Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law 516
Ron2K writes in with a story about a Red Cross committee that is debating if people playing war video games should be subject to the same humanitarian laws as people in a real war. Seriously. "With 62 billion kills in Call of Duty: Black Ops alone, a committee of the Red Cross is debating whether the International Humanitarian Law is applicable to online gamers, and if they are violating it. From the committee's site: 'While the Movement works vigorously to promote international humanitarian law worldwide, there is also an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating International Humanitarian Law. Exactly how video games influence individuals is a hotly debated topic, but for the first time, Movement partners discussed our role and responsibility to take action against violations of this law in video games.' While it's questionable if gamers themselves can be prosecuted for not obeying the Geneva convention, the Red Cross committee's actions seem to be aimed more at game developers — as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?"
Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next, virtual animal rights activists?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)
It looks like it was a "side event" at a conference. See here [icrc.org].
I can't find any extra information on the ICRC website, can anyone else? Otherwise, it's most likely that the Daily Mail fabricated the rest of the story. Most of the article is speculation, except for a copy+paste from the website I linked to.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Mail fabricate a story?
Next you'll be telling me they were involved in phone hacking!
No, seriously though, if it's by the Daily Mail they're probably actually projecting what they'd like to happen, rather than what actually happened.
Re: (Score:3)
"Red Cross Debates If Virtual Killing Violates International Humanitarian Law" said Diana through medium.
"Mario kills Tanooki" says Diana through medium.
"Muslim Fundamentalists Derka Jerbs" says...
You get the picture.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)
How to shoot yerself in the foot in 3 steps:
1. piss off 30% of the world population
2. watch your donations decline
3. watch real people die due to shrinking budget
But at least those virtual soldiers can now rest assured that red cross is thinking about them, which was all worth it.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
1. piss off 30% of the world population
You can manage that just by being American. If you're white and male you probably pissed off a lot of the remaining 70% too.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
But you didn't piss off the remaining 1% so everything is golden.
If you pissed off anything and it's golden, then you're probably dehydrated.
This message was paid for and supported by the Red Cross.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
I quit contributing to those asshats when they lied about how 9/11 contributions were handled, then lied about lying, then tried to cover up the lying about the lying.
Frankly, they can fuck off. Plus, now they are trying to out silly PETA, for jeebus sake!
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)
Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Wail, and they are known for their extreme "angles" on anything. Their "reporting" and slants can even make Mother Teresa appear as a devil.
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Informative)
Its by the Daily Mail, a newspaper which we in the UK call the Daily Fail,
FTFY. I've never heard it called the Wail.
Re: (Score:3)
Both are true, and perfectly applicable! Daily mail has been called many things, including daily wail, daily fail, and daily tale (for the "story telling").
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Insightful)
Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil game. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil gam (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil gam (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm.. Victoria 2? (Score:5, Interesting)
So at the moment I'm playing through a Japan campaign in Victoria 2, which is Paradox's pseudo-realtime complex conquest and development game simulating from 1836-1936. The Brits obviously start the game with a huge advantage (as do the other European powers) and indeed, Japan starts as an uncivilized nation, with major penalties to research and the inability to industrialize among other things. There is however, a path to becoming civilized (which Japan can do through the Meiji restoration decision) and indeed by 1878, I'm in a war with my allies France and (uncivilized) China against Great Britain and the North German federation in an attempt to take Northern India. In this war, about 2.5 million men are fighting on either side, and there will be about 3 million dead (mostly through the British and Chinese armies marching over the Himalayas) by the time the war is over.
In Victoria 2, each soldier is a member of an individual 'pop' living in a certain province, and having its own needs, incomes and political positions. In this war, there are many conscripted regiments who belong to specific 'poor strata' pops of jobs such as farmers, laborers and craftsmen (which I will note, separate men of working/fighting age from women and other parts of the population). Each death on the battle field decreases the size of the 'pop' by the same number of men. Also, I've enacted policies of minority building restrictions, and a discriminatory schooling system to speed assimilation.
By this rationale, aren't I doing worse (in both war and peace) in a single playing session than all the Call of Duty players can do in a similar session combined?
Re:Daily Mail should call out to ban this evil gam (Score:5, Insightful)
Insightful grants karma. Funny doesn't. So marking insightful rewards the writer.
I'd be inclined to suggest it is insightful, too; I can easily imagine a crowd of soccer mums getting upset about a racist game. If you were careful to avoid actually naming it, I reckon the movement to ban it would make an awful lot of headway.
Re: (Score:3)
And it was not a moderation abuse either: an insightful remark doesn't lose it value because it was said in a witty manner.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Interesting)
Penn and Teller's Bullshit on Mother Teresa. Not suggesting you take it as God's honest truth without some critical thought, but interesting nonetheless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Funny)
Anyone remember when they tried to get people to call fish "sea kittens", so that we wouldn't eat them?
Not really, but I might try "hey kitty kitty" as an alternative to a fishing rod and bait in the future.
Thanks for the idea.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Interesting)
>>Every time I think Peta can't go any further off the deep end, they top themselves.
Actually, more to the point on war gaming, they directly protested *the killing of a rat* in the Battlefield series because it might, lead to violence against humans.
Like, seriously.
(bf3blog.com/2011/11/battlefield-3-criticized-by-peta-over-animal-cruelty/)
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone remember when [peta] tried to get people to call fish "sea kittens", so that we wouldn't eat them?
Yeah, kitten consumption went up 300%
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You're missing the point.
In real life, a soldier who commits war crimes might be held accountable for those crimes.
In order to mimic reality, a game might penalize your character/avatar based on actions you've performed in-game.
E.g. in the America's Army game, if you kill too many of your virtual teammates, your character will end up in a virtual Leavenworth Prison.
Nothing happens to you, but it's still a deterrent.
Re:Retarded. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have all been seriously owned. The Daily Mail receives website hits and we banter about on a topic that really has no merit nor a drop of reality in it.
I post this as a warning to others. Don't waste anymore brain power on it.
If anyone with influence in the international community takes this seriously it should be struck down and its supporters immediately considered completely out of touch with reality. Then ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
If they don't then I guess yet another large organization is devoid of intelligence, unwittingly working to undermine common sense and all that is good.
Re:Retarded. (Score:4, Informative)
So you don't have to wade through the bullshit in the article or the outraged incredulity of the comments:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Somewhere, a lawyer is crying. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
what a load of (Score:5, Insightful)
What a complete load of shit. Just like the movies. Its not real. Are we going to start arresting actors who pretend to kill in movies ? Its a bunch of pixels changing color and has nothing to do with laws against HUMAN rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:what a load of (Score:5, Funny)
Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not about arrests. They're basically talking about using moral suasion.
It's just another element of the game.
I know it seems ludicrous on first thought, but it's actually quite reasonable. Reason: People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Well, if you're going to have realism, I guess you'd need all the other stuff that comes in a war: not just America's Army and the Taliban, but also the Red Cross. In fact, for a multiplayer game, some people could be Red Cross personnel. And it makes perfect sense to deduct points for illegal kills (i.e., after someone has already surrendered to you).
Re:Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
People are crying out for "realism" in games down to the last blade of grass.
Realistic graphics? Yes. Realism? No. Otherwise military shooters would consist of hours, possibly days, of doing absolutely nothing. Then there might be a 5 minute conflict where you kill a couple guys. Then a few hours later you might end up with a standoff where it takes you 30 minutes just to take out 1 guy. And through it all, if you get shot once in the right place...game over, no continues.
Re:Somewhat reasonable (Score:5, Funny)
Welcome, to EVE online.
Re: (Score:3)
Have you played America's Army? (Or Final Fantasy 11?)
Note, also, that "realistic" does not require completeness in the sense of simulating all aspects of daily life equally. It only requires that those events which are simulated are as close to reality as possible. So you can cut actions like walking from one place to another entirely and maintain realism. (On the other hand, if they make you walk from one town to the next but it only takes five minutes, that's not realistic.)
Re: (Score:3)
Will AI ever reach the level where we do have to consider the rights of the NPCs?
No. Never.
This is a confusion of two different uses of the term "AI". Game AI is very simple, it is custom written for the game at hand (you have a starcraft bot that ONLY play starcraft, a mario kart bot that ONLY plays mario kart, etc.) They're hardcoded to use the game's rules and to operate in the best all-purpose strategy the developer could come up with and represent as a computer. Game AI is usually little more than a priority queue and a few tasks. Game AI is "dead", there is no life to it, no pers
Re: (Score:3)
IIRC, medics that are part of a combat unit aren't protected and don't mark themselves with a cross. Separate medical units are protected and generally aren't targets.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean that ... after I use a defibrilator on someone who just got killed they don't snap back to life with prime health and all wounds healed? Have computer games lied to me?
Re:Somewhat reasonable (Score:4, Insightful)
This really does just sound like headline grabbing nonsense; every such story makes me lose a little more respect for them. Focus on doing good works, not wasting donations discussing rubbish like this.
thats what they do. This story is almost completely made up. Maybe you should not believe everything you read.
Someone from Red Cross suggested game designers should consider implementing war crimes IN THE GAME. i.e. the GAME punishes you IN GAME for violating the law. This is just like getting a star in grand theft auto for killing a prostitute in front of a cop. It doesn't mean a real cop shows up at your door and arrests you.
Missions could easily be designed such that capturing surrendering enemy units is a possibility. most games simply cause the enemy AI to fight to the death or to run away, catch its breath and re-attack you, which is unrealistic.
I have no problem with a war game giving me rules of engagement, and then for penalizing me IN GAME for violating those. Even board games such as Supremacy have some concepts of human rights, and a Marshal who can conquer the world without using nukes or being nuked is considered the best possible kind of victory.
Re:what a load of (Score:5, Funny)
Its a bunch of pixels changing color,
That's racist. They should be happy with whatever color they are, and be respected for it.
Re:what a load of (Score:5, Insightful)
And here I thought.... (Score:5, Insightful)
.... the Red Cross had real problems to solve.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not worded very well, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games. I don't think they're saying that gamers are literally violating real-world laws.
Re: (Score:2)
To me, that's only slightly better.
Re: (Score:2)
Do they have any comments on the depiction of violence in literature?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's not worded very well, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
The committee's action is aimed more towards developers: as war games become more realistic, do they have a responsibility to add humanitarian elements to their games?
Sounds like the exact role of the committee : Promoting human rights and international laws of war. I could see real world prosecutions but from an unexpected angle : A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.
It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies. That could be considered as slander. Imagine that in Deus Ex the evil company you fight would be called Microsoft. Or Mosanto.
The problem is that it could also be considered as a political opinion, protected by free speech. I think it is an interesting debate. I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.
Re: (Score:3)
>>A national army (let's say Italy) could attack a given game that would allow players to play Italian soldiers and see them promoted for senseless killing, despite international laws violation.
You've just described every Mario game, ever.
Re: (Score:3)
It could be fair that developers are barred from using real armies in games branded as realistic if they do not take into account the doctrine of these armies.
No it could not, as that would violate free speech.
That could be considered as slander
Fiction cannot be slanderous.
I am not sure what my opinions are on this one but I think that it shouldn't be dismissed as a silly one.
No, it absolutely should be dismissed as silly. There are no worthwhile issues to be discussed here.
Remember, no "Remember, no Russian." (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Most of the rules don't significantly hamper your ability to wage war. The ones that do -- restrictions on the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons -- are very likely to provoke international retaliation.
So, in general, it's the group that obeys the rules that win, because the guys with the better militaries also tend to be the ones that politely follow the rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. They are saying the gamers are virtually violating, just as they are virtually killing. The Red Cross is correct to suggest that developers should consider allowing virtual surrender, virtual trial for war crimes, or whatever. They are not suggesting any real crime is being committed, but as they have far more experience with the realities of war than developers and gamers, it's fair for them to suggest such things be considered.
When you look at the much publicised and repeated violations perpetrat
Re: (Score:3)
That idea could make great games, not necessarily the "war game" type, but the more "psychological" genre. I can imagine the player being the hero who at some point must choose either to slaughter POWs on his superior's order, or to defend their rights out of his own ethical principles, etc.
Will he get shot if he chooses the latter and someone else is gonna kill the POWs? Just for realism's sake...
Clickbait (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Clickbait (Score:5, Informative)
Sadly you could level nearly the exact same comment at Slashdot for including this bollocks. Seriously, why the fuck can't Slashdot try and provide news rather than helping flamebait and misinform. The number of people who are likely to see this, think that the Red Cross has gone batshit crazy and never realise that Slashdot is, by fronting for the article, bullshitting them.
Re: (Score:3)
> To me it sounds like the Red Cross is upset about the *depiction* of *fictional* violations in games.
And they are making the classic mistake of treating the _symptom_, not the _cause_.
Fact: [Unenlightened] people love pseudo-power, pseudo-violence, etc. (Not that there is anything wrong with it IN BALANCE.)
Good luck with changing human nature!
There are real problems (Score:5, Insightful)
We have enough reall problems without inventing them. This is wrong headed. Games are just a form of expression like books, movies, other art, etc. I don't think you can accept the premis here without also agreeing that sOmething should be done anytime a film is made or a story is written where someone violates the Geneva convention.
Re: (Score:2)
Next thing you know... (Score:5, Funny)
In a related scandal, Electronic Arts is being investigated for the use of virtual steroids in its pro sports game line.
Two thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Insightful)
0-9 is right. Please stop putting Daily Mail stories on the front page. They're tantamount to fiction.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
Firstly, this is a Daily Fail story - take with a large pinch of salt. As shown in the Leveson inquiry, they're happy to run "Organisation wants to ban something" story one day, then "Our campaign has forced organisation to back down" the next - despite no such banning effort happening. In addition, they do have a "anything invented after 1900 is suspicious" agenda.
Well, quite. There's a less hysterical account of the story here [kotaku.com]. The concern does appear to be the age-old debate on the effect of violent games on the perception of violence.
I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation. Still, game makers could make in-game compliance with international human rights law more realistic by mentioning, if the player survives to the end (so it will never happen in unbounded games) that the protagonist might have to answer to the court for their actions a couple of years after game time.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the best idea I have ever heard! Imagine getting banned from your gaming account because after a while, you end up in in-game court, complete with witnesses and recorded video of you firing down civilians. Excellent. Punishment could range from weeks of suspension to outright ban of account.
All badges could be stripped etc too. Say good bye to that Purple Cross badge!
Re:Two thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)
I think a shooting game in which one has to choose who to shoot (which seems to be the main thing they are complaining about -- indiscriminate killing of non-combatants and prisoners of war) would tend to be a better game than one in which you shoot everything that moves and most things that don't,and the overhead of having to deal with prisoners of war might make for an interesting game dynamic, but I don't see those as matters for legislation
Actually, parts of MW2 had this; I recall the Brazil level particularly which is a frantic run through shanty towns, and it is hard to tell who is a combatant and who is not, as they all rush at you sometimes. If you hit any civilians the game ends, with a warning saying not to shoot civilians.
Re:Two thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The article isn't as bad as the headline (Score:3)
Everyone agrees that the headline is sensationalist and basically fiction. And, of course, the /. summary is based on the headline.
But the article actually makes some sense:
The Red Cross doesn't prosecute war criminals. They see war as an opportunity to do what they are trained to do -- provide medical help, and assist refugees.
They aren't
It's fun to be the bad guy. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you play the evil character it helps the person unwind from a day of balancing things that need to get done and done right. Having mean people being mean but you cannot fight back. So you play a game where you kill as many people you like as a quick release. It is better then start drinking or smoking at the end of the day.
HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (Score:3)
as first person shooters become more realistic, do game developers have an obligation to include humanitarian elements?
i tell you that it is past time that they did ! i am gaming since 1986, and im telling you, i am about to puke war/carnage/slaughter/disaster and shit.
i really really fed up with games - one way its total carnage, mayhem, slaughter, killing, and the other way is stuff like sims 3/second life.
there is no middle area. its as if either carnage/mayhem or total opposite exists, if you view the world from games' perspective. TOTALLY unrealistic, and tiring.
so its high time they included humanitarian elements in games. and, humanitarian elements even in carnage/war/destruction games too. REALISM requires that.
Re:HIGH time that they did .... dammit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Lives saved (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?
Re:Lives saved (Score:5, Insightful)
Does this mean I can get a couple of virtual Nobel Peace Prizes for the trillions of e-lives I saved playing Mass Effect?
No, but looking at previous Nobel Peace prizes it looks like you could get the real one.
Google 'international red cross call of duty' Mail (Score:5, Interesting)
Simple Solution (Score:2)
What they haven't addressed is... What if I kill someone in my imagination? Should I put myself in an imaginary prison?
summary wrong as always (Score:2)
They are not talking about prosecuting the real gamers if they violate laws or international treaties inside of a game.
They want game developers to include features in their games, that your game character has to face court martial if the gamer breaks laws or rules of engagement. So they want virtual consequenses for virtual crimes. Sounds fair enough for me.
RedShirt
Re: (Score:3)
Except it's a FPS game, not a courtroom simulation game.
This is like saying that Rock Band ignores the hard work of the roadies, and after each game the player should be forced to take the stage apart and pack it up before the next round.
Seriously? (Score:2)
They do have a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course "virtual murder" is nothing like a real murder. But, the depictions in video games do shape our perception of the real world, as do other media (like movies). Most recent high-budget shooters aim to present modern warfare, but tend to show only the positive aspects (adventurous, exciting, etc.), while omitting all the pain and suffering that comes with it. Additionally they show only the very limited viewpoint of one (US) soldier, not the view of the other waring party or civilians.
In film, we'd call that a "pro-war film" or even "propaganda film", and it's right to criticize those games. (On the other hand, I have no problem with shooters like UnrealTournament or Quake3 – they don't aim to show how the war is, so they don't fail while doing so)
Not questionable at all (Score:3)
Of course they should be prosecuted. Virtually.
WARNING - DAILY MAIL (Score:4, Informative)
Please realise that this story is published in a far-right newspaper originally started to publish the antisemitic views of Oswald Moseley. The Daily Mail is anti-government, anti-Europe, against socialised healthcare or indeed any form of social responsibility, and run by people known to be members of right-wing extremist groups.
If you're not white, English and a good tax-paying servant^Wcitizen, the Daily Mail hate you and want you jailed, deported, or dead.
International law (Score:3)
what's next? (Score:3)
Next they are going to tell me that online poker is gambling and hentai is pornography, and that "Daily Mail" is real news.
NOT TRUE (Score:3)
/. please, please, please stop using stories from the daily mail.
This story is FALSE. Just like almost EVERY OTHER story from the mail. Stop.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/game-on-red-cross-says-players-of-combat-simulations-wont-face-war-crimes-prosecution/2011/12/08/gIQAivwAfO_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Nice sensationalism, but TFA is simply false (Score:3)
See here [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They've already told game developers off for putting red crosses on medkits in games, which is why most new games they are green.
Actually, most real-life med boxes have a green cross too, probably for similar reasons...
Re:Red Cross and Geneva Convention (Score:5, Insightful)
Picture the alternative where we live in a world where people arrive at adulthood and have no concept of war (from movies, games or other media) but, inevitably, it still occurs in the world. 10,000,000 dead is now just a number to them. They can't fight when they are called up because they have no concept of what will happen to them and are too shocked when it does. They don't understand why the Nazis were so bad because "they only killed X amount of people".
It's already happening today. A single soldier killed in Afghanistan can make front-page news, but people have no concept of how many died in the world wars, or how many are dying in Afghanistan that those soldiers were trying to protect.
That's just as bad, and extreme, an alternative as a world where we teach them that "atrocities are fun" and, as with everything, a middle-ground is required. That middle ground would not involve pretending these things don't exist OR encouraging players to commit virtual atrocities (which I've NEVER seen a game do).
When I went to a former-concentration camp in Germany, there was an uncensored video playing of bodies being thrown and pushed by tractor into a pit. Thousands of limp, lifeless bodies being manhandled like someone creating a landfill. It's probably the most scary and horrible thing I've ever seen (and never once has a major motion picture or video game disturbed me or made me wince). And it was playing, quite openly, in the place that they take school trips through. *That's* education, and that's more important than anything.
As soon as you start pretending to people that these things don't exist, that's when you start making them live in dreamworlds that will distance them from reality, make them lack understanding and inevitably shatter one day. You don't need to shove war crimes down their throats (I don't know of any video game that lets you imprison and torture foreign "combatants", without charge, totally against things like the Geneva Convention for decades and get away with it), but equally you should never pretend they don't happen.
Re: (Score:3)
And video games do not force a set course of action. I may joke about being a mass murderer in skyrim, but I play games as a character, not as myself. I frequently make actions I myself would never do in real life so I can be the just "black and white/good and evil" hero. Would any of you in real life run errands across a whole country for people you just met with no real promise of reward? If you walked into a best buy and a guy ran up asking you to take this letter to his brother on the opposite side of t
Re: (Score:3)
That's just as bad, and extreme, an alternative as a world where we teach them that "atrocities are fun" and, as with everything, a middle-ground is required. That middle ground would not involve pretending these things don't exist OR encouraging players to commit virtual atrocities (which I've NEVER seen a game do).
You seem to be unaware of the Grand Theft Auto series. I prefer games which give the player freedom to kill, but encourage or allow for non-violent or non-lethal approaches. Games which incorporate stealth, such as those from the Deus Ex and Thief serieses often give bonuses when the player kills no one, which is typically much harder than killing. Role playing games such as those in the Fallout series often have ways to accomplish quests by persuasion or otherwise avoiding combat.