CavScout Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Exactly what is the criteria for locking threads? Obviously flamming and personal insults would but recently it seems that anything that "people can't agree" on is locked. If "I think what we have here basically a difference of opinions, and Im doubtful both sides will come to an agreement" is the basis for locking threads, I think the majority should be locked now. Cav ------------------ "War does not determine who is right - only who is left." --Bertrand Russell "God is always with the strongest battalions." --Frederick the Great "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." --Benjamin Franklin, 1759 "For Americans war is almost all of the time a nuisance, and military skill is a luxury like Mah-Jongg. But when the issue is brought home to them, war becomes as important, for the necessary period, as business or sport. And it is hard to decide which is likely to be the more ominous for the Axis--an American decision that this is sport, or that it is business." --D. W. Brogan, The American Character Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Exactly what is the criteria for locking threads?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Overly long sigs? Pathological hatred of Germany? Just kidding ianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsimpson Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 pathological hatred of the british. all that glitters is not gold Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted October 12, 2000 Share Posted October 12, 2000 Fair question. About 4 posts a day are being locked. Are we bringing up more bad topics these days or is it because more are now monitoring this forum? ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Exactly what is the criteria for locking threads? Obviously flamming and personal insults would but recently it seems that anything that "people can't agree" on is locked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Any thread by CavScout which drones on about the might of American World War 2 uber-might. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jlsimpson Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 too many rent an arguments .there are some excellent threads out there that are going to end up putting some polish on CM .Pretty unique situation where the customer gets to put in some input and i hope you at battlefront get to turn a profit on your efforts so get serious on this one or get out small rodents excepted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 Sorry if you took offense to me locking down that thread CavScout, below were my reasons for doing so at the time, and I still think they are legitimate... * Firstly, check out the topic of the forum...Combat Mission. Steve has said in the past that some off topic discussions are fine, but too many and legitimate threads get lost. The other threads you mention may be similar in that no one can agree, but at least they are CM gameplay related * Steve decided (and I believe rightly so) to lock down that thread because it is a heated topic that HAS been done before and HAS ended in a flame war. It is also one that will go on and on as it is not something people will agree on. Also in general it would be kinda polite not to start a thread a few hours later that the moderator choose to lock down. * There is a General Forum for this sort of discussion, please feel free to take it there. Ill point out though that if it ends in a flame war, I cant promise it wont be locked down either. Please note CavScout that it was nothing against you personally. Ive only ever locked down two threads, and I browse the forum pretty much constantly. Its not something I like to do, but in the case of the second thread you started I felt I should simply for the fact Steve locked the same discussion down earlier. If people see threads restarted that are locked down earlier with no concern from the board moderators, what is the point in locking down threads at all... [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 10-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82nd Airborne Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Any thread by CavScout which drones on about the might of American World War 2 uber-might.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But he's soooo objective. He even said so himself. ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M. Bates Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But he's soooo objective. He even said so himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe. I have nothing against America - it's a nice country nice ppl shops trees cars buildings etc etc - but CavScout is like a faulty record player "Can you believe that the Germans would go to war with the industrial strength of the USA, can you believe that the Germans would go to war with the industrial strength of the USA, can you believe that the Germans would go to war with the industrial strength of the USA, can you believe that the Germans would go to war with the industrial strength of the USA, can you believe that the Germans would go to war with the industrial strength of the USA" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. Bates: Hehe. I have nothing against America - it's a nice country nice ppl shops trees cars buildings etc etc - but CavScout is like a faulty record player <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And that is different from the normal cry of "Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany! Go Germany!"? Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 13, 2000 Author Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by 82nd Airborne: But he's soooo objective. He even said so himself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Surely as "objective" as the "I always play Germans but CM has to strengthen them because I suck crowd." Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted October 13, 2000 Share Posted October 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Surely as "objective" as the "I always play Germans but CM has to strengthen them because I suck crowd."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> As opposed to "I only play the Allies but CM has to give them their historical material and manpower advantage because I suck crowd."? And "Amerikaner sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln." Surely you've discovered the key to locked threads now? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
82nd Airborne Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CavScout: Surely as "objective" as the "I always play Germans but CM has to strengthen them because I suck crowd." Cav <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> if that's the kind of objectivity you are striving for, yeah, I guess so. can't comment on those guys however, mainly as I haven't read their posts. If that's what they are saying then it would seem strange (to me). There does seem to be some validity to the turret speed issue on Mark V & VI's but, as I only play the Allies (so far), I am not looking forward to a tweak in that regard Have a good weekend ------------------ What you see depends mainly upon what you look for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Boy, you know what? It's a freaking game. Both sides are well balanced in regards to the game. If you want to refight WW2, build yourself a time machine. I'm getting really tired of these 'My side was better!' 'No, my side was better!' arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 14, 2000 Author Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: Boy, you know what? It's a freaking game. Both sides are well balanced in regards to the game. If you want to refight WW2, build yourself a time machine. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So is the strive of CM, "game balance" or "historical accuracy"? Either one is fine but I dislike the hypocrisy shown by some of CM's players. It is always the reason of "game balance" when Allied advanatges left-out are asked about but when the Germans seek an advanatge left-out it becomes "historical accuracy". Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted October 14, 2000 Author Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: Surely you've discovered the key to locked threads now?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, promoting those god-forsaken Allies... Cav ------------------ Deutsch sollte nie verlieren. Kampf-Mission muß das widerspiegeln. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Panic Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 Odd how a thread about flame wars has started to turn into one. "He started it!" "No, he started it!" ------------------ Two Rules to Live By: 1. Never Get Out of the Boat. 2. Charlie Doesn't Surf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 by cavscout <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the strive of CM, "game balance" or "historical accuracy"? Either one is fine but I dislike the hypocrisy shown by some of CM's players. It is always the reason of "game balance" when Allied advanatges left-out are asked about but when the Germans seek an advanatge left-out it becomes "historical accuracy".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Cavscout, incase your wondering you are right in both of your points above. What you are not hearing/understanding is all of it. Allied advantages left out for "game balance". Exactly! What is hard to understand about that? The allied advantage was in man power and equipment. CM allows you to give the allies an advantage. Just ask everyone you play to give the allied side a 10%-20% bonus. That takes care of what you are asking for. All we are saying is that doesn't make for a balanced game. Myself, weather playing allies or axis, I am looking for a good fair fight. So I can battle the other player with tactics ect... I am not looking for a walk in the park. Reguardless of historical reality. German players wanting historical advantages. No, what they want is for the equipment to be as close as historicly possible. They then try to prove thier point. I have not seen one person opposed to a big point increase if the equipment gets changed and made better. I would much rather see the equipment modeled right, and not be able to afford it. For the record, so you don't assume I'm an anti-american urber-tank groupie. I'm an american vet, damn Proud of my country. In PBEM games I play both sides, and mostly american for the moment. 12 PBEM games: 4-as germans 8-as allies. Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool [This message has been edited by Lorak (edited 10-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 14, 2000 Share Posted October 14, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Exactly what is the criteria for locking threads?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, rather tiresome and highly repetitive threads (like this one) get locked up. Do a Search and you will find that this question has been asked about a dozen times. I am tired of answering it. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Obviously flamming and personal insults would but recently it seems that anything that "people can't agree" on is locked.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> BS. Evidence? All three lengthy and even somewhat abusive threads on the 88 AT gun. The almost 500 post long Gamey Recon thread. Plenty of others. But as Kwazydog said, why do we need to keep open discussions that have a long standing track record of going absolutely nowhere while, at the same time, becoming quite heated? It adds NO value to this forum and in fact detracts from it. So locky-locky goes the padlock There is a CLEAR difference between two sides rationally discussing the pros and cons of this or that and two sides arguing about thigns that are not only unqualifiable (i.e. "what ifs") but also irrelevant to CM. I leave thes rather futile threads open for a time, but once they have proven themselves to be broken records, they get locked up. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts