Well, a game that isn't supported YET. Why isn't the game supported? Because it transports political messages that are controversial to our modern politics? No, the game is just not supported YET, but there is a chance that it will be in future.
A CNN trick for the public of low concentration, ha-ha. You're a likable fellow.
Instead of using tricks and rethorical shortcuts be sure of the things you promote. Don't see why are you adding up apples and pears, and I would prefer if you don't mix the order of action and reaction. Simply, don't be silly.
I agree with you with lots of the bits, but don't see how it's connected to my quote and what do you prove by this (without making myself, baseless assumption, that is). It isn't supported yet and that's a reason EVEN less to let political discussion be the main topic, as it's even less related to the project than an actual supported game.
And the discussion is not just about comparing recent interpretation of history to those when it was current politics. The discussion is also about whether making this difference is correct and the interpretation in the game suits the public opinion by that time.
Doesn't make much difference in terms of politicality. Where there's a hundred people, there's a hundred cases. Generalization is quite damaging to a historian. E.g. "Public view" is a sloppy term, many people get a way with it these days. Even the weaselly public media has different views on a micro event, especially in the past, not to mention thoughts on a whole period or longer crisis, and the same thing interpreted later on by many many historians, uh, you get a whole chaotic universe of views. And because of that active political forces use that for their ideology to present history as it suits them, and every faction has more or less an agreement on historical interpretative propaganda, and even that's only on some key points and that is messy.
You mentioned the historical sources you read, that's indeed interesting. But one should have in mind that the sources might have a great degree of bias because propaganda, all sorts of ignorance, limited scope of view that influenced the source, and your own bias, from the historian e.g. of not knowing the context of the era enough and every case in history is unique when giving them consideration. Sources are helpful indeed, but if you know how to use them and if you don't take things for sure and for granted, as they are just traces of history.
Who is to choose what is right and what is wrong when dealing with the unknown what is forever lost through time? I say let the individual decide. Well, in reality, some sort of authority and that's where politics step in, and certain individuals tailor it for their purposes. They choose the sources they want, make presumptions facts, they even make stories and fables out of it
etc. all sorts of fabrication happen.
Either facts that everyone agrees on (or near it), or we are talking about ideas and spreading those same ideas becomes an ideology, and we surely have politics. Its hard to expect the prior, so rule #14 can be considered is indeed broken, especially if it's the main subject of converse of a game isn't privileged project-specific in any way (yet), and such discussion should take place in a different forum, on history or silk stockings