Merely my 2 Cents...

[TelGerot]

...on this whole "Do a search" thing.

I'm curious as to how, when somebody asks a question that is asked before, how it has a negative effect on this forum. I've read a few threads (I did a search, heheh!), and I saw quite a bit of bad attitude in the questions themselves "ANSWER MY FREAKING QUESTION!" and the responses to said questions "DO A FREAKING SEARCH!" (slight exaggeration added to enhance effect of statement). Quite frankly, if the only things that could be discussed here are "new material" which haven't been talked about before, than according to my calculations, even CM will run out of material to talk about, eventually. Yes, we can always talk about war stories and mods and CM 2, but still... this is about CM, primarily, right? *shrugs* I'd understand if this forum was "spammed" with the same question over and over ("When does CM 2 come out? When's the next patch?")... but I haven't heard of any complaints from people who have gotten their never-before-asked-question buried under a torrent of searchable-questions. That's why they can be bumped up, right?

*shrugs* I don't know. Yes, we can all do searches and find the answers to our problems, but I know that I, personally, am more comfortable asking a question and having some very awesome, mature people answering ME, as a PERSON. Eh, maybe I'm just concieted and want attention... or maybe I'm just giddy over the fact that for the first time, I'm interested in a game who doesn't have a horde of "kewld00dz" playing (see Starcraft), and I actually want to talk to these players, regardless of whatever the discussion has taken place before.

-Tel (Junior Member, be friendly!)

(No sarcasm, smart-ass, mean-spirited statements intended... except to kewld00dz)

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi TelGerot,

I for one do NOT think it is good to have every repeat question answered by "Do a Search". In fact, I take the time to reanswer questions that have been asked before (like this one ) when it makes sense. But there are exceptions...

Some topics have been discussed to death. They are complicated and can not be answered in any easy way. That leaves two options:

1. The whole question can be dived into again, which will most likely require our attention. This means people are going over the same ground, with the same arguments pro/con, etc. for the x number of times. If the topic is one that is "flamable", then I have yet another headache that I as Moderator have to deal with.

2. Have the person who asked the question do a Search to see the information and debates that have taken place before.

Personally, I think it is a waste of everybody's time and energy to repeate a debate that has already been repeated several times over. If the person is *REALLY* interested he should be able to take the time to see what has been said in the past before asking people to invest their time in reanswering things. If the person reads the stuff from the past and either does not understand something or has a new idea, then reopening the topic is not only a good thing but also doesn't waste time going over the same old ground.

Well... that is my 2 bits

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-13-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Predictably, this has been discussed before.

Yes, there is no doubt that it's better to be answered by somebody else than to have to go looking for the answers yourself. But in many cases the person would simply be restating things that they, or others, have already said. This means they are wasting their time to save your time, which you can't expect them to do.

People generally only say "do a search" when a subject is brought up which has already been discussed to death. In other words, it is highly unlikely that the person asking the question has anything really new to add. Even if they do, the first thing they need to do is read what's already been said. Then if they can develop the argument (as opposed to digging it up for the hell of it), they are free to offer their opinion.

All too often old discussions are revived, and they hardly ever go anywhere new. People argue that there's nothing wrong with discussing an old topic, but there is really. Most of the time the topic concerns a possible modification to the game, in which case the general consensus, and BTS's opinion, is what's most important - and this information is available in the archives.

So, there's nothing wrong with asking - but questions should be informed questions, not lazy questions.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[L.Tankersley]

The problem with dredging up old topics that have been done to death isn't so much asking the question itself as the aftermath that inevitably follows:

The group of new folks starts discussing and rehashing the same old ground. The old-timers (if they don't jump in yelling "DO A SEARCH") pointedly ignore the discussion because they've already been there and done that. The new discussion follows more or less the same path as the old (no doubt with a few new twists and turns) but is frustrated because BTS isn't responding to the questions generated. Eventually people get all pissed off because BTS is ignoring this very important issue, why can't they take just a moment or two away from polishing their new racecars to answer these pressing questions?

To avoid this perception, BTS has to reenter the debate. At a minimum they have to jump in to say "this has been discussed before, do a search to find out our reasoning." But if that's all they do, people get all pissy about such a non-response. If old-timers try to short-circuit the process and suggest a search early on, the same result but now it's perceived as the old-timers trying to keep the newbies down. So one way or another everyone gets dragged into the old debate which in all likelihood will produce nothing new instead of working on TCP/IP support, CM 2 research, the "hull down problem," the correct TO&E of the Hampstertruppen and Volksgerbilsjaeger formations, or whatever else they would rather be pursuing.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Big Time Software]

Also note...

This same topic was just rasied by someone else today. That one was locked up right away, this one was not. For anybody out there that doubts that we have a fairly logical system for locking up threads please see the previous one and compare it to this one. A clear difference in presentation, tone, and above all... attitude.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Leland has hit a very big nail right on the head. Most of the repeat debates are left open until they go down the road of being a flamefest or are so filled with whining and complaining about us ignoring the topic. At that point I usually close it up because it is an utter waste of our time and causes the BBS problems as a whole.

Now... if the old rehashed discussion goes in a new direction, that is a VERY different thing. But about a half dozen "classics" that come to mind never have broken new ground, no matter how many times they have bubbled up.

Steve

[Von Fauster]

Telgerot, here's my 2 bits.

(Notice that this discussion is going very well: Friendly, insightful, etc. )

I think, to some extent, there is a difference between a "question" and a "discussion".

For example: "Which varient of the M4 Sherman is better" is more likely to invoke a discussion, whereas "What is the effective kill range of the 75mm as carried by the M4 Sherman" is more of a question. Folks here are real leery about reopening old discussions , especially ones that have spiraled downward in a flaming mass of burning wreckage, whereas it is generally agreed that honest questions warrent honest replies.

That being said, one is still well advised to search at least once if only to save yourself some time waiting for a response. For example, the other day I was wondering if roadblocks could be destroyed. Instead of opening a thread, I thought I'd look first to see if someone before me had asked the question- and sure enough, I had my answer in about 3 minutes (which was "no" btw). Simple question; simple answer; already been asked: QED.

Good Hunting!

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

I still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers.

[Von Fauster]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

I still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Question KIA.

It has to do with the footware that the Heer issued to their gunners. Essentially light gerbil-skin moccasins, the gunners simply couldn't get enough traction to run. CM models this accurately by only allowing HMG crews to "move" not "run".

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

I still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why yes, they should be able to!

Now let's go into that. I doubt that's ever been mentioned.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Guest barrold713]

I kind of like the idea that as the game matures, patches are applied, and more exposure is gained, a certain amount of covering topics is a healthy thing that should not be overly discouraged by barrages of 300mm flame rockets.

If someone has the inclination to provide some information, state an opinion, or augment the case for some previously heretical viewpoint I think that is a good purpose for continuing to be up to date on this forum.

OTOH...I know it can get aggravating to see the some posts but they can easily be ignored. Or being polite to these posters can be thought of as an exercise in gaining good karma.

BTW each time I read a thread and see a BTS post, I am reinforced in my loyalty to this game and the people behind it. Getting a response along with a genuine discussion of topic from a developer is a unique and impressive luxury in the gaming world.

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

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

I still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you were a true German, you would know that they can run like deer carrying their HMGs and always led the assault, with infantry hustling up behind (the slackers). The only thread where I completely lost my temper with someone, and refused to go back to it. Never did find out how it ended.

TelGerot, I can't add much to what's already been said here except that if I see an easy to answer, quick question, I try to do so. On more complex issues that have been discussed innumerable times before, I'd most likely be giving you an 'as I remember' answer that might miss essentials or get something slightly wrong. So a search will often turn up much better info, as well as (in many cases) giving people more insight into some of the people who post here (I've learned a lot about people who were on this Board when I arrived by reading old threads, as in who was knowledgeable, who was a snide crank, who was helpful, who's short tempered, etc.). And even though I have only been here since May, I have already seen a number of concepts that were discussed to death previously be discussed to death again, and in the last few weeks I have seen even these resurrected, sometimes in multiple threads at once, and stridently debated by new arrivals. When people point out that they've been discussed before and some of the conclusions reached and the reason behind them, you often get variations on the reply: So what, I wasn't here then and I don't accept that, and I want it changed right now. Most of the time all you can do then is walk away and wait for the inevitable flames and lock down. And lately, as soon as a thread is locked down, there are several individuals who decide it was some sort of personal affront, or part of scheme to 'suppress' them, and their posts in other threads become increasingly inflammatory, strident, and even abusive, with the trumpeted attitude 'they don't want to hear what I have to say'. After a while, they're right, almost no one does want to hear what they have to say about anything, and they've brought it on themselves. These people are in the minority, but they are posting the main body of 'discussed to death' threads, and figure significantly in every thread that gets locked down for whatever reason. They are also the people quickest to land in a thread where someone has been courteously told to do a search, and start spraying spittle about 'why can't anyone just answer the question', or 'hey, we can discuss this again till the walls crumble and you shut up'. The result: it appears to some that newbies aren't being helped and that there are attitudes towards their questions. After all, there's not much drama in a newbie question that's quickly answered and sinks to page 5 in 24 hours, as opposed to one where the 'defenders of newbie rights' start shouting about 'conspiracy', and 'oppression' and 'FNG attitudes', and whip the whole thing up into'attitudes' wars.

I have seen newbie questions treated brusquely, and some people are a little short with them. But I think that's the minority of cases. Keep in mind that the 'old-timers' too are starting to get a little short tempered when every time they try to give some idea of what's been said before, they are accused of 'holding the party line', or 'putting down discussion'. In general, I think people are making too much of the half dozen people on either side of this who have a problem, and that most of the problem threads involve a handful of 'hot button' issues that discussion of is becoming increasingly unwelcome.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Slapdragon]

You know, on the TMC site that I am on, it is etiquette to post a Cite with the URL of the previous discussion. Some of the "DO A SEARCH" stuff could be easily solved by saying : Hey -- Groggy, this was discussed earlier at URL....

Then maybe someone will come back and say -- yeah, but ut got flamed down before it was fullyt discussed (happens a lot on all discussion groups that flames end an otherwise adult disagreement) Or maybe they will say: uh, yeah, that answers it.

Many people run FAQs for newbys.

By the way, I don't know if this has been asked before, but I lost a tank in one game and killed a tank in another, can I just let them cancel each other out?

Steve Jackson

[Steve Clark]

Slap, that's exactly the point I was going to make. I have done a number of searches and sometimes after doing so, I still had to ask my question because I wanted to phrase it in a different way, thus getting slightly different answers. If someone really insists that such discussions were fully elaborated on before (as in quite a few cases), then post some URLs. Doing a search, for example, on FOW yields hundreds of threads, some relevant and some not. It would be of immense help to those asking old questions that for those that participated in earlier discussions, point to such specific threads. My 1 1/2 cents.

[jdmorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

I still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Newbie FYI: please be advised that this statement should be considered an inside joke. It generated one all time classic meltdown flamewars and goes into the pantheon of classics. If you are interested in an example how a BBS experiences flame / repeateded questions then a trip to the search function is a must for memory lane i

------------------

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers"

-- King Henry VI, Part II, Act 4, sc.2, l.86

[L.Tankersley]

Unfortunately, it's no easier for the old-timers to identify specific thread IDs discussing particular topics than it is for the newcomer. And at least the newcomer has an immediate motivation to do so. Consider it a rite of passage.

A FAQ would be nice. Is any more progress being made on that? I sent in a couple of additional answers (and a new question IIRC) and they haven't showed up on CAR_12's site - it doesn't seem to have been updated in quite a while. Anybody else picking up the flag? If so, it would probably be a good thing if, in addition to the summary answer, we could provide links to seminal threads on the topic of interest.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Steve Clark:

Slap, that's exactly the point I was going to make. I have done a number of searches and sometimes after doing so, I still had to ask my question because I wanted to phrase it in a different way, thus getting slightly different answers. If someone really insists that such discussions were fully elaborated on before (as in quite a few cases), then post some URLs. Doing a search, for example, on FOW yields hundreds of threads, some relevant and some not. It would be of immense help to those asking old questions that for those that participated in earlier discussions, point to such specific threads. My 1 1/2 cents.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You know, I just saw someone do just that. They posted every URL concerning previous discussion of the issue (which was a complex one), they posted a number of things that others, including BTS, had said about the decisions made on the issue. All the tools and info were there, but they didn't just post a yes/no answer (that would have left all the whys and why nots unanswered). Four posts or so later another newbie got on all bent out of shape and asked why no one had simply answered the first person's question. How does one win in these situations?

I agree that if you can find the original discussion and post it, that's a good thing and a great help (especially as people who've previously read the thread might be more likely to remember that it was actually discussed at length under some topic header that had little or no apparent relation to the discussion). Several very good 'revisited' discussions have occurred lately, and contributed to the game (MG effectiveness comes immediately to mind). But I think most of the 'people aren't being helpful' points are being raised about threads whose core discussion is: I want, I want, I want, and when replied to become I don't care, I don't care, I don't care, and loop back to I want.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[GonzoAttacker]

Welcome Newbie!! Enough said, no I need to go do a search to find my answer.... Maybe I will use Dogpile.com?? See you all out there in the war zone!

Seriously, doing a search seems to work well, O.K., just fine, great, in this Forum.

No question is stupid! Just stupid questions are stupid. Your question was not stupid.

There is my 1/2 penny worth of nonsense for the day.

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiloIndiaAlpha:

Im still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will edit my question for the benefit of the more sincere/caring/green/naive/gullible members of the forum.

I will use EML, Emotional Markup Language, based on XML it has its own Schema against which EML tags are verified. (And IMO much better than an Emoticon)

(DRIPPING_SARCASM)

Im still a newbie and I don't know if this has been asked before but why can't the crew of a heavy machine gun (eg MG42) run.

Thanks in advance for your answers

(END DRIPPING_SARCASM)

[This message has been edited by KiloIndiaAlpha (edited 09-14-2000).]

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GonzoAttacker:

Welcome Newbie!! Enough said, no I need to go do a search to find my answer.... Maybe I will use Dogpile.com?? See you all out there in the war zone!

Seriously, doing a search seems to work well, O.K., just fine, great, in this Forum.

No question is stupid! Just stupid questions are stupid. Your question was not stupid.

There is my 1/2 penny worth of nonsense for the day. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hello! Do you have a question? Or do you want to contribute? (it's a little hard to make out from your post). Has someone gotten in your face about something, and could it be rectified? Please, join the discussion, but let us know what your take on it is, so we can respond? Laugh? Ignore?

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Olle Petersson]

My only problem as relatively new in this forum is that the search engine doesn't agree with my searches.

I come up with a topic in my head that I think just has to've been discussed before. (The issue of airborne landings comes to mind.)

- I check the search engine and come up with nothing relevant, perhaps an AAR or so but nothing substantial.

- I then go on and post my issue, and is almost invariably met with "this has been discussed in length several times before".

Obviously I need some help understanding the features and limitations of this search engine, but there's no help function or information screen available.

1. Does the search engine recognise parts of words? (Hope it does or things can easily go out of hand...)

2. Can I use boolean expressions? (To narrow down the search after #1.)

3. ...

I'm quite used to search engines, but this one has so far illuded my logic.

Cheers

Olle

[Seanachai]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

My only problem as relatively new in this forum is that the search engine doesn't agree with my searches.

I come up with a topic in my head that I think just has to've been discussed before. (The issue of airborne landings comes to mind.)

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right, and sometimes the search engine is a little cranky. Not to mention that you get a return of topic headings that sometimes make no sense whatsoever. And then it's very useful to just say: I tried a search on this, but my question is this, and I can't find anything about it, or at least I'm not sure how to find out what I want to know. Could someone help me narrow down my search, or suggest a thread that would help? You might not get an answer, but you most likely will, and I can't imgagine that anyone (other than one or two cranks) would get snotty with you about it. No one is refusing to help people here, I've seen tons of people go out of their way to try and give some info to people's questions. For the most part the "this has been discussed before" response does not, in my experience, come up about every aspect of history/game engine/game play. It's most likely to be trotted out when new arrivals want to rediscover the wheel; in other words, discussions that cover no new ground, and most specifically, discussions that stridently 'ask' (demand would be a better term), that their expectations about how things should work be met, and that their pet feature hasn't been implemented.

On that note, what is it about Airborne landings that you want to know? If you've done a search on that topic (which isn't specific enough for me to know what it is you're looking for), and haven't come up with an answer, than post your question as a new thread, with the disclaimer that you've done a search, and your specific question is x, and that you didn't find anything. You might, and I say, might, get a person, maybe even two, who'll only post that that's been discussed before, and offer nothing further. More likely, you'll get people trying to help, some might even offer a URL as to where it's been discussed before (provided it has), and some might say they don't know, but what an interesting question.

If you've done a search on a specific question, and couldn't find your answer, then ask. If you've done that, asked your question, and rather than help you, people have said 'go do a search', then please share with us what that question was. Is there a specific issue you've had where you couldn't find the answer and people not only didn't help you, but dismissed your question? Tell us now, and I will personally do whatever I can to help find that answer, and stir up other people I know here to do the same.

------------------

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[Steve Clark]

I think a good tactic would be not only say that you have searched but prove it as well! A few weeks ago, I brought up a question about POV (Point Of View). Knowing that this had probably been a popular topic in the past, I referenced threads that talked about the god syndrome, first person perspective and even included a URL link to an old thread that came close to what I wanted to ask, but not quite. Therefore, I felt safe about asking a POV question.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Some good points being made in this thread (as in past threads on this topic ). Steves' (BTS's and Clark) points on the flame-prone threads and quirky search engine are right on the money. Many of the more in-depth topics seem to get a better reception than those that have been asked a thousand times and are available in many FAQ's (eg. when is TCP/IP coming out, how do I view all movies at once, etc). It's these latter type of questions that usually get the "Hey buddy, do a search" response from the old timers.

Sure, we could skip those frequently recurring questions, but many times the subject line gives little hint of what is inside (eg. "BTS: question for you"). A solution might be for BTS to post a link to several of the private FAQ pages on the main CM page. That might cut down on a lot of the clutter.

One more thing...if you want to do a "test" why is it necessary to start a new thread for each and every test?