The Primer

I'm not going to repost the entire TG-Primer here. It seems like whenever a new game starts, this is the go to material that all members seems to defer to. I'm struggling to equate the Primer as it applies to TG as something other than religious text such as the Bible, Torah or Koran, maybe someone more articulate than I can do that. I see the Primer as the foundation of the belief structure in TG. I know, I'm making TG sound like a religious cult, but I don't see that as a bad thing. The problem is, unless the Primer were an end all be all set of rules, it is open to interpretation.

Here are the three points of the Primer I see referred to most, as if they were a set of rules

Tactical Gamer was founded with a few very simple principles:

1) Create an environment conducive for mature gamers to enjoy the games they play without the everyday interference from the less-than-mature gamers.

2) Create an environment where there was mutual respect for your fellow gamers and where all members would be working together to advance the enjoyment of their hobby.

3) Support game play in a near-simulation environment. Where the focus of play would not be solely on doing what it takes to win, but doing so utilizing real-world combat strategy and tactics rather than leveraging exploits provided to players by the design of the game engine, regardless of the level of advantage, if any, it gives over the opposing team.
The first point here has been debated for a definition of mature. Most definitions of mature are pretty much agreed upon, but every once in awhile a certain action or attitude has come into question

I've never seen much disagreement in any part of point #2

The last point here causes the biggest discussions, arguments, breakdown of maturity and respect (myself included) within TG.

I wonder how often anyone really reads beyond those three points. The primer goes on to state that these three points can NOT be taken on a singular level and need to be taken together. and "The very nature of the community depends on the configuration settings for our games, and the rules that are put in place, and the inherent understanding from the players regarding what we are trying to accomplish. Without all of these factors working together, Tactical Gamer can not achieve its mission." I've seen members asking if you are only following the minimum amount of rules to be kicked/banned are you really TG material. I've also seen it stated that you can't rely on TG members to follow an agreed upon policy if there is no rule, because there are those that would say, if there's no rule, I can do it. Which goes against the belief of the Primer.

The recent discussions of the Carl Gustav as anti personnel weapon or a primary weapon is what has brought to mind all of the previous discussions I saw in 2142 where the Primer was thrown around and the term, "The TG way" I would personally like to see a statement of why a certain tactic and/or weapon usage violates the Primer in detail as opposed to a blanket statement of it's not how the weapon is used, or it's not tactical, or it's a waste of ammo. While I didn't see the CG usage as being against the Primer, as I reread it, I did notice this "We all want to win when we play, but the focus at Tactical Gamer should be one of winning with some sort of dignity, honor, and skill, not because you were able to out-exploit the other team or box them into a corner built on technological weakness that gives you the advantage." which has the potential to uproot my current position on the weapon as a primary killing weapon.

Now, with that being said, I would like to bring up another post. Asch's State of the Union post. Below are two parts of the post as they relate to my post today

Originally posted by asch
State of the Union Address

Tactical Gamer's niche is mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives.

Simulation does not equate only to realism.
After the statement of TG's niche, asch explains that some may ask where realism falls into the TG world. That the belief that TG was only about realism came from when TG was smaller and hosted games like Ghost Recon, America's Army and Operation Frontines, in which those games themselves contained the focus on realism. TG wants to promote "realism" in games where it applies. The belief that TG was all about realism lead to the TG Primer to address concern over support for games that did not support realism, but still left some confusion, so the term "simulation" was adopted over "realism"

It is stateed that simulation does not equate only to realism. Simulation is playing the game within the confines of the world the game creates. Armed Assault is mentioned as a game that relies heavily on realism, but games like WoW have elves, wizards and fantasy elements. TGers should immerse themselves in the world created by the game, with a focus on mature, teamwork oriented gaming with a focus on the objectives. AA and WoW are opposite ends of the spectrum, with a wide varied of games in between. Some servers may be modded to focus on the realism aspect that can be in the game and some "vanilla" style.

Here is where I feel we are failing in current and past discussions
It is not wrong to differ in opinion but it is wrong to belittle each other for differing opinions. There should be a mutual understanding of these different preferences instead of a chasm between the varying groups of players.
I feel by stating that a certain tactic and/or action goes against the Primer (which is TG's foundation for the community and what all TG member are to abide by) is a statement that anyone that employs such tactic and/or action is not TG material and is a belittling that person (group of people) that support those tactics and/or actions. If it's debated and the admins and game officer decide that a tactic/action does fall outside of the simulation of the game, but a set rule can not be put in place (for whatever reason), once that is decided and communicated to the community, we are to follow that code of conduct, we shouldn't need a rule.