Islands of Destiny: RA 5.0 Japanese Side

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

I never mentioned in the thread but I thought Nemo was over the top when he was speaking about John 3 personality traits which I felt if they were in my direction I'd consider them personal attacks. I also felt there was mention of the possibility of someone breaking Opsec and clueing John in on moves. If it was my AAR I would have put a stop to it and was surprised both went unchecked not only by the OP but contributors as well.

My reading comprehension is on par with my poor sentence structure so someone please tell me if I read it wrong.

Super post as always Chickenboy.

Nemo is the ONE I mention in my Posting above. I can quote his psycho-babble regarding me from memory. He places it in every opponent's AAR whom I play against. Dan is too much of a gentlemen to say it or stop it. Know that for a FACT since he and I spoke about it.

Thank You SuluSea. But I already knew he would do that.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

AARs are difficult to maintain. A player puts everything out there and armchair quarterbacks always know better or second guess. Additionally the commentary can be quite brutal. This is one of the reasons Dan decided to stop. He was having 'issues' with topics, comments, and criticism within his AAR and our game. He has not given me permission to read it yet but I will go through all of it and look forward to calling out some individuals who cross this line that he alluded to. Many people tend to forget that when games end AARs are then read by the former opposing player.

We welcome Dan over here whenever he is ready to take a look. In re-reading the last 12-15 pages of the AAR, I think he'll have all sorts of things to say. Looking forward to that. He is a good human being and gentlemen to the Nth degree.

I've received a few PMs from Dan that were uncharacteristically excoriating, John. Most of them dealt with him feeling aggrieved that I could dare suggest-in his AAR- that he may be (even unintentionally) using merchant pickets in a manner that he foreswore he would not. He was angry that I had the temerity to question even the appearance of inadvertent impropriety. He was not his gentlemanly self.

It was doubly annoying that he said he received a PM from someone (left unnamed) that I had, in my posts in your AAR, suggested that may be using the 'soaking off' tactics. So someone here took it upon themselves to PM Dan about my comments / questions / concerns voiced here. I consider that low.

He also indicated that he thought his reputation on the forum should forestall any suggestion of impropriety. I told him that no one gets a carte blanche. Many experienced players on the forum have engaged in behavior that is inconsistent with their reputation from time to time. Usually this behavior is couched as a brilliant tactical or strategic move-we all have seen examples of egotism wrapped in the veneer of brilliance.

I haven't heard back from Dan since we exchanged some PMs. I don't expect to do so for some time either-he's got some significant issues in his family life to contend with.

Dan was burnt out, defensive and going through what must be a very difficult time in his life. I still think the world of him and wish him nothing but the best.

I don't know who PM'd Dan but I'm not surprised. He was not merely accused in this AAR, he was convicted in the tone of some posts as I remember the discussion (I have not looked back to refresh my memory). This in spite of the fact that the problem was not important enough to John to report it to Michael for possible bug-fix, which I twice suggested. I thought I sensed Dan being over-sensitive in his AAR so I'm sure he was stressed from RL but I am also sure that hearing about the soakers discussion would have really PO'd him in any event.

I didn't see the discussion about being not giving him carte blanche. I saw the discussion framed in such a way that a player is only allowed to use convoys in very specific ways regardless of his judgement of the tactical and logistical situation. I think that aspect of the discussion was greatly influenced by Dan's openly declared practice of using picket ships, and the disagreement that Dan and John had/have over Dan's practice. As best I remember Dan's (reported/claimed) use of picket ships has evolved over time, and he might have actually used merchants for that duty in the past, which probably further influenced the discussion.

A further issue. I agree that we have to be extremely, even exceptionally careful about revealing what is in players' AARs. I am sometimes uncomfortable with posts that I see in an AAR or in non-AAR threads that reference material in an (another) AAR. Sometimes posters are not as circumspect as they think they are being when they make references to AAR material. But when a player is outright accused of cheating, why is it low for a reader to inform the accused player that they have been so accused? In this case there was more than just the question raised or a theoretical discussion, there was unabashed accusation to the point of asserting fact with virtually no other possibility. I do not know what was PM'd and certainly OpSec violations would be wrong. But informing Dan was not wrong and should have been expected, given the number of people who were reading this AAR. Someone was bound to do it and thinking that the extreme ire of the conversation would remain confidential was stupid.

Sorry, witpqs, but I disagree with much of what you've posted above.

There's a lot of meaning in specific words that we use. Questioning someone's judgement or actions and seeking clarification in the face of seemingly contrary actions is not the same as accusing them of 'cheating'. Equating the two is conflating the use of the term 'cheating'. I agree that being accused of 'cheating' per se (particularly to one's face) would be emotive. Conflating the words used in another AAR or misstating the words used in another AAR in a PM to someone not reading the AAR is contributory to an emotional outburst. I'm really surprised you wouldn't see a difference.

You didn't see the discussion about not giving Dan carte blanche because you weren't involved in the PM chain. Dan has elected to selectively posting texts of PMs on his AAR, but he hasn't-to my understanding posted this one.

I also disagree with you that assuming that the 'ire of the conversation would remain confidential was stupid'. Things stated confidentially into another player's AAR should remain that way-in content, tone and demeanor. Full stop. Anything else is an OPSEC violation and a betrayal of trust.

I'll trust you not to use the word "stupid" so flippantly either, witpqs. As I said above, you've got to be careful about the meaning that words convey. Particularly words like "cheating" or "stupid". There's a reason I've not used those terms. Summarizing my challenges in that fashion is incorrect and inflammatory.

[John 3rd]

Very well said Chickenboy. Always appreciate your commentary and tone. Wording is VERY IMPORTANT. Tone can be as well. Good points...

[witpqs]

Wording and tone are indeed very important. The tone of the discussion in this AAR went right to the point where it was clear to me reading it that Dan was accused of cheating. And I can't conflate words used in the AAR with words used in the PMs referred to because I have never seen any of the PMs. As you point out, I was not a party to them.

I understand that I don't have all the facts because I have not seen the PMs, and I don't care to see them. You are saying that you are upset because someone misstated/took out of context, etc. what was written when they PM'd Dan that he was accused of cheating. But what I read here looked to me like Dan being accused of cheating.

As far as choice of the words 'stupid', and 'cheating'. First off, you knew that Dan would be invited to read this AAR when the game ends. The notion that what you wrote here would remain confidential was... what word would you prefer? Nonsense? I think the word 'unrealistic' does not capture the extent of the disconnect. And that does not even consider the likelihood that someone would contact Dan, which obviously is what happened.

As far as the word cheating goes, that is where I think the discussion went. And obviously at least one other person also thought so, because that person sent a PM to Dan about it. I did not do an exhaustive search, but I did just look back as far as this post of yours:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy {post # 1217}

Oh gee...lookee lookee...[8|]

If you get closer to the Allies, you stand a good chance of having a number of your strikes diverted by Allied shipping before you can get at his carriers.  You know, a cynic would say this was an ideal opportunity for the Allies to attack land targets (which your opponent rarely does) with their fleet carriers as a pretext whilest getting 'behind' an arc of sortie soaking shipping.  Someone who was skeptical would say that this arc of shipping was intentional contrived to shield the carriers which just so happened to be behind it for the last three turns.

I assume that he won't have any compunction about moving the Allied carriers into battle after diluting your striking power accordingly? [8|]

I think I accurately characterize your tone when I say the essence of the accusation is one of 'cheating'.

[Canoerebel]

Gents,

I've been in out and out of town alot over the past eight or nine days. My dad's demise was not a sad occurrence given his long life, but it has been exhausting. I knew that I wasn't thinking clearly here in the forum, so I needed to take a break. I told John I would probably withdraw from the game, but that I needed a week or two to get my head on straight. I wish he hadn't then, in the very midst of that period, unilaterally terminated the game. But so be it.

Chickenboy make a serious miststatement that has stirred up passions considerably. He didn't do this on purpose - I can see where he got his notions in the heat of the conversations, but if he goes back and reads carefully the messages we exchanged, he'll see that this is the case. I did not tell him that I learned via PM that he was accusing me in this AAR of cheating. Instead, I said that I had a PM from a forumite who had seen a discussion in this thread about cheating and soaking off and wanted to know my point of view. Shortly thereafter, I saw a post in my AAR by Chickenboy that was accusatory about soaking off. That, I told Chickenboy, made the picture pretty clear. So there was no OpSec violation unless you consider a general mention that folks in this AAR thought that I was soaking off is a violation.

I've gone back through the past month or so of this AAR and, like Witpqs, I think the tone was very clearly made that I was indeed soaking off and cheating. The most interesting comment was one that those thinking I was would "know" when they saw how I handled my TFs once John sprang the KB forward. They said if I scattered them and tried to get them out of harm's way it would show that I wasn't soaking off. Well, gents, that's exactly what happened. I had indeed passed your own private test of my character, but nobody mentioned that I had passed your test.

I freely admit using picket ships, so why some of you think I'd lie about not using soaking off I do not know. I did not use it and have never used it. My play in this game proved it - by your own test - and I'll be glad to provide my turn files and password for anybody that wants to look back through a week or two or three of turns to see the constant stream of ships traveling between my two major ports. Seriously, am I supposed to not send ships forward to Sabang or, once empty, to send them back? Really?

Finally, I was not expecting "carte blanche" as Chickenboy says. But I did think that my reputation and overall body of work over a decade would have persuaded people to give me the benefit of the doubt - or to know that when I say something, it's so. I was very disappointed in the Fourm when my word wasn't sufficient.

The tone in the Forums has left a great deal to be desired lately The community I thought I knew is not the community that was here when the chips were down. It's just a small percentage that are really "tone deaf" right now, but the net effect is to really sour the atmosphere.

I'm going to take an indefinite leave of absence. The lure of AE - the best game I've ever known - is strong, so I'll probably be back sooner rather than later. Or maybe not. In the meantime, my best to all the good folks of the Forum.

Dan

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Dan is too much of a gentlemen to say it or stop it. Know that for a FACT since he and I spoke about it.

Thank You SuluSea. But I already knew he would do that.

Good point about Canoe who I feel is a top type guy. The forum is far better when he is active.

[JohnDillworth]

The biggest allied challenge in this game is nursing your air force. Even in 44 and 45.

you make my point. Which side ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS needs to nurse their air force and what side has unlimited airframes?

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think I accurately characterize your tone when I say the essence of the accusation is one of 'cheating'.

And I think you used that word when I chose not to. You may think it's a moral or verbal equivalent, but I don't. Nuff said on the matter.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I'm going to take an indefinite leave of absence. The lure of AE - the best game I've ever known - is strong, so I'll probably be back sooner rather than later. Or maybe not. In the meantime, my best to all the good folks of the Forum.

Best wishes, Dan. See you around, I hope.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
They said if I scattered them and tried to get them out of harm's way it would show that I wasn't soaking off. Well, gents, that's exactly what happened. I had indeed passed your own private test of my character, but nobody mentioned that I had passed your test.

This, I freely admit, was a failure of mine to acknowledge. When it became clear that your behavior was exculpatory, I should have made that observation publicly. This I failed to do and I apologize for this omission.

[Cap Mandrake]

Santa Maria! Muy malo.[:(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I think I accurately characterize your tone when I say the essence of the accusation is one of 'cheating'.

And I think you used that word when I chose not to. You may think it's a moral or verbal equivalent, but I don't. Nuff said on the matter.

You described how a duck looks, quacks, and walks, but you object to me using the word duck. We disagree. As you say, enough said. [8D]

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Cap Mandrake

Santa Maria! Muy malo.[:(]

Completely concur Sir.

Dan and I just exchanged emails formally ending the match at this crazy point.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: JohnDillworth

The biggest allied challenge in this game is nursing your air force. Even in 44 and 45.

you make my point. Which side ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS needs to nurse their air force and what side has unlimited airframes?

Yes, but this is offset by superior allied airframes and pilots. I can´t speak for my opponent but judging by the results I´m getting I have a huge advantage in pilot quality. Whenever I commit the "goto guys" 10-15:1 results are not uncommon.

My point being is that right now the system is kind of balanced. Even a small tweak can have a snowball effect that leads to an avalanche in 44-45.

If you want to limit the limitless Japanese planes its a lot better to do just that. Or limit Japanese pilots. But don´t increase Allied planes.

[obvert]

I'll speak for your opponent, and yes, the pilot disparity seems pretty big now.

Altitude is the real advantage though. Recently Corsairs swept a LR CAP and got only just over 1:1 results (no idea of their pilots though). The same day P-47s hit at 42k and got 15:1! [X(]

That big of a difference in arguably the two best airframes available to the Allies just points out that the unbeatable altitude of the strato-sweep by the P-47 is the real weapon. It kind of makes up for things they can't do in game, like low level strafing and bombing runs to hit the IJ air forces and logistics, so I live with it.

In spite of all of the planes I have, the Allies still have 30k VPs for airframes destroyed to my 17k VPs. I'd say even with 'low' pools he's doing okay. [:)]

[John 3rd]

BUMP

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

BUMP

[John 3rd]

Don't look here. There is NOTHING happening (at the moment). PERHAPS there is some discussion of something...neither confirming or denying...

[John 3rd]

[Canoerebel]

After a sabbatical of two years, three months, and three days, John III and I have decided to reseume this game.

We began exploring the possibility more than two months ago, really picked things up two weeks ago, and decided to do so today.

We were aided by the fact that I haven't played an AE turn since then, so that my files are still exactly the same as on the day we quit. But John III had to create a new file with an old version of RA, an old version of Beta, remember his password, etc. If the roles had been flipped, I couldn't have done it. He did it in just a few hours.

As of this moment, we are both nearly clueless about what's going on in the game. Neither of us viewed the other's turn files when we quit. We both read a bit of the other's AAR back in September 2013 and over time forgot whatever we read. So we are essentially virginal as far as our knowledge of the other's stuff, and we're at a disadvantage as far as recalling details - so many things are lost after two years away.

I haven't looked through my AAR since 9/2013, so I have to figure out what's what and where and why. But I have a fairly decent idea, especially since this was my last game, so there haven't been subsequent AE games that would have "overwritten" the AE files in my memory. John's probably at a bit of a disadvantage there.

I'm about to open the turn file for 1/4/1943 and start issuing orders. I think the last time I did a turn was September 8 or 9 of 2013. So it's going to be odd to get back in the saddle. But fun, too.

Over the next few days, I'll post screenshots and summaries of what I think is going on and where I go from here.

I bet at least 2/3rds of the forumites following this are now gone from the game. There are alot of newcomers that won't know anything about it, I supposed.

A 2.25-year sabbatical is kinda odd.

Edited to Add: We agreed to post a brief note in each other's AAR, so that's what I'm doing here.