The media in this post is not displayed to visitors. To view it, please log in.

What happens when a traditional board game company decides to break into electronic gaming? Well, if it were a UK gaming company in 1978, the result would be a Waddingtons 2001 The Game Machine that you can see in the video from [Re:Enthused] below.
The “deluxe console model” had four complete games: a shooting gallery, blackjack, Code Hunter, and Grand Prix. But when you were done having fun, no worries. The machine was also a basic calculator with a very strange keyboard. We couldn’t find an original retail price on these, but we’ve read it probably sold for £20 to £40, which, in 1978, was more than it sounds like today.
Like a board game, there were paper score sheets. The main console had die-cut panels to decorate the very tiny screen (which looks like a very simple vacuum fluorescent display) and provide labels for the buttons. While it isn’t very impressive today, it was quite the thing in 1978.
This would be a fun machine to clone and quite easy, given the current state of the art in most hacker labs. A 3D-printed case, color laser-printed overlays, and just about any processor you have lying around would make this a weekend project.
It is easy to forget how wowed people were by games like this when they were new. Then again, we don’t remember any of those games having a calculator.
As a side note, Waddingtons was most famous for their special production of Monopoly games at the request of MI9 during World War II. The games contained silk maps, money, and other aids to help prisoners of war escape.
youtube.com/embed/QMk79fnd0VE?…
hackaday.com/2026/01/22/a-1970…
Pontiff Fractal Tiam
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •xyhhx 🔻
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •Filippo Valsorda
in reply to xyhhx 🔻 • • •xyhhx 🔻
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •Filippo Valsorda
in reply to xyhhx 🔻 • • •@xyhhx so you should not hear them out to figure out if there is a security issue you need to fix to protect your users (which are not the same population as your developer community)?
I don't know what the right answer is exactly, but I am pretty sure it is more nuanced than this.
xyhhx 🔻
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •i did say you should still be triaging their reports (so long as it's in good faith etc), just bearing in mind what you know of them if anything at all
with regards to your community, the coc should always be respected for your community's safety
tbf it wasn't clear to me that your users and your community aren't the same population
Raphaël Vinot
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •When a dickhead shows up in a place (online/offline), and breaks a code of conduct, it is preferable that someone handles it and at least attempts to deescalate the situation. That person needs to have the capacity at that time to handle the situation and nobody else needs to be dragged in the conversation.
Typically, as a white CIS dude, I'll take care of the racist/sexist asshole and *not* throw my queer black colleague under the bus
Daenney
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •Filippo Valsorda
in reply to Daenney • • •@ohno so to be clear you would just block them and lock the thread and stop replying to the emails to security@ before they could finish discussing the apparently valid security issue which threatens your users' security?
I don't know what the right answer is exactly, but I am pretty sure it is more nuanced than this.
Özgür Kesim
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •I'm afraid you won't get more nuanced answers, when the problem statement is only captured with broad brush strokes.
It is not clear from your toot what the CoC states, how that person violated it, why or how your community's safety is affected, what the potential risks and damages are if not engaging with that person. I think a nuanced approach would depend on answers to those questions.
Have you tried reaching out to other maintainers of similar systems and with similar CoCs and asked them for advice directly, also providing more context?
Simon Ser
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •Filippo Valsorda
in reply to Simon Ser • • •@emersion big contributors and leadership positions are high-power roles that have nothing to do with a drive-by security reporter that is volunteering information that might be relevant to your users' security, who trust you.
I don't know what the answer is but it's not this simple.
Sumana Harihareswara
in reply to Filippo Valsorda • • •Filippo Valsorda
in reply to Sumana Harihareswara • • •Filippo Valsorda
Unknown parent • • •