Complaints about 103

[Steel God]

Capital idea Earl. If everyone just sedates themselves with a few fingers, the conversations will get much more mellow. Probably circular and incoherent as well, but there's no perfect solution is there? ;)

[Ivan]

Just for the record I am going to complain and I also think you are abusing your position by speaking to members of the club like this. Please don't address me again. It seems there is one rule for you and another for everyone else in terms of acceptable behaviour.

Quite an interesting response? :chin:

Here is the forum rule and your rights as a complainer:

20 Message Boards

Message Boards are moderated by club leadership with discussions concerning historical and game issues relating to each individual ladder. While we respect free speech, we reserve the right to edit or delete messages which we determine to be inappropriate.

Please refrain from personal attacks, ie namecalling, or cursing on the message boards. Debate can become heated, but lets keep the flaming to a minimum so that we can have reasoned and impassioned discussion.

As with our gaming ladders, the related message boards are moderated by the Ladder Commanders and their Assistants. In all issues relating to message board content their word is final. If you have further issues with the board moderation contact the club senior officers.

Here is the link to the Chain of Command so you can be speeded on your way:
https://www.theblitz.club/chain_of_command/index.php

The day I am told that I cannot make a post, as a player of the game expressing his personal opinion, and following all posting rules, will be the day I step down.
It's mighty cheeky of you to wrap yourself in the robe of free speech and then try to deny mine? Or, to claim some type of harrassment when all I did was respond to your comments and express an opinion.

The irony of it all is that I could just have deleted your posts or edited them. I left them on the forum for all to see.
And, if you intend to post more on the forum you should really cut some of the long quotes from you posts. We all know what is being talked about?

And, this is a public forum, I'll address you, and anyone else is free to address you, on this public forum. Though, I will not be sending you an e-mail, that's for sure!

This is probably a waste of time but what the hell.

Here's a couple of contradictions for you to ponder.

(1) you have used name calling, see post above
(2) you have peronalised this, e.g. underlining "you" and warning me about my signature when others have similar signatures, that is in this thread alone
(3) I have never said you can't have an opinion

I am surprised the club allow you to behave like this, obviously you are well connected!

[Herr Straße Laufer]

This is probably a waste of time but what the hell.

Here's a couple of contradictions for you to ponder.

(1) you have used name calling, see post above
(2) you have peronalised this, e.g. underlining "you" and warning me about my signature when others have similar signatures, that is in this thread alone
(3) I have never said you can't have an opinion

I am surprised the club allow you to behave like this, obviously you are well connected!

Is English your first language?

1) What name did I call you?
2) "You" were the one who wanted to speak frankly. And, I mentioned "quoting" the entire text of a post when making a comment. It makes for a long post of wasted space. You could have pared down the comments that you wanted to discuss, instead of quoting everything.
Where you thought I did not want your sig line is a mystery to me.
2) I beg to differ. You said you did not like my hyperbole and the way I objected to your comments. Then you told me to no respond to you?

Please re-read what you have written and try to understand what I have been writing?

And, as for your last comment. I post within the rules. I express an opinion as I am allowed within those rules. Your objection to my posting is not found anywhere in the rules. I pasted the rules in a previous post. What parts of them do you not understand?

[Chuck10mtn]

Hi Again,
Well I see that the debate has gone downhill quickly, Its gotten into a finger pointing, he said, no you said thing again. Of all the people who don't like the new assult rules, I haven't seen one person come up with a new idea of how to fix them other than to say lets go back to the old way.I my opinion we're not going all the way back. Things progress foward, we're not all cooking over a open fire,we use micro waves, and hell some of us even have computers. Is new coke better than the old well no its not. But cooking popcorn in a microwave is better than doing over an open fire. I don't think we need to be at a all or nonthing place here. Saying you don't like it is fine, but try to help fix it. We can spend hours coming up with new Ideas that have failed and new Ideas that were pure genius, does beating a dead horse help anybody.
The varible visability thing should be dialed back a bit. The change should be no more than 1 or 2 hexes on any given game. At least with this people have stated reasons as to why, what affect it has on the battlefield. How to allow for it in new scenarios.
I've put the ideas down that I thaught might help get people to the same place here. Lets try to go in that direction. We can all spend hrs blocking quotes and getting *issed off at each other but in the end it really won't bring change. 100 people saying one thing sounds better than 100 different things being said.

Chuck

[Ivan]

[Is English your first language?

1) What name did I call you?
2) "You" were the one who wanted to speak frankly. And, I mentioned "quoting" the entire text of a post when making a comment. It makes for a long post of wasted space. You could have pared down the comments that you wanted to discuss, instead of quoting everything.
Where you thought I did not want your sig line is a mystery to me.
2) I beg to differ. You said you did not like my hyperbole and the way I objected to your comments. Then you told me to no respond to you?

Please re-read what you have written and try to understand what I have been writing?

And, as for your last comment. I post within the rules. I express an opinion as I am allowed within those rules. Your objection to my posting is not found anywhere in the rules. I pasted the rules in a previous post. What parts of them do you not understand?

Ed, I am sure you are a nice guy and I don't want to argue with you. I don't mind debate or speaking frankly. I do wish you would tone it down a bit though, e.g. asking if I speak English in this response.

I don't really want to go over it all again by pointing out where you said things I object to etc. Lets leave it that and move on. I am willing to bury the hatchet if you are? I also believe you have a right to your opinion and I apologise if I've upset you in any way, it wasn't intended.

I have been a member of this club many years and really enjoyed my time here and the people I have met and played with. I don't want to put that in jeopardy and leave the club over a silly argument. This disagreement had me contemplating that at one point.

I wish you all the best,

Adam

[Steel God]

A hat tip to you Adam, for recognizing that Ed's tone in this is being driven by his frustration over something he is passionate about, and for offering to end it without rancor. Well done.

[Mike Abberton]

Hi Again,
Of all the people who don't like the new assult rules, I haven't seen one person come up with a new idea of how to fix them other than to say lets go back to the old way.

I actually have stated this in at least one of the other threads on this issue, but I think the easiest way to fix them would be to make the new assault rules an optional rule similar to the armor facing factor. That optional rule has been with the game since EFII at least and doesn't cause any problems. Most members probably use the armor facing rule, but I don't think the people who don't have any trouble finding opponents.

I am not a programmer (at least not since learning Pascal in high school, yikes), but it seems like assaults could be set up to use one of two sets of rules based on a check box like direct anti-armor fire.

Mike

[Chuck10mtn]

Mike,
Good Idea, Lets hope that we can keep moving in that direction. I would accept the old rules if they took the big red D off the counter so all you could see was a question mark. I know Hawk would disagree but the Idea that you would know if a group of soldiers was disrupt or not is hard to believe in 6 mins, let alone put your mouse icon over it and you know. I'm sure as Hawk said that expirence does have a place in the facts but how much would be anybodys guess.

[Hawk Kriegsman]

Mike,
Good Idea, Lets hope that we can keep moving in that direction. I would accept the old rules if they took the big red D off the counter so all you could see was a question mark. I know Hawk would disagree but the Idea that you would know if a group of soldiers was disrupt or not is hard to believe in 6 mins, let alone put your mouse icon over it and you know. I'm sure as Hawk said that expirence does have a place in the facts but how much would be anybodys guess.

Let me clarify my position. I am NOT in favor of having the D go away with the current assault rules. It would make assaults near impossible.

Now if you wish to lighten the assault rules a bit (not the old rules either as they are too attacker favored) and have disruption status become a question mark that can be convereted to a D (like the number of SP's can with be either unk or a number) when you know how many SP's the unit has (represents somethin already in the game), then I am all for it.

So in a nutshell if you know how many SPs the unit has then I think you can know if it is disrupted or not. If the SP's are unknown then so too should the disruption status.

Thanx!

[Chuck10mtn]

Hawk,
Good thaught, I never really knew why sometimes I could see how many strenth points a unit and sometimes I could not. I don't have many answers to problems but with all the people who visit the site and all their know how we should be able to come up with something that we can all agree on. Then we can take our Ideas to the higher powers to be and see that they think, when and if that fails then we dig out the old and play on from there.
Chuck