Latest crazy map from the foundry

[DoomYoshi]

If there isn't you are just trolling. It's a map with a religious theme done within a respectful historical framework.

[Symmetry]

Change the topic to should maps have religious overtones on them, you will get a debate worth having.

Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.

[koontz1973]

The only point to make here now is this is even the wrong forum/thread to discus this. Will see if it can be moved to foundry discussions.

[Butters1919]

Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.

Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.

And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.

[DoomYoshi]

Aim of the Map: what does this even mean? The aim of the map is to present us with a new battlefield.

Overtly religious. The following map is overtly religious:

Click image to enlarge.

Explain what is contentious.

Overtly political. The following map is overtly political:

Click image to enlarge.

Explain what is contentious.

Now, assignment 3 is to show me a CC map which is not overtly political or religious.

[Neoteny]

For a website that is concerned enough about inclusiveness to outright bar swastikas, it feels awkward to me. We either have concerns about people being offended by certain things or we don't. Even the word "Israel" brings up a lot of emotions and stress in the general population. It's whoever's site this is to decide what is or isn't allowed, of course, but consistent application will always be a concern.

Atheism aside, wow that's a painful map at which to look.

[Night Strike]

For a website that is concerned enough about inclusiveness to outright bar swastikas, it feels awkward to me. We either have concerns about people being offended by certain things or we don't. Even the word "Israel" brings up a lot of emotions and stress in the general population. It's whoever's site this is to decide what is or isn't allowed, of course, but consistent application will always be a concern.

So atheism's answer is to ban words because you don't like them? What happened to tolerance?

[Funkyterrance]

Just seems like a themed map to me. I suppose you can go on a crusade over this symmetry and keep it from being produced but given you're not even an active player and most likely will never play this map I'd say it would be sort of pointless. And as someone else alluded, you could be opening a serious can of worms here.

[Neoteny]

For a website that is concerned enough about inclusiveness to outright bar swastikas, it feels awkward to me. We either have concerns about people being offended by certain things or we don't. Even the word "Israel" brings up a lot of emotions and stress in the general population. It's whoever's site this is to decide what is or isn't allowed, of course, but consistent application will always be a concern.

So atheism's answer is to ban words because you don't like them? What happened to tolerance?

lol

EDIT: I'll clarify. Paragraph 1 was me saying that this might be inconsistent with the idea of broad inclusivity that this site has striven for in the past.

My second paragraph was a commentary that noted that, despite my personal opinions on the context of the map, which I haven't really given other than "weird" and "maybe inconsistent," I find it visually gross.

[Symmetry]

Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.

Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.

And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.

The map was already under game discussion in the foundry. I have never advocated that that not happen. A more sophisticated (and more brutal) discussion on the map's implicationds can occur in OT.

[DoomYoshi]

What, if any, are the implications?

[Symmetry]

What, if any, are the implications?

That the area described in the map is prophesied by God to be conquered?

[Doc_Brown]

Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.

Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.

And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.

The map was already under game discussion in the foundry. I have never advocated that that not happen. A more sophisticated (and more brutal) discussion on the map's implicationds can occur in OT.

The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.

[Funkyterrance]

Atheism aside, wow that's a painful map at which to look.

Racist.

[2dimes]

What, if any, are the implications?

That the area described in the map is prophesied by God to be conquered?

Are you concerned that when someone fufills the prophacy by playing the map, that action will cause something else to happen?

[Symmetry]

Hmm, I'm sorry, but no. I don't even like that the topic has been moved away from the forum most able to discuss it. This is already a compromise. Now set out your points.

Actually this is the right place for it (as would the Foundry be). OT is for topics not pertaining to CC. This is directly related to CC. If you wish to discuss religious and/or political themes regarding historical Israel in OT, go ahead. But if you want to talk about it with reference to a map to perhaps be played by the community of CC, then this is the right place.

And in my opinion, the map is just fine. It is in no way offensive. If someone finds it so, I'm yet to hear why.

The map was already under game discussion in the foundry. I have never advocated that that not happen. A more sophisticated (and more brutal) discussion on the map's implicationds can occur in OT.

The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.

I don't get how you implied that from what I said.

[Night Strike]

I don't get how you implied that from what I said.

Then why didn't you actually answer what the implications are?

[Neoteny]

Atheism aside, wow that's a painful map at which to look.

Racist.

I'll admit it's a subjective criticism.

[Doc_Brown]

The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.

I don't get how you implied that from what I said.

Point being that you're drawing unreasonable implications, and your approach could easily be extended to find half the maps on this site to be offensive.

[DoomYoshi]

I don't get how you implied that from what I said.

Then why didn't you actually answer what the implications are?

That's how trolls work.


In a note on Doc_Brown's question of how many modern Israelis can link themselves to a tribe: genetic evidence has, for better or worse, proven that most Jews are not descended from Israel on their mother's side, only on their father's side. So the answer is: a very small percentage, since Jewish law dictates that you are only Jewish if your mother was Jewish.

[Symmetry]

The implications being that a group of refugees from Egypt some 3000 years ago thought they had a divine right to sliver of land and then proceeded to war with their neighbors and each other for the next 500 years? The map is clearly labeled as Ancient Israel. It's set in a time when there were 12 tribes. How many modern Israelis can point to which tribe they descend from? Sure there are some people that believe the perceived divine right from thousands of years ago provides an entitlement to the same thing today, and that's a valid debate for OT. But if that's the problem with the map, we really need to get rid of the First Nations America maps too. After all, some of the colonist groups came for religious reasons ("City on a Hill," "Freedom of Religion," and all that), and the native groups were conquered by people that believed their god gave them the land. How about the American Civil War map? It has racism and religious views underlying the themes that are present in it, not unlike the WW2 maps. Certainly the swastika has been banned, in part because it's illegal in some parts of the world and is considered patently offensive in other places. I haven't heard of any country that has banned passages from the Bible or that finds mention of 2500 year old geopolitical conflicts to be patently offensive.

I don't get how you implied that from what I said.

Point being that you're drawing unreasonable implications, and your approach could easily be extended to find half the maps on this site to be offensive.

That's a strawman, dude, try again. If your point is truly that I might dislike something else...

[Funkyterrance]

I went and re-read the caption on the map and I'll admit the wording is a little heavy handed. You could probably just tweak it a little and everyone would be happy as it does read as slightly "charged" as it stands.

[Night Strike]

I went and re-read the caption on the map and I'll admit the wording is a little heavy handed. You could probably just tweak it a little and everyone would be happy as it does read as slightly "charged" as it stands.

Which part is "charged" or "heavy-handed"?

[Symmetry]

I went and re-read the caption on the map and I'll admit the wording is a little heavy handed. You could probably just tweak it a little and everyone would be happy as it does read as slightly "charged" as it stands.

A nicer way of putting it than I would, but a legion away from the "nothing religious" crowd.

[DoomYoshi]

Straw Man.

There is no "nothing religious" crowd.