Wow to the new demo!

[Mad Mike]

I did? Rereading what I wrote and... nope didn't. Communication is funny I guess. A smilie for you

Actually, i think you did .. I hardly ever posted here in my 10 years of lurking, but you are right, your posts were just too funny .

Thanks for the entertainment, it can get boring around here.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

And here we go again.

Yes, here we go again completely missing the point. But I understand that, as moderator of that Forum (you are, right?), you may be a bit more sensitive than the average person as to how the GS forum is viewed.

labelling guys as axe grinders etc just because they dont agree with you or your personal agenda.

I think I defined what an axe grinder is VERY CLEARLY. I don't give a flying fig if someone doesn't like what we do, or what I say, as long as they are mature, rational, and fair about it. Axe grinders have no interest in that, therefore I have no interest in them. If you want to call an "agenda" me feeling I don't have to put up with people who rely upon abuse, outright lies, and ridicule to get their points across... guilty as charged!

Of course, you wouldnt know this as you havent visited the site since Feb 09 and of course this means that you havent a clue what actually gets discussed over there.

Which is part of my point, is it not? I started reading that Forum before the axe grinders took hold of it. I stopped reading that Forum because they ruined any value in it, from my perspective. So no, I don't have any personal clue what's going on over there because a few axe grinders removed the incentive to find out. If you think I'm the only person to have done this I'm sure you're very mistaken.

And although I don't have first hand experience, based on what Ron just said it doesn't look like things have changed dramatically since I was last there.

No matter though as Im sure that not one thing that is ever discussed over there affects anything that happens here, and so why care either way.

True, but only because of the axe grinders make it so. Before they took hold I used to read GS, and a few other Forums, as a check and balance to our own Forum here. Usually there wasn't much out there that wasn't already here, but occasionally there was.

But I definitely and absolutely dont agree with labelling anyone who ever posts at GS as disaffected maniacs who are plotting the destruction of BF and all it stands for.

Right... and who has done that so far? I certainly haven't. In fact I've said the opposite.

Its been said far too many times, its only a bloody game. Although I do understand that for you its your living but less than 20 posters on a very obscure site at the arse end of the web shouldn't bother anyone here beyond being mildly interested in it.

I am only mildly interested in it

I have to admit I don't understand where you are coming from here. It's like you have blinders on or something, nobody is doing what you are claiming. It seems to me your response has very little to do with what Steve wrote in your quote - read it again? It really comes across like you are labelling and have an agenda. I don't know Steve apart from these boards, but at this point and time I can't help but feel sympathy for him.

While I would not go so far as to say that GSX has an agenda, I do think he is more sensitive as to how people view GS because of his involvement with it.

Its simple really. Every few months someone mentions that certain posters at GS are being a bit negative. Someone here then tars all of GS with the same brush that its a CMSF negative site populated by doomsayers and those that want to see BF sink into the sea. All Im trying to counter this with is that this simply isnt true and yes I agree that 1 or 2 might be like that but not the majority.

I agree with this. But the fact is the attention placed on GS is not factually incorrect. The doomsaying axe grinders do exist there and are particularly nasty examples of online interaction. They also were, and perhaps still are, the most prolific posters. If I, as a reader, see a thread with 50 posts in it and 40 of them are made by 1 or 2 people, it's hard NOT to judge the quality of the Forum based on the 40 posts despite it only being 1 or 2 people.

On the plus side, if the number of hardcore axe grinders is down to 1 or 2 people then there has been a dramatic improvement since February. When I was last there I think there were at least 6 prolific ones. I remember them fairly well because they all have, or occasionally still do, post here. I've also banned 3 of them (multiple times in 2 of the 3 cases) so they do stick out in my mind

Steve

[GSX]

I dont think its any great secret that I am a moderator at GS. I dont see your point, all I see is you carrying on about 1 or 2 guys at GS as you accuse them of carrying on about BF.

Somewhere in between is the truth of it all and you can and do gripe and grate and bully when you want to.

Im also very much involved in WaW where there have been equal discussions about CMSF, but hey, the guys there are not the same ones as you seem to carry a grudge for at GS and so it never seems to get a mention.

I'm not even trying to argue any points with you here except that the GS guys arent anywhere near as bad as you are making them out to be and stupidly, they can tar you and others here with exactly the same brush.

I have never really had to MOD anyone at GS other than a mutual friend or two and without mentioning any names I have a feeling that you share no love at all for one of them. While some of the things that are said at other forums may be negative towards BF they arent necessarily lies.

This is yet another round of lets play storm in a teacup here and in my humble opinion it really doesnt make either party look any good.

[Marco Bergman]

In my opinion, things discussed at other sites should only be answered or discussed at those sites.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

I'm just saying repeating the old truth that one rotten apple can spoil the whole barrel. I have not "tarnished" the others on GS with a "broad brush". I've been very specific about what I've said and the conclusions I've come to. And that is the volume and tone of a few individuals was enough for me to decide never to go there again. So if the other 99% of the people there are fantastic, it's irrelevant because I don't care to wade through that stuff.

I'm not familiar with the WaW board so that's why I don't mention it.

While some of the things that are said at other forums may be negative towards BF they arent necessarily lies.

That's obviously true. I'd say, based on memory, that very few things said there were outright lies. Some lies here and there, yes, but deliberate misrepresentation and/or distortion of fact was more common. Since there was intent behind such actions, that counts as a "lie" in the books of many. Baseless conspiracy theories, many of which were in stark contrast to stated facts, aren't lies either per se. However, they have the intention of misrepresenting facts. Then there was the usual junk like going through a 30 post thread over on this Forum and finding the one sentence of one post that they felt they could do spin negatively and purposefully removing the context since it would undermine their point of view. These are the typical tricks people with weak ideas and low self esteem use when they find rational and fair debating doesn't work for them. Not to mention taring and feathering anybody who dares to call them on such behavior, or (worse) voice an opinion that is radically different than their own.

In total, the sum of these tactics was designed to distort reality to conform to a preconceived, unshakable, negative point of view. Besides deep psychological needs within them, the purpose is to propagate a particular point of view without being subjected to a the balancing effects of having their views challenged. Not a lie in and of itself, but hardly honest.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Marco,

In general I agree. But occasionally it's inevitable that outside influences (like 3rd party reviews, discussions with friends offline, etc.) will come into discussions here. That being said, I think this discussion has said what it needs to say so I'm locking it up.

Steve