A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: 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.

warspite1

I am sure the positives his presence brought to the forum that you mention ring true with many here. But I am also delighted that you have been even handed enough to mention the negatives that I have raised.

No one should be above the rules. Excellent post DW101 [&o].

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: 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 [;)]

I am sure that you comment is family friendly so why don't you share it with your daughters?[8|]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: 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 [;)]

I am sure that you comment is family friendly so why don't you share it with your daughters?[8|]

warspite1

Nvm...

[Zovs]

Sometimes the old and wise must step aside so the new can step and into the new role.

Time for a new Phoenix rising to take on the new mantle.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: 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 [;)]

[:D]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: 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 [;)]

[:D]

warspite1

[:)]

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: 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.

It is quite relevant, actually.

What RangerJoe and I are touching on is that what is considered rudeness is indeed a social construct, when you stated that it wasn't.

Fundamentally, if it wasn't a social construct, how would you explain the significant variation in what is considered "rudeness" across a wide range of intra- and inter-cultural factors?

ORIGINAL: 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.

While I agree that we're unlikely to sway from our respective positions, I'm sure your strong desire to have the last word will prove the first part of the above sentence false.

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.

None of us are beyond censure.

That said, if censure is fated, then you can be sure that I'd want it to be an informed and considered process. Not because an individual with an inside line to the powers that be determines it to be so.

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????

Any definition of rudeness is, by nature, going to be exceptionally subjective. This is because it is a social construct (despite your views to the contrary).

Here's one for you to puzzle out (and keeping in mind your opening statement, don't feel compelled to share your thoughts!): where does one draw the line between satire and rudeness?

Is all satire rude? Can rudeness be satire? When is it appropriate to use one and not another?

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.....

The problem with the basis of "Alfred is rude" as the argument is that rudeness fundamentally is a subjective concept and assessed against absolutely no objective criteria.

If one was being uncharitable, and would want to include a topic pertinent to recent themes, there is certainly a comparison to be made with successful women in a workplace environment and peer perceptions of such women being "rude", "bossy" or "authoritative".

The similarities in such a comparison do bear thinking about, both in terms of motivations and results. Certainly in both cases the evidence to support the assertions would certainly be wanting.

[mind_messing]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

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.

To describe it as a "generous olive branch" is indeed quite a stretch, and part of a wider post-facto justification for Alfred's treatment.

I would certainly not describe it in those words, especially not given the double standards involved in applying the moderation policy.

I would certainly be inclined to view it much less as an olive branch and much more as an attempt to cover up misapplication of the moderation policy and to "move on" from the event. To do so would, on the surface, make it clear that it was acceptable for there to be preferential treatment on the forums wrt the moderation policy.

There's the additional element that it was publicly stated that Alfred's ban was supposed to be one week, after which there would be a clean slate. Yet, no Alfred. It certainly doesn't engender a atmosphere of reflection and reconciliation when one thing is being said in public and something quite different being carried out in practice.

[actrade]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: 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.

It is quite relevant, actually.

What RangerJoe and I are touching on is that what is considered rudeness is indeed a social construct, when you stated that it wasn't.

Fundamentally, if it wasn't a social construct, how would you explain the significant variation in what is considered "rudeness" across a wide range of intra- and inter-cultural factors?

ORIGINAL: 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.

While I agree that we're unlikely to sway from our respective positions, I'm sure your strong desire to have the last word will prove the first part of the above sentence false.

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.

None of us are beyond censure.

That said, if censure is fated, then you can be sure that I'd want it to be an informed and considered process. Not because an individual with an inside line to the powers that be determines it to be so.

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????

Any definition of rudeness is, by nature, going to be exceptionally subjective. This is because it is a social construct (despite your views to the contrary).

Here's one for you to puzzle out (and keeping in mind your opening statement, don't feel compelled to share your thoughts!): where does one draw the line between satire and rudeness?

Is all satire rude? Can rudeness be satire? When is it appropriate to use one and not another?

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.....

The problem with the basis of "Alfred is rude" as the argument is that rudeness fundamentally is a subjective concept and assessed against absolutely no objective criteria.

If one was being uncharitable, and would want to include a topic pertinent to recent themes, there is certainly a comparison to be made with successful women in a workplace environment and peer perceptions of such women being "rude", "bossy" or "authoritative".

The similarities in such a comparison do bear thinking about, both in terms of motivations and results. Certainly in both cases the evidence to support the assertions would certainly be wanting.

Now you're just getting silly. You are making an argument that there is no black/white, hot/cold, etc. I would offer that while you may not be hot at 110F, most people would be. You may be able to see better than me on a moonless night, but it's still dark. No one will ever be able to prove to you what's hot/cold or black/white basis your argument, but the vast majority of us know it when we see it or feel it. I think the phrase you are missing is "societal norms." Is there room for subjectivity and cultural differences, of course, but as one who picked up a very different language/culture while serving as a USAF Arabic linguist, I can tell you that there are surprisingly few differences between Western and Arab culture when it comes to basic, human decency. There is no language or culture you can translate some of Alfred's comments into that would not be deemed offensive. What you are trying to do is argue the "moral relativism" point. For those unfamiliar with the term, I quote from the following, which pretty well sums up your argument.

Moral relativism is the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others. It has often been associated with other claims about morality: notably, the thesis that different cultures often exhibit radically different moral values; the denial that there are universal moral values shared by every human society; and the insistence that we should refrain from passing moral judgments on beliefs and practices characteristic of cultures other than our own. For some, moral relativism, which relativizes the truth of moral claims, follows logically from a broader cognitive relativism that relativizes truth in general. Many moral relativists, however, take the fact-value distinction to be fundamental. A common, albeit negative, reason for embracing moral relativism is simply the perceived untenability of moral objectivism: every attempt to establish a single, objectively valid and universally binding set of moral principles runs up against formidable objections. A more positive argument sometimes advanced in defense of moral relativism is that it promotes tolerance since it encourages us to understand other cultures on their own terms.

Critics claim that relativists typically exaggerate the degree of diversity among cultures since superficial differences often mask underlying shared agreements. In fact, some say that there is a core set of universal values that any human culture must endorse if it is to flourish. Moral relativists are also accused of inconsistently claiming that there are no universal moral norms while appealing to a principle of tolerance as a universal norm. In the eyes of many critics, though, the most serious objection to moral relativism is that it implies the pernicious consequence that “anything goes”: slavery is just according to the norms of a slave society; sexist practices are right according to the values of a sexist culture. Without some sort of non-relative standard to appeal to, the critics argue, we have no basis for critical moral appraisals of our own culture’s conventions, or for judging one society to be better than another. Naturally, most moral relativists typically reject the assumption that such judgments require a non-relativistic foundation.

https://iep.utm.edu/moral-re/#:~:text=M ... ry%20B.C.E.

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Erik,

I find the arrogance both you and Edom evidence in presuming that any of us are going to "choose a hill to die on', as if this forum, and your business, are in any way, shape or form, something ANYONE is going to die for, absolutely appalling.

I will not continue participating in a forum infected by the cancerous scourge upon humanity known as feminism.

You have succeeded in divesting yourselves of this customer.

Edom is an area south of Judea and the Dead Sea. Petra, now in Jordan, was its capital. Maybe you saw part of it in an Indiana Jones movie . . .

To me, it is not feminism that is the problem . . .

I hope Hans stays and/or comes back, I wanted to talk about "Edom" with him, sadly this thread was locked [:@] I wonder how he finds satan in "edom" [&:]
Even if I disagreed w/ him in the past, I sense he is a good guy now...

I also agree w/ RJ "feminsm" is only part of the problem, basically we are going to facism / comunism for some years already, this only got very bad in the last 2 years or so. Seems also a certain sickness is now used as kind of a cover for this.

Cancel culture, suppression of "diverting opinions", political correctness, "fact checkers" that do not really have facts and most other "isms" are part/signs of this.[:@]

[RangerJoe]

110F would be 43.33C which can be considered a quite cold temperature and even frigid in certain contexts. Hot and cold are relative measures. It would be useful for you and others on an international forum, especially if you have had international experience, that you put the more international measurements in your post to make it easier on those who do not utilize another system.

There have been many different societal norms and you can't state that some are universal. A head nod means "no" in some cultures. "Hook'em Horns" means something else entirely in another country . . .

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Any diligent examination of Alfred's conducts on the forum would have revealed the following:

1) Alfred has consistently been a source of accurate and considered advice on the game mechanics.....

...etc..

Ah Alfreds fanclub leader back in business.

He was clearly arrogant and insulting especially to "newbies". And no one seemed to care from the so called "mods" for quite a while [8|]

Also some of his mostly theoretical advise was not so good, esp. when he posted to "life" situations in PBM AARs. But clearly on game mechanics he was good (eg. quoting other threads or the manual and he also had conncetion with the "devs" I heard, so could give some "hidden" info too perhaps?)

[Alpha77]

ORIGINAL: actrade

Message boards are forever about lines, with moderators having to enforce when a line is crossed. It is Matrix's forums so they set the lines. It is their property and they can do as they see fit. I have no issue with a private company saying, "this is the line, please don't cross it." I do have an issue with anyone doling out bans prior to issuing a warning as there is rarely a case that is completely clear cut. If after a warning we don't agree, as customers we can simply vote with our feet and walk away.

Yup totally up to them what they want to enforce or not.
Private company correct, however I would rather have them spend their resources on the games (4 of them I have and 3 of them still have issues, I assume AGEOD somehow belongs to Matrix?) and there was a longer time when forum was not "moderated" much at all, as evidenced by some 3/4 posters seemed to think they were some forum barons w/ Alfred being their king [:)]

However it also was kind of fun the wild west forum style I admit this [:D]

Edit, WHO is this edomite ([:D]) guy at all? I have not seen him post here at all so far, so now he is suddenly mod of this forum? Should not someone be a mod who KNOWS the forum, the game and perhaps also some of the regular posters?

Edit2, "Edmon" has first posted in THIS month in this forum... otherwise he seemed mostly to post press releases.....mhh...

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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.

LOL NO NOPE NADA COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS

Can you even hear yourself? This has to be the most pompous, self righteous thing I have ever heard and goes straight to the root of the whole problem. I will give you one thing your loyalty to the so-named is astounding.

You are basically saying everyone else is an idiot and the so-named is God who deserves to rule the forum no matter what end of story because he is always right and everyone else is always wrong.

I could give a damn if I am always wrong and the so-named is always right. Never was the issue and never has been the issue. You just don't get it and apparently never will. Everyone else is wrong, Matrix is wrong, and you select few are the rulers of the world.

I love this game. I love learning about this game. I am happy to be told I am wrong. That is why I ask questions on this forum. To learn and discuss. I used to love coming to these forums back in the day.

But when I decided like so many others to come back after 8, 10 years from UV and WITP to WITPAE that began with the quite abrupt appearance of the so-named to anything I asked about or posted about. It became the so-named personal mission to go after every post I made. I no longer enjoyed coming to the forums or participating as so many others have said. People just prefer to lurk now because it is easier. And newbies like Markshot? Forget about it not even welcome from their very first post.

You see people saying they are afraid to even post anymore for fear of attack. That is the type of forum you want? Sounds like you select few just want your own private club to rule the way you see fit Matrix games and customers be damned. If you cannot see that and if that is what you want here then you cannot be helped. Good luck with that.

I hearby nominate the so-named as the Matrix "Hobby Ambassador" for WIPTAE:

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

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Alfred.

The contents of all those innumerable discussions involving "personal insults" and "superiority complex" can be summarized as:
- Overconfident forumite states X
- Alfred responds that X is wrong and the position is instead Y (typically with reference to developer comments on the subject).
- Overconfident forumite then turns surly at having their mistake highlighted in public.

Problem is that Alfred often responded that X is wrong and the position is instead Y in a patronizing, arrogant and schoolmasterly "I know it all and better than you" way that was often rude, bullying and offending.

Care to give some examples?

Alfred's responses were direct and succinct, but to consider that as being the behaviour you describe simply reveals ignorance of working with individuals with a high degree of knowledge in a subject.

Yes, he knows almost all and better than the rest (although he is neither all-knowing nor infallible), but he has little appreciation for lesser minds than his own and for those who do not live up to his own high standards of research.

First, to point out that "his own high standards of research" implies that there are other standards of research, which is rarely the case.

Predominant instead is either:

1) zero effort questions that a cursory search of the forum, manual or FAQ threads would have answered
2) explanations/justifications involving a preconceived notion of how the game "should" handle X mechanic, with no effort to actually establish if this was the case.

Secondly, Alfred was always willing to engage with the spirit of a question that was asked. See innumerable considered responses where the author had the willingness to approach the question with a genuine open mind, and without clinging to a preconception and with sufficient maturity to accept that their knowledge was limited and a willingness to learn from others.

I had intended to go on at some length, but I think that your post, in principle, captures the effect that dual poisoning of pettiness and jealousy can have where individuals are unable to accept that they might be wrong, and that someone might know more about a topic than they do.

No, I don't care to give some examples because it would be a waste of my time looking them up - you have made it abundantly clear that you will consider anything Alfred has posted as merely "direct and succinct". It does not seem to cross your mind that what is "direct and succinct" in your perception might be rude and offensive in the perception of someone else. You are wrong about your insistence that all people critisizing Alfred suffer from an inferiority complex, unable to accept that Alfred may know more and better. Many people - me included - fully appreciate Alfred's knowledge. But superior knowledge doesn't mean automatically being beyond reproach. The forum is full of comments about Alfred being helpful but gruff. But you have put Alfred on a pedestal and you are unable to accept that your hero may have sinned. I also intented to go on at some length about this but DesertWolf101 has summed it up nicely. Concerning your insults - ignorance, pettiness, jealousy - I'm still laughing.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: actrade

As a long time strategy gamer and GG games in particular, I was VERY late in picking up WiTP:AE, having chose to stay in Europe with prior WWII games. I have asked many questions in other Matrix forums and sometimes, you get the "manual, page 122" response, which I believe is perfectly fine and helpful. However, a "RTFM" response with no page/chapter given to someone taking the time to come to the forums and ask a question in not fine, nor are derogatory comparisons to idiots, kids, etc. These types of responses are intended to interject some kind of superiority over the original poster plain and simple. I say to these people, "have you ever considered simply not responding if you think the question moronic?" FWIW, I do read the manual cover to cover, but that doesn't mean I completely understand all aspects or didn't miss something. Human history if full of instances of a select few acting as guardians of enlightenment ostensibly because the masses were too ignorant to understand (think the Bible/Church masses in Latin for centuries, high priests from antiquity, etc.) In truth, these "guardians" were merely perpetuating their own importance while staring down their noses at those who they believed were unworthy or unable to comprehend.

With that said, I'll be honest I was quite shocked at the level of vitriol leveled by some at those sincerely asking questions on this forum (certainly not all, as most were very helpful and respectful). I can't say I've seen that on other Matrix forums (of course there are always a few) with the regularity I've seen here. What's baffling to me is that we are a niche group (and some would argue that WiTP:AE is a niche game within a niche group due to it's complexity) that share a common hobby that one would think would be as welcoming as possible in order to grow the genre. Back to the religion analogy, imagine a preacher telling his congregation they're all idiots and going to hell because they don't understand the Bible as well as he? Wouldn't his religion be better served by helping his faithful come to a better understanding of the Bible rather than throwing it at them?

I'm 56 and the father of six, with my three adult boys all gamers. Whilst I would love to see them share my passion for strategy games, they in fact do not. What I will tell you is that the "youtube" generation isn't likely to read a manual cover to cover and that's ok, they learn in their own way. I shudder to think how they would be treated by some if they did decide to give it a try and come on the forums and ask a question without having read the 300-500 page manuals some of our games come with. I still have my original Falcon 4.0 hard cover manual and gladly paid extra for the wonderful WiTE2 hard cover manual, which I have spent many a night reading while my family watches TV. I recently had the WiTP:AE PDF manual professionally bound and copied so I could do the same with it. My family just shakes their heads and laughs when I undertake a new game as that's about the only time they see me reading in book format.

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.

Excellent post sir. Thank you.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



Problem is that Alfred often responded that X is wrong and the position is instead Y in a patronizing, arrogant and schoolmasterly "I know it all and better than you" way that was often rude, bullying and offending.

Care to give some examples?

Alfred's responses were direct and succinct, but to consider that as being the behaviour you describe simply reveals ignorance of working with individuals with a high degree of knowledge in a subject.

Yes, he knows almost all and better than the rest (although he is neither all-knowing nor infallible), but he has little appreciation for lesser minds than his own and for those who do not live up to his own high standards of research.

First, to point out that "his own high standards of research" implies that there are other standards of research, which is rarely the case.

Predominant instead is either:

1) zero effort questions that a cursory search of the forum, manual or FAQ threads would have answered
2) explanations/justifications involving a preconceived notion of how the game "should" handle X mechanic, with no effort to actually establish if this was the case.

Secondly, Alfred was always willing to engage with the spirit of a question that was asked. See innumerable considered responses where the author had the willingness to approach the question with a genuine open mind, and without clinging to a preconception and with sufficient maturity to accept that their knowledge was limited and a willingness to learn from others.

I had intended to go on at some length, but I think that your post, in principle, captures the effect that dual poisoning of pettiness and jealousy can have where individuals are unable to accept that they might be wrong, and that someone might know more about a topic than they do.

No, I don't care to give some examples because it would be a waste of my time looking them up - you have made it abundantly clear that you will consider anything Alfred has posted as merely "direct and succinct". It does not seem to cross your mind that what is "direct and succinct" in your perception might be rude and offensive in the perception of someone else. You are wrong about your insistence that all people critisizing Alfred suffer from an inferiority complex, unable to accept that Alfred may know more and better. Many people - me included - fully appreciate Alfred's knowledge. But superior knowledge doesn't mean automatically being beyond reproach. The forum is full of comments about Alfred being helpful but gruff. But you have put Alfred on a pedestal and you are unable to accept that your hero may have sinned. I also intented to go on at some length about this but DesertWolf101 has summed it up nicely. Concerning your insults - ignorance, pettiness, jealousy - I'm still laughing.

Here here. Completely agree. The only thing pedestals are good for is falling off of...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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.

LOL NO NOPE NADA COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS

Can you even hear yourself? This has to be the most pompous, self righteous thing I have ever heard and goes straight to the root of the whole problem. I will give you one thing your loyalty to the so-named is astounding.

You are basically saying everyone else is an idiot and the so-named is God who deserves to rule the forum no matter what end of story because he is always right and everyone else is always wrong.

I could give a damn if I am always wrong and the so-named is always right. Never was the issue and never has been the issue. You just don't get it and apparently never will. Everyone else is wrong, Matrix is wrong, and you select few are the rulers of the world.

I love this game. I love learning about this game. I am happy to be told I am wrong. That is why I ask questions on this forum. To learn and discuss. I used to love coming to these forums back in the day.

But when I decided like so many others to come back after 8, 10 years from UV and WITP to WITPAE that began with the quite abrupt appearance of the so-named to anything I asked about or posted about. It became the so-named personal mission to go after every post I made. I no longer enjoyed coming to the forums or participating as so many others have said. People just prefer to lurk now because it is easier. And newbies like Markshot? Forget about it not even welcome from their very first post.

You see people saying they are afraid to even post anymore for fear of attack. That is the type of forum you want? Sounds like you select few just want your own private club to rule the way you see fit Matrix games and customers be damned. If you cannot see that and if that is what you want here then you cannot be helped. Good luck with that.

I hearby nominate the so-named as the Matrix "Hobby Ambassador" for WIPTAE:

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

In with the personal attacks again I read . . .

This is an example of a question that someone asked:

Sonia, Ann, Mary, etc.

Can they dive bomb ships if you set them to the right altitude?

I'm assuming not since they are not labeled dive bombers?

Light Level Bombers

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... =&#5075241

[KenchiSulla]

Alright, so this used to be a place to discuss history and the war in the pacific... Let's get back to it, shall we?

[Yaab]

Where do we begin?

It begins in Chile, when crsutton probes a prostitute to find her position on Allende and Pinochet. Later, the legends of PzB, Nemo and Greyjoy are formed. War is hellarious and twists some places into Scoodra and Cock's Bazaar. In the meantime, Fletcher in his AAR recreates the racialist mindset of Japanese GHQ and conquers China. Then Symon drops some pills and says his last Ciao, and gives us a mod with a name that arouses...curiosity. Sid will let you play his RHS mod but only if you fit through the Carpal Tunnel. Later Timotheus lands in the forum, causes ruckus, then somehow is absorbed into the fold. Canoerebel bends time to fight the Civil War and WITP:AE simultaneously. Alfred was an expert on everything and Yaab was an expert on December 1941, and Californian WITP:AE players are called "mission creeps" by their girlfriends and wifes. And pin-up girls were painted on cockpits, so if you flew a Jug you had a morale booster and turbo charger in the same place, but no napalm in-game because this thing sticks to kids. But then the Hammer of Matrix stroke from 7 hexes away and its alpha strike scratched some folks with big CVs, and caused heavy forum transmissions off-map, and then the WORLD WONDERED.