|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games

Default Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games

July 6th, 2012, 13:54
There's nothing wrong with psychologists as such. I think the problem is that human beings are inevitably biased (some more than others) - and there's a common misconception that more reading must mean a closer relationship with the truth.

A rule of thumb about people with degrees (claimed or real) - is that the more they mention their degrees - the less secure they are, and the more you need to be sceptical about what they have to say.

But that's just my personal experience
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#61

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,391

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 14:19
Originally Posted by Couchpotato View Post
Seems spending years in college to get a degree qualifies them to dictate on how everyone is wrong.

To me the problem with society is there are to many people telling others how to live there life. Remember science is always right and biology is just plain wrong right?
People can't handle being told they are wrong, not even themselves. Knowing oneself to be wrong is even a strong source of aggression. Cognitive dissonance at work.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#62

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 14:21
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
People can't handle being told they are wrong, not even themselves. Knowing oneself to be wrong is even a strong source of aggression. Cognitive dissonance at work.
The solution to that is to be always right.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#63

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,071

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 14:25
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
there's a common misconception that more reading must mean a closer relationship with the truth.
It's called hermeneutic knowledge and those who learned it are often closer to the truth. The reason is that they apply logic within a greater bulk of data.

Most academics have learned throughout their education how wrong they have been in their past and thus that they can be wrong now. So I do not speak about astronomy, geology, chemistry or any other field I know little about, nor would I dream about trying to tell an expert in those fields that they might be wrong to protect my own preconceived conclusions.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#64

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 14:35
It leads to all kinds of problems when you can't make generalizations, which JemyM can't or won't because it would be against his P.C view of the world. Funny thing is that the same people who often say you shouldn't do it only apply that when it happens to fit their often very narrow world view.
vurt is offline

vurt

vurt's Avatar
Serial Modderer

#65

Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: The land of rape and honey
Posts: 1,639

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 15:43
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
It's called hermeneutic knowledge and those who learned it are often closer to the truth. The reason is that they apply logic within a greater bulk of data.
This may be true for those who can actually manage to apply logic and stay away from biased interpretations of popular theories - which you clearly can't.

In fact, it seems you enjoy the process of questioning everything that doesn't seem to match your own personal identity or situation - and what help is all that reading if you can't separate the subjective from the objective?

Most academics have learned throughout their education how wrong they have been in their past and thus that they can be wrong now. So I do not speak about astronomy, geology, chemistry or any other field I know little about, nor would I dream about trying to tell an expert in those fields that they might be wrong to protect my own preconceived conclusions.
Most academics?

It seems a pretty universal discovery for people who're interested in developing their minds - and I fail to see how academics set themselves apart here. Unless we go back in time to a place where the words written down by other people weren't easily accessible - when education had a much greater chance of actually meaning something, beyond being a piece of paper that says you managed to memorise what people told you to memorise.

What matters is your level of investment and your capacity for understanding. That's not about education - but about disposition and mental prowess. I'd say the key to get a closer relationship with the truth is the ability to accept it for what it is, which is something you're showing very clear signs of not being capable of - or being interested in.

Then again, such seems to be the case with the vast majority of the populace. You just want too much from the truth, and that's not how it works.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#66

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,391

Default 

July 6th, 2012, 16:06
Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
This may be true for those who can actually manage to apply logic and stay away from biased interpretations of popular theories - which you clearly can't.
In fact, it seems you enjoy the process of questioning everything that doesn't seem to match your own personal identity or situation - and what help is all that reading if you can't separate the subjective from the objective?
Insinuations doesn't replace evidence so blow that smoke elsewhere.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
Most academics? It seems a pretty universal discovery for people who're interested in developing their minds - and I fail to see how academics set themselves apart here.
They are a subcategory of the broader category you mentioned.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
What matters is your level of investment and your capacity for understanding. That's not about education - but about disposition and mental prowess.
Hermeneutics mean you have more data available. If logic, truth, consistent ideas etc are important to you it means you have greater amount of pieces that needs to be sorted before you can make conclusions. People who know very little are faster to make conclusions since they have fewer facts to get in the way of their ideas. People who know a lot but aren't interested in consistent and coherent logic aren't useful either. This is why empiricism and rationalism are important but both fails on it's own.

Originally Posted by DArtagnan View Post
I'd say the key to get a closer relationship with the truth is the ability to accept it for what it is, which is something you're showing very clear signs of not being capable of - or being interested in.
Perhaps I do and your certainty is wrong?

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#67

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 10:20
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
Insinuations doesn't replace evidence so blow that smoke elsewhere.
It wasn't intended as evidence.

They are a subcategory of the broader category you mentioned.
Why bring them up as standing out, then?

Hermeneutics mean you have more data available. If logic, truth, consistent ideas etc are important to you it means you have greater amount of pieces that needs to be sorted before you can make conclusions. People who know very little are faster to make conclusions since they have fewer facts to get in the way of their ideas. People who know a lot but aren't interested in consistent and coherent logic aren't useful either. This is why empiricism and rationalism are important but both fails on it's own.
Why do you equate knowledge with studying books? Either you consider books full of factual knowledge - and then I understand, or you exclusively think of material written in books as knowledge - ignoring all the other ways of attaining knowledge.

In my world, knowledge is simply the information processed by the senses - and as such, it's almost never complete or factual. It's probaby not even knowledge in any meaningful sense.

The value of knowledge is indeed about research and study, but that doesn't have to go on in a classroom - and it's especially vulnerable to misinformation if you trust it blindly. You have to apply common sense and logic, and most importantly you have to accept ignorance and the concept of a theory versus reality.

You're the one drawing conclusions based on popular theories and "data" - and the rest of us are drawing conclusions based on years of biological research about how genders respond to each other.

My guess is that you failed to separate physical/sexual attraction from the more cerebral/intangible attraction that goes on between two people - beyond the gender-specifics.

You started out with interesting information about the "Male Gaze" theory - and I agreed with what you said. Then you started questioning established male preferences related to the female - and then it went completely off-track. You let your own personal identity interfere with your relationship with the truth. That's not going to work.

We can certainly agree that attraction as a wholesome term is about more than just gender - and that gender could be one of the less relevant factors.

But no one here would dispute that, it's just you singing songs of the intellectually superior as per usual. You underestimate people almost by default.

Perhaps I do and your certainty is wrong?
I have no certainty - I have doubts. You're the one with one certainty after the other, and new ones almost daily.

But I do accept a few "everyday certainties" - because there's simply no detectable reason to doubt them - as of yet. That includes the male being attracted - physically - to the female and the other way around. Not without exceptions, naturally.

Oh, I do think you want the truth. But it's very obvious that you're emotionally invested in being an academic and an intellectual. It's very obvious that you feel good when you speak about how much you've read and how much you know.

That is a very common disposition, but it will invariably taint the relationship with truth - because the emotional desire to appear educated will often dominate over the acceptance of not being right - or not having understood the topic.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#68

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,391

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 11:46
I'm actually astonished that no-one responded to what I had been writing, neither earlier in this discussion nor later.

Has this discussion become some sort of exclusive discussion course ? Exclusive to only a select few ?

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#69

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,969

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 11:52
I tend to end threads - and I feel the uncomfortable silence when people are likely shaking their heads and give up even trying to point out how wrong I am

Then again, I do realise the world doesn't revolve around me or my posts. That's something to consider, Alrik - because you will find not getting a response to every single post very common on forums.
DArtagnan is offline

DArtagnan

DArtagnan's Avatar
Waste of potential

#70

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Denmark
Posts: 14,391

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 13:29
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I'm actually astonished that no-one responded to what I had been writing, neither earlier in this discussion nor later.

Has this discussion become some sort of exclusive discussion course ? Exclusive to only a select few ?
What do you mean earlier or later?

Your last post is about a scientific thesis. Hard to build on that due to scientific method.

And I answered to some of our earlier posts.

Which would qualify me as noone.
ChienAboyeur is offline

ChienAboyeur

SasqWatch

#71

Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,071

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 16:44
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
I haven't forgotten. In fact, I can partially explain the biological roots of the traits high intelligence, high openness, high conscientiousness and low agreeableness that creates an individual who not only breaks expectations but persist in doing so, where as each of these traits have a great variation within gender.
I fail to see why we should disagree, then.
The problem is that you are blowing smoke and you may not even be aware of it. What you say is that genes matter, but fail to mention where it matters to the situation at hand. You follow preconceived cultural assumptions about gender and preconceived cultural assumptions that there are gene-driven gender differences, and then you state "genes matter", not noting that you took a huge leap.
Not really. I said I don't need to talk about genes (use biology) to prove how wrong you are. I could start babbling about genes, hormones and biological abnormalities, but are you going to listen, or are you going to dismiss them altogether by statements like 'why should I listen to your genes'? You have answered that question yourself.
And about the cultural assumptions, I personally believe it's you that are influenced by them. Correct me if I am wrong, but judging by what you said about genes and how humanity has broken free from them(!), I have come to the conclusion that your thoughts are based on religious indoctrination, of a kind which tries to brainwash people into believing that human body and 'soul' (or mind) are two separate things, that the soul can exist without the body, it's not influenced by the body, or at least by strengthening the soul, we can break free from the limitations of our body (or break free from the genes, as you put it)!
I haven't stated otherwise. What I did state is that people are attracted by different things even when heterosexual. Two heterosexuals may not have much in common in what they are attracted to and it's not entirely in the genes. The way sexuality changes over time is interesting but it's another topic.
That's only one side of the coin, but the problem (as I understand it) is that you think genes look like little volume controls which may be high in one sex, and low in another, and it has minor effects on a specimen.
That's not the case, however. Genes act more like little on/off switches most of the time, and sometimes some of those switches don't exist in females at all. Existence of certain genes can influence animal development/behavior in drastic ways. Some of those genes exist only on the Y chromosome, which exists only in male specimens of our species. A good example would be the development of sexual organs in men, which is induced by genes on the Y chromosome. The sexual organs affect our behavior in more than one way. Directly (by producing hormones, for example) or indirectly (penis envy, for example). While training or culture can help bypassing the latter, the former can not be bypassed. If by 'breaking away from the genes' you are actually referring to the latter, you haven't seen the big picture yet, and if you are referring to the former, you are very wrong. I hope I haven't been blowing smoke this time around.


=== EDIT ===
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
If this is true, then it would explain almost everything in xes related aspects of human nature, including the want of women to "monopolize" men, the men's wish to "prove themselves worthy" and amass wealth, and so on.
While I find the article most interesting, bribing females by hand can not be the only reason of human becoming bi-pedal. Other theories suggest that our ancestors' behavior pattern changed. In order to attract females, they started using their brains. Specimens with larger brains and more intelligence were more successful, they survived, thrived and become more intelligent. Higher intelligence allowed more efficient methods of communication and use of tools by hands (one would be bribing females in order to have sex, but there are more explanations, like using tools for hunting and finding that food) which lead to bi-pedal walking, evolution of hands and the ability to talk.
Last edited by blackcanopus; July 9th, 2012 at 17:20.
blackcanopus is offline

blackcanopus

blackcanopus's Avatar
Dark Sun

#72

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 277

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 17:57
Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
I could start babbling about genes, hormones and biological abnormalities, but are you going to listen, or are you going to dismiss them altogether by statements like 'why should I listen to your genes'? You have answered that question yourself.
I am not sure you are getting my criticism.

And hormones have an effect on your personality. That includes estrogen and testosterone. But the behavior is tied to the hormone, not the gender (such as a male with low testosterone and a female with high testosterone).

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
Correct me if I am wrong
You are wrong. I am speaking about cultural evolution that is based in our capacity to transit knowledge from one host to another, accumulating insight over time that allow us to go beyond the physical limitations. Including arguing on forums using computers, words and letters. This capacity is not based on genes, maybe memes. Armstrength means little when you have invented all sorts of tools to do humanly impossible acts. Running speed means little when you have cars and even airplanes. Many deficiencies we can fix. We have eyeglasses and insulin, prostheses and other invented tools. We have a society which administration provide us with more food and nutrition than our bodies will ever need so obesity is a stronger issue than starvation. All of this makes it meaningless to speak about what we were evolved to, what our genes want etc.

You may wish to check out the is-ought problem;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
That's only one side of the coin
I haven't argued against sexual organs. I have argued against the behavior of expanding assumed differences between categories into areas that aren't tied to those categories in the first place.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#73

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 9th, 2012, 21:12
Originally Posted by JemyM View Post
I am not sure you are getting my criticism.
But I'm sure you didn't get the sarcasm.

And hormones have an effect on your personality. That includes estrogen and testosterone. But the behavior is tied to the hormone, not the gender (such as a male with low testosterone and a female with high testosterone).
I am happy that we are coming close to an agreement. No, it's not as simple as low/high testosterone. As I said before, you think that genes or hormones work like small volume controls. Sometimes it works that way, but most of the time it doesn't. You have numerous genes on your Y chromosome that have functions other than lowering or increasing testosterone and some of them affect personality. The other problem is that you rely on exceptions to prove your point. You rely on 'biological abnormalities' (a male with low testosterone values).

You are wrong. I am speaking about cultural evolution that is based in our capacity to transit knowledge from one host to another, accumulating insight over time that allow us to go beyond the physical limitations. Including arguing on forums using computers, words and letters. This capacity is not based on genes, maybe memes. Armstrength means little when you have invented all sorts of tools to do humanly impossible acts. Running speed means little when you have cars and even airplanes. Many deficiencies we can fix. We have eyeglasses and insulin, prostheses and other invented tools. We have a society which administration provide us with more food and nutrition than our bodies will ever need so obesity is a stronger issue than starvation. All of this makes it meaningless to speak about what we were evolved to, what our genes want etc.
No, I'm not. Again, I see that you have a very human-centric way of thinking. You put human at the center of the world, like it's special and meant for greatness. A very religious way of thinking, too.
But I still don't see how it explains breaking free from the genes. Your genes allow you to have a society, to talk and to use those tools. The fact that you wear eyeglasses or warm clothes means that you haven't been able to break free of them and you need tools to diminish/enhance their effects. Even using those tools (an airplane?) does not make you free from the genes. A small spider-ling has the ability to stretch a piece of it's thread and fly. A crow has the ability to use tools very effectively. Our methods may be more elaborate, but in the end it's the ability which has been given to us by our genes. You are not breaking free from your genes by using Insulin. You have malfunctioning glands and you use Insulin (a product of the genes) to correct it, make it the way it was intended to be. How is it breaking free from the genes, while you are using a product of those genes to make your body work the way it was meant to work by those genes?
We will break free from our genes one day, perhaps when we are cyborgs with electronic brains, no genitals and no genes. I am sure the problem of 'Male Gaze' will not exist in that day. But as long as you are a Homo sapiens and you have some of your organs, you are a slave to your genes and you can't blame men for buying games featuring hot female characters.
blackcanopus is offline

blackcanopus

blackcanopus's Avatar
Dark Sun

#74

Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 277

Default 

July 10th, 2012, 13:22
Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
Again, I see that you have a very human-centric way of thinking. You put human at the center of the world, like it's special and meant for greatness. A very religious way of thinking, too.
Read "Snuff" by Sir Terry Pratchett and it will teach you a thing or two.

Racism begins when people say : "But it's only an animal."

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
But I still don't see how it explains breaking free from the genes. Your genes allow you to have a society, to talk and to use those tools.
Someone has brought forth the theory that -

- genetic evolution has been replaced b social evolution.

All humans are all combativble in terms of body on this world -

- but you will find that they are incompatible in culture instead.

A person from South Amrica will find it very hard to marry a person from deeply within Africa, or from Japan, for example. The bodies are still very much compatible with one another - yet the cultures are what might give their marriages a hard time. A REALLY hard time.

Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction. (E.F.Schumacher, Economist, Source)
Alrik Fassbauer is offline

Alrik Fassbauer

Alrik Fassbauer's Avatar
TL;DR

#75

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Old Europe
Posts: 15,969

Default 

July 10th, 2012, 15:44
Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
As I said before, you think that genes or hormones work like small volume controls. Sometimes it works that way, but most of the time it doesn't. You have numerous genes on your Y chromosome that have functions other than lowering or increasing testosterone and some of them affect personality. The other problem is that you rely on exceptions to prove your point. You rely on 'biological abnormalities' (a male with low testosterone values).
Please provide me with the evidence that the genes on the Y-chromosome affect personality. I also wish to know what personality theory you use to make a such statement. I also want the quantified data on the base-rates you base "abnormalities" on. Remember that I have the education to read articles in advanced psychology and I have personality psychology as one of my specializations so do not hold back.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
Again, I see that you have a very human-centric way of thinking. You put human at the center of the world, like it's special and meant for greatness. A very religious way of thinking, too.
No. Right back at you; you apply a very specific branch of dogma here and you do so poorly. I know the philosophic branch you seems to be influenced by and the kind of overraction you did here is what I would expect from someone who haven't really thought this whole thing through. Let me put it out for you:

To speak about humans isn't in itself "human-centric thinking". The fact that humans as a species have a wealth of accumulated knowledge that no other animal have and the fact that humans seem to have a level of abstract thinking that no other animal is mere black & white facts. Pointing this out is no mere human-centric than pointing out that a dog have enhanced smell compared to most other species is "dog-centric".

What you do is to confuse statement of these facts with religions "we were made to rule the animals and the world". That's do not follow from anything I mentioned so far. The reason why you even made that association is on your side.

Now what's even worse is the context in which you made this pharagraph; you did it as a way to morally reject another fact; that part of humans evolution is based on transition of information. You use a red herring as a rhetoric and I question why. It's dishonest to those you speak to to attempt to derail a topic like that.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
But I still don't see how it explains breaking free from the genes. Your genes allow you to have a society, to talk and to use those tools. The fact that you wear eyeglasses or warm clothes means that you haven't been able to break free of them and you need tools to diminish/enhance their effects. Even using those tools (an airplane?) does not make you free from the genes. A small spider-ling has the ability to stretch a piece of it's thread and fly. A crow has the ability to use tools very effectively. Our methods may be more elaborate, but in the end it's the ability which has been given to us by our genes. You are not breaking free from your genes by using Insulin. You have malfunctioning glands and you use Insulin (a product of the genes) to correct it, make it the way it was intended to be. How is it breaking free from the genes, while you are using a product of those genes to make your body work the way it was meant to work by those genes?
We will break free from our genes one day, perhaps when we are cyborgs with electronic brains, no genitals and no genes.
I believe the reason you have problems with this is because you are using a false dichotomy, either genes or environment and if someone thus takes a step towards the latter they reject the former. This is false. My stance have a couple of labels, including reciprocal determinism. The host communicate with it's surroundings and it's nature is centered within that interaction. So when I speak about non-host stuff such as passed information you believe I say no to the host. It's not in our genes to fly to the moon. We might have the genes to be capable of abstract advanced thought, but the process behind flying to the moon is rooted in 9000 years of evolution when it comes to tools and accumulating knowledge during which time the human species itself haven't changed much.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
I am sure the problem of 'Male Gaze' will not exist in that day. But as long as you are a Homo sapiens and you have some of your organs, you are a slave to your genes and you can't blame men for buying games featuring hot female characters.
I believe I stated clearly that attraction isn't what I speak about.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#76

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM

Default 

July 10th, 2012, 18:38
Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer View Post
I'm actually astonished that no-one responded to what I had been writing, neither earlier in this discussion nor later.

Has this discussion become some sort of exclusive discussion course ? Exclusive to only a select few ?
People often don't respond to my post. I don't take it personally, I just assume no one has anything to add about what I've posted.

Although I'm sure they're are some who avoid my posts like the plague.

As for the topic at hand, I don't know much about psychology as it has never interested me.

One question though. I thought psychology was a pretty inexact sience based on data from relatively small test groups(compared to the entire human population). Is this true? It seems as some are talking about stuff as absolute fact. Like I said I'm just a Layman so correct me if I'm wrong.
sakichop is offline

sakichop

SasqWatch

#77

Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 2,176
RPGWatch Forums » Comments » News Comments » Gamasutra - Male Gaze and Video games
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT +2. The time now is 01:54.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch