Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Bowling For Columbine (Guncontrol)


sparhawk

Recommended Posts

I know it's quite an old movie, but I only watched it a few days ago. It was quite interesting. So far I always had thought that the reason for the high murder rate in the US is because of the high number of guns, but according to the statistics, as presented in the movie, in Canada there is an equally high number of guns available, so this could not be the cause. I was also surprised that Germany has a higher killing rate then Canada or UK.

I wonder if the reason that Moore gives is correct. That medias are pushing the fear and cause this as a result of it. Fear induced by medias is not as extreme around here in Germany, but the tendency also goes in the same direction. Even Vienna, which is supposed to be quite a quiet city, I wouldn't leave my flat unlocked, so I was surprised that this happens in Torronto quite a lot.

The arguments of the pro gun guys in the movie, were pretty much typical Nazi arguments. How is your view on guns? Personally I never felt the need for one, but one might say, that I don't look like a guy who would be assaulted easily, so that might be some protection. But on the other hand, I never heard of any girlfriend or woman in my neighbourhood who was assaulted either, so this doesn't really sound like a good argument.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I find his documentaries are good for entertainment value, but the analysis (if you can call it that) is always piss poor and nothing I can really take seriously. I don't see how our media is any more "fear mongering" than other countries I've lived in, but anyway it doesn't really make sense as an explanation since mass media is by definition consumed on a mass level, whereas the violence level is of course very localized, even in the range of different city streets or neighborhoods.

 

I tend to think that there are more basic socio-economic and demographic reasons which explain violence rates.

 

I mean, I live in NYC, and a bad neighborhood just feels bad. Lots of unemployed young men with nothing to do but hang out on the street and get frustrated ... then you add drug pushers on the street corners and that's fuel to the fire, since it provides a reason to need money, and just creates a culture or atmosphere of criminality/violence.

 

At the same time, about a decade ago the murder rate in NYC plummeted very sharply down, and sociologists attributed it to demographic shifts where the main perpetrators just literally grew up, got jobs and families and couldn't afford to be so adventerous, coinciding with economic conditions having to do with the 90s bubble pushing a lot of capital around that trickled down; jobs were just willing to take bigger risks in hiring.

 

Also, one thing he doesn't emphasize is the fact that most developed States with less violence, because people just trust each other more or whatever, are because their population is just more homogenous. At least for me, this is certainly why Japan and Scandanavian countries (maybe more so 10 years ago) felt very safe to me even in the most inner of cities. It's sort of the price America pays for doing the right thing and integrating (and pushing racial diversity as a virtue, which doesn't even make sense, e.g., in Japan), but then the US has a dilemma in making sure the income gap doesn't spiral out where minorities aren't getting work and have an incentive to be distrustful. As I see it, doing the right thing helps foster the problem, so it's something of a Catch-22 that takes patient work to resolve with no silver bullets ... and Moore seems to miss that point. It sort of reminds me of the violence around Paris last year, just integrate that kind of frustration across every major city, and the US doesn't seem so unique anymore in essence, but only in degree.

 

As for Moore, like a lot of people not actually doing politics but talking about it, I think he doesn't like the idea that much of the problem is out of a government's control, so throws out superficial possibilities as if it's worth thinking about them just so we don't feel so impotent.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know wether his statistics are correct, but I have to assume. Given what he said in the movie, it appears that Canada is pretty similar to the US, and still the behaviour is so much more different. At least in the example given, they also have a high rate oif mixed races, high rate of unemployment and somehow I doubt that they have less drug addicts than other countries.

I'm aware that he is doing this for his own purposes, and that his movies also reflect his own political view.

That other countries are more homogenous I can't really believe. When I consider Austria/Vienna, there is also a high rate of foreigners hanging around. I remember when the communist curtain fell, that the FPOe (political right party) was playing fear in the magazines by making headlines like "800.000 unemployed russians are waiting to invade Austria just behind the border". I don't think that this argument is so much worse for USA.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I see it, doing the right thing helps foster the problem, so it's something of a Catch-22 that takes patient work to resolve with no silver bullets

 

Then I fail to see how it fits the definition of "doing the right thing". In my view, doing the right thing means to act in a way which minimises problems, rather than increasing them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched that movie. It was interesting. I tend to agree with demagogue that Moore sometimes puts an exaggerated view on things so can be hard to trust. After watching the movie, I was led to believe the Canadian news only talked about blue sky and roses. Yet I turn on their news through cable TV and the horrible things that happened during the day are talked about just as prominently there. It's been a while since I saw the movie, but if media-driven fear is given as the reason why the murder rate is so high, that doesn't make sense to me. How did he make the connection? If people are fearful, then they would own guns, yes. But fear doesn't make people go out and kill others. Seems like fear would lead to paranoia (close & lock doors) rather than give someone a reason to go out and kill. I have to watch the movie again, I guess.

Then I fail to see how it fits the definition of "doing the right thing". In my view, doing the right thing means to act in a way which minimises problems, rather than increasing them.

I think demagogue was trying to say that the US is doing the "morally right thing" by having so much population diversity. Demagogue, is that what you were referring to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. Violent crime is an abberrition in Japan, almost inconceivable; but just as unknown is a significant immigrant/outsider population competing with the natives for a sizable chunk of the economy.

 

As for the "the price to pay for doing the right thing", I didn't word it correctly since it's misleading from my thinking and I didn't mean it as Orb understood it (since I would agree with what he said), and I meant it as Darkness-Falls said. Also, in my mind I was sort of thinking of the Civil Rights movement to integrate African Americans into white schools and employment sectors, which was undoutably the morally right thing to do, but similar to the problems Europe is having with absorbing immigrant populations into its economy -- except on a much wider scale -- when you intergrate a "non-accultured" population into an economy, people fall through the cracks and you get persistent un/under-employment that (the important part) creates a culture around itself that may be more susceptible to criminality.

 

Before the 1960s, a lot of African American neighborhoods were sort of little bubble economies that couldn't be sustainable ... and even aside from the Civil Rights movement, it is the nature of economic systems, and globalization only accelerates it, to pop these sorts of bubbles and pressure the economy to be more fluid. I mean, 1940s-50s US was a much safer era, but I don't think anyone aside from a few right-wing kooks is suggesting we try to recreate the economic/demographic conditions of basically bottling black neighborhoods back up and putting them back into the country, even if we could.

 

My point was, it's these sorts of pressures that are actually driving unemployment; also the urbanzation of African Americans as a demographic-event probably plays in here as well; all adding up to a culture that builds around it that sustains the "bad" conditions it in certain neighborhoods. I mean, I think it is this kind of "culture" that's really at the root; since criminality is so not-in-a-person's-interest that it only really makes sense as a community-bound sub-culture that develops given the appropriate conditions, not one that parents actually encourage to their kids, but one that probably develops in the margins, something at first tolerated that reaches a critical mass.

 

Anyway, you can blame the gov't for not responding to it appropriately, but it's not like the gov't is *intending* for there to be large, persistent unemployment among black youths in urban neighborhoods that develop a culture for being "bad". And the point about "globalization" as a catalyst is that a lot of the driving problem is something a national gov't can't control no matter what it does. It's no longer possible for the Federal Reserve just raise the interest rate as a national monetary policy; inflation is occuring in the US (and world) because of higher oil prices, making jobs more conservative and more African Americans in the US and Muslim-immigrants in European cities out on the street getting frustrated in "bad" neighborhoods.

 

So there's a question if it's true that Toronto has a similar racial demographic to Detroit, why there is more violence in the latter. Part of the story I'm sure is the American economy is more fluid, including illicit trade like drugs, and there's less of a social net to catch unemployment. Another part may be that African American communities in Detroit are much older, so there's more of a "culture of resignation" (not my argument), as well as more "bad" neighborhoods, whereas such communtiies in Toronto are sort of self-selected "movers and shakers" better able to respond to economic uncertainty and living in "good" neighborhoods.

 

My main problem with Moore's treatment was *not* that he wasn't putting his finger on a real problem; he was. I just thought he wasn't really asking the right questions to get what the problem really was, nor did he seem really anxious to. It seemed like more of a stump to make a political point (liberal Democratic values are the right ones; get guns off the street, stop a "culture of fear" (of blacks? of every perceived threat? I'm still not really sure how he links a "culture of fear" with any actual incidents of shooting a gun), and create more of a social net for blacks), which comes across more as straight-up ideology; not that all of those things wouldn't be useful stuff to do, I'm sure they would. But what seems to me *more* helpful is to tell a technical story in terms of demographics and socio-economic forces, and solutions should be on the technical, system side as well ... whereas many of Moore's "solutions" seem to be more superficial, not really getting at the root problem with integrating "non-acculturated" populations into a fluid, globalized economy, and what's driving a "culture of criminality" in them.

 

In that vein, some of his explanation irked me. For example, when he gave the statistics between Canada and US murder rates, he gave raw numbers, when it is just so much more helpful to put it as a percent per-capita, since of course the US has a much larger population, and the raw numbers are misleading. He also didn't break up the numbers by demographic, regional, or socio-economic factors (I don't remember anyway); and and freaking MOST IMPORTANT, by type of gun killings -- accidental, drug related, theft, hate crime, mental defect/sociopathy, domestic abuse, etc. (How can you have any idea what the numbers means without at least this?) These two things would be the *first* sort of stuff I'd want done with the numbers to have any idea about what the problem is, otherwise the numbers don't tell me much of anything, nothing useful anyway. If 80% of the killings in the US are drug related, well, maybe the difference is in drug policy between the US and Canada. That kind of slack attitude to statistics is sort of thematic of what irked me about it. Also, why wasn't he interviewing actual murderers, or those in their demographic situation? Their psychology and incentives are what's at issue here and should be at the *center* of analysis. Why aren't we visiting bad neighborhoods and seeing first hand what's angering violent people, what's encouraging criminality, etc. For fuck's sake his centerpiece was the Columbine shootings which statistically are very aberrational (sociopathy).

His main contribution was just getting people to think about the issue, I think.

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have been on both sides of a loaded gun once each, and I truely loath those things.

 

Being on the "wrong" side of it makes you shit your pants. Being on the "right" side makes you feel shitty afterwards, because you have to admit to yourself that the feeling of power got to you, too.

 

That's about all I have to say on that topic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I turn on their news through cable TV and the horrible things that happened during the day are talked about

just as prominently there.

 

Well, I can't verify that, but the example given in the movie was a bit extreme. :) There was a news mag shown where the headline was about some traffic issues, which sounds quite funny for a big city. Even if that were indeed a big problem it probably wouldn't be "breaking news" in most bigger cities.

 

It's been a while since I saw the movie, but if media-driven fear is given as the reason why the murder rate is so high, that doesn't make sense to me. How did he make the connection?

 

The connection is quite obvious, isn't it? fear can be a powerfull motivation.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of gun ownership and carry rights with few restrictions, but I don't want to argue about it or type long essays to expain why. I just thought it was worth mentioning, to show that not everyone online is against guns. But I can respect and mostly understand the other side.

shadowdark50.gif keep50.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't have anything against gun ownership per se. While it wouldn't kill me to see guns heavily restricted, I also enjoy going out to the country to go skeet shooting or hunting. I can see how a lot of gun owners would feel indignant that they'd have to give up their guns just because a few innercity/drug user types (the statistics) can't control themselves owning them. "Why should we be punished for their criminal tendancies?" they might think ... even if it's true a gun ban might well make a noticable difference in the impact of their criminal tendencies.

 

But like before I think it doesn't quite get to a source of the problem, which is much more economic oriented. So that's why the gun-control debate doesn't move me much one way or another; I don't have a strong opinion about it ... I could be fine with either way, but I don't think it's any real solution.

 

One idea I heard that sounds really stupid at first but actually starts sounding good when you start thinking about it is that gun manufactuers should be liable to a tort suit for the criminal mishandling of their weapons that results in harm. That is, the person injured (or the family of deceased) could sue the manufacturer of the gun that hurt them in a criminal context to pay damages.

 

The reason is because it's a market failure when guns, which can serve valid purposes outside the criminal context, are put in contexts where they serve invalid purposes, like crime ... and like most market failures, the manufactuer (the one that profits from it) is in the best position to make sure their product is marketed or constructed in a way that best avoids the failure. But it won't happen unless the "harm" from the market failure is internalized into their profit margins (this is true of any externality).

 

So like corporations can be sued for foreseeable environmental damage from pumping out toxins, gun manufacturers could be sued for foreseeable criminal uses of their product (since crime is one very foreseeable possibility of gun ownership, so they can't well argue that it wasn't their choice). The advantage is, they'll now have an economic incentive to come up with ways to keep guns in the right hands; the market is always better at handling these sorts of things than the State anyway. What do other people think? (The idea comes from my tort law professor, who developed a legal theory on this idea.)

Edited by demagogue

What do you see when you turn out the light? I can't tell you but I know that it's mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually don't have anything against gun ownership per se. While it wouldn't kill me to see guns heavily restricted, I also enjoy going out to the country to go skeet shooting or hunting. I can see how a lot of gun owners would feel indignant that they'd have to give up their guns just because a few innercity/drug user types (the statistics) can't control themselves owning them... ....One idea I heard that sounds really stupid at first but actually starts sounding good when you start thinking about it is that gun manufactuers should be liable to a tort suit for the criminal mishandling of their weapons that results in harm. That is, the person injured (or the family of deceased) could sue the manufacturer of the gun that hurt them in a criminal context to pay damages.

 

The reason is because it's a market failure when guns, which can serve valid purposes outside the criminal context, are put in contexts where they serve invalid purposes, like crime ... and like most market failures, the manufactuer (the one that profits from it) is in the best position to make sure their product is marketed or constructed in a way that best avoids the failure. But it won't happen unless the "harm" from the market failure is internalized into their profit margins (this is true of any externality).

 

So like corporations can be sued for foreseeable environmental damage from pumping out toxins, gun manufacturers could be sued for foreseeable criminal uses of their product (since crime is one very foreseeable possibility of gun ownership, so they can't well argue that it wasn't their choice). The advantage is, they'll now have an economic incentive to come up with ways to keep guns in the right hands; the market is always better at handling these sorts of things than the State anyway. What do other people think? (The idea comes from my tort law professor, who developed a legal theory on this idea.)

 

I think the problem is in many ways quite simple: legislators are too beholden to political donations from various groups who fund their campaigns, and will not produce legislation that might not be approved of by their benefactors. So the first thing that needs to be done is tighten up the way politicians receive funding, so there can be no big donations from large corporations trying to buy themselves favourable laws.

 

Second, the role of governments should be, in an ideal situation, to maintain a free market economy that serves the common good of the people. The last part is the bit the pollies tent to forget. The economy is a tool to serve the people, not the other way around as most of the pollies seems to have interpreted it.

 

So yes, lawmakers need to regulate Gun sales by making it in the interests of corporations to regulate their behavious, and the best way to do that is with, you got it, money (or the threat of losing large sums of it).

 

 

However, lawmakers also need to regulate what types of guns can be made readily available to the public - there is no legitimate use for a fully automatic rifle or handgun when you are shooting ducks or deer. A 12 guage shotgun or a 30.06 might be justifyable for those purposes, but there is no valid argument to support the notion that people should be able to legally possess military type firearms.

 

And lawmakers also need to take a stand on weapons that violate the Geneva Convention, such as landmines, cluster bombs, nuclear warheads, depleted uranium bullets etc, all of which are banned under treaties to which the USA is a signatory, yet the US contalntly produces an insane quantity of these weapons, which are really morally indefensible by any stretch of the imagination.

There is no sane, rational argument for the US posessing any of these weapons (especially the nukes), it all comes down to economic protectionism of the military industrial complex and unregulated arms manufacturers selling the US down the toilet for arms sales.

 

So you have to regulate more than just the market, or promote market self-regulation, you have to also make certain markets illegal and illegitimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but there is no valid argument to support the notion that people should be able to legally possess military type firearms.
Assuming that you're refering to the US, what about the reason behind the second amendment? (that people should be allowed to posses the types of weapons neccessary to overthrow their own government, as a stopgap against totalitarianism)

 

Mind you, I've never owned or handled a gun, and I'm for gun-safety laws, but at the same time I do think people have a right to guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that you're refering to the US, what about the reason behind the second amendment? (that people should be allowed to posses the types of weapons neccessary to overthrow their own government, as a stopgap against totalitarianism)

 

Mind you, I've never owned or handled a gun, and I'm for gun-safety laws, but at the same time I do think people have a right to guns.

I don't think people have a right to anything, other than basic freedoms like access to clean air, water and food, healthcare, education and a say in their governance - everything else is a privelige that comes with all kinds of responsibilities attached. Guns are way into the priveliged area - no one should be able to possess one unless they can demonstrate that they can use it responsibly, and they should be subject to very extensive psychological testing and assessment before they are able to purchase guns, and even then, they should be very limited in what they can buy.

 

 

A far more effective way to overthrow a government is through passive resistance - a government is simply an irrelevence if the people that it supposedly represents no longer validate it. In practise, if 80% of the population simply refused to cooperate with the government, then teh government would be powerless. Passive resistance is highly effective when there is a government that cannot use too much direct force, becasue doing so would wipe out the source of their power (the people). A government can't command troops if it has no money to pay them, no food to give them, becasue too many of the workers have stopped producing, have stopped paying taxes.

 

 

Of course, this does take an immense amount of restraint, courage and will-power on the part of the resisting people, because the government will no doubt attempt to use force at first, before they back down and capitulate to the will of the people. It really comes down to numbers in the end - even a totalitarian dictatorship is a democracy in the sense that the people could overthrow it easily through mass disobedience, provided they are united in their effort.

 

 

But violent resistances, where the people rise up in direct combat with the government only lead to a repeating cycle of violence. Just look at what happend to France over the last few hundred years. Sometimes passive resistance just won't cut it, it depends on what the motives are of the force you are resisiting, but generally, cutting off the purse strings of a government will do the job better than a violent civil war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that you're refering to the US, what about the reason behind the second amendment? (that people should be allowed to posses the types of weapons neccessary to overthrow their own government, as a stopgap against totalitarianism)

 

Mind you, I've never owned or handled a gun, and I'm for gun-safety laws, but at the same time I do think people have a right to guns.

 

'we should all have a right to guns'. That's a very strange statement.

Certainly a person has the right to have the means of defending himself, that's an innate right, but I don't think you can stretch that to saying they have the right to carry an uzi 9mm when they go to buy groceries.

Is a country where everyone has the abilty to kill a lot of other people quickly from a distance going to be a safer one?

We're still basically animals in many ways, you ony have to see how frustrated and angry a lot of people get when they're behind the wheel of a car. I don't think people who go crazy if someone cuts out in front of them while driving, can be trusted with weapons, and I'm certainly gald they're illegal where I come from.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One idea I heard that sounds really stupid at first but actually starts sounding good when you start thinking about it is that gun manufactuers should be liable to a tort suit for the criminal mishandling of their weapons that results in harm. That is, the person injured (or the family of deceased) could sue the manufacturer of the gun that hurt them in a criminal context to pay damages.

 

A lot of the guns, that are sold, can't really be argued to be for hunting purposes. I can see that certain guns are for hunting, and I have handled such myself, but on the other hand, why would anybody need an automatic or half-automatic weapon for hunting? Such guns are purely for killing other people and there is not much denying that.

 

The advantage is, they'll now have an economic incentive to come up with ways to keep guns in the right hands; the market is always better at handling these sorts of things than the State anyway. What do other people think? (The idea comes from my tort law professor, who developed a legal theory on this idea.)

 

I guess this would just cause a lot of suing and the prizes going up. I doubt that the companies could do much about preventing criminals to aquire guns.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming that you're refering to the US, what about the reason behind the second amendment? (that people should be allowed to posses the types of weapons neccessary to overthrow their own government, as a stopgap against totalitarianism)

 

Mind you, I've never owned or handled a gun, and I'm for gun-safety laws, but at the same time I do think people have a right to guns.

 

I think that is a pretty big joke. Overthrowing the goverment with their guns? No way that could happen, no matter how many guns are availabel in the population. The reason for this is pretty simple. It's organization. Modern wars are not faught with weapons primarily, they are also fought with news and information. The Nazis already realized this and put a big deal of effort into their propaganda. And they knew why. If you watched the Iran war, it was all about press regulation and information. And why? Because if you control information, you control the opinion of the people. Now if somebody really would get it into their head to overthrow the goverment because it is going in a bad direction, what would happen? You think the few man and woman, that think themselve as kind of militia are making any difference? How many people could they route up? A few thousand at best. And what then? The goverment would send in hosts of trained military, the news would report of terrorists, and that would be the end of it, cutting of the support of the broader public. And even a few trained man of a good squad, can control a lot of bunched together people, no matter if they have some weapons or not. Guns don't make a difference for that. I know that a lot of them are playing soldiers in their spare time, thinking of what heroes they would be, but that's child's play.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really comes down to numbers in the end - even a totalitarian dictatorship is a democracy in the sense that the people could overthrow it easily through mass disobedience, provided they are united in their effort.

 

Which is exactly the reason why nowadays so much emphasis is put on the news agencies and control of information.

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with guns for hunting either.

Anyone who enjoys killing animals, whether they're going to eat them or not, is a fucking weirdo.

You might say 'I don't enjoy kiling them, it's the hunt I enjoy' well, in that case, use a paintball gun.

Once you start getting entertainment from killing one mammal, it's a small step to enoying killing other mammals, even if they have less hair.

Civillisation will not attain perfection until the last stone, from the last church, falls on the last priest.

- Emil Zola

 

character models site

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see why Americans are keen on the right to own guns -- if I lived in a fascist police state, I would want to arm myself as well.

Burn! :D

My games | Public Service Announcement: TDM is not set in the Thief universe. The city in which it takes place is not the City from Thief. The player character is not called Garrett. Any person who contradicts these facts will be subjected to disapproving stares.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No burn, really; in many ways, it's somewhat true. I'd certainly prefer if people didn't have them. Then again, criminals aren't known to adhere to the law, so then what do you do? Perhaps elevate the punishments for having guns? Sure, then you have the same situation as the three-strikes law, where people starting killing, instead of robbing, in order to avoid a life sentence. No witnesses. It's a mess, and there's no easy way to clean it up.

 

On the main topic, I definitely believe that violence breeds fear and hostility, which breeds violence, in a cycle. The mixing of people leading to lack of familiarity is also a very good point someone made. It's definitely not a way of life to be on your guard all the time, at least not where I am. Then again, I don't go to Camden. I think the majority of places in the US are still rural and peaceful - I can drive in any direction from my house and find farmland for miles (and I'm in the most densely populated state!) - but of course the big cities and their violence make the news. Which helps breed fear and hostility. And the cycle goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's still some truth in saying that people owning guns makes it more difficult for the gov't to oppress the population. Suppose ruling party A wants to "silence" opposition party member B (which of course would never happen in the US :rolleyes: ). If B has a gun, it makes it more complicated for security forces to just break in and whisk him away in the middle of the night. If they try to force their way into B's home without identifying themselves, B may fire off some shots. Neighbors will hear the shots, maybe even look outside, and know something is going on. To take someone away without a gunfight, security forces have to properly identify themselves before entering B's home, and this also makes a scene. At least neighbors will know that a group identifying themselves as security forces was knocking at B's door the night he disappeared.

 

If citizens were forbidden to own guns, it would be a lot easier for the gov't to disappear people without leaving behind any information about the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the shooting, but I never shot at living entities, always at marks. But IMO as long as you eat what you hunt, I think it would be ok.

 

That explains the obesity problem in America then.

Edited by Mr Retarded
SeaBass%20Hale.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 1 reply
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...