Be Excellent To Each Other

It's all the people who refer to "their team" when they don't actually play on it.

Which is the right thing to do

No. No it isn't. Ever.

Why not ?

I play for a team so I refer to as we.. If I watch the team and not play still we?

"They".

I agree with Grim and Kissyfur. I like Chris Jericho but you don't hear me saying "I did really well in that match against Shawn Michaels"

I'm sure you have referred to your work before as 'we', even when not sitting at your desk.

not even vaguely the same.

Why?

If I play for my team it is we, if I watch the same team, it is they?

If you watch while still part of the team is one thing. If you're not part of the team, 'they'.

There's a guy at work that if you didn't know where he worked and were unlucky enough to have him randomly start bellowing at you about football, you'd think he was the manager or on the board of Man U or something. It's absurd.

(What he does at work can only loosely be described as "work", mostly he strolls about looking for someone to shout football at)

I still think it is 'we'.

We played well on Saturday, etc

It is part of the community of sport

Confusing, as you may be talking about your team's opponents.

"They against them" is just stupid.

You're right. "We against them" makes much more sense.

Oh no, that's fine. If you watch Liverpool play and refer to them as "us" then that's not.

you aren't playing for Blackburn.

More the rugby team I play for and watch

Fans invest a lot of time and money into their favourite sports teams, buying merchandise, tickets, watching terrible performances, etc. Without fans, these teams don't exist.

So yes, I think fans can refer to their team as 'we/us'.

*drops mic*

Yes, that is "we" you play for them, ffs!

But if I am just watching them?

Unless you've been dropped from the team you're still part of the team, right?

Just looking for clarity

Kovacs thinks he is helping but is just clouding the issue.

I suppose.. Just the grey area of We/they.

I use the term we for any team I support, like you said I invest time and money in doing so. It seems right to say we.

I support Liverpool FC, but haven't spent a penny in years, and rarely make the effort to watch games. I want them to win if I see them playing, though, and would consider myself a fan.

Can I say "we"?

That's a good question. I'd prefer if you didn't, but I guess it's up to you. It's not going to annoy me greatly.

Yeah, but Grim originally said if he wasn't playing that game (injured or whatever) then he couldn't say 'we'. Hence my silly work analogy, which is very much the same if you an actual part of the team, and very different to me using 'we' for Villa or England or whatever.

Actually, that's a thing. Does it change if you use we to support a national team? I mean, the players are arguably representing a nation to which I belong.

Should this be broken out?

did he?

No.

But that does depend on how you parse Kov's posts.

I think you'll find you dropped the mic. You want back in on this conversation, slink back over and pick it the fuck back up.

I have my own mic. I dropped that one for effect.

I took this to mean he is watching the team he normally plays for.

It is, however, open to interpretation.

Yes. That is what I meant.

Carry on Myp, we're doing well in this argument, although personally, when we dropped the mic I think that was the wrong choice, we should have put up a better argument and stayed in the game. We'll do better next post i'm sure.

We're having another baby!

You look so different in the papers, the media must photoshop the heck out of you.

Which one are you?

Here you go, Trooper:

midnightresistance.co.uk/articles/plight-grown-ass-gamer

I liked it better when we posted this the first time.

You would!

We've not read it yet, but we might like to read this, Trooper: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2014/09 ... ore-232091

So, something kicked off big time on Twitter this morning. Check @freebsdgirl's timeline for details. I may have got myself involved. Oops.

something big ... twitter ... ?

If you've been following then the gamersgate stuff has not really stopped - with things like Anita Sarkeesian being forced to cancel a talk at a school in the last week due to specific threats

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/58528 ... u.html.csp

Yesterday also saw (unrelated to Gamersgate) a developer get annoyed with Steam not showing his game correctly on the store and him threatening to kill Gabe Newell

So Valve told him they would not be selling his game and pulled it from the store

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/10/21/v ... ell-online

(He has now resigned in the hope that Steam will allow the company that he was a part of to still sell their game)

I got schooled today on lots of topics:

Feminists are the real sexists because female porn stars earn more than male ones and that female gamers get more Twitch viewers than men.

One person's opinion is no longer anecdotal evidence when it's published in a reputable news source, because it then becomes other people's opinions too.

When asking for proof on statements, was refused, but when I linked to studies proving the opposite, they were dismissed as 'paid-for' or discreditable publications (like the Pulitzer Award-winning Guardian).

It really was a terrifying glimpse into the soul of the insane. I quite enjoyed it, but wouldn't want to do it every day.

I've read some of the twitter responses to some of the people involved and those who were trying to reason with the other side but it just really shows how nuts some of these people are.

“we value ethics in journalism, and will alter our content in whatever way you feel best supports those values.”

http://www.clickhole.com/article/summar ... y-cha-1241

A pro gamergate round up of Gamergate for those who don't know. Personally I think its becoming more like a conspiracy theory than an exposure on journalistic ethics.