Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation.

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:10:24 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

I apologize for not bowing to the Grand Inquisitor for the Altar of Alfred, for I fear that in doing so my posterior may be positioned in an upright manner and Slitherine may take that as evidence of "presenting", or, at the very least, of "posing".

Surely their standards apply equally to both sexes.

Besides, at a military veteran I am much too busy drawing pictures of dicks on walls.


Oh where is a moderator . . .

". . . Grand Inquisitor for the Altar of Alfred, . . . "

It appears that you may have forgot some things . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 121
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:13:11 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2022 3:15:21 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 122
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:13:34 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.


But he has girls and I am sure that when he told them that they could not do what they wanted to do he heard something like "I HATE YOU!" instead of "I don't like your decision, maybe you could explain it to me but I still love you, Father."

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 123
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:17:50 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 124
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:19:15 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2948
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka


quote:

Given all of the above, it's little surprise that two factions formed and divided this community and the toxicity still remains with this picture mess.




Do the two factions realize that they present the extremes (left and right if you will) and that there is a whole bunch of people who refuse to belong to a faction? I wouldn't call it a divided community but more a representation of what is happening all over the world (internet?)... Limited amount of people making a lot of noise trying to convince each other at best but really hurt each other at worst....


_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 125
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:19:23 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.



_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 126
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:25:32 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 127
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:28:57 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 3393
Joined: 10/28/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.



We've just established that Alfred was clear about the question being asked was stupid. Tanaka converted this into the notion that Alfred was calling him stupid. The facts, in this case, Alfred's post, are quite clear that the comment was directed at the question.

quote:

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?


I can't speak for Alfred, but I certainly had a share of stupid questions in my time. I'd like to think that they became less stupid over time.

quote:

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


An interesting notion. The world should just stop being critical, in the fear of it being viewed as other than "nice".

One wonders where that would leave topics such as history? Nobody would challenge Fuchida's narrative of Midway, as that would not be "nice", and we'd all be none the wiser as to actual events.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 128
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:30:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Double post

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2022 3:32:46 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 129
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:32:18 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.

_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 130
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:34:38 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.



We've just established that Alfred was clear about the question being asked was stupid. Tanaka converted this into the notion that Alfred was calling him stupid. The facts, in this case, Alfred's post, are quite clear that the comment was directed at the question.

warspite1

You've established nothing of the sort.



_____________________________

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



(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 131
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:35:56 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.


I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 132
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:39:45 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.


I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.
warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 133
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:40:12 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
It’s quite ironic after 5 pages and 133 post that the subject of this thread shows the civility (or lack there of) of our niche within the niche community.

I still say it’s time to move on life us too short and most of us know how to be civil and respectful towards one another most of us are over 50 for Pete’s sake.

Alfred is gone. Let him RIP and let’s find a new knowledgeable leader to follow and move on.

And we all must follow the new rules, like it or not, Erik owns the site.

< Message edited by Zovs -- 1/17/2022 3:44:00 PM >


_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 134
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:44:53 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.


I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.
warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.


That should not take you too long to search since Tanaka only started posting questions about WITP:AE recently. Remember, don't ask someone to do something if you are unwilling to do so. But if you really want a listing of all of the questions that Tanaka has asked, maybe you should start a thread . . .

Alfred was banned by Eric in an admitted violation of the rules . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 135
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:48:55 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.


I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.
warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.


That should not take you too long to search since Tanaka only started posting questions about WITP:AE recently. Remember, don't ask someone to do something if you are unwilling to do so. But if you really want a listing of all of the questions that Tanaka has asked, maybe you should start a thread . . .

Alfred was banned by Eric in an admitted violation of the rules . . .
warspite1

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 136
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 3:51:35 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zovs

It’s quite ironic after 5 pages and 133 post that the subject of this thread shows the civility (or lack there of) of our niche within the niche community.

I still say it’s time to move on life us too short and most of us know how to be civil and respectful towards one another most of us are over 50 for Pete’s sake.

Alfred is gone. Let him RIP and let’s find a new knowledgeable leader to follow and move on.

And we all must follow the new rules, like it or not, Erik owns the site.


So who owns Alfred's posts now? Because right now, Matrix got rid of the bugger but his WITP:AE knowledge is still available to all. That's some smart business move, if you ask me.

(in reply to Zovs)
Post #: 137
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:04:07 PM   
Zovs


Posts: 6668
Joined: 2/23/2009
From: United States
Status: offline
I would guess technically Matrix owns all our posts.

_____________________________


Beta Tester for:
Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm
War in the East 1 & 2
WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific
Valor & Victory
DG CWIE 2
SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 138
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:08:10 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


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.


That's quite true. I was thinking of the setting of where you can see the distinction clearest.
warspite1

You are both of course correct (as always). Now, dig out Alfred's responses to Tanaka across all threads. Then try and defend the fact that Alfred wasn't calling Tanaka Stupid and belittling and bullying him in front of the rest of the forum.

If Alfred thought Tanaka always asked stupid questions, why did he feel the need to intervene in the first place? If intervening caused Alfred so much stress and angst, why do it? After all he didn't intervene helpfully did he? So why?

If you've got nothing nice to say then don't say anything.


Alfred never did comment when Tanaka asked if single engine dive bombers not equipped as dive bombers could dive bomb . . .

But he did remember the question.

It was pointed out to Tanaka that he needed to think about how to better ask the question including the context. When someone in a thread that Tanaka started asked a better question, then answers were given.
warspite1

Not what I asked.


Alfred was trying to help Tanaka and others. That is when he answered the questions that he did answer. He did not respond to every question but he probably did remember them since he did bring that one up about non-dive bombers being able to dive bomb. If a person was truly sarcastic, that person could state: "They could probably do it one time and one time only. In the game, certain criteria would have to be met." Then when someone would ask the question about the criteria, then the response would be: "Look up kamikazes!"
warspite1

Not what I asked. If you don't want to or can't answer then fine, just don't waste my time with irrelevant noise.


I did answer the question to the best of my abilities but the best person to respond would be Alfred.

Now, if you can not understand my response, feel free to state that and I will try to explain it in more detail if you would like that.
warspite1

Except Alfred has chosen not to he here.

I understand your response, but it had nothing to do with my request. M_M thinks nothing of instructing people to go on post hunts (and that if they don't have the time he is, by default correct). So you/he can do the same. Please find me all the posts where Tanaka has asked questions and Alfred has decided to respond. Thank-you.


That should not take you too long to search since Tanaka only started posting questions about WITP:AE recently. Remember, don't ask someone to do something if you are unwilling to do so. But if you really want a listing of all of the questions that Tanaka has asked, maybe you should start a thread . . .

Alfred was banned by Eric in an admitted violation of the rules . . .
warspite1

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.


Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 139
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:10:37 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2022 4:13:26 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 140
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:28:32 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too


I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.

_____________________________


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 141
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:32:05 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.



The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed? Remind your daughters of that . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 142
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:35:06 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too


I get that. However, when one does something so much for so long, especially in the face of actions taken in the cases of others, does one really have a complaint if they skip a step?

Reading between the lines, when Erik mentions that he is communicating with Alfred about the forum rules (I paraphrase), I get the impression that a commitment to changing the behavior that was seen as an issue might be lacking or yet to be arrived at. I hope that does get resolved.
warspite1

Hi witpqs

Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......




_____________________________

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



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 143
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 4:37:44 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.



The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 1/17/2022 4:57:03 PM >


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 144
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 5:37:11 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.



The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.


I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 145
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 5:50:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.



The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.


I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .
warspite1

The Guildford Four - a famous mis-carriage of justice case in the UK.

Alfred being banned without a warning having been given, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to come back.

It's not that deep.

Perspective.


_____________________________

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



(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 146
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 5:55:22 PM   
DD696

 

Posts: 964
Joined: 7/9/2004
From: near Savannah, Ga
Status: offline
Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....

_____________________________

USMC: 1970-1977. A United States Marine.
We don't take kindly to idjits.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 147
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 6:08:35 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Yawn. So much excitement and meaningless drama. Arguing simply for the sake of arguing. Always having to have the last word. Yawn....

Do you have a suggestion to improve the discourse? Bearing in mind that everyone is coming from a place of differing experiences and might not relate to yours?

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to DD696)
Post #: 148
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 6:15:56 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Eric admitted that Alfred did not get a warning first which is part of the rules, then the ban would be in place. Since there was no warning prior to the ban, then the ban was in violation of the rules.

1. Warning for behavior
2. Ban if that certain specified behavior continues
3. Ban for longer periods of time if that specified behavior continues

That is the order which was supposed to have been followed but was not.
warspite1

Sorry but why have you just written this out. Erik has admitted this is the case and I confirmed that was my understanding too

I repeat:

Alfred was banned after breaching forum rules. Erik has said he should have got a warning, but the ban was deserved so there you go.



The ban may have been deserved but a warning should have been given first. That is or at least was the rule. But now, are you stating that the rules do not need to be followed?

warspite1

Why do you keep bringing this up? We've done this. Yes the ban is deserved, yes there should have been a warning. BUT this was mistakenly not given. We are not talking about the Guildford Four here, this is a wargame forum and one man apparently choosing not to play here anymore because he refuses to abide by the rules. Have some perspective.


I do have perspective. Have rules or not but if there are rules then follow them. Whatever or whomever the "Guildford Four" are, how is this material here? Please explain that . . .
warspite1

The Guildford Four - a famous mis-carriage of justice case in the UK.

Alfred being banned without a warning having been given, throwing his toys out of the pram and refusing to come back.

It's not that deep.

Perspective.


Maybe famous in the UK but where else?

Pram - a baby carriage, stroller . . .

Now you are calling Alfred a child. Did you receive a warning for this yet?

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 149
RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. - 1/17/2022 6:43:39 PM   
rmeckman

 

Posts: 49
Joined: 8/18/2019
Status: offline
quote:


Sure I understand. But what is Erik going to do? I've never been banned so I don't know the protocol. But I am guessing in order for anyone to come back they need to agree to follow forum rules? If that is the case then - again reading between the lines - I don't think Alfred will do that because, in his mind, he's done nothing wrong. So do Matrix - who, through their moderators, have let him get away with his behaviour for so long - decide to bend the rules specifically for him again? What message does that send out?

I think Alfred would be back today if he wanted to but......



Every person on the forum had to agree to the forum rules when they created their Matrix account. If you disagree with the rules at that point, you don't get an account. (In effect you are banned before you even start.) My understanding is that temporarily banned members can come back once they reaffirm they will follow the same rules they agreed to when their account was provided. If they refuse, they are in basically the same situation as a person who disagrees with the rules while trying to set up a new Matrix account.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: A discussion about our Community and Moderation. Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.000