One sided.

[-Pv-]

"possibility is that the frustration and irritation which has accumulated over the years of moderating this forum has made you more cranky and less tolerant"

I didn't see cranky intolerant. I saw a warning that the rules posted for the forum (which everyone knows) were being violated and a warning went out. Violator cooled a bit and threats went away. Anyone who has experienced flame wars on other forums know this method above is much preferred to unlimited tolerance.

I would hope that preyb would convince his brother to let him play the fun side once in a while and the brother would learn something valuable in the process.

-Pv-

[Battlefront.com]

76mm,

That is certainly a possibility, although another possibility is that the frustration and irritation which has accumulated over the years of moderating this forum has made you more cranky and less tolerant than would otherwise be the case.

I think if you look back at how I handled people 10 years ago you'd see the opposite is the case. I've become less irritated and less frustrated with this Forum over the years because I've figured out how to cope better with people who can't follow the simple rules we have laid out. And I think the record speaks for itself... tens of thousands of members, only a tiny percentage banned. None of them for arbitrary and unreasonable reasons.

But in the end this is a free market. If people think this Forum is too ruthlessly moderated people can go somewhere else. If people think this Forum is full of disrespectful and purposefully antagonizing posters they can also go to other venues. Me, personally, I rather participate in a Forum which has clear, sensible rules which are enforced evenly and as a matter of routine in order to keep the Forum worthy of my time.

Steve

[Lethaface]

in order to keep the Forum worthy of my time.

And here is at least one person that is happy about that. Reading 20 pages of semi (not always ofc) interesting posts is one thing, reading 20 pages of complete BS is something I do rather not. I think it does clearly show with regard to the topics, dicussions and general tone on this forum.

[GSX]

tens of thousands of members, only a tiny percentage banned

Works for me. Although those tens of thousands registered seem to translate to less than a hundred posting nowadays.

A lot of the good posters have left and the volume hasnt been replaced, a few new guys have arrived with CMSF but it seems to me that the target audience and slant of CMSF doesnt really engender itself to the intensity of before. Either this or the non-ww2 game just doesnt appeal to the same audience.

This means that when a nayesayer turns up he tends to get immolated by about 5 guys at once defending every aspect of his negativity. I'm not saying that this guy didnt arrive the wrong way though, I think he did. But his treatment [not by BF] is pretty indicative of how things can appear here a lot of the time.

I know not everyone here is a fanboi and like most guys are here because they like the game, but everytime someone disagrees with the majority it can be pretty agressive.

I think the gist of the guys gripe was that 2 player CMSF isnt very good. I can actually agree with this premise as it isnt very good 2 player, but for the obvious reasons as stated by Steve and others. Theres no getting round this, 2 player games have to be mirrored in general and it usually always comes down to who did the Syrians more damage.

Maybe the summer of 43 was the last time that forces may have been equal?

[Battlefront.com]

This means that when a nayesayer turns up he tends to get immolated by about 5 guys at once defending every aspect of his negativity.

Which is, I think, a good thing when the nayesayer is rude, obnoxious, offensive, etc. There should be a very low tolerance for such behavior. There is in the real world, so why should here be any different?

The tone of these Forums has always oscillated between civil and downright nasty. Then we have to step in and try and sort things out and do damage control to the Forum itself. But you are correct that the WW2 crowd appears to have a different character to it, probably because too many people think they know everything. With Modern it is clear that most people here on this Forum are here to learn more than they are to preach.

I'd say the "nasty" factor is radically lower now than at any point in the last 10 years. And the people who are posting here now want to keep it that way. Which is understandable because we do as well. When the worst of the WW2 grogs come a swinging their cats again (oh how I look forward to that... not! ) they will find a different attitude by us towards deliberately unproductive and counter productive personalities. It only takes a couple of people to really ruin the positive experience people come here to enjoy.

Since these Forums are here for enjoyment and education, not as outlets for unbalanced personalities with deep psychological issues, you all will see some changes in how we moderate things going forward. Our tolerance for people who don't know how to express themselves in a socially acceptable manner has gone down and therefore such people will find their stay here rather short if they can't follow the rules which ALREADY exist.

Steve

[[hirr]Leto]

But you are correct that the WW2 crowd appears to have a different character to it, "probably because too many people think they know everything". With Modern it is clear that most people here on this Forum are here to learn more than they are to preach.

Steve

Now what the heck is that supposed to mean?

: )

Cheers!

Leto

[GSX]

But you are correct that the WW2 crowd appears to have a different character to it, probably because too many people think they know everything. With Modern it is clear that most people here on this Forum are here to learn more than they are to preach.

Actually, thats not what I said at all. I said that this forum can and has often been a nasty place to post, and let me emphasise that I think its regardless of gaming era.

A lot of people are indeed here to learn, but a lot of people also seem to be here to preach and not listen, on both sides let me add.

At times, and more often than not, the BF staff take a backseat to the pro-game stance and come down harder on the more difficult anti-game stance. I might add here that of course you do, its your game and forum, but it is obvious to me.

Has your forum changed over the years and have you mellowed? I'm not sure on the latter as until SF I was never really a forumite as I didnt like the forum, which means that for me at least then the forum HAS gotten better.

I might add that these are simply MY observations though and Ive often been wrong.

[GLynn41]

while I rarely post I have been with BFC since CMBO- and the forum has changed-- for the better overall i think - as to the current discussion - regardless of who you fight in life or a game if it is a fair fight you are doing something wrong-you can build you own battles make them as hard as you can stand-- I have tried to beat Red Pepper as the Marines and so far have not done it- I have inflicted a lot of causalities-- but lost every time all 5 of them -- I have not give up as I got close the last time-- I am not very good because most battles for me are a struggle- but it is getting better-- the things one can see in this game- rounds slamming through afvs- grenades rolling - javs going up over and down-- I watched (over and over ) a T62 explode and knock down the small building next to it-- If any of you guys can beat red pepper easily please lets play and show me how --or just tell me:)

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Actually, thats not what I said at all. I said that this forum can and has often been a nasty place to post, and let me emphasise that I think its regardless of gaming era.

OK, correction noted. I still think the WW2 discussions tend to get pretty heated pretty quickly and more frequently because there are more people with strong opinions about things which aren't solidly factual. And in many cases are solidly factual, but sources produce different values to use for the discussions. With Modern there seems to be a lot less people who are interested in arguing to the death over minutia.

A lot of people are indeed here to learn, but a lot of people also seem to be here to preach and not listen, on both sides let me add.

Obviously. And often the "sides" have nothing to do with Combat Mission. Sometimes, especially in WW2, the topics are about things which are outside the scope of CM or are simply not a part of the game.

At times, and more often than not, the BF staff take a backseat to the pro-game stance and come down harder on the more difficult anti-game stance. I might add here that of course you do, its your game and forum, but it is obvious to me.

Well, that's inevitable because the odds are if someone is being unproductive, rude, abusive, or otherwise nasty... 9 times out of 10 it's someone with a negative opinion of the game, the forum, or posters who are "fanbois". People who are critical of our games, or whatever, who CAN voice their criticism productively never get hassled by me or anybody else. Because why would they? It's the ones with chips on shoulders and bad attitudes that get singled out and those are almost always people who have something negative to say.

Or put another way, how many supporters have you seen start up threads like this one but in support of the game?

Now, it has always our position to allow a certain form of "social correction" to keep unproductive, negative posters in line. We tend to only get involved when it starts to get out of hand. This form of moderation has been questioned a thousand times over the years, usually by people who have similar problems expressing themselves productively. And to that my answer has always been that the alternative is to just start banning people after their first out of bounds post. That, obviously, doesn't go over too well with the people who want to be critical but not productive.

As I eluded to, we have something in mind for the new WW2 Forums that will serve as an experiment for how to handle people who do not want to follow the rules. I expect that a lot more people will get banned, but I also suspect that the productivity and enjoyment level of the Forum will be higher.

Has your forum changed over the years and have you mellowed? I'm not sure on the latter as until SF I was never really a forumite as I didnt like the forum, which means that for me at least then the forum HAS gotten better.

I might add that these are simply MY observations though and Ive often been wrong.

It's an area where perception is extremely important. All I can say is that the Forum rules are very clear and when someone purposefully breaks them they need to be reminded of that fact. It doesn't matter WHAT their point is, the method of the message is what is of importance.

GLynn41,

while I rarely post I have been with BFC since CMBO- and the forum has changed-- for the better overall i think

Thanks!

as to the current discussion - regardless of who you fight in life or a game if it is a fair fight you are doing something wrong-you can build you own battles make them as hard as you can stand-- I have tried to beat Red Pepper as the Marines and so far have not done it- I have inflicted a lot of causalities-- but lost every time all 5 of them -- I have not give up as I got close the last time-- I am not very good because most battles for me are a struggle- but it is getting better-- the things one can see in this game- rounds slamming through afvs- grenades rolling - javs going up over and down-- I watched (over and over ) a T62 explode and knock down the small building next to it-- If any of you guys can beat red pepper easily please lets play and show me how --or just tell me

The Strategy and Tactics Forum has a lot of stuff to help out. But my one single biggest piece of advice to people is move cautiously and deliberately. Moving quickly and without a purpose is a sure way to get zapped hard.

Steve

[GLynn41]

boy aint that the truth