If you’ll go ahead and GIS “nightstick”, you’ll find plenty of pictures of side-handle batons/tonfas/nightsticks/whatever other names they may have. The words are interchangeable.
So there are two points here:
- You don’t want the Tonfa in the blacklist.
You’ve made your plea, if two people clarify their votes to mean something other than “weapons of Japanese origin”, I’ll pull it off the list. Otherwise you can remove it from your list, or add a “type” : “ITEM_WHITELIST” : { “tonfa”, “tonfa_wood”, “shocktonfa_off”, “shocktonfa_on” } entry anywhere where it’ll get loaded to override the blacklist. This is what was expected from the outset, it’s not remotely reasonable to expect the blacklist to just have what you want on it, though among the people voting there seems to be a substantial amount of agreement. - Change the name of the Tonfa.
The proper name for the thing in the game is a Tonfa, Any other name for it excepting the incredibly awkward, “side handled baton” is vague to the point of uselessness. In this case I much prefer precision over supposed colloquialism.
These are separate issues, changing the name of the item doesn’t change its origin.
I did, and there are also pictures of straight batons, telescoping batons, flashlights, nunchucks, x-rays of bone fractures, cartoons, action figures, spaceship models, and a picture of a naked woman crouching in a graveyard apparently trying to start a fire with a stick. I fail to see how this is supposed to make your point.
Well, if the issue is the Japanese origin of the weapon, I guess it’s actually a non-issue given that the Tonfa originated in either China or Southeast Asia, was used in martial arts there, and was later imported to Japan. We’ve both been wrong about it being an originally Japanese weapon.
http://www.japanesejujitsu.org/a-brief-history-of-the-tonfa/
http://www.tonfa.org/tonfa-history
Eventually, the tonfa made its way to Okinawa for the same purpose of grinding rice.Since Okinawa had a strong martial culture, it is no surprise that the tonfa was added to the many other farm implements based weapons of Japanese and Okinawan karate.
The Tonfa is generally considered as an Okinawan martial arts weapon.Your sources don't support your argument. One speculates that it made its way to Japan *as a farming tool*, where it was then weaponized, making it a *weapon* of Japanese origin. This is the generally accepted origin story. The other admits that it's opinion that it was first used in China as a weapon is not the generally accepted view. There is little to no evidence of a tonfa-like object being used in China as a weapon in any systematic way.
You’re wasting your time here, if the people in the voting thread clarify that they didn’t mean to vote the tonfa into the blacklist (and no one else votes it in), I’ll remove it, otherwise it stays. Even if your sources did indicate that there was credible support for the tonfa originating as a weapon in China, I’m trying to interpret the intent of the people voting, so I’d be going with the most widespread opinion about its origin whether than specific historical evidence.
the other admits that it's opinion that it was first used in China as a weapon is not the generally accepted view. There is little to no evidence of a tonfa-like object being used in China as a weapon in any systematic way.
However, exactly where the origin of the Tonfa comes from is not certain, but the experts believe it originated from somewhere within either China or possibly Indonesia. … These Chinese and Southern Asian martial arts both used this form of weapon and it is thought that it was brought to the Japanese island of Okinawa through their initial influences. … This is [i]the considered opinion[/i] as to the origin of the Tonfa and is probably quite true given the evidence we have today on this weapon.
Not “my considered opinion”, THE considered opinion. The word the, when used like that, tends to mean “the only” or “the most important”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonfa
The tonfa is believed to have originated in either China or Southeast Asia where it is used in the respective fighting styles. A similar weapon called the mae sun sawk is used in krabi krabong and might be the original version of the weapon.
Here’s another source that says the same thing. http://asianform.com/page.php?pid=104
The origin of the tonfa is debated but experts believe it either originated in China or Indonesia. It is used in both Southeast Asian and Chinese martial arts and was possibly brought to Okinawa through their influence.
From what I’m reading, the Tonfa was popularized by and became a big thing in Japanese martial arts, but originated in Chinese and Southeast Asian martial arts.
We’re talking about two different things here, you’re talking about the antecedents of the Tonfa, I’m talking about the Tonfa itself. Every one of those pages opens with some variant of “The Tonfa, an Okinawan weapon…”. If you say “Tonfa”, you mean “the Okinawan weapon”, not some apocryphal proto-tonfa that originated in China… or Indonesia… or maybe somewhere else.
The historical origins don’t even come into it, all that matters in this context is what someone means when they say “Tonfa”, and that is unarguably, “a weapon of Okinawan origin”.
That aside…
Not "my considered opinion", THE considered opinion. The word the, when used like that, tends to mean "the only" or "the most important".Now THIS, this amuses the hell out of me, as if people don't make statements with unwarranted certainty all the time. The author constantly hedges and admits they don't actually know, but makes one statement with slightly more certainty, and that somehow overshadows all the rest.
The historical origins don't even come into it, all that matters in this context is what someone means when they say "Tonfa", and that is unarguably, "a weapon of Okinawan origin".
Oh, so the origins matter, but they don’t actually matter. Okay.
Well, if the historical origins don’t even come into it, then any “tonfa” in America used by police is going to probably be a Monadnock PR-24, designed and manufactured by an American company, therefore being an American weapon. PR-24 has even apparently become a genericized trademark among the law enforcement community, kind of like the word kleenex. Even if the Tonfa isn’t that specific brand, it’ll still be designed and manufactured by an American company.
Would you support changing the name of the tonfa to PR-24, or similar?
Every time I’ve replied to you I’ve pointed out that they don’t matter to the issue at hand.
No, because:
- It’s only a generic term within law enforcement.
- One of the main places to encounter them is in dojos, where it is almost certainly not a PR-24.
- The “wood tonfa” item certainly isn’t one of those, especially since the survivor can craft it.
Alright. I’ll just make a PR adding the PR-24.
a super-obscure, completely redundant item? what’s the point of it?
It’s a high-end, lightweight, collapsible police baton used mainly by law enforcement; generic Tonfas aren’t collapsable, lightweight, or as expensive. It adds flavour and realism to the world. It only spawns in police-related locations.
So it’s completely unlike the tonfa in the game. Why were you arguing for renaming the in-game item to something inaccurate?
Because PR-24 is also used as a generic term for any 24-inch-long side-handle police baton, sort of like how Kleenex is used instead of tissue. I already said that.
I’m adding the Monadnock PR-24, the actual brand name item.
Alright, nobody said watches when specifying jewellery The idea was necklaces , rings , dental grills and the like. Watches are hardly jewellery.
Also stop arguing about semantics, for the love of god.
Wristwatches should stay, nobody wants them out since they’re not jewellery.
I don’t really care about tonfas. They’re marginal.
Bikinis are useless except for rolepalying, they’re just useless torso encumbrance that covers 5 % of the body. And let’s be reasonable here, fur bikinis are illogical. Nobody said anything about swimwear, just bikinis.
Yep, wristwatches are very useful; they are far from jewellery.
I agree that watches shouldn’t be removed in the mod, at least not wristwatches. Wristwatches aren’t “jewelry” by anybody’s standards, they are a functional tool. I have to wonder if the misinterpretation of their inclusion in “jewelry” wasn’t a purposeful, passive-agressive way of lashing out against people who wanted content removed in the first place.
Regardless, since the hot topic right now appears to be the Tonfa, here’s my two cents: Having lived in New England for my entire life, I have never seen police officers here wielding or holding a Tonfa, or a tactical baton, or anything of that sort. They use small firearms, stun guns, and also carry knives, though the latter is mostly intended as a tool for cutting through ropes and the like.
…HOWEVER, I have also almost never seen a tonfa spawned in DDA, only available as a weapon that can be crafted. And since a tonfa is NOT a complex thing for a beginner with some fabrication skill to create in real life (the version described in-game is basically a stick with a shorter stick tied to it, or a hunk of molded plastic in the same shape). If we’re talking about removing ludicrous and rare foreign weaponry, such as katanas, I believe the tonfa should still be included but only as a player-craftable weapon.
(Possibly could be renamed the more generic “police baton”, as to be completely honest the average American (including myself previously) only knows the tonfa as: “That baton the coppers use in England because they aren’t allowed to use guns.” (And before anybody jumps down my throat about that statement, I realize it’s a gross generalization, but that is the first thing that springs to people’s minds over here when they see a tonfa)
Really?! And I think implying of others’ wrongdoings without concrete proof is passive-agrresive too and a good way to start a flamewar too. The developers haven’t give a reply to why the normal wristwatch was included, so for now can we just assume it’s a mistake???
One satirical throw-away line in my post is the only thing you quote, without any actual comment on the real content of the post (the part related to the tonfa discussion)
Getting mad at me for “starting a flamewar” while only quoting (and therefore drawing particular attention to) the single controversial line of my post and making it more likely people will notice it.
I don’t even…