A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

I am not trawling through the forum to get specific incidences as ‘proof’ as M_M unhelpfully suggests.

Quelle surprise.

Alfred is rude, yet of evidence to point to this, there is naught but the sound of crickets.

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

There are couple of posters who have had kind of feud with Alfred. Who they are is kind of obvious from posts. You are not one of them, warspite1 [8D]

warspite1

Ah okay - but just for the sake of clarity and good order - I too have had my 'moments' with Alfred. I hope (and of course believe) that I am mature enough that these have not clouded my judgement here.

The disgreements we've had are not to do with this game, but more generally. However, my beef with Alfred is not that he and I disagreed on some things - its the unbearable rudeness to others he often exhibited.

We all have our lines in the sand. Rudeness is one of mine.

Ah, and now we are getting closer to the nub of the whole matter, which promotes a logic of:

"Alfred was critical of the ideas I expressed on past occasions, therefore he was a rude person."

This logic is flawed, and quite revealing in terms of who is able to make the distinction between a critique of the person and a critique of the ideas expressed.

Now, for a further question to the gallery - does a critique of an idea constitute rudeness?

ORIGINAL: warspite1

But re your first post, why do you say that Alfred's posts were meant to be 'witty'. Acerbic? Yes, but there was no trace of humour evident when engaged in putting down posters. Was his response to MarkShot witty? If so, where was the humour?

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the use of a simile.

In the specific context you mention, a simile of youthful, impulsive enthusiasm was used to point out the quite misplaced nature of MarkShot's questioning in it's wider context.

[actrade]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Odd, how in the above posts I predicted that evidence would be hard it materialising. What a surprise to see that prediction come true!

I won't rise to the obvious bait regarding hero worship etc, in so far to say that the collective memory of the forum is evidently very short.

It's certainly not encouraging to see the alacrity with which forum users have turned to disparaging Alfred as soon as the possibility of Alfred giving an account of his own actions is removed.

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

I'm not baiting you into anything, I don't have a short memory and I'm not disparaging Alfred either - please don't misinterpret and distort my posts deliberately and stop putting words in my mouth. I fully recognise the value of Alfred's posts and his superior knowledge, he is a true "forum hero" and I have no feud or agenda against him. The difference between your opinion and mine is that apparently you see nothing wrong at all with Alfred, while I think that even a hero can have weaknesses. Being gifted with superior intellecual capacities shouldn't provide a free pass to treat others with contempt. Concerning the evidence you don't see materialising - that is a question of time restraints, not a lack of evidence. Alfred has made 6000+ posts, I don't have the time to search through that number of posts, and besides it is not even practically possible due to the restrictions of the forum search engine (max 300 results for example). His treatments of ScottyG, Alpha77, Tanaka, MarkShot are a few examples that come to mind, you can search the threads yourself. If this does not suffice, the ask yourself why - as warspite1 pointed out - other forumites have voiced the opinion that Alfred has been gruff, rude, arrogant etc. Don't get me wrong, most of Alfred's post are perfectly ok - but he has crossed the line of what is acceptable more than once. You may say that Alfred's victims have been asking for it by not doing their homework properly - but that is where our opinions start to differ. Yes, not doing your homework is a common failure, but that doesn't mean Alfred has the right to denigrate the culprits in a way that basically boils down to "you are stupid and I am the king". Even if it is true, Alfred could have chosen to express himself with more retraint and humbleness, or simply remained silent. He did not, and this stains his reputation and led to his ban.

Very well said sir.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Odd, how in the above posts I predicted that evidence would be hard it materialising. What a surprise to see that prediction come true!

I won't rise to the obvious bait regarding hero worship etc, in so far to say that the collective memory of the forum is evidently very short.

It's certainly not encouraging to see the alacrity with which forum users have turned to disparaging Alfred as soon as the possibility of Alfred giving an account of his own actions is removed.

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

I'm not baiting you into anything, I don't have a short memory and I'm not disparaging Alfred either - please don't misinterpret and distort my posts deliberately and stop putting words in my mouth. I fully recognise the value of Alfred's posts and his superior knowledge, he is a true "forum hero" and I have no feud or agenda against him. The difference between your opinion and mine is that apparently you see nothing wrong at all with Alfred, while I think that even a hero can have weaknesses. Being gifted with superior intellecual capacities shouldn't provide a free pass to treat others with contempt. Concerning the evidence you don't see materialising - that is a question of time restraints, not a lack of evidence. Alfred has made 6000+ posts, I don't have the time to search through that number of posts, and besides it is not even practically possible due to the restrictions of the forum search engine (max 300 results for example). His treatments of ScottyG, Alpha77, Tanaka, MarkShot are a few examples that come to mind, you can search the threads yourself. If this does not suffice, the ask yourself why - as warspite1 pointed out - other forumites have voiced the opinion that Alfred has been gruff, rude, arrogant etc. Don't get me wrong, most of Alfred's post are perfectly ok - but he has crossed the line of what is acceptable more than once. You may say that Alfred's victims have been asking for it by not doing their homework properly - but that is where our opinions start to differ. Yes, not doing your homework is a common failure, but that doesn't mean Alfred has the right to denigrate the culprits in a way that basically boils down to "you are stupid and I am the king". Even if it is true, Alfred could have chosen to express himself with more retraint and humbleness, or simply remained silent. He did not, and this stains his reputation and led to his ban.

And a failure that is quite evident here.

Take a moment to consider, if you will, the speed with which many have joined the chorus of "Alfred is rude".

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

How convenient that it is that accusers are unable or unwilling (forum engine limitations, or time constraints) to provide this evidence. How much easier to make the claim. What does proof or evidence of the charges matter, at the end of the day?

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

It takes a particular type of bravery to throw accusations at someone that can't speak to challenge them.

[warspite1]

Quite clearly there is no getting round it. I admit, you got me. Bang to rights. I'll come clean guv...

Fact is, Alfred and I had differences of opinion of a few occasions. I was so upset, and so unable to accept this that I decided to pretend that Alfred was often unacceptably rude to people on this forum.

Of course it never happened and what you suggested is the truth in your post 5 is, in fact, the real version of events.

I would just like to thank you M_M for helping me see the error of my ways. I just hope that Erik and others come clean too now that you have exposed the biggest conspiracy since the moon landings.

[Zovs]

Poppycock

[Zovs]

Alfred may have had a wealth of information but he is gone and most likely will never return due to his own choosing.

It’s time to move on.

[Phoenix100]

I think that was irony on Warspite's part, Zovs.....

Alfred was stunningly rude more recently. I was very surprised. I myself have never suffered it from him (or not that I noticed) - he was always very helpful in responding to my queries. But his recent posts, that I read recently, were terrible, I thought. I certainly support Erik's actions, for what its worth, and I'm glad Mark raised the issue with him. Fwiw I'm also pleased that all the vaguely (or overtly, on occasion) sexist stuff is being reined-in, though I myself never used those OT threads, it did sometimes spill over.

But I also wish - with you Zovs - it would all just go away now. I can't see any point in having it going on and on in here, so that every time I come here to read stuff about the actual game all I see is this stuff going round and round. Personally, I wish Edmon would simply lock and delete every single off topic thread, instantly, including this one.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

I think that was irony on Warspite's part, Zovs.....

Alfred was stunningly rude more recently. I was very surprised. I myself have never suffered it from him (or not that I noticed) - he was always very helpful in responding to my queries. But his recent posts, that I read recently, were terrible, I thought. I certainly support Erik's actions, for what its worth, and I'm glad Mark raised the issue with him. Fwiw I'm also pleased that all the vaguely (or overtly, on occasion) sexist stuff is being reigned in, though I myself never used those OT threads, it did sometimes spill over.

But I also wish - with you Zovs - it would all just go away now. I can't see any point in having it going on and on in here, so that every time I come here to read stuff about the actual game all I see is this stuff going round and round.

warspite1

I agree Phoenix100. I think after all the immediate locking of threads (and the furore that caused with some) Matrix decided to keep these current threads open over the weekend and they would eventually blow themselves out. If not then Matrix will likely close them, but they didn't want to be seen as heavy handed. That's my read.

When this happened in the GD forum, it all went away pretty quickly, but then there was no sacred cows being mourned over. As far as I know, one long time poster threatened to leave the forum as a result of the new policies - and went through with it. Again that is just my guess from what I've seen and who I still see post.

At the end of the day, this is Matrix forums, its their rules. I was the creator of the Australian Beauties thread. One can see how popular it was from the hits and posts. But it doesn't meet current thinking and so its gone. As a result I can sulk and leave the community or just accept it. I went with the former approach. There is much I don't agree with about where the world is headed - but so long as people keep doing things for the right reasons then fine. I have no problem with Matrix at all.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Odd, how in the above posts I predicted that evidence would be hard it materialising. What a surprise to see that prediction come true!

I won't rise to the obvious bait regarding hero worship etc, in so far to say that the collective memory of the forum is evidently very short.

It's certainly not encouraging to see the alacrity with which forum users have turned to disparaging Alfred as soon as the possibility of Alfred giving an account of his own actions is removed.

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

I'm not baiting you into anything, I don't have a short memory and I'm not disparaging Alfred either - please don't misinterpret and distort my posts deliberately and stop putting words in my mouth. I fully recognise the value of Alfred's posts and his superior knowledge, he is a true "forum hero" and I have no feud or agenda against him. The difference between your opinion and mine is that apparently you see nothing wrong at all with Alfred, while I think that even a hero can have weaknesses. Being gifted with superior intellecual capacities shouldn't provide a free pass to treat others with contempt. Concerning the evidence you don't see materialising - that is a question of time restraints, not a lack of evidence. Alfred has made 6000+ posts, I don't have the time to search through that number of posts, and besides it is not even practically possible due to the restrictions of the forum search engine (max 300 results for example). His treatments of ScottyG, Alpha77, Tanaka, MarkShot are a few examples that come to mind, you can search the threads yourself. If this does not suffice, the ask yourself why - as warspite1 pointed out - other forumites have voiced the opinion that Alfred has been gruff, rude, arrogant etc. Don't get me wrong, most of Alfred's post are perfectly ok - but he has crossed the line of what is acceptable more than once. You may say that Alfred's victims have been asking for it by not doing their homework properly - but that is where our opinions start to differ. Yes, not doing your homework is a common failure, but that doesn't mean Alfred has the right to denigrate the culprits in a way that basically boils down to "you are stupid and I am the king". Even if it is true, Alfred could have chosen to express himself with more retraint and humbleness, or simply remained silent. He did not, and this stains his reputation and led to his ban.

And a failure that is quite evident here.

Take a moment to consider, if you will, the speed with which many have joined the chorus of "Alfred is rude".

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

How convenient that it is that accusers are unable or unwilling (forum engine limitations, or time constraints) to provide this evidence. How much easier to make the claim. What does proof or evidence of the charges matter, at the end of the day?

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

It takes a particular type of bravery to throw accusations at someone that can't speak to challenge them.

Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban. If you would do your homework, you would see that remarks from various forumites that Alfred can be rude and derogatory have started well before his ban - he has had the opportunity to defend himself. And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Enough of this.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



I'm not baiting you into anything, I don't have a short memory and I'm not disparaging Alfred either - please don't misinterpret and distort my posts deliberately and stop putting words in my mouth. I fully recognise the value of Alfred's posts and his superior knowledge, he is a true "forum hero" and I have no feud or agenda against him. The difference between your opinion and mine is that apparently you see nothing wrong at all with Alfred, while I think that even a hero can have weaknesses. Being gifted with superior intellecual capacities shouldn't provide a free pass to treat others with contempt. Concerning the evidence you don't see materialising - that is a question of time restraints, not a lack of evidence. Alfred has made 6000+ posts, I don't have the time to search through that number of posts, and besides it is not even practically possible due to the restrictions of the forum search engine (max 300 results for example). His treatments of ScottyG, Alpha77, Tanaka, MarkShot are a few examples that come to mind, you can search the threads yourself. If this does not suffice, the ask yourself why - as warspite1 pointed out - other forumites have voiced the opinion that Alfred has been gruff, rude, arrogant etc. Don't get me wrong, most of Alfred's post are perfectly ok - but he has crossed the line of what is acceptable more than once. You may say that Alfred's victims have been asking for it by not doing their homework properly - but that is where our opinions start to differ. Yes, not doing your homework is a common failure, but that doesn't mean Alfred has the right to denigrate the culprits in a way that basically boils down to "you are stupid and I am the king". Even if it is true, Alfred could have chosen to express himself with more retraint and humbleness, or simply remained silent. He did not, and this stains his reputation and led to his ban.

And a failure that is quite evident here.

Take a moment to consider, if you will, the speed with which many have joined the chorus of "Alfred is rude".

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

How convenient that it is that accusers are unable or unwilling (forum engine limitations, or time constraints) to provide this evidence. How much easier to make the claim. What does proof or evidence of the charges matter, at the end of the day?

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

It takes a particular type of bravery to throw accusations at someone that can't speak to challenge them.

Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban. If you would do your homework, you would see that remarks from various forumites that Alfred can be rude and derogatory have started well before his ban - he has had the opportunity to defend himself. And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Enough of this.

warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing




And a failure that is quite evident here.

Take a moment to consider, if you will, the speed with which many have joined the chorus of "Alfred is rude".

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

How convenient that it is that accusers are unable or unwilling (forum engine limitations, or time constraints) to provide this evidence. How much easier to make the claim. What does proof or evidence of the charges matter, at the end of the day?

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

It takes a particular type of bravery to throw accusations at someone that can't speak to challenge them.

Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban. If you would do your homework, you would see that remarks from various forumites that Alfred can be rude and derogatory have started well before his ban - he has had the opportunity to defend himself. And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Enough of this.

warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

That link went to a thread where a Claude unit was not scheduled to upgrade but would be withdrawn in April. The game being played was a "PDU OFF" game which means that a player could not upgrade it and would have to pay a penalty for not withdrawing the unit.

So in Alfred's response he refers to a question as "stupid" but does not state that about the person posting said question. To which the reply was: "Thanks for your help! I may be stupid but at least I'm not a jerk! . . . " Which to me is actually calling Alfred a jerk.

Then someone else chimes in " . . . Ignore Alfred he is a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers." Which was uncalled for as well. Not to mention other things like:
" . . . smooth brain . . . " which has been shown to be of a low intellect, the more convoluted the brain, the more complex the intelligence.

Then the original poster wrote; "Ok does it have anything to do with the fact that it says it is "not scheduled to be upgraded"?" Which does explain the entire problem in a PDU OFF game.

Then someone else wrote "Dou yourself a favour and just ignore the narcistic jerker. . . . " Which is always useful . . .

There are more but . . .

Nowhere in there did Alfred post more than once yet the personal attacks kept coming. Then a person wonders why nothing was done at the time other than "cool it." I can understand where someone would get more ascerbic as things went on in other threads. I actually understand the humor of what he was stating to Markshot (a ringer) when he wanted all of the bells and whistles before he even bought the game . . .

[mind_messing]

Excellent, after 109 posts we at last have evidence to consider!

Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban.

What I will say is that in many legal settings, the onus is typically on the accuser to provide the evidence as to the charge. In layman's terms, innocent until proven guilty. One would think that with 6000+ posts there should be no shortage of posts in evidence, forum limitations notwithstanding.

And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Absolutely not mutually exclusive. I should hope the distinction between evidence in support of a point and a personal attack would be clear.

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Yes, lets.

1. Unreservedly false. Compare Alfred's statement in post #34 with the subsequent post by Andy Mac. Also consider, if you will, the nuance that seems to be missed in Alfred's post. The distinction between asking a "stupid question" (Alfred's comment, directed at the substance of Tanaka's post) and being a "stupid person" (Tanaka's own statement which is introduced in post #10, which would have been a personal attack) is clear.

2. Worth taking a moment to compile the accusations and attacks. Alfred is:
- "a jerk" (post 10)
- "a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers" (post 11)
- implied that he possesses a "smooth brain". Read: Lissencephaly (post 13)
- a "narcistic jerker" (post 31)
- referred to as "google search boy" (post 45)
- subject to aspersions involving child abuse and needing mental help (post 49)

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

See point 1 above. Clearly not an ad hominem attack.

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

No one (hopefully) is suggesting that what followed was correct, and was certainly against forum rules. That is for the mod to have sorted.

But funny, all those people - many of whom are respected members of the community - have all made up Alfred's inability on occasion to show respect to other people. They all reacted like that for no reason.....

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban. If you would do your homework, you would see that remarks from various forumites that Alfred can be rude and derogatory have started well before his ban - he has had the opportunity to defend himself. And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Enough of this.

warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

That link went to a thread where a Claude unit was not scheduled to upgrade but would be withdrawn in April. The game being played was a "PDU OFF" game which means that a player could not upgrade it and would have to pay a penalty for not withdrawing the unit.

So in Alfred's response he refers to a question as "stupid" but does not state that about the person posting said question. To which the reply was: "Thanks for your help! I may be stupid but at least I'm not a jerk! . . . " Which to me is actually calling Alfred a jerk.

Then someone else chimes in " . . . Ignore Alfred he is a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers." Which was uncalled for as well. Not to mention other things like:
" . . . smooth brain . . . " which has been shown to be of a low intellect, the more convoluted the brain, the more complex the intelligence.

Then the original poster wrote; "Ok does it have anything to do with the fact that it says it is "not scheduled to be upgraded"?" Which does explain the entire problem in a PDU OFF game.

Then someone else wrote "Dou yourself a favour and just ignore the narcistic jerker. . . . " Which is always useful . . .

There are more but . . .

Nowhere in there did Alfred post more than once yet the personal attacks kept coming. Then a person wonders why nothing was done at the time other than "cool it." I can understand where someone would get more ascerbic as things went on in other threads. I actually understand the humor of what he was stating to Markshot (a ringer) when he wanted all of the bells and whistles before he even bought the game . . .

Careful now, you might get tainted with the same brush as me in the "the biggest conspiracy since the moon landings" crowd.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Excellent, after 109 posts we at last have evidence to consider!

Oh come on, get real. I have given you some names of Alfred's more recent victims, you can look them up yourself - or do you need Alfred to do the searching for you? If forum engine limitations and time constraints are no issue for you, I invite you to check the 6000+ posts of Alfred to provide evidence that he has never acted in the manner which has led to his ban.

What I will say is that in many legal settings, the onus is typically on the accuser to provide the evidence as to the charge. In layman's terms, innocent until proven guilty. One would think that with 6000+ posts there should be no shortage of posts in evidence, forum limitations notwithstanding.

And I love the contradiction between "please provide evidence" and "don't attack someone who is no longer there to defend himself" - sounds like mutually exclusive, no?

Absolutely not mutually exclusive. I should hope the distinction between evidence in support of a point and a personal attack would be clear.

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key= which shows:

1. Evidence of Alfred attacking Tanaka for not doing his homework - but it turned out not to be Tanaka's fault but a scenario design oddity which even Alfred had not managed to detect.
2. People throwing accusations at Alfred who could have spoken-up to challenge them.
3. Me trying to calm down the Alfred fanboys and Alfred hateboys with the same stance I still maintain today - Alfred is great but not a saint.

Yes, lets.

1. Unreservedly false. Compare Alfred's statement in post #34 with the subsequent post by Andy Mac. Also consider, if you will, the nuance that seems to be missed in Alfred's post. The distinction between asking a "stupid question" (Alfred's comment, directed at the substance of Tanaka's post) and being a "stupid person" (Tanaka's own statement which is introduced in post #10, which would have been a personal attack) is clear.

2. Worth taking a moment to compile the accusations and attacks. Alfred is:
- "a jerk" (post 10)
- "a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers" (post 11)
- implied that he possesses a "smooth brain". Read: Lissencephaly (post 13)
- a "narcistic jerker" (post 31)
- referred to as "google search boy" (post 45)
- subject to aspersions involving child abuse and needing mental help (post 49)

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

See point 1 above. Clearly not an ad hominem attack.

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

The question then becomes context. Some people can't differentiate between an individual and their actions. There is a term for that but I won't post it here unless actually requested for educational purposes and not an ad hominem attack. Much like some people can't understand that there actually is a difference between the actor and/or actress and the part/person that they play.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The distinction is quite obvious. "You are stupid" vis a vis "Your questions are stupid".

warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: warspite1

warspite1

Thank-you LST. Perfect example. Ad Hominem attack (although M_M said there weren't any from Alfred and it was always the other guy's fault), totally uncalled for, and a moderator that gives Alfred too much leeway to simply carry on as normal (although Wdolson is a good guy).

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

That link went to a thread where a Claude unit was not scheduled to upgrade but would be withdrawn in April. The game being played was a "PDU OFF" game which means that a player could not upgrade it and would have to pay a penalty for not withdrawing the unit.

So in Alfred's response he refers to a question as "stupid" but does not state that about the person posting said question. To which the reply was: "Thanks for your help! I may be stupid but at least I'm not a jerk! . . . " Which to me is actually calling Alfred a jerk.

Then someone else chimes in " . . . Ignore Alfred he is a powertripping narcist that enjoys belittling newcomers." Which was uncalled for as well. Not to mention other things like:
" . . . smooth brain . . . " which has been shown to be of a low intellect, the more convoluted the brain, the more complex the intelligence.

Then the original poster wrote; "Ok does it have anything to do with the fact that it says it is "not scheduled to be upgraded"?" Which does explain the entire problem in a PDU OFF game.

Then someone else wrote "Dou yourself a favour and just ignore the narcistic jerker. . . . " Which is always useful . . .

There are more but . . .

Nowhere in there did Alfred post more than once yet the personal attacks kept coming. Then a person wonders why nothing was done at the time other than "cool it." I can understand where someone would get more ascerbic as things went on in other threads. I actually understand the humor of what he was stating to Markshot (a ringer) when he wanted all of the bells and whistles before he even bought the game . . .

Careful now, you might get tainted with the same brush as me in the "the biggest conspiracy since the moon landings" crowd.

That is fine. I have no reason to go with a mob . . .

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: warspite1


warspite1

Well that's the most ridiculous case of hair splitting ever.

And yet, a key principle in virtually every academic setting.

Not just academic either, real life.

That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.

[DD696]

I apologize for not bowing to the Grand Inquisitor for the Altar of Alfred, for I fear that in doing so my posterior may be positioned in an upright manner and Slitherine may take that as evidence of "presenting", or, at the very least, of "posing".

Surely their standards apply equally to both sexes.

Besides, at a military veteran I am much too busy drawing pictures of dicks on walls.