Thought this would make an interesting discussion. Do you feel it's acceptable to suicide/kami people in Bomberman?

Usually this happens in a team game where it's 2 vs 1 or 3 vs 1 and one of the members on the team with more people just goes up to the opponent and lays bombs to blow both of them up. Or sometimes in free for all matches the person who's trapped lays a bomb to blow both people up so they don't die by themselves.

I for one say no because it's lame and lacks skill. I'm sure many of you use to play Bomberman Online PC back on the old Asian servers and some of you may still play now on Broomop's BMO International. Back in the old days, if you were playing teams in a room with good people and you suicided on one of the players, not only would everyone pretty much scoff at you, but more likely than not you'd be kicked from the room. I remember on the Korean servers the number "911" was signified when someone kami'd someone (you'd also see a lot of -_- & u_u   ). You'd see 3 or 4 people say it at once. Usually if it was an accidentally the person would say sorry or some other smiley of ":(" to show the others it was an accident and didn't mean it and you probably wouldn't get kicked (unless you did it again).

What do you think?

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

I used to play the old bmo a long while back, that was a common method used to win by many people. People didn't seem to dislike it, I think that you may have not gotten as many points because of it either. In the new boj, the rounds are bigger and there aren't teams yet. But because of the big areas, doing something like taking somebody else down by suicide isn't as easy. You could just get yourself owned easily trying to do that, before going after people you always need to be well equipted and have what you need- or they'll have the upper hand over you and you most likely won't be able to take them down. So I'd consider it more of a stratagy then something that doesn't involve skill, that's why it's essential that you have a good team in the first place so that you don't get put into bad situations. When in one just be careful and turn the suicide bombing into just a suicide with no kills on their part, someone trying to suicide you is easier to kill then a normal person- so use that to your advantage. Some suicides can't be avoided, but that's why you always need to be careful and to keep moving. I barely ever stay still in boj for the sake of survival, even though there aren't teams- if you don't keep moving and make it to the safest place possible then there's a better chance that you're going to die because of it.

_________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts."

First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with taking yourself out to kill the other guy when it is only you and him left and there is no chance of your own survival. While it is indeed "lame" to deliberately kamikaze somebody during team games (and it serves no purpose in regular matches except in the case I stated before), it is possible and is not cheating (there are no rules to Bomberman except what the game's engine imposes, and obviously this is a method which does not rely on breaking the game). Ergo, don't play Bomberman God. I particularly despise people who kick other players for no reason at all, and those who kick them for things such as this. Of course, if the player was trying to be a nuicance and ruining games by suiciding (ie at the beginning of the match or at other less crucial times, but only during regular matches because, as I said, it serves no purpose to do that during such matches, and if causing such a disruption serves no purpose then it is being a nuicance), then by all means kick them, but if they use it as a strategy for their own gain (causing a draw) or for their team's gain (eliminating an enemy player), then kicking them is only a displayal of intolerance of dishonorable strategies, and again, there are no rules nor honor codes in Bomberman; it is just a video game. Seriously. Damn.

By the way, a short expansion on executing a kamikaze attack in order to cause a draw. In games with Bomber Carts (you die and you come back at the edges of the arena to chuck bombs in, you are familiar I am sure but terminology differs), typically there is the option to allow dead players to return to the battle by killing live players, but you can also deselect this option. Then what is the point of the Bomber Carts if dead players have no hope of returning? The answer by this point should be quite obvious: it is to cause a draw, or to hand the victory to the player with the least points or trophies. Since the primary goal of the kamikaze I described and the Bomber Carts I described is to prevent other players from winning and possibly to create a draw game, and the Bomber Carts I described was specially designed by Hudson Soft so that you could play in that mode without hopes of returning to battle, then.... and I am sure you have made the connection by now, but I will continue.... performing a kamikaze to cause a draw is no crime.

You will argue back, I am sure, but it is likely that I have no more words for this discussion if these do not affect you in the way I meant them to.

Razon:
I specifically remember the scoffs/smilies and disapprovement of kami'ing people in old BOJ. Especially when playing with japanese (or koreans on the korean version). But I agree, it's easy a lot of times to counter it if you see them trying to trap bombs. Another time they do it is if you have them trapped out by a bomb (like your standing on a bomb so they can't come into the only safe spot). They then proceed to lay a bomb where they're standing to force the draw.

Zaphe:
There's Revenge and Super Revenge. The latter is bomber carts which allow you to return upon killing someone while the other you can just kill someone. The tactic of killing yourself off and trying to kill someone from a Revenge mode is different from what I'm talking about. All you did was kill yourself and your chances are slim of killing the person you want and coming back in. More often than not a good player would rather stay in the game and collect powerup items and go kill the person in game. When all is said and done, in most of the skilled games 95% of people would have Revenge off in the first place.

There's also something different if you have no powerups and they have everything vs both you and the other player having similar powerups, which was usually the case on maps like Normal Road (especially in korean version). There were plenty of items to go around. So more often than not it was an even match.


Basically it seems that a kamikaze is needed when someone lacks the skill to kill the opponent without blowing themselves up. It means that they're nothing but cannon fodder. At least IMO.  

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

Even a skilled player can suicide another player if that's deemed the best option to do in that case, just because someone suicides it doesn't mean that they lack skill. Especially if you're at a dis-advantage and can pull it off, for someone that lacks enough skill to kill someone then that may be the only option then. There's also cases where even if both players die, that do to lag one side can win over the other. This is also possible in boj except the winning person just doesn't die, so you'll often see me suicide someone for the luls at the end of the match and claim the win- that's using the situation and your playing conditions to your advantage even though it isn't completely fair (though a japanese person could still take the win from it as well). Unlike in the old bmo, the bombs in boj are only slightly area progression style compared to how the explosions progressed slower in the closed testing for it. But since it still does progress even if it is really fast, players closer to a bomb can die before you if there's enough distance in-between you and the bomb, mainly when you'd get hit by a bomb's explosion that's several chain explosions away.

_________________
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts."

It's a valid strategy that is not in any way game breaking, therefore it is fine. If I'm put in a situation in team games where victory is assured by taking an action I will generally take it. Games like this are no place for silly player made rules, whatever serves you the best at the highest ratio is the best choice. Why should I give the opponent a chance to win due to mistakes later in the game when I can seal the deal now. I play by the rules of the game, not the communities decisions of whats 'cheap' or 'skillful'. My win ratios have never been hurt by this policy.

If you want me to play by different rules thats fine, I will do it, but tell me in advance that we're playing a different variation (preferably in the room title)... and don't try and enforce made up rules on me in standard play. Its like trying to tell the baseball community at large that bunting is cheap and skilless and therefore they should stop. I seriously doubt they're going to stop as long as bunting is not against the official rules.

Well I'll put it like this. I've never seen anyone good do it. Now that can be because of either 2 reasons.

Their opponent is weak and they can kill them without having to suicide
Their opponent is good and good enough to where such a tactic won't work (evading ect)

What we can derive from those two reasons is debatable, but again I've personally never seen anyone good do it.


Also on another note (esp Razon), I think that if both of you are in the line of fire, it should be a draw. There's shouldn't be any of that "You were 1mm in front of me so you die and I win" stuff.....   Bomberman World for PS1 was like that, where you could be a sliver behind someone and still win because they were hit with the flame first. I think that's how Bomberman Blast is. One of the things I like about Bomberman Live is that not only does it make everyone in the line of fire die, but if there's another bomb (not in the chain) about to go off in a split second, after the chain, they make it go off too. So if you get caught, it's still a draw.

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

Also forgot but I thought I'd throw it out there too. I don't know if anyone has noticed (or played it for the matter) but in Bomberman Blast for the Wii, they actually subtract from your score (if playing points) for suicides and you can actually go negative in that game. Slightly reminds me of first person shooter games where they subtract for suiciding.

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

The only place where I've seen suicide actually work is when both players are trapped in exactly the same spot due to circumstance. Actually attempting to force suicide isn't something I've seen work out very often. I'm still very much not above taking what I can get though.

--as for points, I'm mostly ignoring them seeing as last bomberman game I played didn't mind suicide, and I'm pondering this from more of a tournament style win loss ratio then anything--

I will note I think all bombs in the chain should blow at the same time (or atleast all blow). There is really no reason to end the round when there is still fireworks going off.

Evidently I was not completely clear.... and this topic is getting more interesting than I had originally assumed it would be, so I will re-enter.

I am not talking about killing yourself in order to enter revenge mode and kill off other players. That is completely pointless in the sense that I was speaking of, which is not the "super revenge" as you call it, I am talking about the revenge mode in which you CANNOT re-enter battle. Therefore, you have been killed somehow, and enter at the sides to pick off players. As I said, the only point in doing this is to either 1) induce a draw game or 2) cause the player in battle with the least amount of points to win. The same goes for kamikazes. You are trying to induce a draw. Therefore, both methods have the same goal, and since the one I just described (revenge mode) was created by Hudson, then strategies aside, both methods are "legal." I do not even need to discuss this, I am merely bringing up an alternative example.

Notably, you are ignoring our points that this strategy is not game breaking, and that there are no Bomberman rules other than what the game's engine instates. I can only assume that this is so because you have no argument back and therefore try to defend your point by adding more fluff to your argument though it has already been penetrated. Instead, you should fight back instead of evading.

This would seem to be a matter of opinion (the topic, that is), but personally, I do not think that what is right and what is wrong is opinion, though I am positive that most of you here, with your views, would disagree. Anyway, I do not intend to drive this topic in another direction with this statement, I only intend to defend our position.


Good man! You just made my day. There is still sense in the world.

I say if you are with friends you know in real life and you all get together, it's ok to kami. You are all friends, and joking can be fun, right?

But in any other case, no. A suicide is stupid for any purpose other than joking and it is frustrating on teams.

I've made up some good suicidal jokes and with friends I think it's ok, but when you are playing competitively online or anywhere else I think it's un-acceptable.

Im not understanding what you mean. Are you saying kamikaze as in team matches, one guy takes their own team mates with them to compensate for their own F ups?

Like I already stated, there's nothing wrong with killing someone from the revenge carts. It doesn't matter how fast you got there or who you choose to kill. More often than not against a good player you're setting yourself up for failure if you choose to go that route.

Secondly, no one is evading anything. No one stated it's game breaking. Reread the posts. Also, what "bomberman rules" are you referring to? Since there hasn't been a set standard of rules applied to all bomberman games ala big national tournaments (like EVO for fighting games, ect), bringing this up is useless. But again, it's interesting to find that in Hudson Japan's newest bomberman game, Bomberman Blast, you get points subtracted if you suicide. Talking to one of the Hudson USA programmers, they too thought about making a similar move for Bomberman Live but in the end decided not to bother and just leave it casual without getting too technical.

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

Och, talking to you is more aggravating than I can put into words right now, though it is late here. But I will attempt to continue this conversation as it upsets me to be misunderstood in any way.

Listen carefully. Do not skim, please.

I brought up revenge carts as a comparison to the kamikaze tactic. I am NOT, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT talking about killing yourself on purpose in order to enter revenge cart mode. I am talking about when you get killed in battle and enter revenge cart mode, and I am talking about the mode in which you CANNOT re-enter battle after killing someone, you just kill them and stay in your revenge cart. You do not "choose to go that route", you die in battle and must go that route because there is no other option other than to sit idle, which is pointless. Anyway, the whole reason that I brought up revenge carts is because the GOAL for revenge cart mode is to try to cause a draw and the GOAL for performing a kamikaze is to try to cause a draw.

No one stated it is game breaking. Evidently you should have reread the posts. Two of us brought up the fact since the kamikaze method is not game breaking, then it is not illegal, because there are no rules to Bomberman, it is a video game. While online games may have rules about harassing other players and things like that, this evidently does not even fall into that category, as it is simply a game method, such as hiding and sniping in first person shooters, which aggravates many people as well. However, it is a legit strategy, as there really are no illegal strategies in video games. It's a game, get over it.

Also, bringing up "bomberman rules" is not "useless" because, in fact, you brought them up in the first place. You may not think you did, but really you brought up unspoken rules. You stated that people boot those who kamikaze. Well, they are following an unwritten rule about kamikazes. I am saying that there are no rules to Bomberman, and there should not be because it is a video game and video games should not be overcomplicated with rules, it is obnoxious. As I have said in the previous paragraph, this kamikaze method is a game strategy, just the same as sniping in FPS's, and sniping has always been disputed as "dishonorable" or other such things because you hide somewhere and pick people off whereas normal players fight each other. The only time someone should be booted is if they are deliberately causing trouble (for example, cursing for no reason, team killing on purpose, etc). People should not be booted for pulling off a kamikaze, just as snipers should not be booted.

I hope you understand me by this point.


There are good reasons to kamikaze; this you should have gathered from the debate in this topic.

Firstly, if it is just you and one other guy left, and you are trapped in such a way that you are sure to die, but you can cause the blast that will kill you to kill the other guy and take you both out, you will cause a draw, which means that no one gets points so no one else gains advantage.

Also, as mentioned by Ven in his first post, during team games if there is only one guy left on the other team and one or more on yours, one of your guys might decide to sacrifice himself to kill the last opponent if the opponent is in a bad position.

Of course, I do not promote dirty fighting in this way, but it is not unacceptable. Unacceptable would be hacking into the game or cheating in some form. These are legit strategies, just find a way to get around them. Surely you can, can't you? Knock them out, kick their bombs away or back at them, or can you still hold bombs and players in these new games? I know when I used to play other Bomberman games I'd often throw around bombs and players if necessary. It gets people angry but if you've got a glove, why not use it? What's the point of Hudson adding in that extra code if people aren't going to use it? Of course, I make this reference to the glove and now you guys are going to get confused and say "but we're not talking about the glove." I'm sorry, I just can't restrict my thoughts to one straight monotone voice, I must give examples, and I must use language. It pains me to cut down my speech, but if you want me to talk like a robot, so be it.

Again, you keep bringing up revenge. If you had read correctly, I know what type of revenge you're talking about. In case you need it to be explained again

Revenge = Mode of killing someone from outside the stage
Super Revenge = Mode of killing someone from outside the stage and if doing so successfully, you come back in

Now that we've gotten that out the way, I'll get back to the other points. Killing someone from revenge cart is not the same as kamikaze other than the fact that you in the act of "killing". Already talked about this earlier. And you STILL have the option of turning revenge off (which most skilled players do anyway). This is in no way a comparison to sniping. In most new games now (let's take Call of Duty 4 for example), there is no sniping. Both sniping and not takes skill. You also have to take a look at the levels (even the good sniping ones) and there's usually no unfair position on the map someone would be able to get that would make others say "sniping is not fair". It's all even out. Bad analogy there in comparing the sniping. Now comparing SUICIDING to a FPS is valid since BOTH (fps and new bomberman) result in reduction of score.

You keep saying there are no rules. I'm saying it's pointless to say that because WHO in fact would make up these rules in the first place? If someone came out and said "This is the official rule saying..." someone else would just come by and say "What gives you the authority to make such rule". Saying there shouldn't be "rules" because it's just a video game isn't valid either. No further comment on that is needed.

Secondly, you have the "unspoken rules" as you call it where the good people kick those out who kamikaze. I saw this happening a ton of times. Refer back to my other post talking about the 2 reasons why you don't see skilled people doing it.

THIRD, if someone like Hudson did make a rule about kamikaze, how would they enforce it or implement it in the game? Now taking that and seeing what they did in Bomberman Blast where they made suiciding/kamikaze REMOVE points from yourself lends to the fact that maybe, JUST MAYBE, someone there was thinking "Hmm, you should get penalized for such action". The SAME thing was thought when programming for Bomberman Live (from the mouth of one of the programmers himself).

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

Strange that you say that, seeing as the playing field in bomberman is completely flat.


Indeed, this is in fact quite the valid comparison. Problem is suiciding in FPS's isn't an invalid tactic either. Even with the point loss it doesn't make it an invalid tactic, less useful yes, but invalid no. Actually on a side note, In a majority of the FPS's I've played (and I can't say anything about blast, never played it). The points are deducted for causing yourself to die. Then points are again added for the kill you made. This is why in many games if your death is certain tossing a grenade out is common play, and will not lose you points. This is even implemented in game by COD4s Martyrdom perk. (which itself is often called noobish and unskillful, but its very much still part of the game). It does beg the question though in blast are points deducted for suicide killing or for suicide. If the point deduction is for killing yourself it in no way proves that it was implemented to prevent suicide kills, just to prevent stupid play and possibly slightly weaken suicide kills. Even if it IS implemented only on suicide kills, you're going to have a hard time telling me that bomberman blast isn't a different game then super bomberman 3, and even then you're going to have a hard time telling me that a point punishment is enough to make me dismiss the strategy as a valid one in certain situations, playing a game is all about weighing your options and taking the best one. And suicide in some cases MAY be your best option. (let me give you a hypothetical situation, you are playing a timed game and and your team is winning. The timer is almost up but you are in a position where you can assure your team wins by suicide. Do you let the timer run out and start a full new round negating your man advantage. If your goals are to you know, win the game, you should, because that will give you the round win AND net you gained points for the round which would otherwise count for nothing.)


Unspoken rules are in no way rules. And I've seen people kick players who were better for them for the reason that they are better then them. Does that make being good at the game an unspoken rule?

You'll never see me enforce unspoken rules on myself. If they're spoken as tournament rules then I will follow them because I don't want to be disqualified. If you say the rules before I enter the game I will follow them or leave (I am not a griefer, as much as you may enjoy calling me one for not following unofficial rules). But I will not enforce phony rules on myself.

There is an article about this kindof thinking that I rarely link to due to the fact that the point can be made in a less obnoxious manner. I present for your reading pleasure, an article by a tournament level fighting game player (as in gets into the top ten of street fighter series tournaments). It (somewhat rudely) states something pretty close to my opinion.
http://www.sirlin.net/Features/feature_PlayToWinPart1.htm


--edit--
After doing a bit of searching I found this.
http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/bombermanblast/show_msgs.php?topic_id=m-1-45907448&pid=945463

It claims the penalty for suicide is the same as the penalty for dieing by someone elses bomb, someone want to confirm or deny? That's not a punishment at all. If this is accurate you'd get a score of 0 if you suicide bombed someone wouldn't you? 20 points lost for suicide and 20 points gained for bombing others. I have not bomberman blast, so impossible for me to say for sure.

Strange you'd say that considering I was talking about the playing fields in FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS and not Bomberman....


True suiciding in a FPS, eg; walking into a room with a rocket launcher and blowing everything up including yourself, has no point since you're not gaining any points. Not to mention it extends your respawn time by a great deal (if in a respawn mode). Martyrdom in COD4 is different than cooking a grenade (or using a rocket launcher) and blowing everything up. Martyrdom doesn't reduce from your score. Secondly, at the highest level in the game (Hardcore Mode), no one uses Martyrdom because it's detrimental to your team.


This also goes back to to what I was saying earlier about the skilled people not suiciding. Is it because they've enforced this "unspoken rule" upon themselves? Or is it because of the other 2 reasons I listed earlier? That is debatable. I think it's because of the latter.


I've seen that article posted plenty of times. It's old. The article has some points and fails at others. As evident if you click the forum link for that article the 15+ pages of arguing going on..

Interstingly enough (on a somewhat unrelated note), that article was posted in a similar discussion on another website (about bomberman). A clan (Excessive Force - EF) who says they play bomberman blast competitively, went out on other websites looking for challenges in team battles. So after going to their website and reading up on some of their previous clan matches, I read that some of them were implementing and praising each other for "game winning suicides" for a previous clan battle they won. So after putting in my 2 cents, one of their clan members tried to give me that website again. Needless to say I challenged them to 3 vs 1 "clan match" and they got owned.


Depending if it's the suicide that killed you or the suicide that detonated your bomb, that's the difference between having a net score of 0 or a score of -20 (and that's even if your successful killing the person). If the latter, it's "punishment". Again, said scoring reduction was entered for a reason.



Edit: This discussion is also taking place on the bmoworld forums (8 for yes 5 for now so far). I found it interesting that some of the people who said Yes it's acceptable latter used very harsh descriptive words for those using said tactic. When asked on it, they said the topic asked whether or not it was acceptable, not if they like it.

Yes, the topic is kind of ambiguous in the fact that is it saying "Is it acceptable/unacceptable to be allowed/banned from tournaments" or "Is it acceptable or not and do I like it?" I guess I was going for the latter.

It'd be kind of hard to force such thing in a tournament. Or it'd be hard to program in a game because you'd have to make the computer differentiate between who's suiciding/what chains are being activated by the action.

_________________
Hudson's Bomberman: 1 of the top 10 game franchises of all time.

The point is you're saying that the comparison is flawed because there are no overpowering positions in FPS's that make sniping a cheap unbeatable tactic. This is also true with Bomberman, in many ways to a much greater extent.


Fine, even then if you can guarantee a kill on both you and an opponent in an FPS (non re-spawn mode). That will win you the match or increase your odds (by taking out more then one enemy. That is a fair and legal move (though very pointless, I could just toss the nade in the room without running to it, nothing to gain in position by suicide). I still play for more then just points... why you'll see me playing alot of the classes that often take big risks for little point rewards like engineers. Points are not what wins games.



Yeah, if you say its not acceptable or useful then its certainly because of the former. If its because of the latter (aka it is useless) then why care either way... there are obviously times when suicide is a valid and useful solution. They aren't commonplace though.



Of course its argued, this is a debate point. Its opinion, not binary true and false. Do you really think we are arguing about white and black? And what if it is old, it still follows a line of thought that is close to mine. If anyone can PROVE any of his points are fully wrong then I'll be interested. Opinion on what is more or less ethics and strategy isn't white and black.


Just because you can beat that clan really proves nothing anyway, I already am aware of your level of skill. Using "I'm better at the game then you" as a point to your argument will do nothing but piss me/people off. We aren't playing bomberman right now, we are talking/debating. Don't try to belittle those who disagree with you and stick to making points. Mudslinging accomplishes little.

You are better at me/them then bomberman. That in no way makes you right.

You'll have to elaborate on this. Layout the possible scores that you can get using only these 3 scoring elements (+20 kill, -20 killed and -20 suicide). I'm having a hard time understanding what would cause the -40 +20 score. Can you get "Killed by another bomber" and "Suicide" in the same death then?

(On a side note, this is a side part of the conversation, losing points for something doesn't make something not a valid tactic in the realm of wins and losses, it just makes it so its not something you'll do often if your primary goal is to gain points)


Then the question comes up is not liking something an excuse for trying to enforce it on others? If its valid play in tourneys why should it not be valid play in friendly games?


While the game would have a hard time telling if something was on purpose or not it'd not be hard to enforce such a rule in a tourney. Just handle it like you handle most tournament judgment, with a judge/referee. People enforce plenty of hard to call things in tournaments. I'm willing to bet that the reason its not a rule in tournaments is because the hosts of the tournaments don't consider it against game rules and they don't want to take the time to enforce their own.

I only wish that you would pay closer attention to the meanings behind my words than what your initial thought is to what I said. I brought up sniping as an example of a tactic in other games that is disliked by many people (I am not one of them, nor do I use the kamikaze tactic, except possibly a few times when I was to be swallowed by the flames so I connected a bomb to the guy who was killing me). If you do not believe this, then you are wrong. There will always be people who whine about "fairness" in video games. Always.

Enough with the "skilled players" thing. You are creating a generalization that is incorrect; essentially you have made your own personal ideal "model" of a "skilled player", your own Homeric hero or whatever it is you're trying to impress upon us.

And you still do not understand my use of the revenge mode, or you wouldn't be defining it again. Also, it doesn't matter if it is an option or not, Hudson put it in the game, and whether you perform a kamikaze or kill someone from revenge mode, you still aim for the same basic goal, and throwing in bombs to disrupt someone else's battle while you're dead is not very "honorable."


I do not understand what you are trying to say with this, honestly. First you say there are no unspoken rules, then you say there are. Make up your mind. There are unspoken rules, and they are typically pointless. First, not everyone will know about them anyway, leading to misunderstandings. Secondly, you should not try to enforce your own opinions on other players. I agree whole heartedly with Fireball on this point, as I do on most of his points.

I don't have any time to read that article, so I'll just stay out of that part.

And yeah, Bomberman is just a video game so this discussion shouldn't get so heated.

And if you wanted the topic to be about whether or not people condone kamikazes instead of whether or not they should be legal, you should have made that much more clear. Although, the conversation may have taken a slightly different turn but it probably would have been just as ridiculous, so I guess it doesn't matter anyway.

Hello gentlemen, I'm just kind of poking my head in this conversation breifly. I've been following your discusiion pretty closely and I just wanted to comment on how maturely this has been going despite how intense it has become. I'm proud to count myself among such a mature crowd.

That was the main thing i wanted to say. Unrelated, I know.

If you're curious about my opinion on this matter I also believe it is an acceptable tactic. I'm not going to elaborate since it's pretty much for the same reasons fireball and zaphe have already gone to great lengths to discuss.

I put in my vote and made my quick comment, wasn't planning on adding any oil to the fire. Just a little praise for you guys. later.

_________________