A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

[littleike]

ORIGINAL: actrade


While I can't speak for Erik and Matrix, I would venture a guess that civility on the forums doesn't end with posting questionable photos. I believe they understand that to grow their business, they are trying to lay the groundwork for a more welcoming community, be it what's posted in text or in photos. Ultimately, they run a business and these forums exist here to promote and help sell their games, period. If we believe their are too heavy-handed in their moderation, we are free to head to reddit or other boards without much if any moderation. However, that only serves to further dilute our genre.

Well i heard many times this refrain: Syltherine own the game so if you don't agree with their policy you are free to go elsewhere.

Despite the necessary control over the forum that i consider necessay i want to say that if this community would have not been devoted to this game from its origin till now and lost time and time to help correcting explaining and implementing it instead of throwing the cd toward the wall due to the mass of errors and mistakes it has in its original releases few business could have been done today.

Starting from uncommon valour to Witp to WitpAE i think none game in history has had this mass of contribution from loyal buyers (read well...buyers). To give the right merit Matrix has always done the maximum effort to correct and implement new functions giving an unvaluable support to users and making this one if not the best wargame on the market today. This still happens and is a really merit of Matrix.

So i think that this community from the first to the last who posted here deserve a bit of respect, at least not throwing always to it "game is mine and i do what i want with it and if you don't agree go" every time there is to discuss something.

The experience of Edmon on Steam has probabily made him to not to correctly judge this forum and i think that if he really is a gamer he will be more focalized in the future on how to make the game grow better instead of searching what definitely is not here.

Let me remember that the closed thread that originates everything was a clearly OT not widespread on the matrix forum and that also into that there were not only borderline content of doubt if not bad taste but other stuff made for the community that had nothing of obscenity to merit a suddenly closure!! Internet is full of sites with porno or womens sexification, really someone can think that one will come here to find some analogous??

This is one of the most correct community site i have ever seen in internet till now and i think there is no much to sanitize here!!

Speaking of Alfred i think that he had really terrified Matrix and Siltheryne business with his acting toward new users and i think this has been the main reason he has been banned so quickly. It's an understandable choice from the point of view of a company who has to make result at end of the year. Maybe he was so addicted to his role to not have seen this side of the story but i think he couldn't be so blind to not take this thing in serious examination.

I hope he and MarkShoot also both will be back here because i am sure they can give an invaluable help to all who try to learn this game at best.
I am confident that if their previous frequentation was due at first to help users they will be back sooner or later; if only they were here to feed their ego we will no more see them but let me say that at that point it will not be a great loss.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

See my previous comments regarding on post #31 regarding questions being asked, but I neglected to there those cases where there were accusations of a bug or something being broken, when there was a failure of comprehension.

On the YouTube comment, any moderately experienced player would agree that quality of the video in question was certainly indicative of someone at an intermediate level of play - presenting it as being more authoritative than it actually is would, in the long run, be detrimental to the community.

As said, Alfred's knowledge and contribution to this forum should not have given him a free pass - though as in the case of Symon, it did give him too much room to continually act poorly without sanction, and for too long - as though he were an untouchable.

It's interesting that you draw that comparison between those two individuals, but you're only considering the superficial level. If you were to look beyond that superficial level, you may just hit on the commonality between the two.

As for the 'without warning' comment. Well that may be true (I don't know whether PM's were exchanged and Admiral DadMan's warning was only a short while before Erik's post). But given Alfred's repeat offending and total inability to admit he ever did anything wrong, I think this would have made no difference to the outcome.

There's no may about it - it's there for all to see.

Given that in post #16 you call for fair application of rules in all cases, and avoiding preferential treatment, then you should likely show be more concerned.

The issue is the inconsistent application of the process rather than the outcome in itself. I would hope that you can see why that's a problem.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

warspite1

Demonstrably false? So you use the example of local tipping custom to evidence rudeness in conversing (by word or written form). That is not helpful and one may say disingenuous.

I have conversed with a great many on this forum, Britons, Americans, Germans, French, Japanese, Russians... the list goes on. It is not difficult to make sufficient effort to ensure that one's comments aren't seen as rude. On occasion it may not work - but that is the exception to the rule.

So many people find Alfred rude because... well he was, for a great many of his posts, insufferably rude.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

warspite1

Simple. Very simple. There was no reason WHATSOEVER for Alfred to write post 2 in response to MarkShot's post 1. As said, even Lokasenna was triggered to remark upon it. It was rude, unhelpful and not a little unhinged.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

See my previous comments regarding on post #31 regarding questions being asked, but I neglected to there those cases where there were accusations of a bug or something being broken, when there was a failure of comprehension.

On the YouTube comment, any moderately experienced player would agree that quality of the video in question was certainly indicative of someone at an intermediate level of play - presenting it as being more authoritative than it actually is would, in the long run, be detrimental to the community.

warspite1

I don't doubt - as has been made clear - that Alfred felt he had grounds for doubting the quality of the video. That is not the point. The point was quite clear and quite simple. The response to Tanaka's post was succinct.

"I'm Alfred, my intellect is colossal and you? YOU are stupid. You come here to post about a video YOU thought was helpful. How dare you. It was rubbish and you are clearly unable to comprehend this simple point".

There is simply no need for it.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

See my previous comments regarding on post #31 regarding questions being asked, but I neglected to there those cases where there were accusations of a bug or something being broken, when there was a failure of comprehension.

On the YouTube comment, any moderately experienced player would agree that quality of the video in question was certainly indicative of someone at an intermediate level of play - presenting it as being more authoritative than it actually is would, in the long run, be detrimental to the community.

As said, Alfred's knowledge and contribution to this forum should not have given him a free pass - though as in the case of Symon, it did give him too much room to continually act poorly without sanction, and for too long - as though he were an untouchable.

It's interesting that you draw that comparison between those two individuals, but you're only considering the superficial level. If you were to look beyond that superficial level, you may just hit on the commonality between the two.

warspite1

Superficial level? Well I guess it depends on what importance you place on civility and treated people with respect.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What constitutes rudeness is a social construct, and will differ wildly depending on the social and cultural context.

Alfred's responses were, to my mind, the best example of being critical of the idea rather than the person expressing the idea.

I'd challenge you to find a single ad hominem attack from Alfred that wasn't provoked by the comments of another forum user. I wish you luck if you choose to embark on such a search.

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

See my previous comments regarding on post #31 regarding questions being asked, but I neglected to there those cases where there were accusations of a bug or something being broken, when there was a failure of comprehension.

On the YouTube comment, any moderately experienced player would agree that quality of the video in question was certainly indicative of someone at an intermediate level of play - presenting it as being more authoritative than it actually is would, in the long run, be detrimental to the community.

As said, Alfred's knowledge and contribution to this forum should not have given him a free pass - though as in the case of Symon, it did give him too much room to continually act poorly without sanction, and for too long - as though he were an untouchable.

It's interesting that you draw that comparison between those two individuals, but you're only considering the superficial level. If you were to look beyond that superficial level, you may just hit on the commonality between the two.

As for the 'without warning' comment. Well that may be true (I don't know whether PM's were exchanged and Admiral DadMan's warning was only a short while before Erik's post). But given Alfred's repeat offending and total inability to admit he ever did anything wrong, I think this would have made no difference to the outcome.

There's no may about it - it's there for all to see.

Given that in post #16 you call for fair application of rules in all cases, and avoiding preferential treatment, then you should likely show be more concerned.

The issue is the inconsistent application of the process rather than the outcome in itself. I would hope that you can see why that's a problem.

warspite1

My mistake. I didn't realise that you canvassed ADM, Erik and others on that thread to ensure there were no PM's behind the scenes. Clearly you have all the facts about that thread and what transpired between all parties.

But assuming you are correct, I am not defending a rule that was not enforced. What I did say (and this wouldn't make the non-application correct) is that it is 99% certain that there was no different effect. Quite simply Alfred was never ever wrong about anything - and his subsequent comments to Erik confirm that.

[RangerJoe]

I agree with mind_messing, rudeness is based on context. As an example, burping at the table after a meal is considered rude in some places yet is a compliment at other places. Tipping in Germany is giving the small change to the wait staff and not 15-20% of the cost of the meal. The language that some people use towards each other, especially military veterans with shared experiences, may make people wince but it is a sign of brotherly love.

[Sardaukar]

Yea, military persons tend to be universally quite foul-mouthed.

And no amount of education stops soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen etc. to draw d*cks on wall(s)....

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

With regard to Alfred being critical of the idea rather than the person:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Have a look at the first three posts. Even Lokasenna felt the need to intervene. This was not a one-off, this was not Alfred on a bad day. This was Alfred.

To be frank, that was an appropriate admonishment to MarkShot, who (if you remember the wider context) had been making a number of posts that, if you were being generous, you could describe as low effort. This from someone who was up front about the fact they hadn't purchased the game and certainly gave off quite a negative impression overall to myself and others.

Note, importantly, the ad hominem attack that appears in post 4, and others in subsequent posts.

Do you think that Alfred's pointed simile merited such ad hominem attacks? I certainly don't.

Too many times he would stamp on, in particular (though not limited to) newbies. For what? Because the newbie dared ask a question? Because the newbie didn't read the manual? Because a poster posted a link to a You Tube video he thought helpful? You seriously think many of these weren't ad hominem attacks? They were, albeit thinly veiled.

See my previous comments regarding on post #31 regarding questions being asked, but I neglected to there those cases where there were accusations of a bug or something being broken, when there was a failure of comprehension.

On the YouTube comment, any moderately experienced player would agree that quality of the video in question was certainly indicative of someone at an intermediate level of play - presenting it as being more authoritative than it actually is would, in the long run, be detrimental to the community.

As said, Alfred's knowledge and contribution to this forum should not have given him a free pass - though as in the case of Symon, it did give him too much room to continually act poorly without sanction, and for too long - as though he were an untouchable.

It's interesting that you draw that comparison between those two individuals, but you're only considering the superficial level. If you were to look beyond that superficial level, you may just hit on the commonality between the two.

As for the 'without warning' comment. Well that may be true (I don't know whether PM's were exchanged and Admiral DadMan's warning was only a short while before Erik's post). But given Alfred's repeat offending and total inability to admit he ever did anything wrong, I think this would have made no difference to the outcome.

There's no may about it - it's there for all to see.

Given that in post #16 you call for fair application of rules in all cases, and avoiding preferential treatment, then you should likely show be more concerned.

The issue is the inconsistent application of the process rather than the outcome in itself. I would hope that you can see why that's a problem.

warspite1

My mistake. I didn't realise that you canvassed ADM, Erik and others on that thread to ensure there were no PM's behind the scenes. Clearly you have all the facts about that thread and what transpired between all parties.

But assuming you are correct, I am not defending a rule that was not enforced. What I did say (and this wouldn't make the non-application correct) is that it is 99% certain that there was no different effect. Quite simply Alfred was never ever wrong about anything - and his subsequent comments to Erik confirm that.

I do know that Alfred was incorrect on one occasion if not others, But in his defense, I do not know if the information had changed in an update.

As far as his comments to Erik after his unwarned ban, I have not seen them. To my knowledge, they were never made public. If you know where they were publicized, and not just commented upon, then please post a link.

[DD696]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yea, military persons tend to be universally quite foul-mouthed.

And no amount of education stops soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen etc. to draw d*cks on wall(s)....

Hey, I'm a Vietnam veteran. I'm used to being praised by people such as you. Please throw some more cheap shots at veterans.

This is a perfect example of why many people choose to read the forums rather to participate and join in. When people such as this and Alfred are free to say things such as this, and are never called on it, does not make these forums a place where people care to join in.

Come on, Sardaukar. Surely you can do better than that at insulting veterans.

Sorry, Vietnam era veteran. Never served in Vietnam.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

With regard to the idea that rudeness is a social construct. No, its really not, and its really quite simple. Rudeness is rudeness. To suggest otherwise simply encourages and enables rude behaviour from those inclined to act that way.

Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

warspite1

Demonstrably false? So you use the example of local tipping custom to evidence rudeness in conversing (by word or written form). That is not helpful and one may say disingenuous.

I have conversed with a great many on this forum, Britons, Americans, Germans, French, Japanese, Russians... the list goes on. It is not difficult to make sufficient effort to ensure that one's comments aren't seen as rude. On occasion it may not work - but that is the exception to the rule.

Having had such a wide conversation, then you certainly should have noted certain differences in conversational patterns and norms.

If you wish a direct example, consider the directness in conversation that you find common in many European cultures, which can often be perceived as being abrupt to the point of rudeness in the Anglosphere. Inverted, the tendency for the Anglosphere to prevaricate and approach topics indirectly can be perceived as dissimulation and rude as a result.

So many people find Alfred rude because... well he was, for a great many of his posts, insufferably rude.

No, Alfred was misliked because he was, with exceptional consistency, right and they were wrong.

No level of saccharin coating would have mitigated this, as you'll find those taking that view certainly lacked the maturity to accept that there might be someone out there with more insight into the topic than they possessed.

Simple. Very simple. There was no reason WHATSOEVER for Alfred to write post 2 in response to MarkShot's post 1. As said, even Lokasenna was triggered to remark upon it. It was rude, unhelpful and not a little unhinged.

I'll disagree here; the opening question, when combined with previous questions and the admission of not buying the game certainly gave an impression of being vexatious. Combined with the fact that the information itself was relatively low hanging fruit simply adds to this.

I don't doubt - as has been made clear - that Alfred felt he had grounds for doubting the quality of the video. That is not the point. The point was quite clear and quite simple. The response to Tanaka's post was succinct.

"I'm Alfred, my intellect is colossal and you? YOU are stupid. You come here to post about a video YOU thought was helpful. How dare you. It was rubbish and you are clearly unable to comprehend this simple point.

There is simply no need for it.

Now here's a question, have you ever seen Alfred chest-thumping regarding intellect? Good luck finding any.

The sentiment expressed in the initial promotion of that YouTube video series was completely out of sync with the actual quality of the content.

Alfred highlighted how newer players evidently seemed to be fooled by this, but any experienced players would be able to discern the truth.

It's a well known trend at this point that AE doesn't lend itself well to long format YouTube videos and that the quality suffers as a result.

Again, not sure if you feel the need for this sentiment to have further saccharine applied to it.

Superficial level? Well I guess it depends on what importance you place on civility and treated people with respect.

Ah, now we get at the rub of the matter. Consider telling someone that they are incorrect. How do you balance that with civility and respect?

Note the above comments on saccharine.

It's a lose/lose. Nobody likes to be told their wrong, regardless of the setting. Much easier to handwave it away as "Alfred is rude" than to have a deeper reflection that will challenge established notions about knowledge of game mechanics.

My mistake. I didn't realise that you canvassed ADM, Erik and others on that thread to ensure there were no PM's behind the scenes. Clearly you have all the facts about that thread and what transpired between all parties.

I shouldn't need to canvass anyone. See previous posts in the other thread regarding Matrix policy re: warnings. Do you see that being enacted in the thread in question?

Worth pointing out that there were others that made similar comments in the immediate aftermath of that thread.

Quite simply Alfred was never ever wrong about anything - and his subsequent comments to Erik confirm that.

This may shock the system somewhat, but there are people that think before they post online. Alfred certainly was one of those.

Can you recall an instance where Alfred was wrong? In all my years on the forum, I can recall maybeone borderline incident involving night bombing, but even then Alfred had the correct understanding and a missing text string was the real issue.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

I agree with mind_messing, rudeness is based on context. As an example, burping at the table after a meal is considered rude in some places yet is a compliment at other places. Tipping in Germany is giving the small change to the wait staff and not 15-20% of the cost of the meal. The language that some people use towards each other, especially military veterans with shared experiences, may make people wince but it is a sign of brotherly love.

warspite1

More comment on local manners and customs. Great, but not relevant to this topic about rudeness when communicating.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yea, military persons tend to be universally quite foul-mouthed.

And no amount of education stops soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen etc. to draw d*cks on wall(s)....

warspite1

I shall remember that when conversing with an ex-miltary person on this forum I shall need to swear repeatedly and ensure a copy of a penis is included with my post [;)]

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: DD696

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yea, military persons tend to be universally quite foul-mouthed.

And no amount of education stops soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen etc. to draw d*cks on wall(s)....

Hey, I'm a Vietnam veteran. I'm used to being praised by people such as you. Please throw some more cheap shots at veterans.

This is a perfect example of why many people choose to read the forums rather to participate and join in. When people such as this and Alfred are free to say things such as this, and are never called on it, does not make these forums a place where people care to join in.

Come on, Sardaukar. Surely you can do better than that at insulting veterans.

Sorry, Vietnam era veteran. Never served in Vietnam.

I have served too, though not in Vietnam, so I think I know what I have seen on barrack toilets. Those drawings are almost universal.[8D]

Nothing to do with "insulting" veterans, young guys in that environment are what they are. [:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

As far as his comments to Erik after his unwarned ban, I have not seen them. To my knowledge, they were never made public. If you know where they were publicized, and not just commented upon, then please post a link.

warspite1

I am pretty sure they were not publicised, why would they be? But are you suggesting Erik is lying? For what purpose?

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I have served too, though not in Vietnam, so I think I know what I have seen on barrack toilets. Those drawings are almost universal.[8D]

Nothing to do with "insulting" veterans, young guys in that environment are what they are. [:D]

I highlighted the important part. I was in the military too AND lived in a college dorm. The dorm was wayyyyyy worse.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




Demonstrably false, as anyone with even superficial exposure of other cultures will be able to tell you.

For a simple example, consider tipping when paying for a meal. In the UK and US, considered a generous act to acknowledge excellent service. In some Asian countries, likely to be seen as exceptionally rude.

I'd be interested in any proof you may be able to provide to support your claim, as if true it would certainly have rolled back decades of sociology.

warspite1

Demonstrably false? So you use the example of local tipping custom to evidence rudeness in conversing (by word or written form). That is not helpful and one may say disingenuous.

I have conversed with a great many on this forum, Britons, Americans, Germans, French, Japanese, Russians... the list goes on. It is not difficult to make sufficient effort to ensure that one's comments aren't seen as rude. On occasion it may not work - but that is the exception to the rule.

Having had such a wide conversation, then you certainly should have noted certain differences in conversational patterns and norms.

If you wish a direct example, consider the directness in conversation that you find common in many European cultures, which can often be perceived as being abrupt to the point of rudeness in the Anglosphere. Inverted, the tendency for the Anglosphere to prevaricate and approach topics indirectly can be perceived as dissimulation and rude as a result.

So many people find Alfred rude because... well he was, for a great many of his posts, insufferably rude.

No, Alfred was misliked because he was, with exceptional consistency, right and they were wrong.

No level of saccharin coating would have mitigated this, as you'll find those taking that view certainly lacked the maturity to accept that there might be someone out there with more insight into the topic than they possessed.

Simple. Very simple. There was no reason WHATSOEVER for Alfred to write post 2 in response to MarkShot's post 1. As said, even Lokasenna was triggered to remark upon it. It was rude, unhelpful and not a little unhinged.

I'll disagree here; the opening question, when combined with previous questions and the admission of not buying the game certainly gave an impression of being vexatious. Combined with the fact that the information itself was relatively low hanging fruit simply adds to this.

I don't doubt - as has been made clear - that Alfred felt he had grounds for doubting the quality of the video. That is not the point. The point was quite clear and quite simple. The response to Tanaka's post was succinct.

"I'm Alfred, my intellect is colossal and you? YOU are stupid. You come here to post about a video YOU thought was helpful. How dare you. It was rubbish and you are clearly unable to comprehend this simple point.

There is simply no need for it.

Now here's a question, have you ever seen Alfred chest-thumping regarding intellect? Good luck finding any.

The sentiment expressed in the initial promotion of that YouTube video series was completely out of sync with the actual quality of the content.

Alfred highlighted how newer players evidently seemed to be fooled by this, but any experienced players would be able to discern the truth.

It's a well known trend at this point that AE doesn't lend itself well to long format YouTube videos and that the quality suffers as a result.

Again, not sure if you feel the need for this sentiment to have further saccharine applied to it.

Superficial level? Well I guess it depends on what importance you place on civility and treated people with respect.

Ah, now we get at the rub of the matter. Consider telling someone that they are incorrect. How do you balance that with civility and respect?

Note the above comments on saccharine.

It's a lose/lose. Nobody likes to be told their wrong, regardless of the setting. Much easier to handwave it away as "Alfred is rude" than to have a deeper reflection that will challenge established notions about knowledge of game mechanics.

My mistake. I didn't realise that you canvassed ADM, Erik and others on that thread to ensure there were no PM's behind the scenes. Clearly you have all the facts about that thread and what transpired between all parties.

I shouldn't need to canvass anyone. See previous posts in the other thread regarding Matrix policy re: warnings. Do you see that being enacted in the thread in question?

Worth pointing out that there were others that made similar comments in the immediate aftermath of that thread.

Quite simply Alfred was never ever wrong about anything - and his subsequent comments to Erik confirm that.

This may shock the system somewhat, but there are people that think before they post online. Alfred certainly was one of those.

Can you recall an instance where Alfred was wrong? In all my years on the forum, I can recall maybeone borderline incident involving night bombing, but even then Alfred had the correct understanding and a missing text string was the real issue.

warspite1

Well I am not going to engage in further pointless back and forth with you. We each have our thoughts on this and I am sure neither will be swayed by the other.

Moreover, I am certainly not going to waste any more time on someone who isn't even here. It is clear you believe Alfred beyond reproach, a character who was never wrong about anything and certainly never rude to anyone.

But of course that is nonsense and you clearly believe that certain people should be allowed to get away with rudeness (just because they happen to know about a game) - and/or because of their culture????

All I will say is in response to "can you recall an instance when Alfred was wrong". In terms of the game. No - I don't know enough about the game to know if he was wrong or not, but I would guess he was rarely if ever wrong. Do I know of Alfred being wrong about history generally? Yes, and on quite a number of occasions.

But this thread isn't about one person, so I'll leave it at that other than to say that its funny that so many consider him rude, Erik considered his rudeness worthy of a ban, but apparently he never was.....

[davidgillsol]

Eric- As a long time user of this forum I would just like to express my support of your post, despite not necessarily agreeing with all the decisions made.
At the end of the day this is a Matrix forum, and they are your rules to apply. If we don't like them we can go elsewhere, which is our own choice.
I think part of the problem, having been on this forum since before WITPAE was published is that a group who are constantly on it begin to believe, not unreasonably, that it it "their forum" and what the group decides goes. That is only the case if we own the forum.
I agree with the analogy drawn of its the difference between meeting in your own home with a group of friends when you can mutually agree what is acceptable or not,and who is invited, or meeting in a coffee shop (or being British, a pub!), where you conduct comes down to what the owner tolerates, and you don't have control over who is around you and can hear what you are discussing.

At the end of the day this is a computer game- I will reserve my ire for the mistakes I make in PBEM games when I send my BB's on a bombardment mission and they run into a convoy, get delayed and end the turn in bombing range of the US airfield...

[DesertWolf101]

1) To state the obvious, Alfred is extremely knowledgeable about the game and has contributed greatly to our shared understanding of how it works behind the hood.
2) Alfred has been nothing but kind to me since I arrived on the forum. He has been crucial in helping me comprehend the game mechanics through his previous public posts, his numerous direct posts on my AARs, and his private messages. My initial enjoyment and success in the game owe a considerable amount to him. He has also been kind, generous, and effusive in his praise.
3) Alfred has been actively and unfairly attacked in the past, often in crude and uncalled for ways. His contributions have also been pilloried and underappreciated by those who knew a lot less about how the game worked. On numerous occasions his responses where fully justified within their context.
4) Both Alfred and I live in the same country and I am very well aware of what is considered rude here and what is not.

With the context of the above points, I will not hesitate to state that there is no doubt in my mind that Alfred has in the past been unjustly and unnecessarily rude, especially to new members who were asking innocent if perhaps ignorant questions. I noticed this long before he was banned, and I regret not privately messaging him about it.

None of us are perfect and Alfred is no exception. The fact that he was underappreciated does not absolve him of all responsibility. It is my sincere wish that he would come back to the forum and the lack of his presence is a detriment to all of us. However, Alfred also needs to be able to see where he was wrong and to be able to accept Erik's generous olive branch and accept the forum's rules. Civility is a precondition for all of us, no matter our knowledge.