Old Forum rules revisited

[Battlefront.com]

So, now for something related to my absence... the behavior on this Forum.

I'd be lying if I said that my vacation from the Forum wasn't enjoyable. The level of bitching, complaining, rudeness, intolerance, disrespect, and outright abuse that a handful of people have felt they are entitled to has become intolerable. Before the hiatus I put up with a lot of this behavior simply because there was, unfortunately, quite a bit to bitch about rightly and wrongly. But the time for that has passed. We need to move on from the squabbling and get back to the productive way this Forum used to be. And that's why I'm going to remind you all of how things are supposed to work around here so there is no excuse for continued rule breaking.

This is a Forum to exchange ideas and opinions about Combat Mission in a constructive manner. Therefore, the rules basically boil down to two basic concepts:

1. If it isn't about Combat Mission (indirectly is usually OK), it is off topic and not to be posted here.

2. If a post has nothing constructive to add to the discussion, it is unproductive and not to be posted here.

Really, that's all there is too it. People who choose to post in opposition to these simple, official and traditional, concepts will be warned that their behavior is unacceptable. One warning is all that someone is entitled to, whether their Member number is #1 or #26001. After one warning I may give another, or I may just revoke the Member's posting privileges. Because they are, in fact, privileges and not a right.

In order to head of the usual "Battlefront is trying to censor people and keep them from posting comments critical of their games!!!" I have this to say:

Poppycock

This Forum has been around for 10 years now. We have never, ever, even ONCE banned someone for expressing an opinion that is critical of our work. We have, unfortunately, had to ban a decent number of people who haven't a clue how to express a critical opinion in a constructive way vs. a destructive way. As the Forum rules clearly state, the former is welcomed and the latter is expressly forbidden. It isn't our responsibility to teach people the manners their parents obviously failed to instill on them as children.

Pretty simple? Pretty clear? OK, then let me move onto talking about a specific type of poster here...

There are some people who insist on posting only negative comments, very often in violation of the rules. As I've said, I've allowed an extraordinary amount of latitude here in terms of applying the Forum rules. But that time has passed and I must now insist that such people either start behaving in a way that is consistent with the Forum's two major principles or cease posting on their own. My advice is to come back at a later time, for example when we release the WW2 version. Maybe the things that make such people rather ill tempered and sometimes downright nasty will be "fixed" and therefore an attitude change "fixed" along with it. Or perhaps not. But I see no reason why any of us have to sit here and continue to listen to what amounts to aimless bitching.

Remember folks, we are only on this planet for an unknown, and rather short, time. So why spend it here being unproductive about a game you don't even like to play? Think of all the things one could do instead... like finding another game that is more enjoyable, or discovering a new hobby that isn't so frustrating, or finding some other thing besides pounding angrily on a keyboard. Yup, if you can't follow the simple Forum rules here on your own, then I'm sure that banning you would actually be doing you a favor. Though there is no need to thank me if I do ban you, I'm just a benevolent being trying to help my fellow Man find true happiness

So there you have it... let's get back to discussing CM:SF and stop the rather unpleasant and (at times) childish behavior that made me prefer finding out how rotten my porch is (VERY) or why my snowblower wouldn't run (it's either the carb or the coil) rather than keeping up with this Forum.

Thanks,

Steve

[ December 04, 2007, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Dogface]

Thank you BattleFront.

[Michael Dorosh]

Don't forget changing track on the Weasel, Steve. Of course, you probably actually DID enjoy that. And were dressed in camouflage to boot...

[Battlefront.com]

Actually, I broke my Bombadier track and no, I haven't fixed it yet. Sub freezing temps and now a foot of snow have made that a Spring job. Blast it!

Oh, and my winter gear is not camouflaged. OD Austrian quilted overalls are my weapon of choice

Steve

[Meach]

Well said. I am sure if there are questions asked or criticism laid out, as long as it's in a mature way I am sure Steve won't lash out with the banstick.

[Hev]

LOLOLOL

I think right now the one thing thats realy, truly important that we can take from the op is the word: POPPYCOCK

Use and Enjoy

[Sixxkiller]

This game sucks, when are you going to fix the bugs? I will never play this game again. YOU RIPPED ME OFF BFC!

[igor]

This is an unbelievable post. Not a peep for 2 months and then THIS? Talk about biting the hand that USED to feed you. This will only inflame those who, like myself, feel that CMSF is unfinished, unplayable in it's present state and will most likely be very skeptical about ever purchasing a Battlefront item again.

[Lars]

Yes, but we won't have to hear them bitch anymore.

[Xanthos581]

And your first ban is........

My father told me that "carburettor" is French for "leave it alone". Problems are usually electrical. Although, I've had a few gunked up carbs in my time.

[MarkEzra]

Igor: "un-believable"? I'm not sure I follow. BFC reminds us ALL that dissent and respect for opinion are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps your rancor about the game is clouding your thinking. Why would posters be "inflamed" by a re-stating of rules long in existence? And what connection is there between "Not a Peep in two months" and Noting the forum, recently, has not always followed established guidelines? No matter what your POV the forum rules pertain to all.

[Thomm]

Does it make a difference whether I choose 'General' or 'Armor' when using 81 mm mortars, or not?

And what about light, medium, heavy missions for 155mm howitzers?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by igor:

This is an unbelievable post. Not a peep for 2 months and then THIS? Talk about biting the hand that USED to feed you. This will only inflame those who, like myself, feel that CMSF is unfinished, unplayable in it's present state and will most likely be very skeptical about ever purchasing a Battlefront item again.

nothing short of mind boggling....

just a hint

in RealLife when an authority figure says its time to lay down the law, there is usually a follow up to that action that results in someone's mistake or actions being made "an example of" if you catch my drift.....

So hands up.... Who would like to be made the first example of "how to get banned" ? :eek:

[Dogface]

Rollstoy,

The answer to your question is a resounding YES!

[Webwing]

Steve,

I didn't find the lack of news and posts from BF disturbing in anyway. But the lack of a moderator was.

Welcome back!

--

[Martin Krejcirik]

Maybe nobody was banned for criticizing, but I was once banned here (in the late Dangerous Waters forum) for asking a simple question (based on previous incarnation of that engine), but luckily was able to revert the verdict

[igor]

well, they can ban my ass anytime they want.

the emperor has no clothes.

and still, curiously, not a word, a clue, a hint on the elusive 1.05, the magical patch that will fix all and bring us world peace to boot.

sorry, but calling out your customers because they're unsatisfied with being beta testers after paying $50 for the privilege is absurd.

[Hev]

Originally posted by igor:

well, they can ban my ass anytime they want.

the emperor has no clothes.

and still, curiously, not a word, a clue, a hint on the elusive 1.05, the magical patch that will fix all and bring us world peace to boot.

sorry, but calling out your customers because they're unsatisfied with being beta testers after paying $50 for the privilege is absurd.

You must have only looked at this thread, try looking at others!

[Battlefront.com]

There following two examples of complaining represent the same fundamental expression of dissatisfaction with CM:SF. One, however, is constructive and the other is not. If someone reading this can't tell the difference, or can't see that only one is acceptable on this Forum, then that person will probably not be around much longer:

Example 1I bought CM:SF as a preorder and was greatly disappointed with it. Many of the things that I found essential to my love of the first bunch of Combat Missions were either buggy, missing, or in a form that was unrecognizable to me. The patches have helped some of the problems, but I feel the game is still a let down. I'm quite disillusioned with the core game design and I doubt I'll be buying any other CM games in the future. It's a shame because I really loved the first series and so much wanted to love the second one as much.

Example 2CM:SF SUCKS! I can not BELIEVE the design decisions that were made! It's worse than a train wreck and anybody that thinks otherwise must have suffered a brain injury, because clearly there is nothing good about this horrid piece of crap. It's fundamentally broken and there is no hope for it except to scrap the code and start over again, which Battlefront says they aren't going to do. So we're stuck with this horrid AADD piece of junk forever. I'm so pissed about this I even kicked my dog this morning. GRRRRR!!!

Now, from my perspective I see the same underlying things in both messages; the person doesn't like what we made and is disappointed. But one of the expressions of this is rational, respectful, and perhaps even the start of a productive discussion. The other is a complete waste of time to read and serves no constructive purpose here on this, or any, Forum. I don't see any reason why anybody, critic or fan alike, should have to put up with unbridled negative posts.

It should be clear to everybody that we do understand many people were/are not pleased with the state of CM:SF. To the best of my knowledge I don't think a single NEW reason for this has been stated since the first couple of weeks post-release. Therefore, by now either we understand the discontent or we don't, which means going on and on and on and on and on (even if politely) about the overall feelings towards the game isn't very constructive. Having specific, focused discussions about individual features is a bit more useful since there is a possibility that something hasn't been covered (though most of the big issues have been beaten to death). I only ask that the detractors try as hard to understand the other side's perspective as they do their own. I've generally seen a lack of this and it is counter-productive since arrogance is an impediment to understanding, not a facilitator of it.

Lastly... from time to time people have complained about the moderation on this Forum. Some have even suggested that the moderation was the source of the problems, not the solution. I hope the last few weeks can act as an unintended example of what this Forum is like without active moderation.

Special note to Martin Krejcirik....

REALLY? Were you booted off by a BFC staff member or one of the developers who were primarily in charge of their own Forum? Just curious, because I can see no reason why anybody should be booted off for asking a question. I mean, there wouldn't be too many people left if that were the case

Steve

[Abbott]

Steve many of us know that you have a business to run. You can expect my full cooperation in this. I am looking forward to 1.05.

Regards,

Nick

[DaveDash]

Actually Steve I think both are unconstructive, but one is definately less banworthy than the other.

Perhaps if #1 said: "This is what I'd like to see improved...." then it would be more constructive IMO.

I've seen this with a lot of games in a lot of game forums. There is generally a lot of 'resistance' when developers try and do something new, and very rarely they get it right. The big difference however is posters that go "Well I'd like to see it fixed this way" and those that just bitch.

One saving grace with many other games is they have been highly modable, so the community has been able to fix many problems for the developers until they can come up with a proper solution. I don't know how modable CM:SF is or even if they are any tools, but it may be one thing that helps revitalise the game.

[igor]

to be clear,

"Example 1I bought CM:SF as a preorder and was greatly disappointed with it. Many of the things that I found essential to my love of the first bunch of Combat Missions were either buggy, missing, or in a form that was unrecognizable to me. The patches have helped some of the problems, but I feel the game is still a let down. I'm quite disillusioned with the core game design and I doubt I'll be buying any other CM games in the future. It's a shame because I really loved the first series and so much wanted to love the second one as much." represents exactly the way I feel about CMSF. Period.

What I found offensive was the condescending original post in this thread saying basically

we know what the problems are, we're working on it and stop bitching about it. i don't think people were necessarily bitching about it (ok, some were) as the complete lack of communication from BFC until the post referred to above. it just struck me the wrong way. and that's all i have to say about that.

[Guest]

Steve, just so I'm clear, we have to be following BOTH rules at once, right? I do get tangential.

Also, how "indirect" is indirectly related?

I'm totally serious. I'm in an incredibly bad mood (work), I hope to post, and I'd like not to be breaking the rules.

Cheers.

[Guest]

Igor, I dunno. The same things used to bother me too. Now, I think when Steve talks about trying to understand perspectives, that same idea applies in places other than peoples' literal messages. Sometimes, for instance, tone has a lot to do with perspective.

Steve is a good guy, but he sometimes comes off as condescending, just like Sixxkiller comes off as abrasive, or I come off as arrogant, or Huntarr comes off as a crazy Marine with a bizarrely large collection of art (well, this might be true), etc., etc.

Just try and look past that at the actual message. Forums are a horrible place to judge tone. And even if they mean it, it's not going to change. You kind of have to make peace with it.

Also, the "understanding perspectives" thing needs to swing both ways, Steve.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by igor:

and that's all i have to say about that.

Promise?