SZO/Gamesquad - The other side of the hill
eddys...@hotmail.com
This is going to be a long post because it's a copy & paste job from
an e-mail conversation I had today with Don Maddox. I convinced Mr.
Maddox that posting it in here would make a positive difference - but
I've been known to be wrong before :)
If the words/abbreviations "SZO", "JR" and "Distant Guns" don't mean
anything to you, skip this post, it's a long, complicated and utterly
boring story for those who were not involved in that dustup.
-
Don Maddox - initial mail
Eddy,
I just wanted to take a moment to mention something that is, by now,
ancient history. I've seen you mention the Distant Guns thread that
caused all the fuss several times, and I would just like to say a few
things about that.
First, the thread is right where it has always been. The thread was
never moved, nor was it deleted. It's still in the DG forum for all to
see. At the point where there was a lot of arguing going on in there,
several posts were
temporarily closed. They were not deleted, but merely temporarily
closed to give people a chance to cool off.
Second, there has been a lot of malicious misinformation spread by
various individuals on USENET and elsewhere about how people with
critical views of SES were mistreated. Hogwash. Exactly three people
were banned as a result of that sad episode, and all three of the bans
were temporary (except for really extreme cases, I do not allow the
moderators to hand out perma-bans). All of the ban lasted less than a
week, and I believe two of them were for 24 hrs or less. People post
critical stuff about games all over our forums
every day. Some of it comes from us! People don't get in hot water for
posting critical comments, they get in trouble for bashing other
members or breaking the forum rules.
One person received a temporary ban for flaming other members and
talking about "tonguing Mr. Kogers ass." Game sites work very hard to
get developers to occasionally visit (most never do), and so it's true
the mods tend to take exception to unruly members making statements
like this. Mr. Koger is very reserved and mild mannered, and he in no
way deserved to be treated like this.
A second person was banned for created multiple user accounts (at
least four that we know of) and using them to incite a flame war. One
account would make a provocative statement, and then another from the
same person would agree, and so on. Even if the poster's messages were
very mild, this type of behavior is expressly forbidden by the Terms
of Use of every repeatable game forum. It's just old fashioned
trolling. Of course, when the mods finally banned this guy once his
multiple accounts were discovered, it makes the
mods look draconian because the public doesn't know *why* it happened
and mods are not permitted to discuss bans in public.
The third guy received a 24-hour ban for insulting the site staff.
Mods and editors are not there to get flamed.
The point is, every single one of those bans was completely justified
and I stand by what the mods did.
There has been a perpetual stream of misinformation about my site
since this little dustup, and numerous individuals continue to post
about it. The belief is that the mods and/or editors were attempting
to protect the
developers from SES. Not true. Those guys speak for themselves. They
made some pretty "interesting" statements on the forums at times, and
they took the heat for it. It's not the job of my editors or mods to
carry water for *any* publisher or developer. Ever. The fact is, I
spent massive amounts of money supporting the community, sponsoring
game tournaments, giving out prizes, and providing a resource for
gamers--long before we ever put a single advertisement on the site.
The idea that I or my staff in some way protects any developer is
absurd.
Here is another interesting tidbit: my staff of game reviewers is made
up of freelance journalists. These guys work for 1UP, Games for
Windows Magazine, Yahoo, and other game sites. Other than basic
editorial guidelines, we don't tell them what to write. The point
being, the reviewers just review the games and don't have any vested
interest in writing "good" reviews. Freelance journalists get paid the
same for a good review, bad review, whatever. They generally have no
strong affiliation with any particular magazine or website and so
advertising (or the lack thereof) has no bearing whatsoever on what
they write.
I know this is all ancient history, but I keep seeing people dredge it
up over and over again on the USENET (I only visit there about twice a
year). A lot of people run their mouths and think they know what
happened. Well, I *know* what happened because I have the forum
database. I can see who was really who, and which members were
creating multiple accounts and pretending to be other people in order
to whip up a fuss. I'm not defending SES in any way, but the mods
can't tolerate people creating five accounts and going after a
developer in an organized fashion. If the developer is making some
questionable decisions, the public and the press will let them know in
their own way.
Apologies for the long message. I just wanted to mention this since I
know you frequently read the USENET.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
----------------------------
My Reply
Do you want to know what the problem is ?
It wasn't people getting banned for personal attacks, it was because
of perceived double standards - that's what bothered me and a number
of other folks as well - and perception is what matters - below I've
copied my latest post regarding DRM and review websites which I think
sums it up quite well
Now, as you can read below, I do believe that review websites and
forums must walk a virtual tightrope - which inevitably will lead to
the occasional stumble. No big deal as far as I'm concerned, but
denying the stumble ever occured is not a good strategy to win back
the confidence of the people on Usenet.
So here's what I suggest : post what you just mailed to me on Usenet -
it will counter-balance the bias perception, add a word or two about
"could have handled it better given 20/20 hindsight" and everyone but
the die-hard paranoid will see you and your site in a more favourable
light.
If you feel uncomfortable with this I can do it for you with a few
words of my own in support.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
<Usenet post>
>So developers don't want to talk about it because they know it pisses off
>the customers they'll need - and (p)reviewers don't want to talk about it
>because they know it pisses off the developers they'll need.
>Only us lowly consumers want to talk about it. And this pisses off both
>developers and (p)reviewers. Unfortunately for them, we're the ones with
>the money.
Well, there's another player in this game : the review websites. Their
funding is advertisement based, but advertisements are worthless
without gamers visiting your review site, which they only do if you're
not just acting as the pr house of the publishers.
This is minefield country. And good intentions alone don't cut it.
Just a hypothetical example to illustrate this : say the guys at The
Wargamer finally manage to finish their Big Overview of 2006 article
and they give Conquest of the Aegean top spot in their Wargame of the
Year category. I'm betting money here that despite COTA also getting
top honours here and at other sites there will always be guys who go
"huh, figures, David Heath owns The Wargamer, so of course they picked
COTA". So what are they supposed to do to ? Be holier than the pope
and pick Distant Guns ? in which case the gamers will start suspecting
shady deals behind the curtains and you're back at square #1. Same
thing for SZO/ GameSquad. Say they pick Distant Guns - would you
believe this is done because Don Maddox strongly believes it's the
best wargame of 2006 or because he needs the SES add revenue ?
Our perception of this is individual and based upon personal previous
experience with that website and paranoia level. And the most stupid
thing of all is that our perceptions can be 100% correct or 100% wrong
- and we'll never know which one for sure.
</usenet post>
----------------------------------------
Don Maddox reply :
I understand exactly what you mean about "perceived double standards"--
believe me there is no one that is more painfully aware of it. I've
been doing this for almost 10 years and I have learned a lot about
forums and perception in that time. Whenever a moderator decides to
take action and impose a ban, it almost always generates a negative
response. No one likes being told they are wrong, and they especially
resent being told they have to follow rules set by the site. Very
often people will immediately migrate to another forum and start a
disinformation campaign to discredit the site in question. It happens
to IGN, it happens to 1UP, it
happens to The Wargamer, and it happens to us. The plain fact is, mods
and members do no always agree on what the rules should be and how/if
they were broken. Moderating a forum is an imperfect art to say the
least, and most volunteer moderators eventually get tired of being
flamed for doing their jobs and quit.
Our forums exist for gamers, not developers and publishers. Most
developers and publishers are far too busy to visit discussion forums,
and they also understand there is always going to be a significant
number of knuckleheads on any forum that will act like complete fools.
Most of them choose to stay on their own forums, where *they* are the
moderators. Game sites like Gamesquad are there for the gamers.
That said, do we want the developers to visit? Sure, we always want
that, and like other game sites we occasionally go the extra mile to
try to convince a developer it is in their best interests to
participate. We know
that gamers like the opportunity to hear things straight from the
horse's mouth and not through the interpretation of a games
journalist. But it is very difficult to convince them to participate.
Why? Because most know from bitter experience what the Internet is and
they know they will inevitably be drawn into flame wars started by
people trying to pressure them to add a certain feature, drop a
certain feature or whatever. So on those rare occasions where a
developer agrees to participate, the mods are instructed to ensure the
debate stays friendly.
In the case the DG dustup, it only took about 30-seconds before a
group of new members registered and went into attack mode. And as I
said earlier, several of them turned out to be one person masquerading
behind multiple user accounts. Numerous mods issues polite warnings in
that thread prior to any action being taken, and the mods could see
that part of it was people manipulating the discussion with multiple
accounts. Clearly, the intent here was to provoke a flame war and give
the appearance of a lot of people being upset with the developer. The
developers didn't make the jobs of the mods any easier because they
too posted some pretty hard-hitting comments.
But all of that is moot at this point. The fact is, we don't ban
people for making statements critical of a developer. But the mods
will intervene if people are bashing or flaming using foul language.
That puts the mods in a no-win situation. If they don't take steps to
keep the forums civil and the discussion friendly, then visiting
developers or publishers may get upset and never visit again. If the
mods do take action to keep the debate
friendly, someone will inevitably say the mods are in the pocket of
the developers. In the end, either the community or the developer (or
both) gets upset and insulted and the game site gets the blame!
Could we have handled that situation better? I'm certain we could
have. But it also bears mentioning that we didn't create the problem
in the first place. It was a disagreement between a visiting developer
and members of the community. That's got to be the nightmare scenario
for any mod to deal with.
I know I'm being long winded here, but you raised some very
interesting issues with you last post and I would like an opportunity
to throw in my 2 cents as an editor.
I think it is clear to most every gamer on the Internet that game
sites walk a very fine line every day. CNN and MSNBC report on news
events, most of which do not require any type of special access. But
they also report on politics, and that requires them to build
relationships with people on the inside or face the inescapable fact
of always being last to report on hot issues. Much of the most
interesting game news requires inside access to
developers and publishers, and it takes time and *a lot* of work to
get access. It is really hard for smaller game sites to ever get
exclusive news or access the way the big corporate game sites can. And
since a game site lives or dies on its ability to get interesting
news, it really sucks having the door closed in your face time after
time.
Many people outside the ranks of game journalists labor under the
misconception that journalists suck up to developers because they
don't want to lose precious advertising dollars. It's a baseless claim
99% of the time.
There are only a couple of big corporate sites that can afford to hire
staff reviewers. The vast majority of game sites use volunteer or
freelance journalists to review or preview games. These guys couldn't
care less what
advertising is or isn't on the site, or even if the site does
advertising. They get paid a standard rate and that is that. Some
people also think game journalists throw softballs to developers and
publishers because they don't
want to jeopardize their inside access. I won't say this doesn't
happen because it clearly is a concern. However, this tends to be the
exception, not the rule. What most people don't know is that many
journalists don't have much in the way of "access." This type of thing
is normally handled by an editor who sets up interviews or previews,
then hands off the assignment to the writer. The freelance journalist
has no vested interest in writing a "good" article or a "bad" one.
Journalistic standards in the game industry vary wildly from site to
site and even differ from article to article. Why? Because there isn't
much money in running a game site and most can't afford to pay $2,000
dollars per
article like Time Magazine! Many (or most) game sites don't even sell
their own advertising space, so the idea that the writers are being
soft on devs to protect revenue is absurd.
Are some reviewers too easy on games? Sure. Are some on a misguided
crusade to browbeat a developer over what a game isn't instead of what
it is? Yes. But this has little or nothing to do with advertising and
more to do with the writing skills of the reviewer.
Okay, I'll shut up now. I'm sure you're tired of reading by now! ;)
Just thought I would toss out my 2 cents for what it is worth.
-
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> Don Maddox - initial mail
> I just wanted to take a moment to mention something that is, by now,
> ancient history. I've seen you mention the Distant Guns thread that
> caused all the fuss several times, and I would just like to say a few
> things about that.
TRANSLATION: "Now that we've managed to bury all the evidence *deep* -
and let enough time pass that no one can possibly recall the spots where
the deleted posts and posters belong - we're going to tell some brand-
new lies."
> First, the thread is right where it has always been. The thread was
> never moved, nor was it deleted. It's still in the DG forum for all to
> see. At the point where there was a lot of arguing going on in there,
> several posts were
> temporarily closed. They were not deleted, but merely temporarily
> closed to give people a chance to cool off.
TRANSLATION: "Now that several months have passed, and no one could
possibly recall which posts and posters were deleted / banned and thus
prove that I'm a lying sack of shit, I'm saying everyone recalls it
wrongly, and nothing ever happened."
> Second, there has been a lot of malicious misinformation spread by
> various individuals on USENET and elsewhere about how people with
> critical views of SES were mistreated. Hogwash.
TRANSLATION: "Oh, fuck, but it pisses me off that there's a gigantic
part of the online world where people can rear back and tell the truth
about me and my shitty website without me being able to do fuck-all
about it. GrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrr."
> Exactly three people
> were banned as a result of that sad episode, and all three of the bans
> were temporary (except for really extreme cases, I do not allow the
> moderators to hand out perma-bans). All of the ban lasted less than a
> week, and I believe two of them were for 24 hrs or less.
[Editor's Note: I'm pretty sure there's a guy right here in this
newsgroup whose secondary IP address is *still* banned, or at least was
the last I heard. I'll let him come forward on his own, but rest
assured that Mr. Lying Fucking Liar is lying about the bans only lasting
"24 hours."]
> The point is, every single one of those bans was completely justified
> and I stand by what the mods did.
TRANSLATION: "I'm standing behind the same shit I say I never did.
Logic ain't my long suit."
> There has been a perpetual stream of misinformation about my site
> since this little dustup, and numerous individuals continue to post
> about it. The belief is that the mods and/or editors were attempting
> to protect the
> developers from SES. Not true.
TRANSLATION: "Now that all the posts and posters have disappeared, you
can't prove what happened. Hahahahaha. Me so smart."
> Those guys speak for themselves. They
> made some pretty "interesting" statements on the forums at times, and
> they took the heat for it.
TRANSLATION: "SES said anything they wanted. Anyone who questioned
them got banned and their posts were deleted. But you can't prove it
anymore. Ain't censorship grand?!?!"
> It's not the job of my editors or mods to
> carry water for *any* publisher or developer. Ever. The fact is, I
> spent massive amounts of money supporting the community, sponsoring
> game tournaments, giving out prizes, and providing a resource for
> gamers--long before we ever put a single advertisement on the site.
> The idea that I or my staff in some way protects any developer is
> absurd.
TRANSLATION: "SES is panicking. Sales are *really* in the toilet.
They ordered me to start mending my fences with honest people to buck up
their hapless fiasco. This is my mewling little start."
> I know this is all ancient history, but I keep seeing people dredge it
> up over and over again on the USENET (I only visit there about twice a
> year).
TRANSLATION: "I read USENET every single day, and it's *really*
chapping my ass that people keep telling the plain truth about my
ridiculous, transparent prevarications."
> A lot of people run their mouths and think they know what
> happened. Well, I *know* what happened because I have the forum
> database.
TRANSLATION: "I control the horizontal. I control the vertical. I am
King Shit of My Own Turd Mountain. Now that every bit of evidence has
been deep-sixed, I can say whatever insanely-lying bullshit strikes my
fancy."
Fuck.
What a repugnant assclown.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"A front-page story in The Post last week suggested that the Bush
administration has no backup plan in case the surge in Iraq doesn't
work. I wonder if The Post and other newspapers have a backup plan in
case it does."
- Robert Kagan
Giftzwerg
> Don Maddox reply :
> Our forums exist for gamers, not developers and publishers. Most
> developers and publishers are far too busy to visit discussion forums,
> and they also understand there is always going to be a significant
> number of knuckleheads on any forum that will act like complete fools.
TRANSLATION: "We wanted to build a safe haven where Jim Rose could act
like an utter asshat and fling insults far and wide, safe in the
knowledge that any criticism - however mild - of him or his product
would result in a swift deep-sixing for his interlocutors."
> Most of them choose to stay on their own forums, where *they* are the
> moderators. Game sites like Gamesquad are there for the gamers.
TRANSLATION: "Rose told me he would only advertise on my site if I
agreed to kick everyone who confronted him."
> That said, do we want the developers to visit?
TRANSLATION: "Our nose is so far up his ass he'll never need a
proctologist to check for polyps."
> Sure, we always want
> that, and like other game sites we occasionally go the extra mile to
> try to convince a developer it is in their best interests to
> participate.
TRANSLATION: "They give us money. They can do no wrong."
> We know
> that gamers like the opportunity to hear things straight from the
> horse's mouth and not through the interpretation of a games
> journalist.
TRANSLATION: "With participation from Jim Rose, gamers can get it
straight from the horse's ass."
> But it is very difficult to convince them to participate.
> Why? Because most know from bitter experience what the Internet is and
> they know they will inevitably be drawn into flame wars started by
> people trying to pressure them to add a certain feature, drop a
> certain feature or whatever. So on those rare occasions where a
> developer agrees to participate, the mods are instructed to ensure the
> debate stays friendly.
TRANSLATION: "Did you see how fast Norm Koger ran away from USENET when
people started asking questions about his Nazi DRM scheme? Developers
know that everybody *fucking hates* activation, and it pisses them off
when anyone mentions it, so we kick from the forum anyone who does."
> The
> developers didn't make the jobs of the mods any easier because they
> too posted some pretty hard-hitting comments.
TRANSLATION: "Of course, we didn't ban the developers and delete their
posts. They can do no wrong."
> But all of that is moot at this point. The fact is, we don't ban
> people for making statements critical of a developer.
TRANSLATION: "We *do* ban people for making statements critical of a
developer. Then we wait a half-year or more, deep-six all the evidence,
and lie our asses off about it. Hahahaha. We smart."
> Could we have handled that situation better? I'm certain we could
> have. But it also bears mentioning that we didn't create the problem
> in the first place. It was a disagreement between a visiting developer
> and members of the community. That's got to be the nightmare scenario
> for any mod to deal with.
TRANSLATION: "In any disagreement between an advertiser^H^H^H^H^H^H
developer and a gamer, we kick the gamer and pat the developer on the
back."
> I know I'm being long winded here, but you raised some very
> interesting issues with you last post and I would like an opportunity
> to throw in my 2 cents as an editor.
TRANSLATION: "Since no is interested enough in my shitty site to take
the trouble to catch me in my lies - and since I've done a cunning job
of hiding the evidence - I can say anything I want."
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <1174061511.351168.249...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> eddyster...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Don Maddox - initial mail
> > I just wanted to take a moment to mention something that is, by now,
> > ancient history. I've seen you mention the Distant Guns thread that
> > caused all the fuss several times, and I would just like to say a few
> > things about that.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Now that we've managed to bury all the evidence *deep* -
> and let enough time pass that no one can possibly recall the spots where
> the deleted posts and posters belong - we're going to tell some brand-
> new lies."
I don't know about the other posters involved but here's a bit of info
I never told Mr. Maddox : at the time it was pretty clear that bans
and deletes were just around the corner so I saved all my posts to my
harddisk. All my posts were there the week after the bomb fell and
they still are today - I checked. 20 years of corporate experience in
judging when the shit is going to hit the fan comes in handy
sometimes.
While checking this I came across a whole lot of other posts that
contain enough material for people to decide to keep a minimum
distance of 200 miles between them and anything JR related.
So, as far as I'm concerned I'm ok with SZO/Gamesquad - other people
may have a different story or take on it.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
Giftzwerg
eddys...@hotmail.com says...
> > TRANSLATION: "Now that we've managed to bury all the evidence *deep* -
> > and let enough time pass that no one can possibly recall the spots where
> > the deleted posts and posters belong - we're going to tell some brand-
> > new lies."
>
> I don't know about the other posters involved but here's a bit of info
> I never told Mr. Maddox : at the time it was pretty clear that bans
> and deletes were just around the corner so I saved all my posts to my
> harddisk. All my posts were there the week after the bomb fell and
> they still are today - I checked. 20 years of corporate experience in
> judging when the shit is going to hit the fan comes in handy
> sometimes.
I get the feeling that Asshat Maddox's next move is going to be to ask
for *proof* that posts were deleted and members banned, even though we
all know damn well that nobody can look at an empty parking space and
prove there was a car parked there yesterday, or what kind it was.
So he's safe. He's gotten away with it. And yet ... where *did* this
amazingly universal perception arise which holds that Maddox deleted a
pile of posts and kicked a pile of members?
I guess we all just imagined it. <g>
Major H
> amazingly universal perception arise which holds that Maddox deleted a
> pile of posts and kicked a pile of members?
It came from you.
Best regards, Major H.
Giftzwerg
> > ... And yet ... where *did* this
> > amazingly universal perception arise which holds that Maddox deleted a
> > pile of posts and kicked a pile of members?
> It came from you.
Oh, please. If I'd been merely claiming such a thing (any lying about
it, apparently, if I read your inference right), it would have been no
great deal for anyone to simply ask me - *at the time* - what posts or
posters I thought had been deleted, and then simply rub my nose in it by
showing me that the posts were still there.
This didn't happen.
Sorry, Donny-boy (and Major H.), but it's too late to *argue* this
point, as after the passage of most of a year, neither of us can return
to the board and say, "Aha, right here is ... uh, er, a post that's no
longer there" or lamely argue, "the fact that a lot of posts are here
proves that none were deleted."
Nope. If Maddox wanted to argue this out, the time to so so was eight
months ago. Now it's too late.
And I'm pretty confident that anyone who asks the question, "Gee, why
would he bring it up *now*, instead of *back then*?" will be able to
draw the correct conclusion. I *did* bring it up back then, remember?
JP
<eddys...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174061511.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Hmmm..............I found this comment interesting:
"..... but I keep seeing people dredge it up over and over again on the
USENET (I only visit there about twice a
year)."
He must have impecible timing to see a topic "over and over" again, while
only visiting "about once or twice a year".
Something's rotten in Denmark me thinks.
Sorry; anyone even remotely associated with JR is guilty until proven
innocent in my book.
JP
"Giftzwerg" <giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.206497f53...@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <1174061511.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
> > Don Maddox - initial mail
<snip>
> > Second, there has been a lot of malicious misinformation spread by
> > various individuals on USENET and elsewhere about how people with
> > critical views of SES were mistreated. Hogwash.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Oh, fuck, but it pisses me off that there's a gigantic
> part of the online world where people can rear back and tell the truth
> about me and my shitty website without me being able to do fuck-all
> about it. GrrrrrRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrr."
What's funny, is that the same crowd that is always bleating "Usenet is so
yesterday. Comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical ng is dead and meaningless"
are the same people who appear to be losing sleep over what occurs
here.........
Charles Foster Kane
> In article <1174061511.3...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> eddys...@hotmail.com says...
>
>> Don Maddox - initial mail
>
>> I just wanted to take a moment to mention something that is, by now,
>> ancient history. I've seen you mention the Distant Guns thread that
>> caused all the fuss several times, and I would just like to say a few
>> things about that.
>
> TRANSLATION: "Now that we've managed to bury all the evidence *deep* -
> and let enough time pass that no one can possibly recall the spots where
> the deleted posts and posters belong - we're going to tell some brand-
> new lies."
Gee, you seem pretty single-minded on this issue.
Distant Guns has stupid copy protection method ==> fight it
Jim Rose thinks he's the greatest and can't do wrong ==> ridicule him
Don Maddox manages the site where Jim Rose gets noisy and gives him a
nicer treatment than some of his opponents ==> he must be just as bad as JR?
If Don says he didn't delete stuff, and Eddy confirms that what he saved
is still there, why would you know differently? You and Eddy and the
readers around here including me know this story only from the outside;
now Don tells us his inside view (maybe tweaked, maybe not), which seems
to explain some things and for me corrects some misunderstandings. He
doesn't come across as a JR fan either, and he seems to be aware that JR
should have been warned or even banned too.
I sympathize with your vendetta against dangerous guns^H^H^H^H
activation schemes, and JR certainly deserves to be targeted due to his
statements, but your extremely negative interpretation of Don's
explanation goes way too far in my book. I know you have to honor your
nickname, but... ;-)
Giftzwerg
> Distant Guns has stupid copy protection method ==> fight it
> Jim Rose thinks he's the greatest and can't do wrong ==> ridicule him
> Don Maddox manages the site where Jim Rose gets noisy and gives him a
> nicer treatment than some of his opponents ==> he must be just as bad as JR?
Uh, yeah. That's essentially the point. Well said.
> If Don says he didn't delete stuff, and Eddy confirms that what he saved
> is still there, why would you know differently?
Because I was there. I saw the whole thing. Posts and posters were
"disappeared." Posts were there one day, and gone the next. Same with
some of the members.
Can I prove this? Nope. It's impossible for me to go back and show you
some sort of empty hole where a post or a member once was and no longer
is. But at the time, it was fairly easy to notice The Incredible
Vanishing Posts (and posters), and any number of people could have said,
"Hey, that's right; there *was* a post like that! Where'd that guy go?"
I can only point out there that I raised the issue *back then*, right
here in this group. I publically stated that posts and posters were
being deleted and banned.
Why no objection from Maddox back then? Why wait *eight months* to
start this "who, me?" shit, if not to allow memories to fade?
> You and Eddy and the
> readers around here including me know this story only from the outside;
> now Don tells us his inside view (maybe tweaked, maybe not), which seems
> to explain some things and for me corrects some misunderstandings.
Come now. What would you expect him to say?
And between the two of us, *he's* the one with money on the line. I
could give a shit, since I could care less who thinks what about me.
> He
> doesn't come across as a JR fan either, and he seems to be aware that JR
> should have been warned or even banned too.
<laughter>
Now you're just being funny, right?
> I sympathize with your vendetta against dangerous guns^H^H^H^H
> activation schemes, and JR certainly deserves to be targeted due to his
> statements, but your extremely negative interpretation of Don's
> explanation goes way too far in my book. I know you have to honor your
> nickname, but... ;-)
Hmmm. What's the theory, here? That I picked Mr. Maddox's name out of
the phone book - at random - and decided to tell wild lies about him and
the running of his website?
Come now. That hardly pencils. Indeed, had Maddox *not* doled out the
usual "webmaster's justice" to wholly undeserving and polite members of
his forum - whose only "crime" was to confront Jim Rose - then nobody in
my shoes could have even *noticed* what was going on.
Briarroot
>
> Hmmm..............I found this comment interesting:
>
> "..... but I keep seeing people dredge it up over and over again on the
> USENET (I only visit there about twice a
> year)."
>
> He must have impecible timing to see a topic "over and over" again, while
> only visiting "about once or twice a year".
>
> Something's rotten in Denmark me thinks.
>
Good eye, JP! That was the first thing I noticed. ;-)
--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy. Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of
misery." - Winston Churchill
JP
"Briarroot" <woo...@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:12vmc8s...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, in reality, I have the feeling he doesn't always need to be here,
if ya follow :)
Alleghanny McKlennay
"Major H" <tac...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:C2205911.96D3A%tac...@mac.com...
>> ... And yet ... where *did* this
>> amazingly universal perception arise which holds that Maddox deleted a
>> pile of posts and kicked a pile of members?
>> Giftzwerg
>
> It came from you.
*BANG*.........
>
> Best regards, Major H.
>
dma...@gamesquad.com
how those events unfolded. I thought a note to Eddy might be helpful,
but others will no doubt have a different view of my motivations. I'll
say just a few things here, and then I'll shut up and people can
decide for themselves whether the actions of my staff and I were
appropriate or not. Some will not like the way we handled this
particular issue, and I can live with that.
First, the posts are right there for all to see, and they have been
accessible for regular members since shortly after this incident
happened. As I said in my earlier post to Eddy, some of the posts were
temporarily locked and were not visible to non-staff. Our intent was
to diffuse the situation and allow things to cool down, and that may
or may not have been a productive move on our part. People will make
up their own minds on that. I don't remember exactly how long those
posts were locked, but they have been unlocked for many months. There
are lots of people who use the "subscribe" feature on the forums to
receive automatic emails when new posts are made to particular forums
and threads, and so I imagine that there may be some folks out there
with duplicates of the entire discussion. The mods have no reason to
permanently purge posts from the database, and if we did so it is
likely that someone would produce a copy of the entire thread. Again,
people can decide for themselves whether or not they will accept that,
but I am not aware of any mod or editor perma-deleting posts from that
thread. I've said some pretty stupid things on the forums over the
years, and these harebrained comments remain for all to see. My
general feeling is that posts ought to stay visible so the whole
community can see for themselves who said what and why. To that end I
severely restrict the moderators' powers to delete content. They can
move it or even lock it, but they don't have the power to remove
anything from the database. These restrictions sometimes get the mods
upset with me, but I'm getting off-topic.
Second, some of you feel that I and my staff did a poor job of
handling the whole issue. Fair enough, I will accept that criticism.
What I won't accept is people saying we did things to shield a
developer from criticism. Believe me, I've got about a million more
important things to manage and worry about and moderating the petty
flame wars on the forums isn't even in the top 20. Some of you
obviously feel that we would do such a thing in order to protect
advertising dollars. Please. For obvious reasons I can't go into
details about advertising specifics, but I will say we're talking
about very modest amounts of money here. Multi-Man Publishing gets
hammered nearly every day on the forums with some scathing criticism.
I know the people from MMP and they're good people. And I also know
reading this stuff tears them up on the inside because ASL and their
other games are labors of love. The mods don't shield MMP from
criticism of any kind, but they do enforce the rules against
outrageous personal attacks or creating multiple user-accounts. Major
H. has taken some nasty shots on the forums and so have Pat Proctor,
David Heath, and any number of other people or game companies. So long
as the criticism remains reasonably *civil*, it is fair as far as I am
concerned.
Which brings me to SES. I have exchanged emails with Norm Koger a
handful of times in the past few years, but I can't say I know him
personally and have never had any direct contact with him outside the
Internet. I have conversed with Jim Rose a number of times, and the
site did a grand total of one advertising campaign for SES. I haven't
the slightest idea how SES's games are selling or whether the
discussion on SES's DRM had any effect on the success of their game.
To be perfectly honest, such information is generally outside the
scope of my duties as an editor and it's not something I'm terribly
interested in. And except for one brief contact on an unrelated matter
some time ago, I have had no contact with anyone from SES in quite a
while. To the best of my knowledge my editors have not dealt with them
either. So this idea that I have some grand "inside knowledge" about
what is or isn't going on at SES is just inaccurate speculation. My
editors and I have a lot of stories to cover and website projects to
keep us busy, and I really do not have much detailed knowledge about
what is going on with any one developer. To be perfectly honest, the
majority of the stuff we have been working with has been non-wargaming
material and I don't have a great deal of time to devote to any one
story or developer. I'm sorry if that shatters anyone's illusions
about me being part of an Evil conspiracy to beat down gamers, pad the
pockets of developers, or have Dick Cheney over for lunch.
I do keep tabs on the major game news on the Internet, and that means
I drop in on the forums of the big corporate game sites from time to
time. But I very rarely visit any other forums or USENET because I've
been focused on other matters. I do tend to get a lot of emails and
PMs from people telling me tidbits about what was said here or there
on the Interest, and these occasionally include USENET. I'm sorry to
admit I usually only read a fraction of this stuff, and it's even
rarer still for me to actually visit. So, yes, I am aware that people
here have been talking about my site in a negative light for some
time. But, no, I can't even remember the last time I was on USENET.
It's a very small community here and the truth is I just don't have
time to visit all these places. I happen to be in-between major
projects at the moment and I followed a link over here to read up on
the thread about games journalism and reviews/previews. Despite the
heated rhetoric in the thread, I found that discussion quite
interesting and read through the whole thing.
Some people have decided they don't care for the way I or my staff
have handled one issue or another, the way the site has been mixing
coverage of mainstream games with coverage of wargames, or they have
found other sites that better suit their tastes. That's cool. The
Internet is a big place and gamers have lots of choices when it comes
to game sites. If this email helps clarify my thoughts on a few
issues, that's fine. If not, then I imagine those folks will find
fault with my explanations and that will be that. I honestly don't
want to disrupt the discussions here any more than I already have or
cause another dustup, so I will leave well enough alone and leave it
to you decide whether what I have said has any merit from your point
of view.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
Bloodstar
> Some people have decided they don't care for the way I or my staff
> have handled one issue or another, the way the site has been mixing
> coverage of mainstream games with coverage of wargames, or they have
> found other sites that better suit their tastes. That's cool. The
> Internet is a big place and gamers have lots of choices when it comes
> to game sites. If this email helps clarify my thoughts on a few
> issues, that's fine. If not, then I imagine those folks will find
> fault with my explanations and that will be that. I honestly don't
> want to disrupt the discussions here any more than I already have or
> cause another dustup, so I will leave well enough alone and leave it
> to you decide whether what I have said has any merit from your point
> of view.
Well, I promised to myself that I will not post it here anymore but will
break a rule now for a while.
First you and moderators didn't do anything wrong.
Second trying to explains something to Giftzwerg what he doesn't want to
hear, listen or understand is like sending man on the moon.
Third, I know the whole story and I would have been maybe even more
punishing on a MODERATED forum.
Some bozos (how exactly to name them I ask myself?), or to say fools, or
mean people or idiots? were making a lynch on SES developers on a moderated
forum.
In my book you get ban straight away. I didn't even know that they used this
nasty method to create multiple account! Bozos, just plain bozos. Well, just
woke up so I don't have proper word for them but on Usenet I let my
brakes...
I was also participant of discussion like in all discussions I don't regret
one word i have said. I also said some ugly things but that was that in that
moment.
I aslo had some nasty discussion on Matrix forum but when David Heath asked
me to cool down I said OK. I have told them what I wanted to tell them !
About the price of Close Combat CoI etc... another was discussion with some
other guys but that cooled down.
I didn't read the whole discussion again and it would take time to find it
but I still remember that people who ignited the discussion were NOT polite
as Giftzwerg now try to portray them. They were vicious, nasty and when they
were warned by moderators and other member on their behaivour they simply
ignored. So it was thinked over campaign against SES.
Hello? Nobody would allow this on this planet so some bozos on Usenet should
not be suprised when some people were banned.
I only don't agree with deleting of post. That practice is not good. I would
leave all post but would ridicule all fool there that attacked SES. In
public I would ridicule them as a last word before locking the thread.
You don't like SES copy protection? Well join pc games on strategic Usenet
group on his crusade against Valve but you would get ban on a moderated
forum and I would applaud on that. Go demonstrate about other things in
front of White House but you don't have any right to try to destroy SES
because of their use of whatever copy protection they want. I am just
suprised on number of bozos here on Usenet that
in fact think same like Giftzwerg on this subject. They have become clones
of him.
I would rather think that maybe something more and bigger is behind this.
But again I find this really disgusting. Whole affair. And I participated in
this and would not want to be dragged again and will avoid deep mud of SES
copy protection or any other copy protection flame wars.
I don't fucking (this is Usenet :) care about stupid crusade against SES or
Paradox or Battlefront.com. They can use whatever COPY PROTECTION they want
FOR THEIR PRODUCTS and you can MOAN, BITCH, CURSE and do whatever you like
but you are extremely boring. Use the powere of your money and don't buy it
but for me you are boring and I know that I am not the only one that founds
this boring.
Will I hold off my purchase of Theatre at War (brilliant new game soon to be
released by Battlefront.com) because it will have product activation?
OH YES, I am that stupid to listen to bozos from Usenet and avoid good games
because developers are trying to guard their products from various thieves.
Quite bizarre.
This place has become a rather sad and stale frog march with lot's of mud. I
didn't mind talkings on politics at all. But now on this Usenet group only
afirmative talkings is about Matrix Games and maybe few other developers.
Shrapnel Games can pass, HPS can be ridiculed etc... But Battlefront.com,
SES, and Paradox will get their share of nasty talks because of their use of
damn copy protection. So this Usenet group have lost it's old charm and
that's why I have left it. I don't care for your stupid crusade against SES.
If here that is first plan then you will see that this ng will go to hell.
And it is slowly going.
I am playing now Medieval II: Total War. They didn't here discussed the
price of Close Combat CoI price of 40 $ for a product with dinosaur,
pterodactile, Homeresque graphics. Medieval II is aeon in front of CoI. Ah
yes i know what will they say but nevermind. And they say that reviewers
should mention the copy protection but price is not important. Hell no!
Price is integral part of the product and I would certanly value this as
well.
Will Giftzwerg learn something from here we will see. And others as well.
That discussion there was not civilized at all. It was poisonous even from
me who are not native English speaker. And poisonous atmospeher did brought
those people with multiple accounts (now that is really lowest thing to
do!). They prepared tree and rope for a lynch and some guys find this OK
here. I can only assume that those who did this ORIGINATED from this Usenet
group as they were really well informed.
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> I didn't read the whole discussion again and it would take time to find it
> but I still remember that people who ignited the discussion were NOT polite
> as Giftzwerg now try to portray them.
Why don't you copy their "NOT polite" posts right here, so we can
discuss them?
> They were vicious, nasty and when they
> were warned by moderators and other member on their behaivour they simply
> ignored.
Whew. Sounds pretty bad. Good thing none of their posts were deleted.
So you can show them to us, thus proving your point.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
Bloodstar
> discuss them?
OK, here I ask publicly Don Maddox:
Don, please put a link to that discussion with all posts. I don't even
remember the thread name anymore. Maybe I should have saved those posts. I
did say that I don't agree with any deleting.
>> They were vicious, nasty and when they
>> were warned by moderators and other member on their behaivour they simply
>> ignored.
>
> Whew. Sounds pretty bad. Good thing none of their posts were deleted.
>
> So you can show them to us, thus proving your point.
>
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?
I am against of any cover up or deleting the post etc... I would have just
put my comments in the end and lock the thread and I would have find the
words to put nice end words there.
And why you ask me to show those threads, here is owner of that Forum and
Web site and ask him. I ask him also. I am telling you just what I have
remembered from the discussion and my view on this.
I had some other nice discussions on Matrix forum lately but there I am
known as Monkeys Brain :) (I have sent PM to Eddy and Oleg so that I am not
anomymous there).
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > Why don't you copy their "NOT polite" posts right here, so we can
> > discuss them?
>
> OK, here I ask publicly Don Maddox:
>
> Don, please put a link to that discussion with all posts. I don't even
> remember the thread name anymore. Maybe I should have saved those posts. I
> did say that I don't agree with any deleting.
Why would you need to "save" any posts, when the forum owner himself
says that not a single post was deleted - and I dreamed the whole thing?
[Indeed, if I just conjured this whole business out of thin air, one
wonders why Maddox seems so exercised about it. If he didn't delete any
posts and forum members, what - *exactly* - was "that business" he keeps
referring to about? Did folks counterintuitively become upset because
posts were *not* deleted and members were *not* banned? <g>]
Just post the text of the posts you feel where "vicious" or "nasty" or
anything like that. And I think the text of those "warnings" by the
moderators should be posted here, too, so we can all see the kindly
attempts they made to simply channel the discussion.
> And why you ask me to show those threads, here is owner of that Forum and
> Web site and ask him. I ask him also. I am telling you just what I have
> remembered from the discussion and my view on this.
Because his appreciation of which posts were "nasty" or "vicious" may
differ from yours. I'm interested in the posts *you* think were so
awful. Luckily for you, not a single post was deleted, so you'll be
able to Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V them right here with no trouble at all.
I'd say a dozen or so of the worst, most offensive, completely hair-
raising posts will suffice. You know, the *really* awful ones.
In fact, I seem to recall *you* calling for someone to be banned. If my
memory is correct, perhaps you should start with that post, and your
response.
Bloodstar
are great! Moon, Madmatt...
In fact I have seen some really hillarious threads there. Even when they
lock the thread sometimes they made joke about it. But they don't have mercy
and that is moderated forum.
Mario
Bloodstar
> says that not a single post was deleted - and I dreamed the whole thing?
>
> [Indeed, if I just conjured this whole business out of thin air, one
> wonders why Maddox seems so exercised about it. If he didn't delete any
> posts and forum members, what - *exactly* - was "that business" he keeps
> referring to about? Did folks counterintuitively become upset because
> posts were *not* deleted and members were *not* banned? <g>]
>
> Just post the text of the posts you feel where "vicious" or "nasty" or
> anything like that. And I think the text of those "warnings" by the
> moderators should be posted here, too, so we can all see the kindly
> attempts they made to simply channel the discussion.
Ah, nice Usenet chit chat befor lunch :)
I agree post everything here.
Again, I see that you don't have much understanding of moderated Forum. Go
to Battlefront.com and enter any game section. You will see locks ON MANY
THREADS. And there are bans as well.
>> And why you ask me to show those threads, here is owner of that Forum and
>> Web site and ask him. I ask him also. I am telling you just what I have
>> remembered from the discussion and my view on this.
>
> Because his appreciation of which posts were "nasty" or "vicious" may
> differ from yours. I'm interested in the posts *you* think were so
> awful. Luckily for you, not a single post was deleted, so you'll be
> able to Ctrl-C / Ctrl-V them right here with no trouble at all.
>
> I'd say a dozen or so of the worst, most offensive, completely hair-
> raising posts will suffice. You know, the *really* awful ones.
>
> In fact, I seem to recall *you* calling for someone to be banned. If my
> memory is correct, perhaps you should start with that post, and your
> response.
No problem let the truth out. I don't have anything to hide. I am nasty
myself and I didn't say that I was polite. No, I was not polite.
Did I asked ban for some people. Yes. Would I done the same thing now again?
Probably yes.
By my theory your pals at Matrix Games have made this all show. You live in
Vermont?
What a coincidence, Erik Rutins lives there also. Maybe you are old buddies.
But let's drop this for a moment.
Who profit the most of sinking of SES even before the engine was put on
their boat? Well, Matrix Games.
Maybe I am wrong but when we toss stupidities I can join also the crowd. In
any case Matrix Games will not like it when they will be stumped over when
IVAN show up or Distant Guns: Jutland (I made this name up hehe) or
something else.
They will still sell CoI for 40 $ with pterodactile graphics.
OK let's toss whole story away, Matrix Games for example didn't had agents
there hehe.
So how stupid and corrupt someone must be to create multiple accounts in
order to damage a company that is just releasing their FIRST product?
So I asked that guy should be banned. So what?
Any company in the beginning is most vurneable and I when I see that
somebody is beaten on the street I don't join them and start beat him as
well.
That is exactly what you all have done to SES. Let's find the most miserable
company and beat them so that rest get the message. Sorry I would done the
same for Shrapnel, Battlefront EVEN FOR MATRIX GAMES in 2000!!!
That is quite pathetic and without honour at all how SES was treated there.
So I would have been a dictator on that forum and bans would fly all over
the place but would not allow that bullying behaviour.
When SES consolidate and they release 5 games for example or 10 then I would
maybe acted in a different way. But I am glad that I acted that way.
Mario
Bloodstar
> order to damage a company that is just releasing their FIRST product?
This is very important to know. Guy created 5 accounts to impress other that
the problem of copy protection is bigger than it seems. So that is clearly
damaging for SES and maybe they could have sued this moron because of this.
Clearly they have had damage because of this moron.
Another thing would like to hear from other companies what they think. If
that guy was not their agent it would be nice that they in fact release
press release and say that they are sorry for that :)))))))))))))
But I doubt that they would do that. Ah, they don't like competition.
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> Again, I see that you don't have much understanding of moderated Forum. Go
> to Battlefront.com and enter any game section. You will see locks ON MANY
> THREADS. And there are bans as well.
So what? The issue here is Maddox's claim that he *didn't* remove any
posts or ban any members, and your claim that some of the posters who
confronted the SES developers did so in a "vicious" and "nasty" way.
If the forum didn't delete any posts, then you should be able to produce
those nasty and vicious posts right here.
I could care less what some other forum some other place did with some
other people who said some other thing about some other product.
> > I'd say a dozen or so of the worst, most offensive, completely hair-
> > raising posts will suffice. You know, the *really* awful ones.
> >
> > In fact, I seem to recall *you* calling for someone to be banned. If my
> > memory is correct, perhaps you should start with that post, and your
> > response.
>
> No problem let the truth out.
Will "the truth" be appearing soon?
> By my theory your pals at Matrix Games have made this all show. You live in
> Vermont?
> What a coincidence, Erik Rutins lives there also. Maybe you are old buddies.
> But let's drop this for a moment.
Nah, let's run with it. Suppose for the sake of argument that Mr.
Rutins not only lives within 200 miles of me in the most densely-
populated area of the USA, but is, in fact, my brother-in-law and
Godfather to my children.
So what?
> Who profit the most of sinking of SES even before the engine was put on
> their boat? Well, Matrix Games.
So your theory is that somehow Mr. Rutins *tricked* the SES boys into
attaching a Nazi DRM scheme to their new product, and then coordinated
with his covert operatives in public forums to <GASP!> *relay the facts*
about their activation scheme and the burdens it imposes on users!!!
What a devilish scheme!
> Maybe I am wrong but when we toss stupidities I can join also the crowd.
The difference, of course, is that I'm not proposing an elaborate and
unworkable and pointless conspiracy - but am simply claiming that my
recollection is correct; posts were deleted in a web-forum, and posters
were banned.
> OK let's toss whole story away, Matrix Games for example didn't had agents
> there hehe.
Nah, let's keep running with it. If you wanted to prove your theory to
us, the first thing we'd want you to do is cite the text of the posts
your think some Matrix (or KAOS ... I forget ...) agent posted in the
forum we're talking about.
> So how stupid and corrupt someone must be to create multiple accounts in
> order to damage a company that is just releasing their FIRST product?
It's funny, but the only reason I can imagine for obtaining more than
one account in a web-forum is to circumvent being banned.
But nobody got banned. Right?
> So I asked that guy should be banned. So what?
So nothing. Perfectly within your rights.
Can we see the post that caused you to call for this?
> That is exactly what you all have done to SES. Let's find the most miserable
> company and beat them so that rest get the message.
See, this is the problem; you've got it exactly backwards. Your theory
is that myself and others woke up one morning and said, "Hey, let's pick
the name of some unlucky developer out of a hat and see if we can harass
them out of business."
Ludicrous.
And - unlike you and Mr. Maddox, apparently - I can cite the text of my
former good opinions about Norm Koger from here to Christmas, stuff I
posted right here in public. I make no bones about the fact that I was
a dedicated Norm Koger fanboy. He'd never built a product that I
disliked, and my unabashed opinion was that he was among the very top
designers in the business.
In fact, that's still my opinion about Mr. Koger.
So what changed? Did I decide, out of a clear blue sky, to start
disliking Koger? Nope. What changed was that he started, by his
actions, in the clearest terms possible, calling me a criminal, and I
dislike being called a criminal. In fact, he thinks I'm such a
revolting little crook that he can't possibly just take my money and
sell me a product, but he needs to craft Byzantine protections around
his product that ruin my enjoyment of it and possibly compromise the
security of systems I use every day.
And what's my response? I say to all comers, "I dislike Koger's Nazi
DRM scheme." And then I explain the reasons why I dislike it.
In other words, this is nothing *I* did. This is something Koger did.
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > So how stupid and corrupt someone must be to create multiple accounts in
> > order to damage a company that is just releasing their FIRST product?
>
> This is very important to know. Guy created 5 accounts to impress other that
> the problem of copy protection is bigger than it seems.
Who cares? An opinion or theory is no more valid or invalid because one
or five people espouse it.
Alleghanny McKlennay
> I am playing now Medieval II: Total War. They didn't here discussed the
> price of Close Combat CoI price of 40 $ for a product with dinosaur,
> pterodactile, Homeresque graphics. Medieval II is aeon in front of CoI. Ah
> yes i know what will they say but nevermind. And they say that reviewers
> should mention the copy protection but price is not important. Hell no!
> Price is integral part of the product and I would certanly value this as
> well.
>
hasn't noticed, Matrix can do no wrong on this group.......
So don't expect the kind of crusades against Matrix that you see other
manufacturers tolerating here.
Giftzwerg
jesus...@bringmetheheadofaynrand.com says...
> > I am playing now Medieval II: Total War. They didn't here discussed the
> > price of Close Combat CoI price of 40 $ for a product with dinosaur,
> > pterodactile, Homeresque graphics. Medieval II is aeon in front of CoI. Ah
> > yes i know what will they say but nevermind. And they say that reviewers
> > should mention the copy protection but price is not important. Hell no!
> > Price is integral part of the product and I would certanly value this as
> > well.
> >
> It's pretty simple really, CoI is a Matrix release, and in case anyone
> hasn't noticed, Matrix can do no wrong on this group.......
It's pretty simple, really, COI is reasonably priced, reasonably
protected, and a pretty good game. The addition of multiplayer alone is
worth the price of admission.
And it's not like there haven't been criticisms of the title - I just
read one, in fact. Right here.
I think my new buddy Shillelagh OhBaby needs to start saying clever and
interesting things right quickly.
> So don't expect the kind of crusades against Matrix that you see other
> manufacturers tolerating here.
"Manufacturers?" "Tolerating?"
Is English your fourth language? Or are you just a fucking idiot?
Vincenzo Beretta
> point, as after the passage of most of a year, neither of us can return
> to the board and say, "Aha, right here is ... uh, er, a post that's no
> longer there" or lamely argue, "the fact that a lot of posts are here
> proves that none were deleted."
Could these posts be the one under the thread "Norm's Place" - who is
reachable thanks to webarchive
Vincenzo Beretta
> point, as after the passage of most of a year, neither of us can return
> to the board and say, "Aha, right here is ... uh, er, a post that's no
> longer there" or lamely argue, "the fact that a lot of posts are here
> proves that none were deleted."
Could these posts be the one under the thread "Norm's Place" - who is
reachable thanks to webarchive
http://web.archive.org/web/20060219163851/www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/
and still available if you search the DG forum with the normal search engine
used there
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38034&highlight=norm%27s+pl
ace
But that - it would seem, I didn't checked deeply - is absent from the
current list of threads if you do access the forum normally?
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=245&page=25&order=desc
(the last post on Norm's Place is dated Feb 26th, 2006 - the threads on the
DG forum currently start with one whose last dated post was on Mar 17th,
2006)
ERutins
> Vermont?
> What a coincidence, Erik Rutins lives there also. Maybe you are old buddies.
> But let's drop this for a moment.
> Who profit the most of sinking of SES even before the engine was put on
> their boat? Well, Matrix Games.
That's really sleazy, Bloodstar, but I guess it doesn't surprise me
coming from you.
You can pick on us all you want, it won't change the fact that it's a
free market, for everyone to decide what they want to buy and your
opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. I wish SES
success, particularly because I hold Norm in high regard and hope that
he succeeds in everything he does.
If all you have to offer is lame conspiracy theories, you should go
back to lurking.
Regards,
- Erik
ERutins
> hasn't noticed, Matrix can do no wrong on this group.......
Oh, really? So, if say we implemented activation-based limited
trialware protection as standard on all our games tomorrow, no one
would complain? I guess you also missed the many discussions here
over the last years where we have also taken flak for one game release
or another. We even seem to have our own dedicated critic in the form
of Bloodstar, though he's been on hiatus recently so you may have
missed him. :-)
Just like other publishers and developers, we're trying to make a
living creating and selling wargames. If we do a good job with that,
I would hope that we will earn the praise of wargamers. If we do a
bad job, I expect criticism. I think it's far more fair to say that
this newsgroup is almost completely anti-DRM and any publisher that
uses that type of copy protection does inevitably take flak here. I
haven't seen people criticizing Battlefront, for example, for the
quality of their games or coming up with vague conspiracy theories
about them to pass the time - the criticism is generally all focused
on their copy protection system and I'm quite confident that if we
adopted the same system, we'd take the same flak.
Regards,
- Erik
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> But that - it would seem, I didn't checked deeply - is absent from the
> current list of threads if you do access the forum normally?
>
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=245&page=25&order=desc
>
> (the last post on Norm's Place is dated Feb 26th, 2006 - the threads on the
> DG forum currently start with one whose last dated post was on Mar 17th,
> 2006)
Here today. Gone tomorrow. Or just invisible (temporarily). Or hidden
from any but the staff. Or temporarily hidden. Or briefly disappeared.
Or inaccessible from the usual access.
Or similar fucking malarkey.
Until such time as the owner of the forum decides that his oft-renamed
shithole has apparently gotten rather a lousy reputation for dedication
to unremarkable side-issues like freedom of expression, honesty, and
forthrightness...
...then he crawls out from under his rock - but only once a year, you
understand - and says the whole thing was just a figment of our
collective imagination.
Ultimately, though ... who cares? It's his forum, and he can run it the
way he wants. I'd argue that the problems with his methods of running
said site should be all-too-obvious at this point - and to him more than
anyone, given the wriggling and writhing he's up to these days - but at
the end of the day, who cares what this shitbag does?
Bloodstar
> coming from you.
>
> You can pick on us all you want, it won't change the fact that it's a
> free market, for everyone to decide what they want to buy and your
> opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's. I wish SES
> success, particularly because I hold Norm in high regard and hope that
> he succeeds in everything he does.
>
> If all you have to offer is lame conspiracy theories, you should go
> back to lurking.
Erik,
You should learn to accept joke as a man and not to be offended like old
lady. I didn't said that seriously of course.
BTW, what I have found sleazy is that Norm Koger and SES got so many flak
and I would expect that you as his colleague (wargame publisher, devloper
etc...) say to this guys here "Hello, you gone too far".
And don't portray me as some Matrix enemy I had integrity to tell you
everything in the face (forum :) I didn't created 5 user accounts and didn't
in fact attacked Matrix to destroy it. Everything I said to you on Matrix
boards would be good for Matrix. That is your problem for not listening, but
I didn't done this out of some sleazy motive as you may think.
That guy on SES forum could have been anyone, maybe some old flamer from
TalonSoft days, even Vinzenzo Beretta was there not very enthusiastic about
SES copy protection (he is journalist, he is OK but as a journalist I have
expected some understanding from him for that copy protection and for Christ
Sake it's not everything in that bloody, cursed copy protection, isn't it?).
But good that you wish Norm Koger all the best, that is good to know. As I
said I didn't meant seriously that you have done this. I said that in all
this stupidity I will contribute a little bit from my side.
Mario
James D Burns
news:1174144621.4...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
I
> haven't seen people criticizing Battlefront, for example, for the
> quality of their games or coming up with vague conspiracy theories
> about them to pass the time - the criticism is generally all focused
> on their copy protection system
Exactly, I used to buy just about all of Battlefront's titles as I do most
of Matrix's titles. Now I no longer even visit Battlefront's web site due to
their stupid copy protection scheme. They've lost me as a customer forever.
I won't even consider a game they publish even if that particular title
doesn't have the protection scheme, simply because the rest of their games
do and that PISSES ME OFF! Battlefront obviously doesn't care that it pisses
me off along with many other long time wargamers here, and that's their
prerogative. Just as its my prerogative to never do business with them
again.
If Matrix were to implement some kind of DRM scheme I'd say bye bye to them
as well. Matrix's usual praise (with some periods of critique) on this forum
is so far well deserved because they treat their customers better than most
other publishers out there.
Jim
--
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving
safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in
sideways - Brewski in one hand - cigar in the other - body thoroughly used
up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride"
Giftzwerg
er...@matrixgames.com says...
Not to mention the fact that I complain / criticize / say shit about
Matrix products every other day - and I'm still pointed out as some sort
of Fabulous Matrix Fanboi Run Amok. Sometimes it's so surreal that in
one thread, I'm telling some Matrix developer or manager that some
aspect of their new game positively *sucks* - and in the very next
thread, some zipperhead is bitching about how nobody in the group ever
has a discouraging word about Matrix.
The difference - as Mr. Rutins accurately points out - is that criticism
of Matrix (or Shrapnel, or any number of others...) tends to be focused
on issues that are *not* deal-breakers like DRM is. As a criticism,
something like, "WPO is too expensive," or "BATTLEFRONT is too dicey /
gamey" or "PC:OWS is too much like COMBAT MISSION," or "The AI in
FLASHPOINT: GERMANY is lame," is a far cry from: "I WON'T EVEN BUY
THEATER OF WAR DUE TO THEIR NAZI ELICENSE."
The former are criticisms that can be argued. You'll just never
convince those who loath DRM that the shit someone just spooned into
their mouth is really Chocolate Ice Cream.
Bloodstar
> hasn't noticed, Matrix can do no wrong on this group.......
>
> So don't expect the kind of crusades against Matrix that you see other
> manufacturers tolerating here.
:-)))))
Exactly!
Drink on me.
Mario
Bloodstar
> or five people espouse it.
Nonsense.
That guy was clearly a slimy scumbag and if you have 20 people on forum
online then creating a 5 fake user names makes a difference. Oh, boy but
that goes with your theory well - fight the "nazi DRM whatever" with any
possible means, even napalm if required?
Mario
Bloodstar
> of Bloodstar, though he's been on hiatus recently so you may have
> missed him. :-)
Uh really, my words do BANG BANG RATATATATA like Ak 47?
You should have thanked me on my critics. Many things that I have said were
in fact quite on target. Even developer of CoI said that, remember? :-)
You will see me criticize Battlefront, Shrapnel and anyone else if I see
something I don't like. In fact I have already criticized Shrapnel, and I
bought Dominion 3 and about the price. My right as customer to do this. They
may not like what I said, but who cares, if I want to said something I will
said.
But there is a distinction, I don't wish you doom or Shrapnel and criticism
is better than flattering in any case.
mario
Bloodstar
> And what's my response? I say to all comers, "I dislike Koger's Nazi
> DRM scheme." And then I explain the reasons why I dislike it.
>
> In other words, this is nothing *I* did. This is something Koger did.
We have been through this long time ago. And don't want to jump into that
mud again, I said everything on that subject. It's not even fun anymore.
Mario
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > Who cares? An opinion or theory is no more valid or invalid because one
> > or five people espouse it.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> That guy was clearly a slimy scumbag and if you have 20 people on forum
> online then creating a 5 fake user names makes a difference.
Why? Are the other members of the forum so weak-minded that they'll
believe any hogwash so long as at least five proponents appear?
"Oh, well, if *five* people believe it, then in must be true. When only
four believers were around, I thought it was bullshit."
Sheesh.
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
The point - again - is that it's not a question of "people started
disliking SES for no reason, or for some nefarious reason," but of,
"people started disliking SES because of SES's own Nazi DRM - and the
boorish behavior of Jim Rose when confronted."
dma...@gamesquad.com
>
> But that - it would seem, I didn't checked deeply - is absent from the
> current list of threads if you do access the forum normally?
>
>
> (the last post on Norm's Place is dated Feb 26th, 2006 - the threads on the
> DG forum currently start with one whose last dated post was on Mar 17th,
> 2006)
No, it's right there under the same title, Vincenzo. Most of our
forums are set to only display posts from the last 12 months by
default. There is a little dropdown menu that allows you to display
older posts. Just select the option to view all the posts and you will
see it.
Bloodstar
> disliking SES for no reason, or for some nefarious reason," but of,
> "people started disliking SES because of SES's own Nazi DRM - and the
> boorish behavior of Jim Rose when confronted."
The fact was that Jim Rose and Norm Koger explained copy protection thing in
forum and certanly didn't liked when that guy or some other started
molesting then and buggering them about copy protection thing.
Everybody with a half ounce of brain knows that process of developing games
is complex. At the end of the process, that copy protection thing is
implemented and everybody can cry like a wolfes to Moon about it but you may
wait for a year on sales results at least to see if maybe developers will
change something. That guy expected that they will take a magic stick and
WHAM remove copy protection from the game.
Others wanted to talk about the game and not about copy protection thing.
That is technical thing that is important to you but you cannot claim that
is so much important to everyone else.
I agree that reviewer must discuss also that but also price as well.
I suggested to Matrix to change the price of CoI to 30 $ and that is 5
minutes of job on their web site LOL :-)))
They don't want to? Fine. They don't need - and I will not pester them about
this. Only I will say on other occasion what I think about it, just like you
in this case.
And we will see how much Matrix will lose sales because of this policy of
theirs because many people don't like this, not just me.
Mario
Bloodstar
> believe any hogwash so long as at least five proponents appear?
>
> "Oh, well, if *five* people believe it, then in must be true. When only
> four believers were around, I thought it was bullshit."
>
> Sheesh.
We have seen this even here, Gifty ;-)
That is just wishfull thinking - that this or Battlefront.com copy
protection is so scary, Nazi and other words you use... I don't agree and
will never agree with that.
See it doesn't matter for me what majority of people here thinks I will not
change my opinion based on theirs.
Nazi thing? C'mon. They didn't took your money and went to another country
to take slaves, oil and grain? Or they did?
Mario
Epi Watkins
giftzw...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com says...
> In article <eth3ir$pqv$2...@sunce.iskon.hr>,
> george.w...@microsoft.com says...
>
> > > Who cares? An opinion or theory is no more valid or invalid because one
> > > or five people espouse it.
> >
> > Nonsense.
> >
> > That guy was clearly a slimy scumbag and if you have 20 people on forum
> > online then creating a 5 fake user names makes a difference.
>
> Why? Are the other members of the forum so weak-minded that they'll
> believe any hogwash so long as at least five proponents appear?
A lot of people are just like that.
--
I hope he doesn't get wet:
http://www.thinking-picture.com/index.php?id=147
----
The Album of the moment is The Black Saint and the
Sinner Lady by Charles Mingus. He has so many good
albums. This is one of them.
----
Vista is real smooth right now. So this is what
it's supposed to work like.
----
http://www.curlesneck.com
----
Epi
Vincenzo Beretta
> forums are set to only display posts from the last 12 months by
> default. There is a little dropdown menu that allows you to display
> older posts. Just select the option to view all the posts and you will
> see it.
And of course you are right - I *had* the feeling that I was missing
something :o)
Well, what I can say? By re-reading all the old threads I see that one can
find all the criticism he needs re: DG and its activation scheme on your
forums -including enough proof of JR's wierd behaviour during that episode.
So, there would be no reason to delete some posts because it would be
futile.
I'm sorry for Gifzty (please, take this as a figure of speech :o) ), but,
lacking other proofs, I don't see how some form of injustice could having
been perpetrated towards anybody in this particular episode. The only thing
that I can offer is that maybe someone checked the forum and didn't find his
posts for reasons similar to mine - wrong settings etc.
dma...@gamesquad.com
wrote:
> In article <etglsr$a9...@sunce.iskon.hr>,
> george.washing...@microsoft.com says...
>
> So what? The issue here is Maddox's claim that he *didn't* remove any
> posts or ban any members, and your claim that some of the posters who
> confronted the SES developers did so in a "vicious" and "nasty" way.
No, Giftzwerg, that is not what I claimed at all. If you look at my
original email to Eddy I clearly explained who was banned and why.
That was a long time ago and I couldn't remember all of it so I had to
go back and look at the database to see the expired bans. It was a
little hard to sort out because several of the people ended up being
the same person posting under different user accounts, and that made
it difficult to track down exactly what was what. And I also have
clearly stated that indeed some posts were locked for a while, which
surely would have looked to a non-staff member like they were deleted.
Again, we locked those posts in an honest attempt to help diffuse the
situation and cool things off. And I believe we only banned a total of
three people (7 user accounts as far as I can tell), all of which were
temporary. I did my best to un-ban those accounts when the bans
expired, but that was all prior to Vbulletin 3.6.0 being released with
its integrated infraction management system. Older versions of
Vbulletin didn't have the infraction system, so working with bans was
cumbersome and the system didn't generate automatic email
notifications to affected users like it does now. I am not 110%
certain that every one of those bans expired exactly when it was
supposed to because A) it was a manual system back then and B) some
users were bouncing between multiple accounts which made it difficult
to know who was who.
So no, the issue is not that "Maddox claimed he never banned any
members," as I already explained that we *did* in my original email
that Eddy posted. That's disinformation, Giftzwerg. And the issue is
not that "Maddox claims he never removed any posts," because my
original emails to Eddy clearly state that we *did* temporarily lock
some posts, which made them invisible to non-staff for some time.
Again, you're quoting things I never said and never claimed. I said I
stand behind the reasoning for the few bans that were handed out, and
that each of them was temporary. I do and they were.
I said earlier that I don't feel that I and my staff handled this
situation as well as we could have, and that's the truth. It was a
mistake on our part to temporarily lock those posts because it
perpetuated the appearance that we were attempting to channel the
discussion, which we were not. We should have left every one of those
posts visible for all to see, and I'm sorry we did not. I also
remember that one of the mods posted a scathing assessment of USENET
and its members, and I don't know where that one post is off the top
of my head. All of this was spread between multiple threads and I
really don't recall where all of it is. I believe (and I could be
wrong on this) that he self-edited that post at my request. But I'm
sure a record of that one post exists here somewhere, because I'm
almost certain I remember someone saying it had been quoted here.
The bottom line was this whole situation was not one of our creation.
It was a blowup between members of the community and a game company.
The staff may not have handled it as well as we could have, but
moderating a flame war between visiting developers and angry members
is no easy task and something I don't look forward to doing ever
again. As I recall, there were some pretty heated things said in there
by various people who were upset and angry. Also, one of the
developers got upset and posted some pretty angry things, too. Believe
me, the last thing the mods and I wanted to get dragged into was
playing referee for a mess like that! I've got a lot better things to
do with my time.
I usually do not get into these types of discussions about who said
what to who, where, when, whatever. I just happened to have some free
time and stopped in here to read that games journalism thread. On a
whim I sent an email to Eddy that I thought might clear the air a
little and he thought it would be helpful to post it. It really was
not my intention to come here and try to change anyone's mind on what
happened or why it happened. It was a difficult situation to moderate,
but we did the best we could. Some members of the community thought we
did a poor job and went too far, and my guess (I don't know) is that
SES may think we did a poor job and didn't go far enough. You decide.
I think that a portion of the problem may have been that some people
involved in that whole dustup were from USENET and tried to post on
our forum using USENET standards of conduct. Although I still have no
idea who some of these user-accounts really belong to (they went to
some lengths to conceal their true identities), it is clear at least
some of them came from USENET or at least read it regularly. But we
try to run a moderated, community-friendly forum for gamers of all
ages. I pretty much got out of the moderator business about six months
ago. We have 30 volunteer mods from within the ranks of the community,
and all of them have been promoted to super-moderator status so they
can moderate the entire forum. People sometimes get upset because they
think the mods are not involved enough and others get upset because
they think the mods are occasionally a tad overzealous. I and the
other editors usually do not get involved in forum moderation unless
the mods ask for help from an editor. So the forum is essentially
policed by volunteers from among the ranks of the gamers themselves,
which is about as fair as I know how to make moderation.
At any rate I'm getting long-winded again and I need to get back to
work. I'm really not trying to change anyone's mind and I very much
doubt that I could even if I wanted to. Giftzwerg, you and everyone
else here is entitled to your opinions. If you think I'm an Evil piece
of crap that is being used by developers to pad their pockets, then
that's your opinion. I've offered my 2 cents on the whole episode and
we can agree to disagree.
P.S. I am not in any way debating the relative merits of any
particular game, DRM protection, or developer/publisher. My post is
merely attempting to explain what actions we took trying to ensure
that particular discussion back in Feb 2006 remained friendly. Some
people are talking about Matrix vs. SES or whether DRM is a good idea,
etc. For the record, I'm not debating *any* of that stuff and my only
desire was to provide some insight into what we did and why. These
other issues are for the gamers themselves to sort out and I will not
intrude myself into that discussion.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
Giftzwerg
rec...@hotmail.com says...
> I'm sorry for Gifzty (please, take this as a figure of speech :o) ), but,
> lacking other proofs, I don't see how some form of injustice could having
> been perpetrated towards anybody in this particular episode. The only thing
> that I can offer is that maybe someone checked the forum and didn't find his
> posts for reasons similar to mine - wrong settings etc.
Or, maybe, posts were deleted and posters were banned, and then - long
after the fact - the posts were restored on the sly, when it no longer
mattered.
Maddox himself half-admits that "temporary" stuff was done.
Ultimately, who cares? Speaking for myself, Maddox had his one chance
to prove his devotion to freedom of expression and fair play, and he
screwed the pooch.
What does he care what I think? Why all his babbling and stammering and
half-apologies and blubbering about "how we could have handled things
differently?"
If nobody got banned, and no posts got deleted, then what the fuck is he
on about?
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> > The point - again - is that it's not a question of "people started
> > disliking SES for no reason, or for some nefarious reason," but of,
> > "people started disliking SES because of SES's own Nazi DRM - and the
> > boorish behavior of Jim Rose when confronted."
>
> The fact was that Jim Rose and Norm Koger explained copy protection thing in
> forum and certanly didn't liked when that guy or some other started
> molesting then and buggering them about copy protection thing.
TRANSLATION: "Koger and Rose got pissed when posters pinned them down
with probing questions about the Nazi DRM scheme they were desperate to
conceal, and that's when posts and posters suddenly got 'disappeared.'"
> Others wanted to talk about the game and not about copy protection thing.
> That is technical thing that is important to you but you cannot claim that
> is so much important to everyone else.
If nobody wanted to talk about the "copy protection thing," then one
wonders what the fuss was about.
Bloodstar
> TRANSLATION: "Koger and Rose got pissed when posters pinned them down
> with probing questions about the Nazi DRM scheme they were desperate to
> conceal, and that's when posts and posters suddenly got 'disappeared.'"
Uh really Nazi DRM scheme... Uh, uh...
>> Others wanted to talk about the game and not about copy protection thing.
>> That is technical thing that is important to you but you cannot claim
>> that
>> is so much important to everyone else.
>
> If nobody wanted to talk about the "copy protection thing," then one
> wonders what the fuss was about.
About nothing. Whole life is only illusion :o))))
Ah, can't wait for that Nazi DRM Theatre of War from Battlefront.com!
:)
Mario
Giftzwerg
dma...@gamesquad.com says...
> > So what? The issue here is Maddox's claim that he *didn't* remove any
> > posts or ban any members, and your claim that some of the posters who
> > confronted the SES developers did so in a "vicious" and "nasty" way.
> No, Giftzwerg, that is not what I claimed at all. If you look at my
> original email to Eddy I clearly explained who was banned and why.
Ah. Well, let's start peeling away the onion with this nugget; you did
ban people. OK. Fair enough.
> That was a long time ago and I couldn't remember all of it so I had to
> go back and look at the database to see the expired bans. It was a
> little hard to sort out because several of the people ended up being
> the same person posting under different user accounts, and that made
> it difficult to track down exactly what was what.
I have a question at the outset; how - *exactly* - did it occur to you
to start poring over your incoming logs to find out who was who? Why
did you care? What rational person would do this - unless they were
pissed at someone and looking for something - anything! - to ban him
over?
I'm simply interested about why you would assume that you needed to
start tracing your logs backwards ... uh, if not to see if people you'd
*already banned* had reappeared? See, that's the only reason I can
imagine for someone establishing a new persona; that you'd banned him
already.
Which, of course, you say you didn't do. Why don't I believe this?
> And I also have
> clearly stated that indeed some posts were locked for a while, which
> surely would have looked to a non-staff member like they were deleted.
And this, of course, is what you're not going to get away with; this
dishonest suggestion that there's some meaningful difference between
*deleting* posts and simply "disappearing" them so that they are
effectively invisible until you feel enough time has passed so you can
sneak back and re-visibilize them.
Sorry, old boy, but nobody gives a fuck *how* you made posters or posts
disappear, or how long you waited before you skulked back and restored
them (so you could claim you never deleted them...).
Gone is gone, kiddo. The details are irrelevant.
But again, it's nice to see a clear admission that you both banned
posters and deleted ("disappeared," "made invisible," "locked,"
"vaporized" or whatever other disingenous term you'd prefer we used...)
posts.
> Again, we locked those posts in an honest attempt to help diffuse the
> situation and cool things off.
Really. Can we see one of these flamingly-hot posts that couldn't
remain for another second without burning the whole place down? Let's
have an example to discuss.
> And I believe we only banned a total of
> three people (7 user accounts as far as I can tell), all of which were
> temporary.
Just as with the "temporarily made invisible posts," this is another
crock of shit.
So you only "temporarily banned posters." Do you understand why those
offended by your making people and their comments disappear - for
whatever time period - don't give a fuck *how long* you maintained your
little selective cone of silence?
> I did my best to un-ban those accounts when the bans
> expired, but that was all prior to Vbulletin 3.6.0 being released with
> its integrated infraction management system. Older versions of
> Vbulletin didn't have the infraction system, so working with bans was
> cumbersome and the system didn't generate automatic email
> notifications to affected users like it does now. I am not 110%
> certain that every one of those bans expired exactly when it was
> supposed to because A) it was a manual system back then and B) some
> users were bouncing between multiple accounts which made it difficult
> to know who was who.
Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah. Technical difficulties. Please do not adjust
your set. And the fucking dog ate your homework.
Sure.
> So no, the issue is not that "Maddox claimed he never banned any
> members," as I already explained that we *did* in my original email
> that Eddy posted. That's disinformation, Giftzwerg.
Well, heck, I'll amend my comments, then. Henceforth I'll just assert
that you lamely claim that there's some useful distinction between
temporarily - you know, until the issue is moot - removing people and
their comments, and doing so permanently.
> And the issue is
> not that "Maddox claims he never removed any posts," because my
> original emails to Eddy clearly state that we *did* temporarily lock
> some posts, which made them invisible to non-staff for some time.
<laughter>
So, the posts-that-you-didn't-delete weren't *technically* deleted, in
that they still existed as un-visible bytes somewhere in some directory
that no one but you and your crack staff of expert moderators had access
to ... it's just that *no one could see them*.
Ah. Gotcha.
Gee, I'm sorry, but - again - I'm not sure I see a useful distinction
between a post that's "deleted" and a post that's "made-invisible-until-
everyone-forgets-about-the-issue-and-we-feel-we-can-slink-back-and-
restore-visibility-so-we-can-claim-we-never-deleted-anything."
For fuck's sake, you might as well claim you never "banned" any forum
members, since they still existed somewhere.
Gone is gone, kiddo. If a post or a member disppears, you deleted it /
banned them.
> Again, you're quoting things I never said and never claimed. I said I
> stand behind the reasoning for the few bans that were handed out, and
> that each of them was temporary. I do and they were.
Are you *real sure* there isn't somebody out there who's still banned
today?
> I said earlier that I don't feel that I and my staff handled this
> situation as well as we could have, and that's the truth. It was a
> mistake on our part to temporarily lock those posts because it
> perpetuated the appearance that we were attempting to channel the
> discussion, which we were not.
<helpless laughter>
What other conclusion can anyone make - particularly when the bans and
deleted^h^h^h^h^h^h "temporarily made un-visible to all" posts seem
curiously focused on the people who were asking Mr. Rose some pointed
questions - and not towards Mr. Rose, who was accusing people of
outright piracy, among his other serial offenses?
> We should have left every one of those
> posts visible for all to see, and I'm sorry we did not.
The problem here is that you seem to be getting to Jericho kinda late.
The issue is closed, and the bans and deleted^h^h^h^h^h^h disappeared
posts - however "temporary" - had their effect; you managed to purge
your forum of undesirable elements.
Well done. But don't expect me to applaud.
> I also
> remember that one of the mods posted a scathing assessment of USENET
> and its members, and I don't know where that one post is off the top
> of my head. All of this was spread between multiple threads and I
> really don't recall where all of it is. I believe (and I could be
> wrong on this) that he self-edited that post at my request. But I'm
> sure a record of that one post exists here somewhere, because I'm
> almost certain I remember someone saying it had been quoted here.
Pff. Who. Cares.
Send this pussy around and I'll tell him to fuck off in person.
> The bottom line was this whole situation was not one of our creation.
> It was a blowup between members of the community and a game company.
The members, of course, getting banned and their posts deleted, while
the game company soldiered on.
Well done. Again.
> The staff may not have handled it as well as we could have, but
> moderating a flame war between visiting developers and angry members
> is no easy task and something I don't look forward to doing ever
> again. As I recall, there were some pretty heated things said in there
> by various people who were upset and angry. Also, one of the
> developers got upset and posted some pretty angry things, too. Believe
> me, the last thing the mods and I wanted to get dragged into was
> playing referee for a mess like that! I've got a lot better things to
> do with my time.
Which brings us to the present. Why are you fucking with this? You
banned the people (yeah, yeah, only for a few nanoseconds ... just long
enough to get rid of them and their awful ideas forever...) and deleted
(Darn, I keep using this word. Just can't get it out of my head.) their
posts.
For fuck's sake, be a man about it. Just say, "Fucking-A, G., it's our
board, and we'll ban whoever we like, and then delete their posts,
laughing all the while. If you don't like it, fuck off."
*That*, I could respect. Of course, it kinda cuts against this "by
gamers, for gamers" mantra you chant in other places, but ... what the
fuck?
But now you want to have your cake and eat it, too.
> Giftzwerg, you and everyone
> else here is entitled to your opinions. If you think I'm an Evil piece
> of crap that is being used by developers to pad their pockets, then
> that's your opinion. I've offered my 2 cents on the whole episode and
> we can agree to disagree.
<sweetly>
Fair enough.
See ya next year.
Bloodstar
"Colonel Kirby, no need for a backup. Mr. Gifty (Rambo) will handle this
nicely"
:-)
Giftzwerg
george.w...@microsoft.com says...
> Ahaha Gifty is Mr. tough guy.
>
> "Colonel Kirby, no need for a backup. Mr. Gifty (Rambo) will handle this
> nicely"
Yeeeah, I'm a monster. Just got done shoveling my walk.
<hitches up pants>
Aaaaaaah.
Briarroot
> On Mar 17, 7:53 am, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> In article <etglsr$a9...@sunce.iskon.hr>,
>> george.washing...@microsoft.com says...
>>
>
>> So what? The issue here is Maddox's claim that he *didn't* remove any
>> posts or ban any members, and your claim that some of the posters who
>> confronted the SES developers did so in a "vicious" and "nasty" way.
>
> No, Giftzwerg, that is not what I claimed at all. If you look at my
> original email to Eddy I clearly explained who was banned and why.
> That was a long time ago and I couldn't remember all of it so I had to
> go back and look at the database to see the expired bans. It was a
> little hard to sort out because several of the people ended up being
> the same person posting under different user accounts, and that made
> it difficult to track down exactly what was what. And I also have
> clearly stated that indeed some posts were locked for a while, which
> surely would have looked to a non-staff member like they were deleted.
>
Summary: you didn't ban anyone, you only appeared to; and you didn't
delete any posts, you only appeared to. Uh-huh. And if you did do
any of that, it was only temporarily; but you aren't sure if the
people whose posts weren't deleted, just disappeared for a while,
and the people who weren't banned, just not allowed to post for a
while, were ever notified that their non-existent bans and/or
deleted posts were no long banned and deleted. Uh-huh. Sure. John
Kerry? Is that you?
--
"Any attempt to replace a personal conscience by a collective
conscience does
violence to the individual and is the first step toward
totalitarianism." - Herman Hesse
Mike Kreuzer
I'm confused, I thought all the conspirators were clustered around the
same keyboard in Staten Island, NY. Wasn't that established here
earlier? <g>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Ralph Trickey
news:45fc...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
of sub-standard wargames and sap the training and future will of our
military, of course. <g>
Ralph
Giftzwerg
says...
> > No, Giftzwerg, that is not what I claimed at all. If you look at my
> > original email to Eddy I clearly explained who was banned and why.
> > That was a long time ago and I couldn't remember all of it so I had to
> > go back and look at the database to see the expired bans. It was a
> > little hard to sort out because several of the people ended up being
> > the same person posting under different user accounts, and that made
> > it difficult to track down exactly what was what. And I also have
> > clearly stated that indeed some posts were locked for a while, which
> > surely would have looked to a non-staff member like they were deleted.
> Summary: you didn't ban anyone, you only appeared to; and you didn't
> delete any posts, you only appeared to. Uh-huh. And if you did do
> any of that, it was only temporarily; but you aren't sure if the
> people whose posts weren't deleted, just disappeared for a while,
> and the people who weren't banned, just not allowed to post for a
> while, were ever notified that their non-existent bans and/or
> deleted posts were no long banned and deleted. Uh-huh. Sure. John
> Kerry? Is that you?
Here's an obvious question that needs to be answered: did any of the
"temporarily" banned posters ever post again? Or did they make the
logical conclusion and just leave SZO forever?
dma...@gamesquad.com
wrote:
> In article <1174150421.367438.155...@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> dmad...@gamesquad.com says...
> For fuck's sake, be a man about it. Just say, "Fucking-A, G., it's our
> board, and we'll ban whoever we like, and then delete their posts,
> laughing all the while. If you don't like it, fuck off."
>
> *That*, I could respect. Of course, it kinda cuts against this "by
> gamers, for gamers" mantra you chant in other places, but ... what the
> fuck?
>
> Giftzwerg
Giftzwerg, you seem awful upset about this whole thing. At any rate,
you have your opinion and I have mine. Have a nice day.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
James D Burns
news:MPG.206661968...@news-east.giganews.com...
>
> Here's an obvious question that needs to be answered: did any of the
> "temporarily" banned posters ever post again? Or did they make the
> logical conclusion and just leave SZO forever?
>
I know I never tried to log in to the site again and only ever visit it now
as a guest though inadvertently clicking one of Eddy's links here.
I assume this:
>
> The third guy received a 24-hour ban for insulting the site staff.
> Mods and editors are not there to get flamed.
>
refers to me and my insult of Mr. Maddox. But of course I asked to be banned
so perhaps he isn't counting me. And whether I was ever actually banned or
not I couldn't tell you since I never went back and tried to log in.
What I do remember about the dustup though is I went there and read all the
posts carefully and the only one I found over the top and actually in
violation of any rules was one posted by Bloodstar. I responded by quoting
all his inflammatory and insulting statements (being sure to use quotes so
no one could accuse me of such behavior) and stating no one else appeared to
be behaving so badly. Shortly thereafter bans started and posts disappeared,
but strangely Bloodstar and his posts still remained. That's when it was
obvious to me they were trying to protect SES under the guise of rules
infractions while not actually enforcing the infractions against the worst
offender/offenders since they were members of or fanboi's of SES.
I promptly posted my insult of Mr. Maddox and asked for a lifetime ban.
Personally his mea culpa rings hollow. Had he simply admitted his failed
attempt to help SES and admitted it was a mistake to have done so in the
first place, I'd have a renewed respect for the man. Of course not many men
have the stuff it takes to be able to stand up and own up to their failures
while looking you square in the eye. Mr. Maddox's posts while lengthy and
verbose leave me with a feeling of him looking askance at his shoes, the
wall, the ceiling, anywhere but in my eyes.
Not that he owes me or anyone else a mea culpa. I nether expected nor asked
for one, he posted of his own free will, I'll grant him that.
dma...@gamesquad.com
> "Giftzwerg" <giftzwerg...@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:MPG.206661968...@news-east.giganews.com...
>
> refers to me and my insult of Mr. Maddox. But of course I asked to be banned
> so perhaps he isn't counting me. And whether I was ever actually banned or
> not I couldn't tell you since I never went back and tried to log in.
>
>
> Personally his mea culpa rings hollow. Had he simply admitted his failed
> attempt to help SES and admitted it was a mistake to have done so in the
> first place, I'd have a renewed respect for the man. Of course not many men
> have the stuff it takes to be able to stand up and own up to their failures
> while looking you square in the eye. Mr. Maddox's posts while lengthy and
> verbose leave me with a feeling of him looking askance at his shoes, the
> wall, the ceiling, anywhere but in my eyes.
>
> Not that he owes me or anyone else a mea culpa. I nether expected nor asked
> for one, he posted of his own free will, I'll grant him that.
>
> Jim
Jim, I'm sorry to say I can't offer the apology or mea culpa that some
(perhaps not you) seem to be think I ought to offer. My intent was to
provide some insight into what our thinking was on the matter and what
actions we took. Some will not agree with our rationale, and that's
fine.
Moderating a large and active forum is an incredibly difficult and
thankless job, and I stand by the efforts my staff. Since there was no
"attempt to protect SES" as you put it, there is no failure of that
kind for me to admit to. I did say we could have handled the situation
better, and by that I mean it would have been better to leave all
posts visible for everyone to see. I'll take the heat for that
decision and the subsequent confusion it caused. But that is not an
admission that we created the problem in the first place. We didn't.
The problem was created by grown men pissing on each other's shoes,
and the mods and I were left with the crappy task of trying to clean
up the mess made by others. I'm not going to apologize for doing an
imperfect job of cleaning up someone else's mess.
> I promptly posted my insult of Mr. Maddox and asked for a lifetime ban.
You did and I remember that. But tempers were flaring on all sides in
that thread, and I chalked up the incident to you being angry and
upset with us and didn't think too much about it. I don't remember
exactly what you wrote, but I believe it was pretty minor and
certainly not worthy of any sort of lengthy infraction.
At any rate, I think I've said everything I have to say on the matter
so it's probably best if I let it drop and move on to more productive
things.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
Bloodstar
> the posts carefully and the only one I found over the top and actually in
> violation of any rules was one posted by Bloodstar. I responded by quoting
> all his inflammatory and insulting statements (being sure to use quotes so
> no one could accuse me of such behavior) and stating no one else appeared
> to be behaving so badly. Shortly thereafter bans started and posts
> disappeared, but strangely Bloodstar and his posts still remained. That's
> when it was obvious to me they were trying to protect SES under the guise
> of rules infractions while not actually enforcing the infractions against
> the worst offender/offenders since they were members of or fanboi's of
> SES.
James,
I didn't started to offend anyone until someone started firts with offenses
I am quite sure of that. If I were temporaly banned it would be OK - but
then some bloody justice would not have been there.
You obviously have axe to grind with JR from TalonSoft forum so you and
others just waited right moment for fun and flames. I don't say that JR
acted diplomatically which in fact he should. Me either.
Fanboys? Uh, uh... TOAW is on my hard drive still and PC's are changing...
So I should have allowed you all to take all kind of insults to SES and say
nothing? Go suck up to Matrix that goes nicely with you and many others
here.
It's interesting how Erik Rutins say mantra about eBay copies of Close
Combat being sold at this or that amount and when I out stronger argument on
that, no he will rather again repeat and repeat again same mantra about ebay
Close Combat. Interesting manipulation with his customers hehe.
I would not disturb your peace too much here... Well, I see only Bush
cavarly left here, dissapointed lone Australian programmer (funny but
bitter?), and few other people. This newsgroup was much better in the past.
Maybe forums have too many members away... Some left when you introduced
Matrix Club Cards on the door? Etc... :-))))
So for me there is no problem to go back to lurking mode again. It is only
because Eddy sometimes post good links and that's all.
So long Matrix fanoboys! :)
It's funny how Matrix enjoys this situation with copy protection here. He is
protected here like white bears in Alaska. It's all about money as we see
not about any decency and good manners at all and bloody justice for all. So
continue to worship your saint golden cow called Matrix here, without me of
course.
Mario
Bloodstar
> same keyboard in Staten Island, NY. Wasn't that established here
> earlier? <g>
Mike,
So you too are Matrix fan boys... Maybe some poisonous spider or lizard have
bitten you old man down there in Brisbane or Geelong, or Canberra? LOL
Spider called Matrixis? LOL
Haha, it's kind of funny that I am labeled as some sort of Matrix critics
and I just say obvious things (you on the other hand ridicule companies that
puts copy protection for years now - and they are doing that with their IP
not yours!):
Now obvious things:
Electronic Arts buys Gamespot there is uproar in gaming circles... Matrix
Games owns Wargamer and nothing. They even hide the fact that they are
owner. It says our HQ is on State Island LOL LOL Don't hide the fact then!
Matrix Games - ahahah how happy are they when they smack another developers
like Hussar Games that only speaks that they would really like a monopoly in
fact or almost monopoly. But again they are envious as well because
Battlefront.com can give them nice punch or too with Theatre of War and now
soon to be released new Combat Mission: Shock Force. And Shrapnel Games with
Dominions 3. lol
And third thing - I have elaborated this on Matrix forum who wants to check
out thread "you lost too much sales..." on their Close Combat forum - well
ridiculous price of 40$ will make them lose a lot of sales. And I rather
payed 40$ for Medieval II: Total War then Close Combat: CoI...
But again if they drop the price to 30$ then they can give me a call! :)
That goes with all their remakes.
So where is my animosity? They can use my critics to be better not worse.
I don't like monopoly but I admit they don't have monopoly and other
companies shoud have be more agressive. And we need more wargaming
companies - see this don't go with your subversive attacks on startups like
SES - so in fact this newsgropu is doing big damage on wargaming in general
with this childish and old primadona anti activation rants. Your life
depends on this.
There is one nice story: well Lenin contrary what some may think didn't read
Mayakovskiy who was commmunist like him. He liked Charles Dickens to read
and he used to say "Mayakovskiy should be whipped!".
Same Gifty is Bush supporter and right wing but in this situation he is
leftist, about copy protection and more big leftist.
Go figure when someone support acts of Fourth Reich in Iraq and grabs for
oil but then is such a big and democratic supporter of freedom of speech,
human right of small people who don't like intruisive copy protection.
That is clearly a sign of big, degeneric downfall of our Civilization. Man
have lost the touch with reality in his selfishness and not knowing of
justice.
Mario
Bloodstar
And about that press release that released one developer that attacked
Shrapnel Games...
Look, I don't defend Shrapnel Games - maybe that developers was right I
don't know.
But I found this as lousy journalist job when you publish only one side and
not wait for comment from other side. Then your credibility goes down the
drain!
If some developers have left Matrix Games and publish same offending press
release toward Matrix Games would you see same situation.... Aha, you would
you can bet LOL!
I imagine situation office of Matrix Games "Can we please wait for Erik to
arrive in office across us so we can ask him about this situation?" LOL
Now neutral journalism waits for comments from two sides. Not just publish
one side and then chuckles for a week how Shrapnel have taken a flak in the
media.
Mario
Chris Merchant
I don't know about anyone else. but if you imagine bloodstar talking with
an accent like Borat it all makes sense and is hilarous.
More popcorn required.
Thank god for the internet.
Chris Merchant
Bloodstar
Make more popcorn you'll need it once I am back from green market LOL
Now - Borat - I am bigger westerner than many that thinks that they are
westerner and I lived in Germany 4 years. And I am bigger intelectual than
most of you here. I have 500 books - so your trying to portray me as some
redneck is lousy.
You will not understand.
BTW, my English is not perfect but I type VERY, VERY fast and don't stop to
check any grammar etc. Take this into account.
There will be no big flame here but will just state my opinion on all this
as always hehe.
But Chris you must try harder to offend me. Like telling me what are MY
soldiers doing in Iraq for example or something like that.
Mario
Vincenzo Beretta
> an accent like Borat it all makes sense and is hilarous.
LOL
Bloodstar
>> an accent like Borat it all makes sense and is hilarous.
>
> LOL
We have stopped you Italians on the Isonzo (Gorizia) pretty well. And if
needed again will. LOL.
BTW, that is cheap talking about my Englis as it is my second language that
I don't use at all in everyday communications. Only on Usenet and Forum and
few phone calls sometimes. My accent is terrible. But calling me a Borat by
people who didn't showed knowledge of another world language is pathetic.
You as Italian know this...
I was once in Cannes and around Genova I asked some young Italians something
in English - they don't know a word in English.
Contrary young Croatians mostly speak English.
So LOL as much as you want.
Mario
Giftzwerg
dma...@gamesquad.com says...
> > For fuck's sake, be a man about it. Just say, "Fucking-A, G., it's our
> > board, and we'll ban whoever we like, and then delete their posts,
> > laughing all the while. If you don't like it, fuck off."
> >
> > *That*, I could respect. Of course, it kinda cuts against this "by
> > gamers, for gamers" mantra you chant in other places, but ... what the
> > fuck?
> Giftzwerg, you seem awful upset about this whole thing. At any rate,
> you have your opinion and I have mine. Have a nice day.
I'll leave it to the assembled masses to discern who appears "upset"
with this situation. In other words, it's not me who keeps posting 100+
line justifications of his own behavior as of eight months ago.
My only business here is to make sure that everyone concerned
understands that nobody *dreamed* that you were banning posters and
deleting their posts - and displayed considerable selectivity in whom
your axe fell on. It wasn't some figment of our imagination. Now you
claim you later went back and restored the people and posts that you
erased.
But the latter is irrelevant. The people you banned never returned.
The posts you deleted disappeared during the only period where people
were interested in the issue.
So what do you want here?
Vincenzo Beretta
>
> We have stopped you Italians on the Isonzo (Gorizia) pretty well. And if
> needed again will. LOL.
Uhm, when? Only in WWI there were twelve major battles on the Isonzo and
near Gorizia, ranging from great Italian victories to great Austro-Hungarian
ones (Caporetto).
> BTW, that is cheap talking about my Englis as it is my second language
that
> I don't use at all in everyday communications.
Same here, and to be frank, I have severe doubts myself about what I'm
actually writing everytime I venture into the "To whomever it would ever had
happened to think elliptically about..." territory. What's bad about it?
> But calling me a Borat by
> people who didn't showed knowledge of another world language is pathetic.
Now this is funny :o) Since (I hope) you have seen the movie, you surely
know how the whole point of "Borat" is how the alleged stupidity of the main
character is only instrumental in showing the real one of some of the people
he meets. You know that, don't you?
Oleg Mastruko
<george.w...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>So for me there is no problem to go back to lurking mode again. It is only
>because Eddy sometimes post good links and that's all.
>
>So long Matrix fanoboys! :)
>
>It's funny how Matrix enjoys this situation with copy protection here. He is
>protected here like white bears in Alaska. It's all about money as we see
>not about any decency and good manners at all and bloody justice for all. So
>continue to worship your saint golden cow called Matrix here, without me of
>course.
You posted *only* four times after your above farewell post,
Mario - you're disappointing your fans! :o)
"Saint golden cow" LOL
Temper temper!
Giftzwerg
dma...@gamesquad.com says...
> Moderating a large and active forum is an incredibly difficult and
> thankless job, and I stand by the efforts my staff. Since there was no
> "attempt to protect SES" as you put it, there is no failure of that
> kind for me to admit to. I did say we could have handled the situation
> better, and by that I mean it would have been better to leave all
> posts visible for everyone to see. I'll take the heat for that
> decision and the subsequent confusion it caused.
But that's just it. There's no "confusion." You banned people and
deleted their posts. Then, sometime later, you skulked back and
restored things, presumably so you could make this ludicrous claim that
you hadn't banned anyone or deleted anything.
The problem with "handling the situation" was that there was no
"situation" until you invented one. Members of your community were
expressing their opinions about a game - and doing so reasonably with
considerable politeness. I've re-read all the posts, and there's not a
single thing written there that couldn't be proudly expressed on CBS TV
during the Family Hour.
Indeed, the nastier posts, and the ones you didn't delete, were from the
people you *didn't* ban. This leads to the only possible conclusion;
you stepped in at the behest of Mr. Rose et al, and sent his
interlocutors packing.
> I'm not going to apologize for doing an
> imperfect job of cleaning up someone else's mess.
Fine. So stop talking. You're the one bringing this up. Nobody else
gives a fuck.
ERutins
realized that I could hardly improve on it. Thank you Mario, you
really did make me laugh. :-)
I will have to ask Dave one of these days if being "The Man" comes
with a raise. ;-)
Regards,
- Erik
Bloodstar
> You posted *only* four times after your above farewell post,
> Mario - you're disappointing your fans! :o)
>
> "Saint golden cow" LOL
>
> Temper temper!
LOL
I never leave job unfinished, after this thread is done I will again leave
this place (will not say for good :).
It would be not nearly fun if I watch my temper :)
Mario
Bloodstar
I'm glad that I made you laugh :-)
Mario
Bloodstar
> near Gorizia, ranging from great Italian victories to great
> Austro-Hungarian
> ones (Caporetto).
Hehe yes in WW1... OK, you are right and this theme was brought rather
foolishly by me.
> Same here, and to be frank, I have severe doubts myself about what I'm
> actually writing everytime I venture into the "To whomever it would ever
> had
> happened to think elliptically about..." territory. What's bad about it?
OK.
>> But calling me a Borat by
>> people who didn't showed knowledge of another world language is pathetic.
>
> Now this is funny :o) Since (I hope) you have seen the movie, you surely
> know how the whole point of "Borat" is how the alleged stupidity of the
> main
> character is only instrumental in showing the real one of some of the
> people
> he meets. You know that, don't you?
Last movie I saw on big screen was "Letters from Iwo Jima" and as I said on
Gamesquads TOAW forum I really didn't quite like it. Clint Eastwood is great
actor and lousy director.
Borat? I didn't see it but those few scenes I've seen tells me that he
ridicule Americans but also ridicule himself as well. In fact that is cheap
humour, you can go everywhere on the planet and ridicule everyone not just
Americans. If you happen to live somewhere for some time you would see that
almost every place has something worth living there. So in my deepest
feelings I cannot fall on prejudice just like that.
Mario
James D Burns
news:etj11h$oek$1...@sunce.iskon.hr...
>
> James,
>
> I didn't started to offend anyone until someone started firts with
> offenses I am quite sure of that. If I were temporaly banned it would be
> OK - but then some bloody justice would not have been there.
>
I know I had read all posts in the threads about SES copy protection at SZO
prior to quoting yours and I had found none that seemed insulting or
malicious. In fact only yours did and the bizarre part was you were posting
a rant about how others were behaving badly. That's why I found the post so
ironic and pointed it out with your own words.
> You obviously have axe to grind with JR from TalonSoft forum so you and
> others just waited right moment for fun and flames. I don't say that JR
> acted diplomatically which in fact he should. Me either.
>
Jeezus talk about paranoid delusions. I worked with both Jim Rose and Norm
Koger for several years at Talonsoft on the TOAW games and liked both men
personally (still do). I only found some of Jim's posts bizarre and tried to
comically tell him to tone it down by making fun of his weird behavior but
no one can find any post by me that maliciously attacked either man or their
company. The only thing I posted angrily about was the stupid damn copy
protection. Of course I post angrily about any kind of activation scheme no
matter who uses it so take your chill pills, there is no big conspiracy here
or anywhere else out to get any game company, it's all in your head.
> Fanboys? Uh, uh... TOAW is on my hard drive still and PC's are changing...
> So I should have allowed you all to take all kind of insults to SES and
> say nothing? Go suck up to Matrix that goes nicely with you and many
> others here.
>
Your hatred of Matrix is pathological, I think you should get some
counseling. Unless of course it has something to do with the game business
and nothing to do with a customers point of view. But we already had that
discussion long ago didn't we, and you denied it.
> It's interesting how Erik Rutins say mantra about eBay copies of Close
> Combat being sold at this or that amount and when I out stronger argument
> on that, no he will rather again repeat and repeat again same mantra about
> ebay Close Combat. Interesting manipulation with his customers hehe.
>
I paid their asking price and am happy with my purchase. The AI is still
brain-dead but the multiplayer aspect makes it 100% worth the admission
price. Without that I'd be very very angry as everyone knew the AI sucked.
So in my opinion they could have done one of two things to make it worth
while. Beef up the AI or make human opponents available which they did, so
no problem with the ticket price for me.
> Some left when you introduced Matrix Club Cards on the door? Etc... :-))))
>
Like I said very pathological behavior, it's a game company, not some evil
empire.
> So for me there is no problem to go back to lurking mode again. It is only
> because Eddy sometimes post good links and that's all.
>
Bubye... yet again. You're too melodramatic, I doubt anyone laments your
passings like this anymore. LOL
> So long Matrix fanoboys! :)
>
> He is protected here
AHA! A clue, it's not the company and its retail policies you hate, you have
a problem with someone at Matrix personally. Now your continual rants
against Matrix make a bit more sense. So what did "He" do to you to make you
hate "Him" so much? Oh, and who is "He"?
Bloodstar
> I know I had read all posts in the threads about SES copy protection at
> SZO
> prior to quoting yours and I had found none that seemed insulting or
> malicious. In fact only yours did and the bizarre part was you were
> posting a rant about how others were behaving badly. That's why I found
> the post so ironic and pointed it out with your own words.
James,
All that I will tell you now is completely honest. You may trust me or not,
your call.
I was almost only one who defended SES on Usenet. I admit it. When this
discussion was brought up on Forum yes maybe I have behaved badly and admit
that. I was maybe under impression of all last discussion here so my
initaila capisle went off rather fast. I am sorry for that.
But again I tell you that I have impression that there were other posts and
threads as well (yes i have reread whole thing again) where SES was attacked
etc...
So don't be so one sided and put all blame to me.
>> You obviously have axe to grind with JR from TalonSoft forum so you and
>> others just waited right moment for fun and flames. I don't say that JR
>> acted diplomatically which in fact he should. Me either.
>>
>
> Jeezus talk about paranoid delusions. I worked with both Jim Rose and Norm
> Koger for several years at Talonsoft on the TOAW games and liked both men
> personally (still do). I only found some of Jim's posts bizarre and tried
> to comically tell him to tone it down by making fun of his weird behavior
> but no one can find any post by me that maliciously attacked either man or
> their company. The only thing I posted angrily about was the stupid damn
> copy protection. Of course I post angrily about any kind of activation
> scheme no matter who uses it so take your chill pills, there is no big
> conspiracy here or anywhere else out to get any game company, it's all in
> your head.
Can we continue discussion without insults, please? I am not paranoid.
Copy protection. You have all blwed this out of proportion.
Imagine situation. Ford makes 1000000 cars in Detroit. They have lousy
locks.
There is 50000 thieves on the streets. Ford makes new locks for the cars he
made so they cannot be stealed anymore.
Then you comes on the scene or Gifty and yells how you don't like this lock
as (I don't know) put your own reason here.
You worked with Jim Rose and Norm Koger but you cannot forget them this? LOL
I said just LOL. That is quite bizarre.
Even more biazarre is your's crusade where I don't see a goal and what you
will acomplish with ignoring all companies that use product activation.
Sorry that makes all companies and talking about their products mostly not
welcome here. Every time when there is discussion about their products
someone will come and say "Ah, this is game that uses NAZI DRM protection!
Bring all priests and Inquisitors! Bring the people to see big bonefire! We
will exterminate those heretics!" etc...
You don't get a message do you?
> Your hatred of Matrix is pathological, I think you should get some
> counseling. Unless of course it has something to do with the game business
> and nothing to do with a customers point of view. But we already had that
> discussion long ago didn't we, and you denied it.
Again lame insults.
I don't hate Matrix Games - I have posted things that I don' like AS A
CUSTOMERS. And it doesn't involve ANY PERSON AT ALL.
Mostly my thinking is as a customer and WARGAMER. If you see a conspiracy
here then look for counseling, you!
Did I tell them "Yes, put a price of 30 $ for CoI and I will buy it!" That
is my message, au claire!
Nothing else. I am not buying it at 40$. And I have my arguments which I
will not repeat again as they can be seen on MG forum.
Is that hatred? Very funny.
In all this hyperproduction of games we all need just inflation of prices of
games. Well, consider that I will put my voice against it.
> I paid their asking price and am happy with my purchase. The AI is still
> brain-dead but the multiplayer aspect makes it 100% worth the admission
> price. Without that I'd be very very angry as everyone knew the AI sucked.
> So in my opinion they could have done one of two things to make it worth
> while. Beef up the AI or make human opponents available which they did, so
> no problem with the ticket price for me.
OK. I would also like to buy this game but at 30 $. If they don't want to
put price down, no prob. No sale.
>> Some left when you introduced Matrix Club Cards on the door? Etc...
>> :-))))
>>
>
> Like I said very pathological behavior, it's a game company, not some evil
> empire.
Again try to read between the lines. My criticism is GOOD for them because
it tells them straight in the face what I think. That is your problem,
thinking that I hate Matrix which is not true at all. In fact if there is a
reason for example Daniel McBride puts a new or remake of his scenario using
TOAW 3 new feature you will see me buying TOAW 3 as well. So no hate here
just I don't have reason to switch from COW to TOAW 3 as there is no BAIT
scenario for me to justify purchase.
> Bubye... yet again. You're too melodramatic, I doubt anyone laments your
> passings like this anymore. LOL
Well, no problem - nobody will shed a tear and so what heeh.
>> So long Matrix fanoboys! :)
>>
>> He is protected here
>
> AHA! A clue, it's not the company and its retail policies you hate, you
> have a problem with someone at Matrix personally. Now your continual rants
> against Matrix make a bit more sense. So what did "He" do to you to make
> you hate "Him" so much? Oh, and who is "He"?
I told you that you are wrong. I used a wrong word here. I didn't meant any
individual.
And read better my posts. Again to repeat: no hate against Matrix just few
things I don't like which I said au claire not coded at all.
Now excuse me but battles in TOAW calls me... :)
And Medieval 2 - Mongols are almost crushed by my Turks! Splendind game BTW.
Mario
Bloodstar
And one more thing.
I have settled arguing with Daniel McBride and as I am playing his amazing
scenario called The Great War 2.0 (you can see my AAR here:
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63280) I have sent him tons
of suggestion about scenario because I also read many books on WW1 and have
some knowledge on the subject. I have also found some bugs in the scenario
which will be taken care in next version.
So I am not talking in clouds here. TOAW 3 have no killer app so to say for
me to switch yet. If I see ONLY ONE scenario worth switching that would be
enough for me to buy the game. But there is still not a one TOAW 3 quiality
scenario out there.
And read my AAR, it is nice reading hehe
Mario
dma...@gamesquad.com
wrote:
> In article <1174196914.504562.199...@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
> dmad...@gamesquad.com says...
> Fine. So stop talking. You're the one bringing this up. Nobody else
> gives a fuck.
>
> --
> Giftzwerg
For a guy who claims to cherish the "freedom of expression" that
USENET offers over moderated forums, I find it interesting that you
making it a habit of telling everyone who disagrees with you to "shut
the fuck up," "stop talking," "drop it," and "stop bringing it up." It
isn't difficult to note the difference between my posts, which were
calm and very polite, to yours.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
dma...@gamesquad.com
I don't understand why you are trying to turn this discussion into an
SES vs. Matrix Games debate. To the best of my knowledge, no one from
Matrix Games was involved in the dustup at SZO, so I'm not sure why
you are seeking to put some kind of blame there. The folks from Matrix
have always been very helpful and supportive of our efforts, and I
have never seen anyone from Matrix attack SES in public. When you post
things that like, you not only confuse the issue in this thread but it
also casts doubt on your own motivations. I might remind you that,
although you managed to escape without a temporary ban, you also had a
big role in perpetuating the flame war at SZO. What we needed most was
for people to calm down and think about what they were writing rather
than just lashing out at those who disagreed with them. I hate to say
it, but there is a lot of blame to go around for what happened in that
discussion, and you should accept a portion of it too.
Just my 2 cents.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
Giftzwerg
dma...@gamesquad.com says...
> > Fine. So stop talking. You're the one bringing this up. Nobody else
> > gives a fuck.
> For a guy who claims to cherish the "freedom of expression" that
> USENET offers over moderated forums, I find it interesting that you
> making it a habit of telling everyone who disagrees with you to "shut
> the fuck up," "stop talking," "drop it," and "stop bringing it up."
If I made it a habit of telling every nimrod who disagreed with me to
"shut the fuck up," the C, E, F, H, K, P, S, T, and U keys on my PC
would be worn down to plastic nubbins.
But who cares? Unlike certain fascist motards who rule over their own
forums like strutting tin gods, I can't impinge on anyone's freedom of
expression to any extent. I can't ban them. I can't erase their words.
The most I can do is not read them - but that's *my* choice, and I'll
thank other people to not try and make it for me.
> It
> isn't difficult to note the difference between my posts, which were
> calm and very polite, to yours.
Bully for you. Now fuck off.
Bloodstar
Don,
I don't put Matrix vs. SES - that was a joke and I have said it. Nobody
should take this seriously.
My motivation are clear no conspiracy on my side.
BTW, I said that I take also a blame there and if you had banned me
temporaly I would say OK. No problem at all. I don't run from my
responsibility.
Yes I take the blame for that flame but only minor not so big. I have
defended SES maybe too harsh and too rude. I said that I am sorry for that
but would not say that 1000 times.
My motives were clear - I didn't wanted that Forum become another Usenet
thread of SES lynch. You haven't been here to read all discussion on this
issue and that was big flame wars. And I was only one to defend SES - few
people wrote some neutral posts and others were all ANTI SES activation blah
blah. I don't want to be in another situation like this I would rather leave
this Usenet group for good.
I have good will to settle things here or anywhere peacefully but others are
not so willing.
You must know that Giftzwerg don't know you or your Web site but on
numenrous occasions called you assclown or rude words like this! Is that
polite discussion?
You are wasting your time in trying to explain him anything IMHO.
But I ask you just one thing - don't put all blame to me. That is not fair.
I was rude but my only motive (ONLY!) is to strike with 120 mm if needed but
to shut up those malicipous voices and spam throwers who were distinqushing
ALL normal converstaion about game there! Did you see that there were gamers
wanting to talk about ACTUAL GAMES and not copy protection??? NO???
Who asked THEM what they want to discuss there and are they ready to
tolerate some malicious posters who came to forum only to pester developers
about copy protection. And this is not the only one thread and there were a
lot more threads with offensive posts by chettnick and other nick names he
took.
Norm Koger tell him : our protection will have I don't know transferable key
or something, and he say "I don't give a fuck, and you lies" or something
like that.
What is wrong with this copy protection? I don't even notice it. Yes, I am
playing the game on only one PC I admit.
You don't realize that they call this copy protection NAZI. In fact they are
using nazi methods to attack it and as we see they can't stand it. They are
blind of hate.
Nothing more to say on this.
Mario
Bloodstar
Don,
And another thing. You should go visit Battlefron.com forums and see how
Moon and Madmatt are handling situations. They close the thread or ban some
people in a whim!
Well use that methods, ban me if I will deserve it or anyone else. Why are
you trying here to give them your hand - they will bite you. You don't
understand - for some people here that copy protection is a matter of life
and death as bizarra as it sounds.
That's why this newsgroup has fallen so low.
Many users just left. Battlefront.com forums have thousands of gamers there
posting and they forgot about this usenet group. Most of them. There is
Gamesquads, Wargamer, Matrix, Shrapnel Games etc... forum.
This newsgroup have become a place to debate what Dick Cheney have eaten
today, and for Eddy posting industry news out of boredome and that's all.
Most of people left.
Mario
JP
Ah, another who derides the value of this ng, yet just can't seem to
leave..........
Bloodstar
> leave..........
Ban me :PPPPP
I just want to annoy you a little bit more :PPPP
JP
Oh, you give yourself to much credit; you're not annoying me at all.
Humoring, yes.
dma...@gamesquad.com
wrote:
> In article <1174233701.628903.323...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
>Is English your fourth language? Or are you just a fucking idiot?
>
> Fuck.
> What a repugnant assclown.
>
> Fine. So stop talking. You're the one bringing this up. Nobody else
> gives a fuck.
>
> Bully for you. Now fuck off.
>
> Giftzwerg
You know, Giftzwerg, once you get to know you... you're a rather
cheery fellow. :)
-Don
James D Burns
news:1174104111.3...@e1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> First, the posts are right there for all to see, and they have been
> accessible for regular members since shortly after this incident
> happened.
With all the recent discussions here I finally went to the forums and logged
in to try and read the threads to help my memory. Turns out some of my posts
are missing and many of the threads that had been edited still are heavily
edited. I can't say how many (2 for sure) but there are definitely some
posts of mine that never made it back. I checked all my posts by clicking my
user name and calling up all my posts and only 2 from the dustup are still
posted. The rest are long gone.
This first one was the second one I had made in the thread and was a
response to someone asking me if a question I had posted earlier had been
answered. Needless to say the original question (yes about the activation
scheme) is nowhere to be seen along with any posts from others who
interacted with me prior to this post.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=499654#post499654
The second is the post where I got fed up and left the site. The post where
I called Bloodstar on his ironic rant is vaporware and nowhere to be found
and any others in that same thread I may have made. Now the fact this final
post of mine still remains and the others do not leads me to believe Don
made a good faith effort to bring everything back, but anything I posted
about the copy protection scheme is still missing.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=498677#post498677
Sorry Don I was hesitant to post this, but the honest truth is some/many
deleted posts are still deleted.
Vincenzo Beretta
> cheery fellow. :)
>
> -Don
AAAAAHHHH! Finally you got it, Don! Debating with Giftzy is supposed to be
FUN! :o)))
James D Burns
second the first. LOL sorry about that.
Giftzwerg
dma...@gamesquad.com says...
> >Is English your fourth language? Or are you just a fucking idiot?
> >
> > Fuck.
> > What a repugnant assclown.
> >
> > Fine. So stop talking. You're the one bringing this up. Nobody else
> > gives a fuck.
> >
> > Bully for you. Now fuck off.
> You know, Giftzwerg, once you get to know you... you're a rather
> cheery fellow. :)
"If it isn't fun, why do it?"
- Ben & Jerry
Giftzwerg
> > First, the posts are right there for all to see, and they have been
> > accessible for regular members since shortly after this incident
> > happened.
>
> With all the recent discussions here I finally went to the forums and logged
> in to try and read the threads to help my memory. Turns out some of my posts
> are missing and many of the threads that had been edited still are heavily
> edited. I can't say how many (2 for sure) but there are definitely some
> posts of mine that never made it back. I checked all my posts by clicking my
> user name and calling up all my posts and only 2 from the dustup are still
> posted. The rest are long gone.
And I notice something else Mr. Maddox is lying about; as I suspected
all along, the guy they banned for having multiple accounts was *first*
banned just for saying something they disliked - he asked the unaskable
question on SZO - and established the other four (or two, depending on
if Mario or Maddox is doing the telling) accounts as they banned him for
perfectly mild and reasonable statements with *those* accounts.
Now, after the fact, they're telling it as though he established all
those accounts at once, and was carrying on a conversation with himself:
"A second person was banned for created multiple user accounts (at
least four that we know of) and using them to incite a flame war. One
account would make a provocative statement, and then another from the
same person would agree, and so on."
- Don Maddox
This is flatly a lie. In the thread below, the three accounts Maddox
mentions simply appear to continue asking his question ("Why are you
protecting the developers, Donny-boy?") as one account or another stops
working.
> This first one was the second one I had made in the thread and was a
> response to someone asking me if a question I had posted earlier had been
> answered. Needless to say the original question (yes about the activation
> scheme) is nowhere to be seen along with any posts from others who
> interacted with me prior to this post.
Yeah, I've seen a few examples of this myself. There are even some
"orphan" quotes down-thread that don't make any sense any longer because
the original is gone.
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=499654#post499654
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?p=498677#post498677
>
> Sorry Don I was hesitant to post this, but the honest truth is some/many
> deleted posts are still deleted.
Who ya gonna believe? Maddox, or your lyin' eyes?
Alleghanny McKlennay
"ERutins" <er...@matrixgames.com> wrote in message
news:1174144621.4...@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> hasn't noticed, Matrix can do no wrong on this group.......
>
> Oh, really? So, if say we implemented activation-based limited
> trialware protection as standard on all our games tomorrow, no one
> would complain? I guess you also missed the many discussions here
> over the last years where we have also taken flak for one game release
> or another. We even seem to have our own dedicated critic in the form
> of Bloodstar, though he's been on hiatus recently so you may have
> missed him. :-)
TRANSLATION: WAH WAH WAH WAH.....
LOL! Matrix taking flak on this forum? ROTFLMAO!
Between Eddy posting "Oh, Lookie what I "accidentally" stumbled across on
Matrix FTP server today, blow...blow...lick...lick", and all the other
fanboy's keeping the faith, if you think this is an unbiased group, you are
truly more pathetic than I originally thought.
Alleghanny McKlennay
>> Who cares? An opinion or theory is no more valid or invalid because one
>> or five people espouse it.
>
> Nonsense.
>
> That guy was clearly a slimy scumbag and if you have 20 people on forum
> online then creating a 5 fake user names makes a difference. Oh, boy but
> that goes with your theory well - fight the "nazi DRM whatever" with any
> possible means, even napalm if required?
>
>
>
> Mario
>
Just KF Gifty "The Walking Septic Tank", the git is so pathetic he obviously
has zero life, and so bitter, all he does is spew shite at every turn.
Don't need to be a psych major to see he thinks the world "owes him", people
like that are not even worth engaging.
Just ignore the twit and move on.
dma...@gamesquad.com
> Sorry Don I was hesitant to post this, but the honest truth is some/many
> deleted posts are still deleted.
>
> Jim
That's quite alright, Jim. I will go back and take a second look to
ensure something wasn't missed. I was certain none of the mods perma-
deleted anything, but I won't swear my life on it. If I encounter
anything that wasn't unlocked I will make sure it gets unlocked. Are
you *certain* you had another post that isn't showing up? If you are
certain and it can't be found, then I will see if there is some way to
add it back to the database assuming a copy of the orginal post can be
found. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
Regards,
-Don Maddox
psynnott
time, I haven't noticed anyone who would fall into this category.
Perhaps you might identify them?
Paul
Bloodstar
> obviously has zero life, and so bitter, all he does is spew shite at every
> turn.
>
> Don't need to be a psych major to see he thinks the world "owes him",
> people like that are not even worth engaging.
>
> Just ignore the twit and move on.
Pig with a lipstick is priceless ! :))))))))))
Mario
dma...@gamesquad.com
> deleted posts are still deleted.
>
> Jim
Jim, you were correct, there were some posts in two other threads that
did not get unlocked. I went back and made sure they are all unlocked
now.
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38683
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38514
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38593
http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38285
I guess nobody cares about this stuff anymore anyway, but I said the
posts had all been unlocked so I wanted to make sure what I said was
correct. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
Regards,
-Don
Bloodstar
>
> Jim, you were correct, there were some posts in two other threads that
> did not get unlocked. I went back and made sure they are all unlocked
> now.
>
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38683
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38514
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38593
> http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/showthread.php?t=38285
>
> I guess nobody cares about this stuff anymore anyway, but I said the
> posts had all been unlocked so I wanted to make sure what I said was
> correct. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
>
> Regards,
> -Don
some excerpts of this "gentlemen". I know that I haven't be rude just for a
kick:
"This is like saying we shouldn't discuss the status of the barn door until
some of our horses go missing.
Obviously, the time to discuss a copy protection system that seems likely to
alienate a good many paying customers is BEFORE the publisher is foolish
enough to implement it. And a good many paying customers have already made
their opinions clear, they're not interested in activation or this crazy
"license transfer" nonsense.
"Distant Guns" was #1 on my wish list, until it became clear that the
designers considered me a crook and were going to hammer on me as though I
were."
In another word this means let's make SES life miserable by making many
would be customers decide to not buy the game even before game is released.
another POLITE post toward developers, try this on Matrix forum as well:
"Mr. Sterckz's criticisms of your copy-protection scheme have been polite,
on-topic, and well-reasoned. You, on the other hand, come across as an
ignorant lout, and your partner appears as a whiney jerk.
Sign me,
Another potential customer lost because of hostile copy protection and
developers who act like nasty children"
Style of writing reminds me of someone on this Usenet group.
So this guy from Georgia was really polite, Gifty? BTW, I suspect that it
was you but cannot quite prove it. In any case energy that you invested to
defend him is awesome.
So now when we proved that chettnick was not polite and that he offended
developers what now Gifty?
Your 34555 posts how this guy was polite go down in toilet.
I ask you that you or anybody try this on Matrix Forum and call Erik Rutins
a whiney jerk and see what will happen. Will you get banned or not - in any
case you will not be popular.
Mario