quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Kind of amusing to have Alfred accused of rudeness by personal attacks towards him...which is by the way against forum rules...[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

warspite1

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

warspite1

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

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

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

Fair enough. Alfred's cutting wit was too acerbic for you. Maybe coming from Oz I am used to that sort of thing.

I too have a line in the sand - it's being told by someone who disagrees with a view I hold, sociological or whatever, that to hold the view I have, indicates that I am mentally ill, or a 'Nazi' fascist or innuendo that I am another poster's homosexual partner (delivered as a homohobic slur) or similar personal slurs.

All of those things have happened here. The posters who did that, are still posting (albeit one of them got a ban recently). I have made my position on this "gaslighting" clear to Erik in a PM many weeks ago, and am not going to post it here - but I give Erik permission to post my PM to him in it's entirety, should he wish to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

warspite1

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

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

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

Fair enough. Alfred's cutting wit was too acerbic for you. Maybe coming from Oz I am used to that sort of thing.

I too have a line in the sand - it's being told by someone who disagrees with a view I hold, sociological or whatever, that to hold the view I have, indicates that I am mentally ill, or a 'Nazi' fascist or innuendo that I am another poster's homosexual partner (delivered as a homohobic slur) or similar personal slurs.

All of those things have happened here. The posters who did that, are still posting (albeit one of them got a ban recently). I have made my position on this "gaslighting" clear to Erik in a PM many weeks ago, and am not going to post it here - but I give Erik permission to post my PM to him in it's entirety, should he wish to do so.

warspite1

Two things from this.

Re your second and third paragraph - I of course absolutely agree, and all posters here who don't engage in that activity would do so.

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

Too acerbic for me? Yes, and many others (as evidenced here), including Erik. If you were happy to be on the receiving end then no problem.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Kind of amusing to have Alfred accused of rudeness by personal attacks towards him...which is by the way against forum rules...[:'(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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.

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.

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.

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????

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.....

quote:

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

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

warspite1

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phoenix100

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

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

And a failure that is quite evident here.

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

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

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

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

And a failure that is quite evident here.

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

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

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

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

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

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

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

Enough of this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

And a failure that is quite evident here.

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

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

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

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

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

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

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

Enough of this.

warspite1

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

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

quote:

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

quote:

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

quote:

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

And a failure that is quite evident here.

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

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

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

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

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

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

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

Enough of this.

warspite1

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

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

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

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

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

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

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

There are more but . . .

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

warspite1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

Yes, lets.

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

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

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

warspite1

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

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

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

What a brave collection we have on this forum.

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

And a failure that is quite evident here.

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

Contrast that with the evidence presented to support that position.

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

All this against someone who is unable to respond.

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

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

Maybe you want to take a look at this thread https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4997335&mpage=1&key= which shows:

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

Enough of this.

warspite1

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

As you say LST, time to end this now Mind_Messing

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

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

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

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

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

There are more but . . .

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

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

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

warspite1

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

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

Not just academic either, real life.