Originally posted by Drongo
Another voice of reason.
Forget it. Unfortunately, this is a "real world" public forum, egos and all.
I've been posting here since the middle of last year. When I first started, I naively thougth that threads were called threads because they followed some logical path related to the topic. Doesn't normally happen past the first dozen posts. By then someone's normally managed to step on an ego and it's on.
The good news is that no poster has ever been physically injured during the making of any virtual bunfight and that at some point, the dust settles and people can get back to business (till the next time).
So, all I can suggest is be patient and let virtual nature run it's course.
AGENDA'S RULE!!!!
There is no mechanism to avoid this phenom.
To me realism is the most important feature of a projected game.
Otherwise, whatis the point of playing?
However my view of realism, as you can see, is anathema to certain type of personalities. Not because I am wrong or they correct, but apparently because of 'expression'.
The presentation of an idea apparently is more important than the idea itself.
The actual point presented is delibretly drowned out by personalities offended by the presentation.
To present an idea, w/o resistance, requires that you jump through the hoops of the objecting personality. This is where
the fight starts. If I dont hold his 'hurdles' to be valid, then he becomes offended. BUT If I were to jump the hurdles, then that would tend to validate them. I have no desire to validate hurdles
that I dont respect.
That is why I do not normally do such things. For me to yield
unconditionaly, I need evidence that my position is either wrong,
OR that an opposing position is correct.
I see no such evidence. In fact I see a stubborn delibrete obtuseness, in defence of METHOD over idea.
To me such pendatic reasoning is tiresome, especially when it contradicts known events.
From one perspective, my opinion is only validated if I show a superior weight of statistical information? That is absurd.
Statistics show whatever the user WANTS them to show.
To me the evidence of an actual event outweighs 'theory', it is called empiricism.
Mdeihl gains far more in my view by correctly stating that at
Savo island the crews were tired. That is of course TRUE.
They were tired. But fatigue CAN be added to the model.
In fact it already IS modeled in the Air units.
But quoting reams of statistics that have no actual direct bearing
is simply smoke screen for the real agenda.
If I dont respect the agenda, I surely dont respect the smoke screen.
If the only choice is either NOT promoting a point of view,
or stepping on the toes of some ego, then for me, there is no choice to make.
For me the game system MUST be able to duplicate real events,
OR we are simply playing an elaborate form of checkers.
“It is clear that the individual who persecutes a man, his brother, because he is not of the same opinion, is a monster.”
Voltaire
'For those with faith, no proof is needed. For those without faith, no proof is enough'
French Priest
"Statistic
