|
Flankerk -> RE: Colonial Wars 1950-64 Database (10/6/2006 1:11:37 PM)
|
I have attached a copy of my post made on SZO with regard to this thread :-
The aim of these posts Herman seems to be to dismiss the work of scenario authors while upping your post count across multiple “fora”.The common thread with most of these sites is that virtually the sole person posting is you, with numerous cut and pasted articles across all the sites. Your definition of “significant” appears to be those where you haven’t yet been banned.
You vary your posts from appearing to want to be the champion of the game, while on other occasions you go on endlessly about its flaws. In this thread you even appear to accuse people of manufacturing bugs. You consistently overplay the significance of the bugs while ignoring the flaws in your own reporting. You have never properly responded to manufacturing artificial behaviours. In particular you helped cause the Navigation Bug with your “Ship in Land “ reports, and you did not respond to the charge that your “missiles starting within minimum launch do not fire” was also a contrived bug. You even then had the nerve to go on about the “Navigation Bug” as a real pain ,while not acknowledging your contribution to its cause.
You no longer contribute to the Beta Testing process ,yet continue to rubbish their work. You claim credit for “discovering bugs” yet rubbish those who have pointed out which bugs they found.
Most people involved with scenario writing do so in their spare time and do so for the broad benefit of others. If we examine the work that went into this scenario, it demanded a detailed ORBAT,it demanded additions to the database that Paul had implemented ( without cutting and pasting from someone else’s database either) and it involved a good many test runs. Those procedures worked and at the time it was tested this scenario worked. Any sane member of the community should surely be celebrating a new battleset.Instead you only post the one game flaw you could find in it, and then repeat that criticism across many sites and with repeat posts.
Your post is copied across many “fora” as you put it.It never mentions the work that went into the scenario, it doesn’t give any constructive criticism at all in fact. I cannot think of others who adopt such a dismissive policy with their feedback.
Throughout this thread you have demonstrated your bias against the testing procedures at Harpoon HQ,and you have shown that bias against scenarios made by HHQ members. This is despite Paul showing you the courtesy of him notifying you on one of your sites of its release. I presume we are to draw the conclusion that others should not post to these sites, then you can go back to talking to yourself?
Your posts did not appear to find anything wrong with the scenario,in fact there appears to be a bug that may or may not already be known about. This you separately reported to yet another thread. As has been pointed out before, making multiple entries for the exact same thing is unhelpful, and it confuses whatever message you were trying to get across. Blaming Paul, then blaming the testing process at HHQ for a new bug that you have found is a clear nonsense.
I think most of us involved with the Harpoon community have plenty to keep us occupied with work. All contribute in their own way in their own spare time. Few can compete with you posting on a continuous basis. I just wish that time was used to further the hobby, rather than push your own agenda.
|
|
|
|
