Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

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.

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.

quote:

Fourth, regarding the specifics of recent moderation. Let me start with when I first rocked the boat when I banned Alfred. I've explained this before and there was a lot of evidence in favor of that ban, but I should have for the sake of the community laid out the evidence clearly and in public and I should have issued a formal warning seen by the public before jumping to a ban. Hindsight has made that clear. My private messages with Alfred have also made it clear that he takes no responsibility for the bullying and personal attacks he was engaging in and unfortunately at this point, I'll be surprised if he ever agrees to the forum rules and returns. I don't think it's likely that handling that differently would have ended up differently with regards to Alfred, but I'm sure it would have helped a lot in terms of the community feeling less blindsided by that moderation decision.

This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

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.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

I won't go in to the optics of Alfred's banning, but suffice to say that the optics on it from a wider community perspective certainly could lead someone to the conclusion of favouritism in the moderation process, or that the moderation process was applied inconsistently.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

I think Erik deserves a more even-handed evaluation than this. I seriously doubt that Erik took action in cases where someone was or had been disparaging Alfred. It was clear to me that Alfred did what Erik said without provocation in many instances. What happened in other instances does not change that.

I too hope Alfred comes back, but I would not welcome seeing that conduct which Erik addressed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

The spirit of this message is very much appreicated.

quote:

Fourth, regarding the specifics of recent moderation. Let me start with when I first rocked the boat when I banned Alfred. I've explained this before and there was a lot of evidence in favor of that ban, but I should have for the sake of the community laid out the evidence clearly and in public and I should have issued a formal warning seen by the public before jumping to a ban. Hindsight has made that clear. My private messages with Alfred have also made it clear that he takes no responsibility for the bullying and personal attacks he was engaging in and unfortunately at this point, I'll be surprised if he ever agrees to the forum rules and returns. I don't think it's likely that handling that differently would have ended up differently with regards to Alfred, but I'm sure it would have helped a lot in terms of the community feeling less blindsided by that moderation decision.

This completely misrepresents the situation, in my view.

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.

2) There was an element of the community that sought to repeatedly diminish Alfred's insight into the game, attempting to marginalise him as either "google boy" (in an attempt to demean his extensive ability to reference developer discussion/comments in relation to a particular topic) or to dismiss his commentary out of hand because Alfred didn't publicly post any AAR content (and therefore his views were automatically invalid). Language used would certainly be seen as abusive in quite a disparaging manner, but I won't go in to detail here as we've currently got enough fires burning on the forum for me to start stoking another.

It is the failure to appreciate the second point that has stoked unease in the forum at the implementation of the moderation policy, as there is a clear evidence of double standards, in so far as:

- a number of those involved in consistently and repeatedly seeking to denigrate and marginalise Alfred's contributions have faced no consequences. From follow-on comments it appears they now never will.

- a smaller minority that have since looked to turn their attention elsewhere have received notably different treatment compared to Alfred - in every case (that I am aware of) there has been a warning followed by a ban. This was not the case for Alfred's treatment, which was an outright ban with no warning. This is contrary to Matrix policy.

Little surprise that Alfred is unlikely to return to the forum under such treatment.

I won't go in to the optics of Alfred's banning, but suffice to say that the optics on it from a wider community perspective certainly could lead someone to the conclusion of favouritism in the moderation process, or that the moderation process was applied inconsistently.

Given the above, it's little surprise that subsequent moderation actions have not been well-received by the community.

I think Erik deserves a more even-handed evaluation than this. I seriously doubt that Erik took action in cases where someone was or had been disparaging Alfred. It was clear to me that Alfred did what Erik said without provocation in many instances. What happened in other instances does not change that.

I too hope Alfred comes back, but I would not welcome seeing that conduct which Erik addressed.

You don't need to go far back actually - plenty of cases of unsolicited ad hominem attacks on Alfred in the run up, all of which have seen zero consequences (to the best of my knowledge).

quote:

Who cares about this picture silliness. Historical aircraft nose art within historical context is allowed but I cannot post fruit vaginas so I quit the forum this cracks me up

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edmon

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edmon

I would like to make clear, that the only person I gave a temporary ban to was you, because I asked you directly twice to move the subject to PM and you also directly called me out in your new thread. The way you "came after" me, felt extremely hostile, when at that point all I had done was lock a thread with some seriously objectionable content in it and little more.

Let's take a close look at that claim:

1) The first post I directed specifically to you was post #35 in the "Ok it's time to go" thread

2) You responded in post #43 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

3) I replied in post #44

4) You responded in post #47 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

5) I replied in post #51

6) You responded in post #54 (no mention of "taking this to PM")

7) While I was typing out a response to that, you closed the thread in post #58. Again, no mention of "taking this to PM"

8) When my post was submitted, it went nowhere (obviously, since the destination thread was closed). As a result, and especially since there was no mention of "taking this to PM" at ANY POINT in our previous discussions, I created a new thread solely in order to continue the discussion - and explained that specifically at the top of the thread.

9) Your response in post #2 closed the new thread and instituted my ban. Again, not that it mattered at that point, there was no mention of "taking this to PM".

There's a word for those who make provably false claims, but out of respect for Eric I won't use it here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: actrade

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?

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: actrade


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

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

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

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

warspite1

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


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

(in reply to mind_messing)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=5099442&mpage=1&key=

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

quote:

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)....

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

quote:


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

quote:

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

quote:

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

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

There is simply no need for it.

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

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.

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

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)....

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, Vietnam era veteran. Never served in Vietnam.

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

warspite1

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

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

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

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

quote:


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

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

There is simply no need for it.

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

Note the above comments on saccharine.

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

quote:

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805