Really.





So, Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel released in 2001 is the same as Fallout:Brotherhood of Steel, released for consoles only three years later in 2004 and not considered canon to the game world is the same game. [I'll guess people might disagree with that, but then people on the forum like to discuss things.]

And I strongly suggest reading the rules of the forum, or contacting Gstaff or Nick to get clarification on what you don't understand.

There are other forums "out there" that allow both the discussion of topics not allowed here and forum censored language not allowed here if those may be more suitable for your purposes.

Oh, I completely forgot about that completely mediocre diablo clone. I even beat it and still don't remember much about it. You are right.

I guess a lot less lock and ban would be neccessary if people would just keep discussions civil and treat differing opinions with at least a minimum amount of respect.

Of course it's different in my case, as I'm always right. :meh:

Yes, agreed. The moderators would much rather see civil and constructive discussions, whatever the topic, and will normally do their best with post edits/deletes to keep them that way. Sadly it is not always possible as there are always the few that spoil it for others. That's the nature of an internet forum. :shrug:

With talk of Free Speech, and censorship, and how our forum is 13+, even when some of the games are M - this has always been my thinking on the matter:

In real life, you can go to something like a biker bar, or a hole-in-the-wall tavern - or you can go to McDonald's. Now, there's a lot of things that you're going to be able to get away with at a dive bar, that would get you kicked out of McDonald's. And if you get kicked out of McDonald's for being blatantly drunk and causing a disturbance in what is ostensibly a family dining restaurant - I don't think many people in their right mind would claim that McDonald's was stepping on their rights. And this holds true for pretty much anywhere you want to go - a restaurant, or a store, etc - they are private establishments that are allowed to define the sort of clientele they want.

You can't get into a black tie restaurant without... a suit jacket and tie, obviously. You can't get into Olive Garden without a shirt and shoes. But if you find the right kind of pool hall, they'll probably serve you, even if you're only wearing a pair of slacks. So long as they're not discriminating in an unethical manner (race, creed, color, age, etc-) it's their right as a private establishment to do so.

The same holds true for a privately-owned forum, as well. This is the forum for discussing Bethesda games in a reasonably civil and respectful manner. http://www.gamesas.com/index.php?/topic/1071537-important-fallout-new-vegas-general-forum-information-dont-post-any-spoilers-forum-rules-and-more/ are the rules for membership. That we expect a certain level of decorum from our members is really no different than how you're expected to act differently in an expensive antique shop than you would at Chuck E. Cheese's.

If you want to party and act crazy and be rude, that's perfectly fine for you - as a human being. But you don't go to Disney World and ask them to change their expectations on what they consider proper behavior on the Small World ride if you're in the mood for mayhem - instead, you're better off finding a place that already fits what you're looking for.

First off, I'm amazed this thread didn't go way sideways. Good job community, also I think Gungho1 deserves an award for starting the thread with the highest mod to peep post rate.

I look at it like this, we basically are guests here, and even though we payed for the game, we aren't entitled to have a forum because we got the game. For a fairly substantial majority of my life there was no such place, your forum was the video game store and that was it.

Since we are gusts, we must follow the host's rules, even though some may seem off or you just don't agree with it. I have a friend, who has a rule that certain coasters go on different tables. She runs a 3 strikes system unless you put a coaster or cup on the end table that's been in the family for almost 150 years. That's a perma-ban from any sort of liquids in her house, except the kitchen. I've witness quite a few arguments with her about it, and the end is always, her house her rules.

Hell, they could pass a rule here that said we aren't allowed to discuss Fantastic because he's a [censored] and I would think that's a stupid rule, but I'd absolutely follow it.

Actually, claiming that forum moderators are stepping on your rights by editing/deleting your comments or banning you for things you say is misinterpreting the Constitution. A company can legally do whatever it wants in that regard. They could, if it pleased them so, enforce a ban on the use of the word 'platypus' and they wouldn't be violating anyone's rights (not like any company would do that however).

The Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Amendments to the Constitution only apply to what the government can and cannot do, not private organizations.

A private company cannot in any way violate a person's right to free speech unless that company is working for the government and last time I checked, these forums are not a government entity. People who claim that forum moderators are doing that are more than welcome to read the Constitution.

Edit: Of course this is an multinational forum, so the Constitution isn't relevant to some participants.

i think the whole purpose of this thread is: what sense would it be to make a star wars board (for instance) and make it to where if anyone spoke about episode 4s (destruction of a whole alien race) *im not sure if saying the "G" word is cause for moderation* cause for a moderation?

or, a board for mature content, but invite kids to participate, and ban or suspend anyone that talks about the more advlt aspects of the content.

the fallout series is NOT a family friendly game.

It's been pointed out a few times that discussing the game, and even the game's content is fine if handled in a reasonable, mature way.

There are some elements that are not part of the game, or at least are no longer part of the game since Bethesda bought the rights to it, which aren't up for discussion because there is no point in discussing them. They ain't happening no matter what people say, that's been made clear and past attempts to discuss them always go bad.

I think it would be fair to say that most of the posters on this thread have been of the 'mature' variety. I was a bit concerned that some would see this thread as a means to rant, but I'm pleased to actually see that we are getting a good view of the perspective from both the moderators and the company.

As a bit of an addition, 'where I live' is considering having an internet filter brought on line...the intention is to block what is classed as 'Refused Classification' material...stuff which the censorship board refuses to classify because there isn't a high enough rating for it. Which means that content for video games which is higher than MA15 is then automatically RC and falls under the filter ban.

The trouble is, the filter is not being discussed in our legislature, as it is being brought in under administrative convenience, as a piece of programming rather than a 'system', and there are refusals to review and update the classification system itself. It's likely that even Facebook, etc may fall under the filter. The system is so restrictive that even one of the most restrictive internet censoring nations is looking at taking on the model.

The scope of the scheme is so broad that if a future Fallout game failed to get MA15 status and was subsequently blocked, so would this forum site.

I understand what the argument for and against non-discussion of certain topics. I was just pointing out that the company that runs forums is perfectly within it's rights to censor whatever it chooses. Many people make the mistake of claiming that their rights are being violated though, which is a misinterpretation of the Constitution. That's all.

Nice 'The Stand' reference by the way.

Nu_Clear_Day (and other mods), just to come back to this with a practical example, I was wondering if you'd give your opinion on the following; I'm going to be a bit vauge to keep on the right side of the line, but I apologise if it does creep over, or if you're not familiar with the particular element of the Fallout Universe I'm hinting at.

Take for example a certain religious group in Fallout 2, which I won't name to try and keep the focus on the example rather than the group (and to keep on the right side of the line). I presume from the above that discussing this group, its quests, NPCs, etc is "Safe" (presuming of course, we're in the Universe or series board); Would you consider the line to be just before an open comparison with a certain real religious group that the developers swear was not an influence but does have certain a resemblance with; or is the line a bit further back, in actually discussing the real world religion itself?

(I think I've perhaps been a bit overcautious in the past, particularly with this group I'm thinking of).

Well, that goes back to the rubbery line...

I think it depends on the mod, how they are feeling, and maybe the phase of the moon or some other strange, arcane force... (or complaints)

For example, I had a thread about killing moved to spoilerville, yet there's page after page after page of discussion about killing deathclaws at the quarry in this forum.

To me, one seems as much spoiler as another, but obviously a mod did not agree.

On the whole, the mods here do a good job and hence, they are allowed a certain amount of discretion. That's good, but a certain amount of inconsistency in an inevitable side effect.

One of the more experienced Mods would probably have to give a definitive answer (regardless of what I say now, in practice I'd still end up filtering it through them as to whether something had gone "too far over the line," and what actions I would take.)

But off-hand, I'd say that if you're dealing with an in-game group with some form of religious overtones, that some discussion of that is probably inevitable. "Hey, I noticed that Group X in Fallout bears a lot of these similarities to Religion Y," is probably okay. But if someone then chimes in with "Yeah, Religion Y is so stupid," that's an obvious problem. My own "instant metric" (wherein I'd intervene under my own initiative, without first running it by the other Mods,) is along the lines of "is this on-topic?"

If you start a topic about some group in the Fallout universe, and then two pages in everyone's mostly talking about a real-world religion, instead of what the topic's actually about - that's something I'd consider to be a red flag. As well, discussing opinions about a real-life religion is probably not going to be a good idea, either (regardless of if that opinion is positive or negative.)

the game is rated M


you must be 18 to enter the fallout site

the forums for fallout are pg13.

i dun get it

It's not worth the bother to set up forum accounts in order to prohibit people from certain forums based on age. Too much bother, too much cost, too easy to get around (with the possibility of liability for gamesas).

Far easier to make the forums PG-13 and tell people to behave in a respectable manner.

There is nothing that is worth discussing that can't be discussed in a reasonable manner for a 13+ forum.

not true, you either need to be 18, or dishonest. The website doesn't know if you're lying.

Bethesda though don't just make fallout. They have made games for many ages in the past.

My understanding from my time here is that it's pretty close to this.


I'm not giving away any secrets if I say there's no "real" age check on this forum. If we allowed "M" -rated discussion on only specific boards - just how would I be able to enforce that? There's no way for us to reliably make sure that everyone that would be participating in a discussion that would unanimously only be appropriate for someone older than 18 - is actually 18.

So, much simpler to just keep things family friendly. That way the entire site is held accountable to the same standards. And in general, I haven't noticed that being all that big of a deal.

To make another anology:

Only advlts can drink beer. You must be an advlt to enter a strip club or buy pormographic magazines. Now, I can go to Olive Garden and order a beer, because I'm an advlt. But that doesn't mean that I'm allowed to hang around there getting drunk and looking at porm, either. It's the same thing with these forums.

Yeah I wouldn't recommend doing that.

A part of the problem is minors falsifying their identity. It'd be impossible to tell if a person is of age on the internet unless you forced them to submit to a background check or something. Either that or ask them something only 'of-age' people would know. Like what's Chumbawumba?

The Trivia contest doesnt awlways work... I cant remember having any trouble with Lesure Suit Larry 1's attempt...

Here in the UK, if you want to access "mature" internet content on your mobile phone, you need to verify you're over 18. You can either head in to your network's nearest store with ID, or you can use a credit or debit card through an instamatic website. CC/DC would probably work here, but its going to lock out a lot of people without one.

A bunch of drunkards who thump tubs.

I was kidding about the trivia idea if you couldn't already tell. That sort of thing would be useless on the internet where you can just use Google to find the answer. You however very adequately described the problem that they have regarding forum access. There's always a tradeoff between security and accessibility. Having a system like you described would cut off people from the service...



He knows! Quick! Change the question!