Am I playing against a whiner named Edited?

[Redwolf]

I think it is better to name a few jerks.

Because otherwise the "attractive" opponents will stop playing new people altogether.

Obviously this mean punishing innocent people for the actions of the jerks. This is not what I would want.

And besides, most people here are well aware of the subjetive matter of these impressions and may decide on their own to play someone who once was outed. And when doing so, they will have a word about the former offending behaviour. So even the once-outed person has a reasonable chance to play most people here if he comes up with a resonable explanation.

Michael, I think the only thing you did wrong was to say you had low-quality troops, but apparently you forgot to mention (initially) that you agreed on that. I was mislead to assume the opponent set low quality on his own behalf.

[The_Capt]

And what happens when he changes his e-mail account?

Gents,

It is the Internet. I am really a 300 lb bearded woman looking to be someone's MAMA. I think magma is a hilarious sounding word and have seen monkeys trying to eat a Lepricaun (sp?)

"Get back ye ****e chukan little manstars!!"

The point is Mike can post this bloody e-mail address if he likes, because the individual may or may not keep it. He could change his handle, he could even change his ISP if it meant that much to him.

The Internet is the most impersonal intreractive medium out there and the first rule (The_Capt's First Rule of the Internet if you will) is to take nothing personally. If we met inreal life I would never call you all a pack of drooling sophmoric morons. Nor would I refer to the rest of you as pasty, basement dwelling Geeks who need to get laid.

No sir. I would be polite and nice as I could stand becuase we would be face to face and the consequences for rudeness are much higher in an intimate setting (insert joke here).

So if Micheal wants to post a bloody e-mail address, big whoop!! Buddy will set a Hotmail account and be a prick on that one. Hell maybe the posted e-mail address is his own personal "asshole address"..well some of us only have one (again insert joke here).

This is not a country club and the BTS boys have laid down house rules. As far as I am concerned these are the only rules that exist on this forum. So if they wish to ban these types of public display then they will.

Until then, Mr CucChin should probably jump on board and take Micheal to task if not..well, Schoolyard rules!!

[Mattias]

As always the opinions are divided. If this sounds harsh it's just because the issue at hand links to a very troubling "reality"..

--

Personally I think the whole concept of "naming and shaming" stinks when used outside a small, mutually dependent community. As we see it used today, on national level in some countries, it has pretty much nothing do to with justice, but is instead fueled by fear, frustration, voyeurism and sensation seeking.

It is just painfully obvious how inadequate the human psyche to handle matters of justice, guilt and forgiveness outside, and even inside, the group of people closest to us, the ones we depend upon, physically or emotionally.

In my opinion, to put it strongly, you are abusing the freedom of expression granted by this forum using it as a tool in a personal vendetta. It's just not your privilege to make his "name" public in association with allegations presented by you only.

Screw the schoolyard, bring on formalized, open and clear justice. Man is yet a few thousand years from being a naturally moral creature.

That fact does not exempt us from the obligation of trying though...

--

M.

[Redwolf]

Mattias, you make some valid points.

However, I think you overlook that the suspect has every right to defend himself here. He has the same posting previleges than Michael. His name (or email) did not end up on a web page (or printed publication) which he can't edit to add his view of things.

[Captain Wacky]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

And what happens when he changes his e-mail account?

Gents,

It is the Internet. I am really a 300 lb bearded woman looking to be someone's MAMA. I think magma is a hilarious sounding word and have seen monkeys trying to eat a Lepricaun (sp?)

"Get back ye ****e chukan little manstars!!"

The point is Mike can post this bloody e-mail address if he likes, because the individual may or may not keep it. He could change his handle, he could even change his ISP if it meant that much to him.

The Internet is the most impersonal intreractive medium out there and the first rule (The_Capt's First Rule of the Internet if you will) is to take nothing personally. If we met inreal life I would never call you all a pack of drooling sophmoric morons. Nor would I refer to the rest of you as pasty, basement dwelling Geeks who need to get laid.

No sir. I would be polite and nice as I could stand becuase we would be face to face and the consequences for rudeness are much higher in an intimate setting (insert joke here).

So if Micheal wants to post a bloody e-mail address, big whoop!! Buddy will set a Hotmail account and be a prick on that one. Hell maybe the posted e-mail address is his own personal "asshole address"..well some of us only have one (again insert joke here).

This is not a country club and the BTS boys have laid down house rules. As far as I am concerned these are the only rules that exist on this forum. So if they wish to ban these types of public display then they will.

Until then, Mr CucChin should probably jump on board and take Micheal to task if not..well, Schoolyard rules!!

You and me are the only ones makin sense here

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Mattias, you make some valid points.

However, I think you overlook that the suspect has every right to defend himself here. He has the same posting previleges than Michael. His name (or email) did not end up on a web page (or printed publication) which he can't edit to add his view of things.

But it is not the purpose of this board to be used to settle gaming disputes. Why is this so difficult for people to understand.

I challenge anyone to contact BTS directly and ask if it is acceptable to post the names / address of individuals who you think acted inappropriately in a game. Think of how immature this sounds?

Here is something to consider:

* almost all gaming disputes are the result of miscommunication. People have different styles of play, follow different rules, or are just not up to date on what is Kosher or not (case in point, Michael, a veteran of this board for quite some time didn't know about the 95 rule). How sure are you of not seeing your name in lights a day after a game, simply because someone didn't care for your style of play? Now picture a dozen such posts a week. Is this what we want here?

Settle your gaming disputes offline. If there is no resolution then do as I do, walk away. Do not spend one nanosecond worrying about it. If you feel obligated to inform the community about this individual then have them e-mail you in private.

Keep this crap off the boards, or else it will go the way of USENET and all the others.

[Panzer Leader]

Thank you Kingfish for that summary. So some people may disagree, oh well. This is embarrassing, and since Mr. Dorosh refuses to take the email address back out of the title can we at least have the decency to let this slip away into the abyss?

[Redwolf]

Kingfish, I was commenting about possibly naming cheaters in general. I agree that is board may not be the best place. Michael has been very careful to explain why he felt cheated, so I don't see a problem with FUD here. As for the discussion in this thread, I find it to be a surprisingly mature exchange of opinions for a delicate matter like this and it is useful.

As I said, I see an increasing rate of cheating. And the usual answer is "stop whining, play only people you know to be straight". Well, that's kinda the central problem - do we want to make it harder for new players to find "attractive" opponents who are willing to play them?

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Kingfish, I was commenting about possibly naming cheaters in general. I agree that is board may not be the best place. Michael has been very careful to explain why he felt cheated, so I don't see a problem with FUD here. As for the discussion in this thread, I find it to be a surprisingly mature exchange of opinions for a delicate matter like this and it is useful.

As I said, I see an increasing rate of cheating. And the usual answer is "stop whining, play only people you know to be straight". Well, that's kinda the central problem - do we want to make it harder for new players to find "attractive" opponents who are willing to play them?

I didn't see any evidence that this guy was cheating; only that he was whining. Surely no cheater worth his salt would give himself *one* conscript hetzer, no AT or Inf guns, and two MG HTs.

There is a certain amount of entertainment value in talking about whiners, but I don't see any reason why their names should be posted for all to see. This is a very different situation from actual cheater in SuperTed's tourney; he deserved to be outed.

[Michael Dorosh]

You may have a point Andrew; as a bow to Panzer Leader's sensibilities - the name has been edited from the title. It stays in the thread though.

The dude didn't cheat, you make a good point. He's even entitled to his opinion, as are all of us, about what constitutes acceptable force mixes or 'gamey' play.

But I don't think wasting two days of my time, only to decide on turn 21 of 30, that he no longer wants to play is acceptable. Especially if you were the one to pick all the parameters and set up the game in the first place! Nor do I think it cricket to ask for a password, after having offered one up, and then refuse to honour the offer.

[Compassion]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Michael, a veteran of this board for quite some time didn't know about the 95 rule).

What is this "95 Rule" which I, a longtime veteran of this board (who lost his 3 digit member number in the Great Crash (which is spoken of now only in whispers) also never heard of until this thread?

[Kingfish]

Compassion,

There is no ’95 rule’ per se. What this Pham fellow was referring to was that the Churchill VIII, which is armed with the 95mm gun, is excluded from Fionn’s short 75 list. Why he thought that the computer would follow Fionn’s guidelines when picking forces is beyond me.

Keep in mind that it’s not just the gun, but the combination of the gun and heavy armor of the Churchill VIII that excludes it. You will see that the Centaur IV and Cromwell VI and VIII, which have the same gun but lighter armor, are included.

Go here for a better explanation of which vehicles are included, and why:

Fionn's 75/76 rules

[ April 09, 2002, 02:53 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[Hensworth]

I can only say I am completely, utterly amazed at the amount of attention getting payed to this.

I have NEVER, repeat NEVER, been able to win a PBEM outright outside of tournament play. The reason simply being that most of the opponents I had managed to get the better of in any significant way decided to cop out without a word.

I thought it was a fact of life.

[Madmatt]

I hope this isnt 4 pages of whinning about other players. I don't have the time to dedicate to reading it so I am going to move it to the Opponents Wanted forum where it belongs.

Madmatt