SCOUTING

1925frank · 09-03-2009, 05:37 AM,

On 8-31-09, in the "To the Moderator" thread, Glint stated he was banning himself for a month. Granted, he didn't specify which month.

I like Glint's posts, so I'd prefer he not ban himself. At the same time, I'm waiting for the second shoe to drop.

Inasmuch as Glint's ban was self-imposed, it looks like he may have unilaterally lifted the ban, which would appear to be his prerogative.

For clarity's sake, however, I'd like to know if he still intends to honor the self-imposed ban for some month in the future or if he has lifted his self-imposed ban. It seems like bad form to ban yourself and then to keep posting. Better form would be to lift the ban as having been improvidently imposed.

There appear to have been a number of improvident posts. This one included.

09-03-2009, 06:38 AM,

Not quite sure what you're saying Frank? This seems to be something you should take-up with the moderators, rather than putting the message into a thread that your statement has no bearing on? I made a decision as I thought appropriate at the time. The choice was made to step away from a bad situation that was developing. The moderator's decision was that I was able to lift the ban whenever I felt fit. I cannot say more about it at the moment as I'm sure the moderators would back-up my protocol here.
I do have to repeat though, with all due respect to you, that previous threads have deteriorated by comments coming into a thread that have no bearing on the thread raised and all but destroyed the thread but, by all means start a new thread raising your point, although as I stated, probably best at the moment to pm the moderators with your viewpoint, for an answer?
From my own viewpoint, I stepped away from a situation and, (as endorsed by the moderators), raised the ban myself as per the ruling, so as to be able to contribute to posts in the manner that is exceptable to the Blitz members. I am not in here to discuss contentious issues, only to try and contribute in a helpful manner to points about the game.
Perhaps Paul (SG) or Antoni could come in here to clarify your enquiry, Frank?
regards
Peter

1925frank · 09-03-2009, 07:13 AM,

Yours is a good response. Thank you.

09-03-2009, 07:19 AM,

Thank you Frank, it was said in all sincerity. No probs matey.
regards
Peter

K K Rossokolski · 09-03-2009, 07:38 AM,

My post #34 was critical of the entry of a red herring into this thread. It must have crossed in flight with the last two posts, which show a commendable level of goodwill. I will send a PM to Anton asking that my #34 be sent to the great electronic sh*tcan in the sky.

K K Rossokolski · 09-03-2009, 07:47 AM,

Sorry, should read #35.

09-03-2009, 08:16 AM,

Thanks Rod and also, no probs !

''It seems to me that people are trying hard to renew a civilised, if lively, level of discourse, sticking to the topic or closely allied issues, certainly on this thread,''

All I've ever tried to do guys!
Now, - about spotters' lol!
regards
Peter

K K Rossokolski · 09-03-2009, 09:06 AM,

WARHOG Wrote:Perhaps another option is infantry units with radio capability can be broken down in to perhaps two units designated for recon or spotting roles. I have seen it in other game systems and I feel is realistic and with the realm of the game system.

Just a thought.

Is that realistic, in the WWII context? Modern Wars perhaps, when just about everyone, it seems, has a radio. But WWII?

K K Rossokolski · 09-03-2009, 09:09 AM,

WARHOG Wrote:Perhaps another option is infantry units with radio capability can be broken down in to perhaps two units designated for recon or spotting roles. I have seen it in other game systems and I feel is realistic and with the realm of the game system.

Just a thought.

Is that realistic, in the WWII context? Modern Wars perhaps, when just about everyone, it seems, has a radio. But WWII? Also, you might be confusing an organisational issue with what is, I believe, one of tasking in the field.