server then it would be safe to say that we are not spending our money on unnecessary goodies first. Other expenses include but are not limited to advertising, location to host LAN, website, food, drinks, power, game packages(For use at LAN events only), and cabling.
The big difference between our club and many others is that we allow anyone to join and invite anyone who wants to come to our events. Our LAN events are supported by sponsors from around the nation, some of which are really big names in the gaming industry. Our gaming server hosts several online games that completely and totally advertise our university in a gaming environment. I have personally made accommodation’s for gamers who don’t attend WCU but are interested to stay at my house and visit campus.
One thing that was pointed out earlier is that we do not have many alumni and for longer lived organizations alumni are a huge contributor to the overall success of an organization. I would even say that a strong alumni base enables organizations to do that which is otherwise impossible for an attending student. I ask that the age of our organization and our lack of alumni be taken into consideration.
Since the Grand Room and the Power were both School properties someone believed that it would be the best use of school money to spend on. School money spent on school items seemed to fit into our cost equation well. I believe the idea behind it was to avoid confusion and essentially lower the cost incurred by anyone. Campus money paying for campus items that aren’t disposable = little or no cost to the university beyond the use of the space. I for one still support it.
To compensate for costs incurred by the LAN event we charge a fee, $3 for those who just want to hang out and $5 for those actually competing in tournaments.
To actually raise money we rely on sponsorships and internal funding / donations. Our unofficial club base is much larger than the student base and funds are reliable in that regard. To a much lesser extent we rely on the SGA to help us out with the costs of the campus utilities. Essentially if we need money, we look to the club, and if we don’t get enough we have backup solutions that we rarely have to put into action. If we need to we can start a gaming club t-shirt sale, a custom gaming computer sale, or charge more money per LAN / provide less food and drinks. We are a very capable organization that has come a long way in four years. We do not completely ‘rely’ on the SGA and we saw no reason to suspect the SGA wouldn’t help fund our events. Apparently there has been miscommunication from both parties and we do need to work harder, all of us, to get this ball rolling again.
I personally think someone from the SGA should come out and experience the next LAN event. It seems a lot of the confusion stems from ‘what exactly does one do with the money provided at a LAN Party?’ Those questions will be better answered through experience but we will also put together something tangible to help the SGA better understand our costs incurred and our funds raised.
In response to your first post, I would like to point out that E3 is a business expo, and nothing like what we do at our LAN events. A better goal would be the addition of an exhibition much like the one Penny-Arcade hosts. However, we will need many more years and much more alumni in the IT field for this to become a reality. Just thought I’d throw that out there.
Ultimately, no one wants to have any problems with financial means. The gaming club wants the support of the SGA and much of our frustration has stemmed from what seemed to be a lack of interest on the SGA’s part. However I will concede that the gaming club has not provided enough information for the financial committee to make a logical decision. Hopefully the future endeavors of both parties roll out successfully.
**I’m not entirely ‘in the know’ about everything, so I apologize in advance for any errors in my argument**
I’d like to know another student run organization that spends $1200 a semester to host events, typically has a turnout of over 100 people, and actually causes non-students to become interested in joining our university.
If the SGA has funded ‘thousands of dollars’ to our organization in the past then why is $200 suddenly a problem? Why is it that this semester we were told we aren’t a club because we hadn’t signed up on that crappy website?
We did everything the same as we always have when requesting funds and the SGA suddenly has us jumping through new hoops that didn’t exist in the past. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the SGA made an effort to inform our club of these changes.
We schedule and plan our events half a year in advance and for some reason an organization as large as ours wasn’t told about the new requirements until it was too late. Then you have the audacity to tell us that it is our fault you changed the requirements/procedures without telling us?
First we were late on filing for the first event. Then the second application for money that was filed the same time as the first was also turned down. We were told many things as to why this happened, including that we canceled the second events application. How about instead of the rumor mill, the SGA actually explain why we aren’t receiving any funding or open support (like openly attending at least 1 event in 4 years).
The current reason, stated above, is that we don’t have enough money and therefore don’t need any money. Does this also imply that if an organization has plenty of money they can get more?
If you are going to give reasons then please make sure that your reasons make sense. The gaming club doesn’t not like being treated like a red-headed step child. Most of us are very intelligent and we come from a lot of different backgrounds. Do not assume that because we aren’t politicians we don’t understand the game. I assure you, it is a game.
I cannot believe that you would say that, in order to be funded, an organization must fund itself. Essentially the SGA just told the gaming club that in order to receive money we must be at a point in which we don’t need money. What business is it of the SGA’s as to what our club’s financial status is, beyond knowing whether or not we have enough money to fund an event? And to that extent we have been told that if we don’t have enough money, they won’t help fund us.
We have been successful. The argument that we aren’t doing enough to be eligible for supplemental funding to cover a small portion of our overall costs is absurd. The way the above post has addressed our club is ridiculous. Talking about us as if we are in some way inferior simply because we need a little money. What organization asks for money that doesn’t need it besides a corrupt one? We are told that in order to receive money we have to have money.
We aren’t a business. We are a club designed to attract new students to western through gaming. Why is our organization being judged based on the size of its WALLET instead of its ACTIONS? Why does the SGA care more about what money we have instead of what we do?
The SGA does nothing but pretend to care. I don’t think it is the SGA’s business how we make money, only that we do raise enough money to support our endeavors. Part of that raising has included the SGA’s support. This semester we have been given no legitimate reason as to why we aren’t being funded beyond the fact that they don’t like the size of our WALLETS…
I personally would like someone from the SGA to post a legitimate reason that makes sense. We have nothing to apologize for because we still haven’t been given a logical explanation for the lapse in funding.
The idea that an organization cannot receive money until it has money is ridiculous.
Definitely was a fun game. Hopefully next time the teams will be more organized beforehand to make for some interesting games!
The huge cloth mousepad sits nicely under the other hard steel series mouse pad I won last semester xD
I have 1 cloth and 1 hard pad now… Inserted for understanding
.I was on the DoD:S and TF2 team wins
. Held it down with a solid Demoman Defense(tf2) and Assault Offense(DoD:S).Needed the new headset ^^.
I think the LAN went really well. No problems beyond the SGA members being complete morons about funding. I guess jumping through 15 hoops wasn’t enough, we needed to lick their toes as well. Too bad im not a hot toe picker!
Honestly though, the events were great, the people were great, and overall the LAN was a success. I do feel that NIX got shafted out of the CS 1.6 Finals due to a last minute addition of a 3v3 round. Lame.
Can’t wait for the next LAN!
The SGA as far as I can tell has gone down hill in the past six months. We have jumped through all their hoops and they still leave our growing community with nothing.
The only explanation for their lack of interest in student run organizations that actually matter is laziness. The fact that we can raise way more money than we ask for is proof in and of itself that they don’t even try. Our SGA is by far the worst I have ever witnessed.
Their tactless lies and lazy attitudes are not acceptable. Their organization, as it stands, is worthless as far as I am concerned.
At least I am content in the fact that our organization is organized, doesn’t lie, makes good decisions based on sound reasoning and logic, and continues to successfully attract people to WCU. At least we put the students first. They should remove the S out of SGA because their organization clearly lacks any interest in the affairs of the students.
-Jesse Standard
Current CIS Major at WCU
NoDice said:
we can officially state we are the biggest organization at western and the funds will start to flow our way…U forgot about the marching band xD
Lets put it this way. I wake up, code, go to class, come home, homework, code, sleep.
or
Wake up, go to class, go to work, come home, sleep.
or
Wake up, code, game a little, game some more, code, game more, and more, and more, go to sleep.
The last one is normally sunday, my one day off…
lol yeah… blame me for that one flakes, *edited*ty server and I didn’t see it coming… all the good people ended up transferring off because the bg battlegroup sucks.
I’m currently a 70 shaman on skullcrusher (horde). My alliance account is rotting
.
