Slapdragon Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Most of the Grogs on this list know I was recently struck down, maybe not as bad as what happened to Vanir, but I am working my way back both for work and in my extra curricular activities. In rereading posts I have come to several conclusions. The first is that this board is one of the best collections of minds of the 9 boards I keep up with. The second is that even some of the good minds on this board need serious lessions in how to make a civilized argument in cyberspace (and a few of the twirps just need to take some B12 and relax -- luckily they are few and far between). With the goal of offering a better standard of argument, I would like to present some of the theories of intellectual exchange that my work as a historian requires that I follow, and offer them as an aid for people building arguments on this board. First off, research shows that cyber communication is liable for misundestanding because it lacks facial expressions, and smileys, while effective at one time, have become so over used as to be worthless. When an armored historian friend of mine and I discuss the use of the M18 Hellcat in the ETO over a beer he can see my face, and I his. He claims that tungsten was never used in cats, and I look him in the eye and say, "John, you ignorant son of a bitch, of course it was -- read Evans and Turner for a good first person account" and he says, "Steve you rely to much on oral history, I have the ammo logs for 3rd Army in November 1944 and I know Tungsten did not arrive to 26ID that whole month." We each can see the other face, we are shooting pool, and I pat him on the back when I call him ignorant. In the cyber world no facial expressions and personal contact means that only the conflict comes through. The moral of this first point is to chill out and think twice before you attack someone. Attack ideas and not people, and attack them using logic and not personality. Next you have to understand canon. Canon is the understanding of the world as it sits right now. For us, Canon is the game as it plays out on our computers. Canon is assumed correct until and unless two events occur. First the canon must be shown to be in error based either on how reality is modeled, or based upon how the mechanics of the game are played out. Error can be shown by historical records, textual sources, or any reputable historical data. A good refutation of canon controls or accounts for major variables, uses multiple sources that do not rely on each other, and is couched on a combination of modern scientific and historical understanding and primary source records collected as close to the events as possible. Once you have an argument that the canon needs to be changed you are not home free. Throwing stones at a simulation is easy. All simulations are basically flawed, but the question is often not if they are flawed, but if technology and historical understanding currently allows for a less flawed simulation to be created. The answer may be that the current canon is indeed flawed, but nothing better can be come up with. Look at all of the threads that desire to see German tanks and tank weapons beefed up vis a vis allied and you often have a single source leading the argument without a new model that accounts for both the capabilities of the changed German weapons and the unchanged American weapons. In addition other factors of modelling such as vehicle point cost for the improved capability tanks, remodelling of other high velocity weapons, and so forth are usually ignored. An increased deadliness for the 88 or a reduced ability to fire on the move for the US tanks would naturally need them to be repriced-- but this is rarely considered. A major argument here is, "why should I do all this work." Good question. IF you want Charles and Steve to sit up and take notice of your historical simulation arguments you probably would be better off using a good tight argument that presents a new model, making implementing the change a case of coding a dozen lines. In addition, a good set of testing with isolated variables and enough reps to bring down your standard error is a great way to show how things are now. Everytime I read "WAHHH a 50 cal killed my Panther" I wonder seriously how common that is and if it really needs to be dealt with my making the M2HB as powerful as an M1911. One other point is what I call beer and pretzels arguments. If you want to gripe about your Panther getting wacked by a Stuart, or your Zooks getting wiped out by a Hetzer, but you do not think the model is wrong, or you think the model is wrong but you don't want to argue it using scientific and historical principals, then just say so. If you say this is a beer and pretzels bitch then the Grogs on the lists wont descend on you with anything more terrible than some wise cracks. It is when you post "The 75L70 should be able to shoot the moon" and support it with a single penetration table from a 1951 comic book, then end your comment, "Charles and Steve fix it or you guys are dummies" that the knives comes out and rightly so. ------------------ ----------------------------------------- Combat Mission does not use "penetration tables" or charts to determine armor penetration. Instead it uses the mathematical equations described in "Penetration of Armour Plate" originally by (British) Ordnance Board Subcommittee of the Armour Piercing Projectile Committee (reproduced by U.S. Dept. of Commerce National Technical Information Service #PB91127506). -- Charles ---------------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest YK2 Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Feel better now that you got that off your chest? phewwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww. ------------------ Bananas is my business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croda Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Well, Slappy, I heartily agree with you. Unfortunately, I have an inkling that your post will stir more debate, than resolve them. Hope your getting better. ------------------ "Nuts!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Slappy, Put me in your camp. Too many people also attack the messenger rather than the message, which contributes to the bickering. Glad your recovery appears to be coming along just fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Priest Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 welcome back slapdragon. I agree, I love to argue but hate to fight. (I tell that to my girlfriend too but it never seems to work) ------------------ Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb -Priest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 17, 2000 Author Share Posted October 17, 2000 The recovery is coming along, my wife has new greay hairs, having your husband devolve to the level of an imbecile for a week is tough, but so far only the weakest links in the human have made fun of my memory lapses in ways that are evil natured rather than fun (some of the jokes have been great). Things are going better than even the doctors hoped -- at least I am back at work and rereading like 15000 pages of my own writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Good points, Slappy. Hopefully anyone who has an issue to raise in the future will consider at least some of what you have said. Who says smileys don't work anymore? There, doesn't that brighten your day? ------------------ Cats aren't clean, they're covered with cat spit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: First off, research shows that cyber communication is liable for misundestanding because it lacks facial expressions, and smileys, while effective at one time, have become so over used as to be worthless. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Boy is this true. It DOES take good communication skills to make sure your words are not taken the wrong way on the Internet. Sarcasm is pretty much impossible. Nobody gets it. Without the facial expression and the tone of voice (also SUPER important) it just sounds like an insult. DeanCo-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackhorse Posted October 17, 2000 Share Posted October 17, 2000 Very well stated Slapdragon. I'd say you are well on the way to recovery. Hell that entire argument was damn near brilliant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 18, 2000 Author Share Posted October 18, 2000 Thanks Blackhorse. What we don't realize is that we are the first generation to have instant electronic communication that waited on us -- the BBS and Billboard, and we are the first generation were nearly every person in technological societies can host their own international discussion with dozens of messages changing hands each day between people who speak a dozen languages. It is an awesome power if you sit down and think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holdit Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Eyes Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Slapdragon - This should be required reading for anyone joining this forum. Good job and Amen! ------------------ It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pathfinder Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 well said SlapDragon... The post shows you are well on the way to recovery and THAT is comforting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 18, 2000 Author Share Posted October 18, 2000 Memory loss is fascinating because I am rereading my own and others writings for the past several months and doing from the third person. A few times I even wanted to argue with myself!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 A very good post. Thank you. And get well soon. My (newbie's ) rough netiquette when finding a probable anomaly in the game's world: 1. I find something in the game that substantially bothers me. 2. I try to find even one historical source to support my case. I only have limited sources to lean on (Jentz's books about Axis armor) although many excellent links have been presented on the forum. 3. I make searches on the earlier posts to see if the problem has already been discussed. 4. I make the problem known on the forum to get it under inspection WITHOUT demanding changes to the game at once. Sometimes it's necessary to ask BTS for more information already at this step. 5. If I have an opinion I make it clear that it's only that and nothing more. Even if it is firmly based. 6. If the problem survives the closer examination of the very knowledgeable Grogs (with countless sources) on this forum then it can be presented to BTS. Usually Steve himself has already taken part to the problem's inspection process. Ari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Great post, SlapDragon. Glad to see that you're doing better - you must be to collect your thoughts enough to express your thoughts so eloquently. I must also agree with Snake Eyes that this should be required reading. ------------------ "Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have." - Jack Handey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barrold713 Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Great post Slap, very informative and lucidly expressed. I hope you found my post wishing you a speedy recovery along with some tongue-in-cheek CM "pointers" to be humorous. I heartily concur with the comments on the need to carefully evaluate the possible nuances in posts before the assuming the worst. Perhaps a combination of text and smilies to more completely convey the correct tone would be a solution when a poster purposely wishes to include a witticism that might be taken the wrong way otherwise. Just a thought. I do enjoy a good discussion and the variety and depth of knowledge that a large number of people in here share in some of the more technical threads. I think the guidelines you described would be a large assistance in keeping them on the right track. BDH ------------------ "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote" - Ben Franklin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Just offering my compliments to your new commentary, Slap, as have many others. Stay well. Ed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 1. Nice to see that you are feeling better, and that your illness is not as incapacitating as it could have been. 2. Excellent post. I agree with every single one of your points. 3. Recognize that you are as liable to be held to those standards as everyone else, and that you have been grossly at odds with those standards on more than one occasion. Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilhammer Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Leave it to Jeff to break the rules first. You could of left item #3 at the door. Now I am guilty See how easy this can start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Sheesh slappy you're a glutton for punishment. Good points, though I wouldn't want to see things get too sterile and boring (not much chance of that ). Peng would definitely agree with you on the overuse of smilies as I seem to recall some long winded diatribe of his on the subject in the distant past. I hope that not to many misconceive your post as pontificating. ------------------ "Fatso-the battlers' prince" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Echo Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Shut up you ignorant son-of-a-bitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 18, 2000 Share Posted October 18, 2000 Amen!I couldn't have said better(for that matter I couldn't have said it period ). I hope you are fully recovered quickly. Joe ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 18, 2000 Author Share Posted October 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Echo: Shut up you ignorant son-of-a-bitch.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Echo, you may want to clarify what exactly you mean to avoid a flame war Although I take it as a joke. Jeff, everything you said but number three will be taken as it was meant, and number three serving no useful purpose will be ignored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted October 18, 2000 Author Share Posted October 18, 2000 Bump for Pillar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts