TOAW2 PBEM Problem...
Todd Elliott
of any other way to get in touch with my TOAW PBEM opponant. I had to
reformat my HD (don't ask), and have lost the contact information. We were
only on turn 2... if you were playing against mailto:Tod...@home.com,
please re-send yer turn.
Thanks,
Robert Gurske
Well, I'm not your opponent but your post doesn't bother me at
all. There's really only one person who would be offended around here,
and he's sort of a Zeus-like character who sits perched atop Mt
Olympus ready to throw lightening bolts at anyone who dares infract
any of the sacred rules, he himself being under the dillusion that
every webservice operator in the known universe is under his beck and
call and will instantly send the offender to cyber Siberia for all
eternity at the touch of an e-mail.
The irony of it all is that he generates more spam with his
patrolling and bickering then all the other "spammers" put together.
Sorry to vent my spleen, but sometimes I weary of Big Brother.
Anyway, hope you locate your opponent.
Bob
Gen Balthus
Hey, Zeus: ZAP his ass!
All kidding aside, I find "Zeus" keeps the newsgroup on target, free of spam
and, frankly, does a good, if not appreciated, job. He uses "thunderbolts"
pretty damned judiciously, in my opinion, and I think he gets too much flak
as it is.
OPERATIONAL ORDERS, MT. OLYMPUS: FIRE FOR EFFECT
Robert Gurske <emor...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37f1b8c8.28486024@news...
Mark Biss
<t.p...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>Suggestion: Get a patch for your spleen.
>
>Hey, Zeus: ZAP his ass!
>
>All kidding aside, I find "Zeus" keeps the newsgroup on target, free of spam
>and, frankly, does a good, if not appreciated, job. He uses "thunderbolts"
>pretty damned judiciously, in my opinion, and I think he gets too much flak
>as it is.
>
>OPERATIONAL ORDERS, MT. OLYMPUS: FIRE FOR EFFECT
>
>Robert Gurske <emor...@home.com> wrote in message
>news:37f1b8c8.28486024@news...
>> "Todd Elliott" <tod...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm sure I will endure many a flame for posting this here, but I can't
>think
>> >of any other way to get in touch with my TOAW PBEM opponant. I had to
>> >reformat my HD (don't ask), and have lost the contact information. We
>were
>> >only on turn 2... if you were playing against mailto:Tod...@home.com,
>> >please re-send yer turn.
>> >
...And I certainly wont flame you but I was wondering what had
happened to the turn!!!
Robert Gurske
THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE ON ANOTHER TOPIC ON THIS FORUM:
<<<Does anybody know some URL where I could find examples on how
programers
have resolved the AI problem in games like Ardennes offensive, Panzer
General, etc...? What is the best aproach?
Thanks. >>>
>Does anybody know
Why did you cross-posted this to so many NGs? I just
realized that you did. This thread is totally off topic for this NG.
So for this NG this thread is dead. I will cancel every post to it
starting now, so better remove this NG from future cross-posts. >>>
I guess I stand corrected. I mean how silly of me to think that
the AI's in games about the Ardennes offensive or Panzer general had
was even remotely connected to historical wargames. Another well
placed shot across the bow by the self appointed Big Brother.
I guess I'll have to e-mail Grigsby and tell him that the eight
months I spent invading Russia in '41 for the WIR playtest, at his
specific request to evaluate the AI of the game, was a complete waste
of time since it's not relevent and off topic to historical wargaming
in the first place.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:30:00 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "AI's in wargames are
>not relevant",
>
>>
>>
>>
>> THE FOLLOWING EXCHANGE TOOK PLACE ON ANOTHER TOPIC ON THIS FORUM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>><<<Does anybody know some URL where I could find examples on how
>>programers
>>have resolved the AI problem in games like Ardennes offensive, Panzer
>>General, etc...? What is the best aproach?
>>
>>Thanks. >>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>Does anybody know
>>
>> Why did you cross-posted this to so many NGs? I just
>>realized that you did. This thread is totally off topic for this NG.
>>So for this NG this thread is dead. I will cancel every post to it
>>starting now, so better remove this NG from future cross-posts. >>>
>>
>>
>> I guess I stand corrected. I mean how silly of me to think that
>>the AI's in games about the Ardennes offensive or Panzer general had
>>was even remotely connected to historical wargames.
>
> Excuse me can you read? Did I say the subject was off topic?
>No I said the thread was. It was posted to 5 different NGs, with out
>setting up "Follow-up" to one of them. We already have a DS comment,
>and it would take no time for him to show up, since the thread was
>posted to csipgs NG also.
>
> He should have set up a "Follow-up" to one of the 5 NGs after
>making his post. Besides this NG is about playing games not the
>nuts and bolts of writing them. For such technical aspects, 3 of the
>NGs he post to sound like the right places to search for his answer.
>Plus he ask a techno question, so yes it was off topic for this NG.
>
>
> <rest of clueless rant snip>
>
You must be the guy who writes the IRS tax code for a living, or
perhaps sends his children to bed without supper because they ate
their dinner out of approved sequence.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:24:34 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: AI's in wargames
>are not relevant",
>
>> You must be the guy who writes the IRS tax code for a living, or
>>perhaps sends his children to bed without supper because they ate
>>their dinner out of approved sequence.
>>
>
> You must be the person who just jumps on Usenet with our
>reading the FAQs at news.announce.newusers. I see this discussion
>is over with.
>
>
>--
If you mean this discussion probably. If you mean am I going to
to allow you to micromange my access to I'd say not. Your narrow
definitions border on the absurd and your frequent threats to have
various accounts cancelled, while ineffective, are nonetheless in bad
taste and bullying in nature. You might try and lighten up instead of
treating each post you think has violated the sacred scrolls as some
sort of invading virus that must be expunged lest it infect the known
universe.
Bob
Gen Balthus
And, OS is right: He got on you for cross-posting, and said the THREAD was
off-topic, not hte subject.
As far as I'm concerned, you need to quit whining like a little girl.
Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote in message
news:YNbyN8R9Jzjafo...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 1999 21:30:00 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "AI's in wargames are
> not relevant",
>
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.
> Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
> Support the anti-Spam amendment Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> If you POST don't E-MAIL me also. Plus if you do e-mail use your real
address in the reply field..
> You read the spam, now read the FAQ: http://home.att.net/~marjie1/
> My Mail Server is Protected by SPAMKILLER
Gen Balthus
Dammit, OS is simply trying to keep this NG from degenerating like others
have, and I applaud his efforts. How about you quit whining by the side of
the road, dust yourself off, and get moving again? I'm sure you've got more
to say than "he's a big meanie and I want a lollipop".
Grow up, be a man, and get over it. Ya got swatted, quitcher cryin'.
Robert Gurske <emor...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37f2e9f8.106626319@news...
> Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 30 Sep 1999 04:24:34 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> >emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: AI's in wargames
> >are not relevant",
> >
Robert Gurske
>Robert, here's a novel suggestion: Be a man.
>
>Dammit, OS is simply trying to keep this NG from degenerating like others
>have, and I applaud his efforts. How about you quit whining by the side of
>the road, dust yourself off, and get moving again? I'm sure you've got more
>to say than "he's a big meanie and I want a lollipop".
>
>Grow up, be a man, and get over it. Ya got swatted, quitcher cryin'.
>
>
>
There's a difference between trying to keep out off-topic garbage
and micromanaging cotent. Telling someone who asked a question about
where a URL might be found discussing HISTORICAL WARGAME AI's that
he's off topic is pure nitwitery, especially so since complaints about
wargame AI tend to be one of the most frequent. If I had such a
question that's what I would do as well as posting to several
newsgroups that might have the answer.
As for the whining posts if you don't like them don't read them.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>What do you mean by "follow-up to one of the 5 NGs"?
>
>And, OS is right: He got on you for cross-posting, and said the THREAD was
>off-topic, not hte subject.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you need to quit whining like a little girl.
>
>
Actually if you read the exchanges you'll find that the original
post was by someone else, not me. He also contradicted himself by
starting out saying that it was the cross posting and not the content
that was the problem and then finished up by saying the content was
off topic alfterall. Rather sloppy interpretation for a general old
boy, pehaps you're one of those politcal appointments?
Bob
Gen Balthus
PLONK!
--
All the best.
Gen Balthus
"Ils ne passeront pas"
Robert Gurske <emor...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37f36f6f.553189@news...
Allienne Goddard
<t.p...@NOSPAMmindspring.com> wrote:
>What do you mean by "follow-up to one of the 5 NGs"?
>
>And, OS is right: He got on you for cross-posting, and said the THREAD was
>off-topic, not hte subject.
>
>As far as I'm concerned, you need to quit whining like a little girl.
>
>
So, when was the charter rewritten to forbit crossposting? I honestly
can't believe that Old Salt is still as much of a jerk as he used to
be. It just doesn't seem possible, unless he's managed to pick up a
couple of additional idiots to support his irrational and
inappropriate behavior. Oh, well, I see he did.
Yours -- Ally
Robert Gurske
The guy is a control freak, not only trying to regulate content
but wanting people to use "his"approved methodology for posting, using
their web browser, etc. I've had a few e-mails from wargamers that are
so over the heavyhandedness that they've blown off posting around
here, and I have to say that with the dearth of historical wargames
and the repressive atmosphere I just skim it lightly to see if
anything earthshattering is happening besides seeing posters nagged
for vilolating the sacred scrolls of FAQ.
Back a few years ago when prodigy dumped it's one price policy
the wargame community on there looked for an alternative site and alot
of us settled on forum set up on a funky little service called Delphi.
This was before the inernet really got going and until the net more or
less scattered everyone Delphi did have a rather thriving little
community of about 1,000+posters and lurkers. The main rule for the
forum (Delphi let individuals set up their own forums with their own
rules) was a respect for gamers and essentially to have as few rules
as possible and we found that worked quite well. Voluntary
cooperation and courtesy was much more effective then patroling around
nagging members . In the few years we were together (and actually it's
still running though at a rather low level these days) I can only
remember two times when the creator of the forum, Steven Hartzell,
actually had to chide someone for inappropriate behavior.
It was a pretty decent group that had a considerable chunk of
the SSI, 360 and AH playtest group and a number of magazine reviewers.
If things got off topic occassionally people knew when it as stepping
out of line.
I also saw the same thing on Prodigy, where the wargame forum
was invaded by a group of well meaning but uneeded "protectors"who
wanted to organize a defense against the kiddy intrusions found on
other forums. We had a hard time convincving them they were not
needed, for in the final analysis historical wargames has it's own
built in defense mechanism, that being that it's a rather leisurely,
studius, slow paced and cerebral hobby which bores the X-generation to
tears and keeps them away when there's "no one to play" the name
calling and off-topic gobbily gook.
Bob
Phillip Purcell
Steven Hartzell is still running the forum. Unlike you I hung out on GEnie
until the internet came along. The Delphi forum is a lot like the old GEnie
forum. Go to www.delphi.com and join up.
Robert Gurske
>The Delphi group is still operating and it is free, internet based service.
>Steven Hartzell is still running the forum. Unlike you I hung out on GEnie
>until the internet came along. The Delphi forum is a lot like the old GEnie
>forum. Go to www.delphi.com and join up.
>
>
I was on GEnie for awhile. Originally when SSI had it's playtest
group that was their forum for playtesters, though they never
developed it very much, but we all signed up. It was also the only
system Grigsby used to either contact playteters or communicate with
the public. I stayed on it until they sold it and then new management,
in a true bit of inspiration, decided to raise rates while everyone
else was cutting them. That seemed to produce a ghost town effect
almost overnight and that's when I bailed out.
Stephen and I go way back and his philosophy on running a forum is
treat members like adults and give them room to breathe. He didn't
patrol and henpeck. To go back to the original content of this
particular thread, the thought that AI's in wargames are not relevant
to computer games because they are "nuts & bolts" programming and that
a query as to where one might search on the net for info on AI's is an
off-topic post his patently absurd, not to mention Old Salt started
out denying that this was the reason he contested a particular post
(maintaining instead that it was cross posting that was the problem
and not the content) then reversed himself in the very next paragraph
and said it was off topic because of the content after all, this forum
beeing about "playing games" and not how they are programmed.
Cheez!
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 04:12:19 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: AI's in wargames
>are not relevant",
>
>> The guy is a control freak, not only trying to regulate content
>
> The charter does that.
>
>>but wanting people to use "his"approved methodology for posting,
>
> Read the FAQs on Usenet, it isn't my methodology, get a clue.
>
>>using
>>their web browser, etc.
>
> When have I ever said which browser to use, not using HTML
>yes, once again read the FAQs on Usenet and learn something.
>
>
>--
Sir, the following post does not pertain to playing historical
wargams and is clearly off topic. You can consult the FAQ to as to
what is permissable.
Happy?
Jabba
good old days when the population on the Net was self responsible, mature
and educated e.t.c. and had a sudden urge to make something to bring those
day back somehow.Alas, those day are gone forever now and the net population
is a representative selection of the Earth population itself - only worse
because of the anonimity the Net allow.The dispute about the autorithy on
the Net is a small scale representation of the one in the *real world* and
some may want to check out what is the result of living based on the
philosophy that everybody around is good or that everybody around is
bad.After all it's all about character - some may like a free democratic
society with a criminality rate raising and slowly going to anarchy while
others may like a sterile-clean society with a strong punishment system
going to a dictature with no human rights.There is no way to keep it in the
middle I 'm afraid...
Regarding our moderator here , he looks more like an illuminated despot
to me- see Friedrich The Great and Ludovic XIV for a historical model.He is
not the worst posibility and I think I can live with it.Trying to coment on
the actions of an illuminate despot is quite senseless and that's why I
found this dispute sterile, but nevertheless fun to watch.This is why I
write this completely off-topic,amalgamated and obscure burble.
Regards,
Jabba
retro70
Jabba <mcj...@iname.com> wrote in message
news:7td7o5$id2$1...@nebula.dnttm.ro...
Robert Gurske
>On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 14:50:45 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: AI's in wargames
>are not relevant",
>
>> To go back to the original content of this
>>particular thread, the thought that AI's in wargames are not relevant
>>to computer games because they are "nuts & bolts" programming
>
> No a thread about the "nuts & bolts" of progrmming AI's is
>not relevant and off topic here. I never said AI's of them selfs are
>off topic.
>
>
>
Asking wargame players were such info might be located on the net
seems highly relevant and asking such players in forums where they
interact would be a logical step to take. All he person did in
question was ask for some directions, not attempt to start a
programming thread. In your zeal to quash even the possibility of any
extraneous conversation you're simply over reacting and stifling
thought, information and exchange.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Tue, 05 Oct 1999 19:59:53 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: AI's in wargames
>are not relevant",
>
>> Asking wargame players were such info might be located on the net
>>seems highly relevant and asking such players in forums where they
>>interact would be a logical step to take. All he person did in
>>question was ask for some directions, not attempt to start a
>>programming thread.
>
> Better reread his post again, your memory of what he posted
>is fading.
>
>Does anybody know some URL where I could find examples on how
>programers
>have resolved the AI problem in games like Ardennes offensive, Panzer
>General, etc...?
>
>
Actually this conversation has reached the point of absurdity. I
have no intentuion of recognizing you as some sot of regulator of the
internet, and there isn't an internet providor in the known universe
(unless you happen to be an operator yourself) that would take any
punitive action against anyone over such a narrow definition. So huff
& puff all you like, who cares?
Bob
Allienne Goddard
>On Tue, 5 Oct 1999 19:07:24 +0200 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>"Jabba" <mcj...@iname.com> said about, "trying to negotiate",
>
>>Regarding our moderator here , he looks more like an illuminated despot
>>to me- see Friedrich The Great and Ludovic XIV for a historical model.He is
>>not the worst posibility and I think I can live with it.
>
> I will say, what I do here, I do with the consent of the
>majority. When I have over set my bounds, I was informed of the fact
>and back off. Those who are complaining now are in the minority.
This is absurd. Majority rule is not an established way of deciding
how groups operate after the charter has been approved. You have no
authority to represent the group even if the every posting member of
the group at some particular time agrees that you do. No one has the
power to create a moderator for an unmoderated group, not even if your
support is 100%, which it certainly isn't.
I can imagine your "mandate" consists of some dozen similarly weak
minded individuals who want to feel they have control here because
they post frequently. But even those who post infrequently, or never,
but still read the group, are members of the group and their "votes"
haven't been counted. Nor have we taken into account all those who
will in the future become members of this group -- do you plan on
holding a referendum of "no confidence" in your "administration" every
six months, oh righteous defender of all that is good and on-topic and
noncrossposted?
Give me a break. You are a goofball, pure and simple. You know
yourself that you have no authority, and in fact can have no authority
in an unmoderated group, yet if not constantly watched you slip back
into your annoying ways.
Yours -- Ally
Thomas William Davie
>> I will say, what I do here, I do with the consent of the
>>majority. When I have over set my bounds, I was informed of the fact
>>and back off. Those who are complaining now are in the minority.
>
>This is absurd. Majority rule is not an established way of deciding
>how groups operate after the charter has been approved.
He said 'what he has done has been with the consent of the majority'.
Obviously there are some people who get pissed off at what he says (but so
what, you don't like the charter, leave). Old Salt points out the charter
which is his right, and he even makes a few complaints to ISP's. So?
>I can imagine your "mandate" consists of some dozen similarly weak
>minded individuals who want to feel they have control here because
>they post frequently.
I support him. But I don't post here regularly or frequently. So that makes
me....strong minded? Nah, better lump me in with similar types of people to
Old Salt merely because I happen to agree with him. He just bothers to go to
the trouble that most of us don't. I honestly believe that most 'frequent'
readers of this newsgroup tend to agree with him. Hey, disagree if you want.
Conduct a poll if you want. Don't do anything if you want.
>But even those who post infrequently, or never,
>but still read the group, are members of the group and their "votes"
>haven't been counted. Nor have we taken into account all those who
>will in the future become members of this group -- do you plan on
>holding a referendum of "no confidence" in your "administration" every
>six months, oh righteous defender of all that is good and on-topic and
>noncrossposted?
ad hominem arguments don't convince me of anything save. Maybe we should
change this into a moderated newsgroup. What do you think?
>
>Give me a break. You are a goofball, pure and simple. You know
>yourself that you have no authority, and in fact can have no authority
>in an unmoderated group, yet if not constantly watched you slip back
>into your annoying ways.
I'd take you much more seriously Ally if you didn't have to resort to an
insult in an effort to refute Old Salt's position. But if you're not
attempting to refute his opinions why bother insulting him?
Tom
Allienne Goddard
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 04:49:38 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>thod...@videon.wave.ca (Thomas William Davie) said about, "Try
>reading his post Ally",
>
>>I'd take you much more seriously Ally if you didn't have to resort to an
>>insult in an effort to refute Old Salt's position. But if you're not
>>attempting to refute his opinions why bother insulting him?
>>
>>Tom
>
> Tom, do a search on him in this NG. You will find in the
>last 30 days he has made 2 posts. Both to this thread. He is from
>csipgs NG. And we all know what that NG is like. He is just
>unhappy that this NG isn't a mess like that one. Go figure.
>
>
Yes, it's true. I do not post frequently. For shame. I didn't
realize that one had to maintain some minimal level of posting in
order to be allowed to post an opinion, nor did I realize that reading
the strat group means my posts are irrelevant. But if this latter is
true, than Old Salt must suffer the same fate, since I see him
bitching in there from time to time as well. By the way, though I'm
used to everyone assuming that most gamers, and all wargamers, are men
I thought maybe posting my name might tip you off that I don't have a
penis (in other words, I'm a she).
Tom --
Your post hasn't shown up on my end yet, so I'll just post a little
reply here. I have no interest in being taken seriously, so if you
can't take me that way don't sweat it. As to insulting Old Salt, he
actually deserves much more flaming than I have the patience for, but
I do what I can. I don't despise many people in the world, but I have
to admit that this little worm really irks me. I'm sorry I had to
subject your gentle soul to witnessing such vile attacks, but some
people cannot be reasoned with.
Yours -- Ally
Allienne Goddard
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:59:24 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>nihi...@sprintmail.com (Allienne Goddard) said about, "Re: Try
>reading his post Ally",
>
>>Yes, it's true. I do not post frequently. For shame. I didn't
>>realize that one had to maintain some minimal level of posting in
>>order to be allowed to post an opinion, nor did I realize that reading
>>the strat group means my posts are irrelevant.
>
> No, but the fact the only posts you do, is to bitch about the
>fact I will not let this NG become like csipgs I find funny.
>
>
I've said it many times, but just for kicks, I'll say it again. I
have no problem with your motives. I personally am a big fan of
hierarchies for organizing information. But no one has, or can have,
the authority to police an unmoderated group the way you do.
Inappropriate claims to authority happen to annoy me enough to pull me
from the lurker's shadow, particularly when it involves your claims,
since I happen to personally dislike you.
Yours - -Ally
Chris Wilson
Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:ci1nvrkj1795uj642...@4ax.com...
> In <1Ef6N8nl4jCPMz...@4ax.com>, Old Salt wrote:
>
> > I will say, what I do here, I do with the consent of the
> > majority. When I have over set my bounds, I was informed of the fact
> > and back off. Those who are complaining now are in the minority.
>
> irrelevant; this is an *unmoderated* group and you are just a <rant
snipped>
Well as part of the silent majority my vote's with OS.
Adam, feel free to post all you want, you just made my killfile
(translation-"I can think of nothing that you are likely to say that will be
in anyway worth reading") enjoy.
Chris Wilson
Dale Hight
Goddard) wrote:
> By the way, though I'm
>used to everyone assuming that most gamers, and all wargamers, are men
>I thought maybe posting my name might tip you off that I don't have a
>penis (in other words, I'm a she).
>
No penis, but balls of Steel! <g>
Nice to see you posing again Ally.
Dale
Dave Dial
Just hilarious.
Hey Salt .. dude .. man .. IT'S A NEWSGROUP ..
<let's say it together>
IT'S A NEWSGROUP
hahaha
mellow out man. Get some perspective.
This stuff ain't important.
I dig your motives but you've gone like far over the rainbow.
It's just a silly little newsgroup on Usenet.
It's just not that important, bud ..
Double D
Kevin Sparrow
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:33:33 -0400 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> said about, "Re: Try reading his
>post Ally",
>
>>And almost all of your posts involve bitching about other people's posts;
>>I'm not sure I find that so funny, though.
>
> Better reread my posts, not counting this thread. There are
>few I do here that deals with a post being off topic since most are
>not off topic. When it comes to spam or misplace binary, I just get
>the users account yank.
Ive always wondered how you do that Slat? I mean I used to work for an
major UK ISP and we would get complaints in from Usenet, and we would
take a firm hand in continious spamming, i.e a numbe of compaints from
several users, but not on the grounds of one user, unless it was a
real serious complaint (like from the porn NG's). So I cant see you
having the individual power to get ppls accounts yanked from
mis-posting on an unmoderated communication protocol. If this NG was
*moderated* and you were voted on as a moderator , like some of the
soc. hierarchy , sure, but your not. Heck i dont mind OT posts that
much, but do when they turn into useless flame wars, and yes i hate
spam, and most of that is cancelled out now anyway.
Kevin
--
Road to Moscow section:-
http://www.wargamer.com/rtm
Combat Mission section:-
http://www.wargamer.com/cm
Contributor-Fighting Steel section:-
http://www.wargamer.com/fs/
Dale Hight
(Jonathan K.) wrote:
>
>(Of course, this post is off topic. Simple explanation; I don't have
>as strong an aversion to off topic posts as some, though I generally
>try not to do it too often here.)
Hi Jonathan,
I don't think that forum/newsgroup business or your post is off-topic.
Issues raised which try to deal with situations that effect the people
that post here almost have to be allowed if any understanding is to be
reached at all.
And Salt is clearly forum business <g>
Dale
Robert Gurske
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:33:33 -0400 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> said about, "Re: Try reading his
>post Ally",
>
>>And almost all of your posts involve bitching about other people's posts;
>>I'm not sure I find that so funny, though.
>
> Better reread my posts, not counting this thread. There are
>few I do here that deals with a post being off topic since most are
>not off topic. When it comes to spam or misplace binary, I just get
>the users account yank.
>
>
>--
>
I'd liked to know just how many accounts you've "yanked."
Sounds to me like alot of bilge, especially since you're the greatest
catalyst for off topic conversation around here. As you yourself have
pointed out, the number of people who find your self-appointed
moderating objectionable requires taking a number.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 15:34:09 -0400, Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 14:33:33 -0400 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>>Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> said about, "Re: Try reading his
>>post Ally",
>>
>>>And almost all of your posts involve bitching about other people's posts;
>>>I'm not sure I find that so funny, though.
>>
>> Better reread my posts, not counting this thread. There are
>>few I do here that deals with a post being off topic since most are
>>not off topic. When it comes to spam or misplace binary, I just get
>>the users account yank.
>
>Ive always wondered how you do that Slat? I mean I used to work for an
>major UK ISP and we would get complaints in from Usenet, and we would
>take a firm hand in continious spamming, i.e a numbe of compaints from
>several users, but not on the grounds of one user, unless it was a
>real serious complaint (like from the porn NG's). So I cant see you
>having the individual power to get ppls accounts yanked from
>mis-posting on an unmoderated communication protocol. If this NG was
>*moderated* and you were voted on as a moderator , like some of the
>soc. hierarchy , sure, but your not. Heck i dont mind OT posts that
>much, but do when they turn into useless flame wars, and yes i hate
>spam, and most of that is cancelled out now anyway.
>
>
>Kevin
>--
>
I'd say it comes under the category of "Taken with a grain
of......"
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:29:30 -0400, Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 16:59:24 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>>nihi...@sprintmail.com (Allienne Goddard) said about, "Re: Try
>>reading his post Ally",
>>
>>>Yes, it's true. I do not post frequently. For shame. I didn't
>>>realize that one had to maintain some minimal level of posting in
>>>order to be allowed to post an opinion, nor did I realize that reading
>>>the strat group means my posts are irrelevant.
>>
>> No, but the fact the only posts you do, is to bitch about the
>>fact I will not let this NG become like csipgs I find funny.
>>
>>
>
>I've said it many times, but just for kicks, I'll say it again. I
>have no problem with your motives. I personally am a big fan of
>hierarchies for organizing information. But no one has, or can have,
>the authority to police an unmoderated group the way you do.
>Inappropriate claims to authority happen to annoy me enough to pull me
>from the lurker's shadow, particularly when it involves your claims,
>since I happen to personally dislike you.
>
>Yours - -Ally
>
Excellent post! That is precisely the point and it has gotten me to
comment on his self appointed policing as well, the irony of course
being that the volume of posts about all of this has dwarfed any off
topic discussions.
Bob
Robert Gurske
>On Wed, 06 Oct 1999 13:36:40 -0400 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>Adam Kippes <adam....@pobox.com> said about, "Re: trying to
>negotiate",
>
>>
>>What I find amazing is that you still haven't learned how to use either
>>the Ignore command or your <Delete> key; I suppose filters are way beyond
>>you,
>
> Another one from csipgs who would like this NG to be like
>that one.
>
>
I'd say it's more the case of not wanting some looneytoon banana
republic dictator wanabe running amok thinking that somehow he's
carrying the "cyberman's burden" by singlhandedly holding off the
hordes of spammers and off topic posters and if he doesn't hold the
line the newsgroup will be hit by the biggest invasion since Ghengis
Khan. The irony of course is that your actions generate about 85% of
the off topic conversation around here. Too bad this isn't a Star
Treck episode so we could get James T. Kirk to to point out you've
been violating your own prime directive and cause you to self
destruct.
Bob
Jonathan K.
> Another one from csipgs who would like this NG to be like
>that one.
Salt, let's be realistic here:
a) c.s.i.p.g.strategic, while plagued by some remarkably silly
long-running threads, is not Evil Incarnate. When you try and
disparage people who disagree with you as 'being from csipgs', it
doesn't build support for your viewpoint; it makes you look like a
bitter refugee who has a personal grudge against a whole newsgroup.
c.s.i.p.g.strategic has a much broader focus than this group and is
always going to have proportionately more posts. That doesn't make it
The Worst Newsgroup On Usenet. (My vote goes to the alt.nuke.the.
hierarchy.)
b) all posts and threads bickering about off-topic posts are, in any
event, off topic here, as they do not relate to historical computer
wargaming. Therefore, it doesn't build support for your viewpoint
when you engage in the bickering, thus posting off-topic posts.
People rarely are receptive to a jaywalker admonishing them not to
jaywalk (for example).
c) when you disparage people because of their posting frequency, it
doesn't build support for your viewpoint. Nowhere is it graven in
stone that one must post frequently in order to have a valid opinion.
In fact, those individuals who post rarely are generally not part of
the off-topic posting problem, by virtue of the simple fact of posting
rarely. If I post one on-topic post per month and ten off-topic
posts, I have posted just as much off-topic material as if I had
posted 50 on-topic posts and 10 off-topic posts.
d) when you light into people for off-topic posts, besides being
off-topic yourself to begin with, a lot of people think of your
actions as petty and netcoppy and mean-spirited, and it doesn't build
support for your viewpoint. If on the other hand you offer only
friendly and polite reminders (as I have seen you do many times), then
leave it at that, you don't contribute to long flamewars full of
off-topic posts.
e) if you're going to take action against an off-topic poster, there
is no need to announce it, and it doesn't build support for your
viewpoint. If you're going to act, just act.
Now, as I understand it, your goal is to keep this newsgroup from
becoming full of off-topic posts. Not a bad idea. If that's what you
want (and you have some supporters in spite of the above practices
that erode your support), seems to me you should discontinue the above
as unproductive or even directly counter to your goal.
(Of course, this post is off topic. Simple explanation; I don't have
as strong an aversion to off topic posts as some, though I generally
try not to do it too often here.)
--
Jonathan K.
Thomas William Davie
>Tom --
>
>Your post hasn't shown up on my end yet, so I'll just post a little
>reply here. I have no interest in being taken seriously, so if you
>can't take me that way don't sweat it.
I don't sweat it. I think you're wrong, and you obviously don't give a shit,
and neither do I. So reason and discourse fails?
>As to insulting Old Salt, he
>actually deserves much more flaming than I have the patience for, but
>I do what I can.
Fair enough, but when you state that you really don't have an interest in
being taken seriously I can only conclude that Old Salt is correct. You are
part of the problem. I feel sorry for you and hope that one day your net
access does get yanked if you continue to flaunt the guidelines of this
newsgroup. Gee, I guess you can consider me a sycophant of Old Salt. Your
choice of course Ally.
>I don't despise many people in the world, but I have
>to admit that this little worm really irks me. I'm sorry I had to
>subject your gentle soul to witnessing such vile attacks, but some
>people cannot be reasoned with.
Am I thus to assume that *you* can be reasoned with?
What is so hard to understand? This is a newsgroup about historical wargames.
You appear to have a reasonably fine grasp of the English language so I can
only conclude that you deliberately choose to do what you do.
Tom
Greg Deych
Remove the police, and 50% less people would die!" Does that sound
flawed to you? I hope so.
On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 01:04:28 GMT, emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske)
wrote:
Tarquelne
untill this last message:
:> Only for the last 3 days when a few people think by making a
:>lot of noise is going to change anything here.
That seems to imply to me that you think that they _can't_ change
things. And that means that responding to them is a useless
excersize that only causes more off topic messages as the "troll gets
fed."
:> BTW as far as your
:>remark about "<snip>" You just need to look to csipgs to prove I am right. since
:>when I stop there, it took 2 years for it to become what it is now.
Thats a very difficult claim to support, and makes some questionable
assumptions about the state of csipgs. (Also, I do very find it hard
to believe that anyone on csipg is so embittered by this newsgroup's
"purity" that they are motivated to post OT messages here. I hope
that was a joke.)
:>So huff and puff all you want. I am not changing my ways here.
That seems to imply a refusal to change no matter what. That's not a
good thing. (I think the reasons are obvious.) The "huff and puff"
comment also implies that those argueing against Old Salt are
_merely_ "huffing and puffing." While there certainly is quite a bit
of fluff (self appointed petty (speaking in an absulote, not a
judgemental sense here) authorities are _very_ easy mock), it hasn't
all been fluff. I'm applying pretty high standards here, but that's
what's desired, right?
You
:>can now talk to your self. I will let this thread run for 3 days
:>then I will close it down.
"I will let this thread run for 3 days then I will close it down."
That's a _really_ bad statement.
It's either a threat - one I strongly doubt can be backed up. That's
bad - the only good reason to make an usupported threat is humor. (I
don't think Old Salt was trying to be funny.) Furthermore, even if
the threat is supported, the thought that someone who isn't a group's
moderator could and would "close down" a thread is a deeply
disturbing thought. If Old Salt meant, "killfile it.", fine. If
not, that means he's going to "yank" some people's access, kill some
people, or something in the middle. All bad. OT posters are not
generating Frequent Flyer for the "Sweet Chariot", but anything from
"yanking" on up is most definetly too severe. At least from these OT
posts.
If it's not a threat, then the statement seems to mean that Old Salt
has the ability to end the thread without doing something to his
"opponents." The only thing I can think of is withdrawing his
participation. . . the assumption being that without his
participation the thread will die out. The nasty thing about this
eventuality is, of course, why didn't Old Salt simply restrain
himself earlier? The answers I can think of are all uncomplimentary.
My advice to Old Salt: Don't be quite so quick to post "go away"
messages, try to apply a bit of humor when you do send a "go away"
message. (Extremely overblown sarcasm or threats - if free of
"swearing" and credibility, _do_ count as humor.) To me, your
present strategy seems to be "Stomp out trouble before it starts."
Not a bad strategy at all. However, I think your "stomping" is
comeing a little too soon, and a little to hard. (And "little" is
_not_ any sort of euphanism, irony, or sarcasm. I say "a little", I
mean "a little.") If you ease up a little I excpet you'll find more
people willing to help - or at least less resentment. (You may say
"Who cares if they resent me?" _You_ should - you're best ally is
the respect and courtesy that others show toward your "go away"
posts. If that respect is gone people will just start killfiling
you.)
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"There are only six Democrats in all of Hinsdale county,
and you, you son of a bitch, you ate five of them." - Colorado
judge, sentencing Alfred E. Packer for cannibalism, 1874
Kevin Sparrow
William Davie) wrote:
>
>Fair enough, but when you state that you really don't have an interest in
>being taken seriously I can only conclude that Old Salt is correct. You are
>part of the problem. I feel sorry for you and hope that one day your net
>access does get yanked if you continue to flaunt the guidelines of this
>newsgroup. Gee, I guess you can consider me a sycophant of Old Salt. Your
>choice of course Ally.
Her access wont get yanked unless she is a habitual spammer. ISPs dont
really take much notice if you complain cos you broke the rules of a
NG chater for chrissakes....
Serious spamming yes, no thats different
Kevin
Gamer Man
assume the position or was there some election? And how does he back
up his claims of "closing it down?" It seems we're treading on some
very shaky ground here...
Gamer Man
>
>>The irony of course is that your actions generate about 85% of
>>the off topic conversation around here.
>
> Only for the last 3 days when a few people think by making a
>lot of noise is going to change anything here. BTW as far as your
>remark about "by singlhandedly holding off the
>hordes of spammers and off topic posters and if he doesn't hold the
>line the newsgroup will be hit by the biggest invasion since Ghengis
>Khan. " You just need to look to csipgs to prove I am right. since
>when I stop there, it took 2 years for it to become what it is now.
>So huff and puff all you want. I am not changing my ways here. You
>can now talk to your self. I will let this thread run for 3 days
>then I will close it down.
Gamer Man
Stomping out bad gaming everywhere!
styopa
><let's say it together>
>IT'S A NEWSGROUP
>
100% correct - I totally agree.
However, if you are sometimes put off by OS's rather, um, intense
responses, there's always the killfile. I love news readers (except
my *$*^%( free agent, for which AFAIK the killfile feature is only in
the commercial version....).
I do wholeheartedly agree with WHAT he does - it's vital in keeping
this NG relevant (despite my feeling that the 'dissing' of H&D has
more to do with the game's format (FPS) and the inherent dislike
"grognards" seemingly HAVE to have for any such games...but that's a
whole 'nother post...) and while I too may be jarred by the tone
occasionally, I accept that sometimes it's necessary to get the point
across to some of the self-absorbed l33t h4x0rs that he's addressing.
And to drag this post back on-topic at the last moment, anyone paying
attention to CC4? It looks like they're addressing a number of the
different concerns left over from CC3, issues about better strategic
play, allocation of strategic assets (air, arty, etc) - basically
better integration between the tactical battle and the strategic
environ in which it's placed.
Martin Rapier
{snip}
> And to drag this post back on-topic at the last moment, anyone paying
> attention to CC4? It looks like they're addressing a number of the
> different concerns left over from CC3, issues about better strategic
> play, allocation of strategic assets (air, arty, etc) - basically
> better integration between the tactical battle and the strategic
> environ in which it's placed.
Yes, I had a look at the preview on Gamespot and it looked much more like a
reversion to CC2 but with even greater strategic input now you can actually
manouvre the highe rlevel combat units yourself. It will be very
interesting to see if the AI is good enough so that the US actually _does_
have to conduct a 'fighting withdrawal' or whether the hapless
Volksgrenadier are just going to get gunned down repeatedly on the first
map of every operation (like all those 'fighting withdrawals' in CC3;)
Should be fun, shame about the theatre, but you can't have everything. I've
not seen any potential dates on this one?? I _just_ got my computer back
from being upgraded to something a teeny bit more modern, so perhaps my
interest in computer games can be rekindled! Gosh, it might even be fast
enough for Panzer Elite or Combat Mission now.....
Cheers
Martin.
pdwyer
<old....@att.net> wrote:
>
> > almost all of your posts involve bitching about other
> >people's posts;
> >I'm not sure I find that so funny, though.
> Better reread my posts, not counting this thread. There are
> few I do here that deals with a post being off topic since most are
> not off topic. When it comes to spam or misplace binary, I just
> get
> the users account yank.
What about your off-topic fleet commander patch post??
pot kettle black
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
pdwyer
> Fair enough, but when you state that you really don't have an
> interest in being taken seriously I can only conclude that Old Salt
> is correct. You are part of the problem. I feel sorry for you and
> hope that one day your net access does get yanked if you continue to
> flaunt the guidelines of this newsgroup. Gee, I guess you can
> consider me a sycophant of Old Salt.
Clueless loser is closer to the mark. Posting to an umoderated
newsgroup is not "governed" by Old Slat, nor does she have the right to
do what she is doing.
Speaking of "yanking" accounts, what is the penalty for moderating an
unmoderated newsgroup? More off-topic posts?
OB-War-Historical
So Eastern Front II and Western Front have come out, and (despite Old
Slat) Rising Sun to come.
The graphics look to me to be of the plastic soldier variety. Is this
an option, and given the shellacking East front got, are East front II
and West front stable and playable? (a copy of East Front II has been
staring at me for some months now, someone has to resuce it :-))
Seeya!
Robert Gurske
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 01:04:28 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: trying to
>negotiate",
>
>>The irony of course is that your actions generate about 85% of
>>the off topic conversation around here.
>
> Only for the last 3 days when a few people think by making a
>lot of noise is going to change anything here. BTW as far as your
>remark about "by singlhandedly holding off the
>hordes of spammers and off topic posters and if he doesn't hold the
>line the newsgroup will be hit by the biggest invasion since Ghengis
>Khan. " You just need to look to csipgs to prove I am right. since
>when I stop there, it took 2 years for it to become what it is now.
>So huff and puff all you want. I am not changing my ways here. You
>can now talk to your self. I will let this thread run for 3 days
>then I will close it down.
>
>
>
I didn't realize you were so omnipotent. Do you shut down threads
with a magic wand or just have every ISP server operator in the world
on an "Old Salt" hotline ready to do your bidding?
Bob
Robert Gurske
>
>My advice to Old Salt: Don't be quite so quick to post "go away"
>messages, try to apply a bit of humor when you do send a "go away"
>message. (Extremely overblown sarcasm or threats - if free of
>"swearing" and credibility, _do_ count as humor.) To me, your
>present strategy seems to be "Stomp out trouble before it starts."
>Not a bad strategy at all. However, I think your "stomping" is
>comeing a little too soon, and a little to hard. (And "little" is
>_not_ any sort of euphanism, irony, or sarcasm. I say "a little", I
>mean "a little.") If you ease up a little I excpet you'll find more
>people willing to help - or at least less resentment. (You may say
>"Who cares if they resent me?" _You_ should - you're best ally is
>the respect and courtesy that others show toward your "go away"
>posts. If that respect is gone people will just start killfiling
>you.)
>
>
>
> Tarquelne
> <os...@apk.net>
> I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
> ************************
>"There are only six Democrats in all of Hinsdale county,
>and you, you son of a bitch, you ate five of them." - Colorado
>judge, sentencing Alfred E. Packer for cannibalism, 1874
>
>
A little too soon might be too generous. I'd it's more like
discovering a termite in a house and then burning down the house to
make sure it's expunged. With Mr. Salt one almost has to use the FAQ
and charter as a reference manual and double check for errors before
posting. If he'd lighten up and allow a little flexibilty it wouldn't
be a such a big deal.
When he chided one poster for asking in this forum where one might
find a URL on the net about the programming of AI's for historical
wargames as being off topic (and cross posting) it struck me as being
"rediculous extremus."
Bob
Henri H. Arsenault
<pdwyerN...@ecn.net.au.invalid> wrote:
> The graphics look to me to be of the plastic soldier variety. Is this
> an option, and given the shellacking East front got, are East front II
> and West front stable and playable? (a copy of East Front II has been
> staring at me for some months now, someone has to resuce it :-))
>
I have had no problems whatsoever with either EF2 or WF, and I highly
recommend both to anyone but hardcore realism aficionados who swear only
by HPS games.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
Although Old Salt's attempts to squash off-topic posts is perhaps
well-intentioned and admirable, it often generates a lot more OT posts
than the original OT post would have.So here are my recommendations to
reduce the flak.
1) Keep out the personal insults; I know it isn't easy, but from personal
experience, it is a lot harder not to RESPOND to a personal insult than to
resist putting one out in the first place.
2) Old Salt, perhaps you should wait until an OT posting generates a few
messages before trying to squash it. In the case under consideration, I
have serious doubts about the ability of the original query to generate a
lot of noise on the forum.Certainly not as many as this discussion.
There may be a kind of Heisenberg uncertainty principle at work in forums,
perhaps like
NB>S
where S is some number (call it Salt's Constant), N is the number of
off-topic posts not counting those trying to squash them, and B is the
number of postings attempting to squash the N off-topic postings (for
example in this case, N would be equal to one and B would be equal to
fifty...).If this were true, then no one should intervene until the number
of off-topic postings in the last month (or week or whaever) becomes
larger than S. For a week, I would guess that a threshold of 10 or 20
would be reasonable.
A few off-topic postings don't bother me much.For example, in the other
strategy forum, I just scan the titles of the messages and only read those
that I am interested in, which is a very small proportion of the total. As
long as off-topic postings don't become a significant proportion of the
total, it can only increase my scanning and reading time by a few seconds.
No big deal (of course, I am reading from an ethernet connection, so maybe
that has something to do with it...).
Henri
aa
aa :-(
--
International Circulatorial Research OD
Fionn Kelly
>then I will close it down.
Old Salt: Can you explain this statement? Is this a statement
that you simply will stop responding to posts in this thread OR are
you stating you will take action of some form against the people who
post in this thread?
I haven't bothered to post here until now since I felt it was just
another debate about what is and isn't OT BUT I would not condone the
kinds of actions which you might be referring to. I don't think the
degree of OT posting warrants any actions other than ignoring their
posts.
FWIW while I do recognise the danger of forum "police" from going
overboard I think that OS generally does a good job and I know that if
he ever went seriously overboard enough people would speak up to cause
him to back down.
I think that OS only is able to police the forum with the unspoken
acquiescence of the majority of posters and lurkers. I certainly know
that if he ever made a decision I strongly disagreed with and I felt
he had overstepped his mark I would publicly challenge him in the
forum and am sure others would do the same. I think the fact that the
majority is silent is a form of tacit approval.
Whenever issues arise with which they have problems they speak up and
demand an explanation... That's what I'm doing as regards OS'
statement regarding the three day thread limit. I want to find out
what he is proposing to do in three days as some of his options would,
I feel, be abuses of power and I hope he isn't considering any of
those types of actions.
________________________________
Fionn Kelly
Manager of Historical Research,
The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers
Email: fio...@thegamers.net
Web Site: http://www.thegamers.net
Affiliate Member of theiEntertainment Network
Web Site: http://www.ientertainmentnetwork.com
Aaron Liebling
news:37fc9346...@news.uswest.net...
> whole 'nother post...) and while I too may be jarred by the tone
> occasionally, I accept that sometimes it's necessary to get the point
> across to some of the self-absorbed l33t h4x0rs that he's addressing.
>
The problem is he does it to people writing very close to on topic posts,
not just leet warez people...for example a long thread started because he
got on someone's case for wanting to discuss ai programming methods (in
relation to ai programming in wargames). The request wasn't 100% on topic,
but it sure would have been interesting to at least some of the group who
doesn't normally read the ai programming newsgroups...that's the point...he
goes totally overboard. Limit it to leet haxors and no one has a problem, I
think.
> And to drag this post back on-topic at the last moment, anyone paying
> attention to CC4?
The main thing for me is to go back to more of a CC2 campaign. The
"campaign" in CC3 was really unpleasant. Personally, I just want them to go
back and remake CC2 with new technology (including leaving dead tnaks where
they die, even when coming back a day later!!!), as Market garden is one of
the battles I'm most interested in.
Having said that, a really solid strategic command that doesn't totally lose
the gritty focus of CC2 would be very welcome. I certainly look forward to
integration of airpower, more artillery, etc...
Best,
Aaron
Aaron Liebling
I think what you are seeing is more and more regulars (some of us normally
lurkers) speaking out. I for one am not a leet haxor, a frequent off topic
poster, or just out for a flamewar.
I simply think the amount of garbage being generated in this newsgroup by
OldSalt, his actions, and his aggressive demeanor are causing more
disurption that good.
We can all use killfilters and this is DEFINITELY an unmoderated newsgroup.
for ANY indfividual to try and act as moderator of it is totally
inappropriate. While we all generally agree that we don't want to see tons
of posts requesting warez, there are many half-on topic posts that OS jumps
on thatm any of us would probably find very rewarding.
This is a community, not a police state...sometimes the community drifts
slightly, but it always works its way back to where people are happy with
it. OS takes the police state attitude, which again would be fine in a
moderated newsgroup, but is not appropriate here.
If OS really deisres it, he nad his remaining supporters should form a
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical.moderated and let him review every
post. This is not appropriate for this newsgroup. Let us regulate things
ourselves (mainly through the use of killfilters, but we as individuals are
also perfectly capable of communicating to ISPs and voicing our
displeasure).
The problem is OS is not just tackling warez-posters, he has decided on his
vision of what the newsgroup should be like, and while it may cater to the
word of the group charter, it also leans torwards making it a steralized,
inhumane, and generally unfriendly place...not something that any of us want
from the newsgroup, I think.
Enough OT posting, but I think it is worth considering that more and more
people ARE expressing deep concerns about OS's behaviour (and fatuously
threatening to have a thread cancelled at his whim is only indicative as to
how...disturbed...he seems to be).
Best and I've really been enjoying you Combat Mission game reports!
Best,
Aaron Liebling
Fionn Kelly <fio...@nospam.clubi.ie> wrote in message
news:37fca515...@news.esatclear.ie...
Kevin Sparrow
>So huff and puff all you want. I am not changing my ways here. You
>can now talk to your self. I will let this thread run for 3 days
>then I will close it down.
Salt you cant close this thread down as its not a moderated newsgroup.
The only recourse you have is to send a message to each posters ISP
complaining that they are posting in an off-topic thread, and just see
where that gets you. They will think your a loony and hit the delete
button. Honestly.
It aint a serious complaint, unlike Spamming, which most ISP take
seriously now.
Do we live in the same universe?
Kevin
Allienne Goddard
<ke...@sparrow19.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 02:01:44 GMT, thod...@videon.wave.ca (Thomas
>William Davie) wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Fair enough, but when you state that you really don't have an interest in
>>being taken seriously I can only conclude that Old Salt is correct. You are
>>part of the problem. I feel sorry for you and hope that one day your net
>>access does get yanked if you continue to flaunt the guidelines of this
>>newsgroup. Gee, I guess you can consider me a sycophant of Old Salt. Your
>>choice of course Ally.
>
>
>Her access wont get yanked unless she is a habitual spammer. ISPs dont
>really take much notice if you complain cos you broke the rules of a
>NG chater for chrissakes....
>
>Serious spamming yes, no thats different
>
>
>Kevin
>
I don't know why, but Tom's messages still haven't shown up on my
server, so again I'll reply here -- if I'm not replying to certain
things you've said, it's because they weren't quoted in the messages I
can see.
I am not interested in being taken seriously by you or anyone, neither
on the net nor in real life. But any arguments I might offer aren't
me, and I believe they should be evaluated on their own terms. It is
irrelevant to the strength of argument that it is peppered with
insults, though insults might tell you something about the person
offering the argument. Can you appreciate this distinction? Really
though, I don't believe I can convince Old Salt and his supporters
that what they are doing is inappropriate, and those who would agree
with me don't need my help to realize what's going on here. So, it
begs the question, what the hell am I doing here? Just livin, baby,
just livin.
I have tears in my eyes while I ponder your pity for my degraded state
as an Enemy of All that is Good and Right in CSIPGW-H, but we all have
or crosses to bear. But, maybe, one day the source of truth and
justice in the universe will send a messenger to this group who will
topple the idols of oppression and free the downtrodden. Actually, if
this does happen, someone email me -- I ignore alot of threads and
would hate to miss it.
Yours -- Ally
Robert Gurske
>what he is proposing to do in three days as some of his options would,
>I feel, be abuses of power and I hope he isn't considering any of
>those types of actions.
>
>
>
>
>________________________________
>Fionn Kelly
>
He's either A) on the level. which means he can take some
unilateral action whic negates his claim that he's not a "regulator."
(self appointed I might add.) I would say given the structure of the
internet I seriously doubt he's capable of such a threat. B) It's alot
of hot air. Then it's a vacuous and idle threat which is not only
silly but off topic and childish, the very thing he claims to be
crusading against. In anycase these open threats of banishment by
closing accounts or deleting threads are a clear step up the
escalation ladder which inflame a situation and guarantee it's
expansion.
Bob
Gamer Man
have the right to do something like this. I'd rather have this
newsgroup looking like the strat newsgroup before every post has to
pass the "Old Salt" filter. I don't recall anyone dying and electing
him God of the newsgroups. I've already made a complaint to AT&T (his
provider). I'll call them this evening. Let's see what happens when
he's threatened with losing his account...
Gamer Man
>The problem is he does it to people writing very close to on topic posts,
>not just leet warez people...for example a long thread started because he
>got on someone's case for wanting to discuss ai programming methods (in
>relation to ai programming in wargames). The request wasn't 100% on topic,
>but it sure would have been interesting to at least some of the group who
>doesn't normally read the ai programming newsgroups...that's the point...he
>goes totally overboard. Limit it to leet haxors and no one has a problem, I
>think.
>
>> And to drag this post back on-topic at the last moment, anyone paying
>> attention to CC4?
>
>The main thing for me is to go back to more of a CC2 campaign. The
>"campaign" in CC3 was really unpleasant. Personally, I just want them to go
>back and remake CC2 with new technology (including leaving dead tnaks where
>they die, even when coming back a day later!!!), as Market garden is one of
>the battles I'm most interested in.
>
>Having said that, a really solid strategic command that doesn't totally lose
>the gritty focus of CC2 would be very welcome. I certainly look forward to
>integration of airpower, more artillery, etc...
>
>Best,
>Aaron
>
Gamer Man
Fionn Kelly
Well OS, it's probably the most sensible thing to do since if you just
limit yourself to only stepping in when they really go too far then
most people in the NG will support your actions. Also, I have a
feeling that if you didn't step in early their posts would peter out
all by themselves...
They don't have enough momentum going to keep this posting up for long
unless people respond to them. (I just want the OT posts to stop but
don't think that responding to them, thus prolonging the OT arguments
and then yanking their right to post via ISPs is the way to do it.. It
smacks of entrapment to me and I'd rather just let everyone say their
piece and watch it all run out of steam.
Fionn Kelly
>>ourselves (mainly through the use of killfilters,...)
>
> That was the agument give in csipgs. So what your saying is
>you want that type of NG here. If the majority agrees. Fine, they
>you will get just what you want.
Well, I don't think killfilters are the way to go personally. I think
that the best way to ensure a newsgroup stays on-topic (without
moderation) is for there to be a communal awareness of what is and
isn't on-topic.
I think there is, already here, such an awareness. Obviously some
people or persons must take it upon themselves to comment publicly
when a post or thread is too off-topic. I don't think anyone would
have a problem with that BUT what people are beginning to take issue
with is the perception that Old Salt who, it is fair to say, has taken
on the role of newsgroup on-topic policeman is becoming far too
stringent with what is and is not on-topic.
Sometimes the police need to be reminded of the difference between a
misdemeanour and a felony to use an American expression which I think
everyone will understand. I think Old Salt performs a very useful
function here as I think others will agree BUT i acknowledge that
there may be some valid reasons for us all to sit down and inform Old
Salt exactly how far he should let things go before intervening in
something he thinks is OT.
Personally speaking I think most of those threads die out quickly
enough if left alone and would support a two day rule... If it isn't
pure spam or a binary then people should be allowed to discuss it in
the group for two days before Old Salt should step in. This way the
vast majority of OT posts would simply fizzle out without the hard
feelings engendered by what some perceive as too stringent control
over OT posts.
Basically I don't see any major issues with what Old Salt is doing and
has done and think that SOME form of self-policing (short of
moderation) is necessary for the NG but I think I would prefer him to
be less quick to rule something OT (thus usually starting some sort of
fight about whether or not it really is OT) since most OT topics die
out within 48 hours harmlessly.
So, rather than a railing against Old Salt's self-appointed position
which I think is valuable and would have to be done by someone else if
Old Salt wasn't doing it I think perhaps we should just look for a
slowing down of his reaction times so that most OT threads could die
naturally but ANY which were a real consumer of bandwidth would be
stopped relatively quickly.
Does that make sense to anyone else here?
Aaron Liebling
and it is still totally readable...I just skip any threads I don't want to
read or be involved in..sadly OldSalt seems to lack the self-restraint or
pity...it really is a shame...
Best,
Aaron
Gamer Man <gam...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:37fcf2e...@news.earthlink.net...
Aaron Liebling
at all...I simply ignore threads that irritate or don't interest me....it's
really quite easy.
As to the "majority" agreeing, on the one hand, this is an unmoderated group
whether the "majority" agree to it or not. This group is not supposed to be
moderated. I am all for you going and starting an officially moderated
group (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical.moderated or the like) and would
certainly subscribe to it.
On the other hand, even if we were to take a "vote" (whatever that owuld
mean without opening up a process to huge amounts of ballot stuffing on both
sides), how would you define the "majority" agreeing (as per your comment)?
How many people asking you to stop would it require to make it the majority?
Please let's work out a figure so we can see if it is reached. :-)
Best,
Aaron Liebling
Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote in message
news:Q=38N7vsixEi5Gn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:06:54 -0700 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> "Aaron Liebling" <aa...@medpool.com> said about, "[OT] Not silent
> anymore was Re: trying to negotiate..",
Aaron Liebling
Actually, I don't like a hard and fast two day rule as much as I prefer a
bit more of a "soft" rule. Maybe when it reaches 5 truly OT posts to a
thread, it would be appropriate.
I fully acknowledge that there is a great deal of room between the extremes
of no moderation (and let's call a spade a spade....it's moderation (even if
in moderation, so to speak :-)) that you desire) and a truly moderated
newsgroup, and that finding the right mix can be difficult.
I prefer a system where ONLY binaries and commercial/multiple spams are
cancelled. Let other discussions run their courses. As you mention, I
think most OT discussions (to separate them from spam or binaries) take care
of themselves. The Derek Smart threads could be pointed to as an exception,
but I just killfile those. :-)
I am VERY hesitant to have anyone trying to moderate discussion (again as
separate from binary posts or spam) in the group. It is too coloured by
individual preference or taste and too easily leads to politics. Also, when
taken to extremes (as I would say it has at times been done by OS), it robs
the group of much of its life.
What if, for example, a regular poster (Old Salt, for example!) wanted to
post that their child had just been born? Great news and we're all glad to
hear it, but clearly off-topic. Using OS curent rules, it should (as far as
I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong) be cancelled. Would any of us
really want it cancelled, even if it created a 10 or 20 post long thread of
congratulations and a few follow-up questions? Probably not... But drawing
the line between
that and what others consider truly acceptable discussion is really
impossible because it is so individual.
My 2 pence. :-)
Best,
Aaron Liebling
Fionn Kelly <fio...@nospam.clubi.ie> wrote in message
news:37fd0a44...@news.esatclear.ie...
> >>Let us regulate things
> >>ourselves (mainly through the use of killfilters,...)
> >
> Sometimes the police need to be reminded of the difference between a
> misdemeanour and a felony to use an American expression which I think
> everyone will understand. I think Old Salt performs a very useful
> function here as I think others will agree BUT i acknowledge that
> there may be some valid reasons for us all to sit down and inform Old
> Salt exactly how far he should let things go before intervening in
> something he thinks is OT.
>
>
Jonathan K.
>Basically I don't see any major issues with what Old Salt is doing and
>has done and think that SOME form of self-policing (short of
>moderation) is necessary for the NG but I think I would prefer him to
>be less quick to rule something OT (thus usually starting some sort of
>fight about whether or not it really is OT) since most OT topics die
>out within 48 hours harmlessly.
One could argue that the most efficient form of self-policing is to
simply not post to the OT thread in question, thus hastening its death
as you describe.
--
Jonathan K.
Gamer Man
moderation. Again I ask, who elected Old Salt to be God of this
newsgroup? I have no doubt that in real life he has no real authority
and this is as close as he ever gets.
I don't want my posts to go through his personal little filter. What
happens if he gets mad at you? You can bet that if he gets his way,
all of your posts will be killed (although I actually doubt his
ability to do this. I'm checking with my ISP to make sure...). This is
an UNmoderated newsgroup and I for one want it to stay that way. Yeah,
we'll get a few more off-topic posts, but is that really so terrible?
There are worse things in life. Just ignore them!
Maybe Old Salt started out with noble intentions, but I have no doubt
that he's let it go way too much to his head. This is not the
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical.old-salt newsgroup, just the
war-historical one. If he wants a moderated group, he should start one
somewhere else, but not here.
Gamer Man
>Well, I don't think killfilters are the way to go personally. I think
>that the best way to ensure a newsgroup stays on-topic (without
>moderation) is for there to be a communal awareness of what is and
>isn't on-topic.
>
>I think there is, already here, such an awareness. Obviously some
>people or persons must take it upon themselves to comment publicly
>when a post or thread is too off-topic. I don't think anyone would
>have a problem with that BUT what people are beginning to take issue
>with is the perception that Old Salt who, it is fair to say, has taken
>on the role of newsgroup on-topic policeman is becoming far too
>stringent with what is and is not on-topic.
>
>Sometimes the police need to be reminded of the difference between a
>misdemeanour and a felony to use an American expression which I think
>everyone will understand. I think Old Salt performs a very useful
>function here as I think others will agree BUT i acknowledge that
>there may be some valid reasons for us all to sit down and inform Old
>Salt exactly how far he should let things go before intervening in
>something he thinks is OT.
>
>Personally speaking I think most of those threads die out quickly
>enough if left alone and would support a two day rule... If it isn't
>pure spam or a binary then people should be allowed to discuss it in
>the group for two days before Old Salt should step in. This way the
>vast majority of OT posts would simply fizzle out without the hard
>feelings engendered by what some perceive as too stringent control
>over OT posts.
>
>Basically I don't see any major issues with what Old Salt is doing and
>has done and think that SOME form of self-policing (short of
>moderation) is necessary for the NG but I think I would prefer him to
>be less quick to rule something OT (thus usually starting some sort of
>fight about whether or not it really is OT) since most OT topics die
>out within 48 hours harmlessly.
>
>So, rather than a railing against Old Salt's self-appointed position
>which I think is valuable and would have to be done by someone else if
>Old Salt wasn't doing it I think perhaps we should just look for a
>slowing down of his reaction times so that most OT threads could die
>naturally but ANY which were a real consumer of bandwidth would be
>stopped relatively quickly.
>
>Does that make sense to anyone else here?
>
>
>________________________________
>Fionn Kelly
>Manager of Historical Research,
>The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers
>Email: fio...@thegamers.net
>Web Site: http://www.thegamers.net
>Affiliate Member of theiEntertainment Network
>Web Site: http://www.ientertainmentnetwork.com
Gamer Man
Dave Dial
subject and this is the only thing you got.
Cuz this is WAY worse than the strategy group.
It's gone to the bizarre zone
Tarquelne
Yes, with one caveat.
I like to think of this newsgroup as the place where wargamers
discuss things - not just where everyone discusses wargames. Thus, a
discussion of 1/2 OT things from a wargamer's perspective is
something I don't mind seeing. H&D is a good example - H&D obviously
isn't a "wargame" as is meant by the charter, but I found the thread
on it here interesting, and far more valuable than the threads in
other ngs.
I guess the general guideline I'd like to apply is that _any_ topic
is OK, as long as it's of concern or interest to wargamers as
"wargamers", and it doesn't get out of control. Quite a bit of
fuzziness there - not like strict adherance to the charter, but hey,
that's life.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"The horror of the Twentieth Century is the size of each event
and the paucity of its reverberation."--Norman Mailer.
Dale Hight
(Jonathan K.) wrote:
This makes sense to me also Jonathan. Should be good for Salt too.
Any heat can be passed on to whoever asked the thread or post be acted
effectively removing Salt from the brunt of any controversy.
Dale
>Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote:
>
>> What I will do from here on end. Is not act unless someone
>>posts for something to be done. The exception to this is spam or
>>misplace binaries.
>
>Which I think you'll have strong support for. I can't imagine anyone
>wanting either of those things in this newsgroup and someone starts
>posting them, you have my full support in kicking their ass.
>
>> From this point on, I will do or say nothing on any thread or
>>post, but wait until others here do, by asking me to take action.
>>Then and ONLY then will I react.
>
>Excellent strategy which I think will go far to further the goal of
>maintaining this as a newsgroup that's actually topical.
Richard Wein
Fionn Kelly wrote in message <37fca515...@news.esatclear.ie>...
<snip>
>I think that OS only is able to police the forum with the unspoken
>acquiescence of the majority of posters and lurkers. I certainly know
>that if he ever made a decision I strongly disagreed with and I felt
>he had overstepped his mark I would publicly challenge him in the
>forum and am sure others would do the same. I think the fact that the
>majority is silent is a form of tacit approval.
I wasn't going to get involved in this thread, but I wouldn't like my
silence to be taken as tacit approval.
An occasional polite reminder when a thread is off-topic is useful. But OS
goes way over the top, and so annoys people that we get massive threads like
this one which dwarf the on-topic threads. So his efforts actually turn out
to be counter-productive.
Richard Wein (Tich)
--------------------------------
Please send email to <insertmyni...@primex.co.uk>, replacing the
first part with the word "tich" (antispam device). See my web pages for
various games at http://homepages.primex.co.uk/~tich/
Richard Wein
Old Salt wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:32:00 +0100 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>Kevin Sparrow <ke...@sparrow19.freeserve.co.uk> said about, "Re:
>trying to negotiate",
>
>>Salt you cant close this thread down as its not a moderated newsgroup.
>>The only recourse you have is to send a message to each posters ISP
>>complaining that they are posting in an off-topic thread,
>
>about off topic posts, never did. Just spam and misplace binaries.
Eh???? Didn't you threaten to close down this thread? I haven't seen any
spam or binaries here. Maybe you've already got rid of them in some way, but
then why threaten to close down the whole thread?
>As
>far as can I do what I said. Well just look to the thread that
>started all this. Which BTW, no in this NG was even posting to. It
>was all from other NGs being cross-post here.
I missed that thread. Hmmm... maybe that was because you closed it down! If
so, I'm shocked (a) to find out it's possible, and (b) that you should have
the gall to appoint yourself moderator of an unmoderated NG.
Guys, can OS really "close down" threads (whatever that means exactly). Or
is he just huffing and puffing?
Kevin Sparrow
>
>Guys, can OS really "close down" threads (whatever that means exactly). Or
>is he just huffing and puffing?
>
Nope, impossible because the NG is unmoderated. You can get *posts*
cancelled, which is what happens a lot to spam these days with some
ISP's, but even then some spam posts filter through some servers
anyway, but there is no way a thread can be cancelled like a post can.
Same for getting accounts yanked. You got to be in serious breach of
netiqeutte (what ever that is supposed to mean these days), like
posting porn, spamming and such like for an ISP to even consider to
yank your account. Remember, ISPs are profit motivated to survive and
beat the competition, so they dont pull accounts left right and centre
if ppl abuse usenet. It wasnt taken seriously where I used to work
(and that was a big ISP- Virgin Net), and I doubt if it is anywhere
else. Spamming is taken with more notice which is seen now by a lot of
spam posts being cancelled from servers.
Kevin
Jonathan K.
> What I will do from here on end. Is not act unless someone
>posts for something to be done. The exception to this is spam or
>misplace binaries.
Which I think you'll have strong support for. I can't imagine anyone
wanting either of those things in this newsgroup and someone starts
posting them, you have my full support in kicking their ass.
> From this point on, I will do or say nothing on any thread or
>post, but wait until others here do, by asking me to take action.
>Then and ONLY then will I react.
Excellent strategy which I think will go far to further the goal of
maintaining this as a newsgroup that's actually topical.
--
Jonathan K.
Robert Gurske
>On Thu, 07 Oct 1999 00:43:07 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>emor...@home.com (Robert Gurske) said about, "Re: Try reading his
>post Ally",
>
>> I'd liked to know just how many accounts you've "yanked."
>
> It's in the hundreds easly.
>
>>Sounds to me like alot of bilge,
>
> Would you like me to e-mail you each reply I get from ISPs on
>this when it happens?
>
>> As you yourself have
>>pointed out, the number of people who find your self-appointed
>>moderating objectionable requires taking a number.
>>
> It's an expression, which I am sure went over your head, so
>let me explain it to you. It means I give a shit what you think.
>
>
>--
>
My my, getting a bit touchy aren't we? I don't think four letter
words are standard fare for protectors of the masses such as yourself.
They MUGHT even be (dare I say it?) grounds for pulling an account!
(OH NO! NOT THAT!!)
Bob
Fionn Kelly
>Far too logical...are you sure you sohuld be posting to newsgroups. :-)
I'm sorry.. Sometimes I just lose control of myself and forget to
flame hehe...
(Just kidding).
Cheers,
Jabba
comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.war-historical.flamewars where all this thread and
others alike should find their resting peace ( allelujah!) and will not
disturb anymore the original newsgroup.The goal end the methods of this
newsgroup will be..e.t.c, e.t.c.....
:-)
Just kidding, really!
Jabba
styopa
) wrote:
>>>Let us regulate things
>>>ourselves (mainly through the use of killfilters,...)
>>
>> That was the agument give in csipgs. So what your saying is
>>you want that type of NG here. If the majority agrees. Fine, they
>>you will get just what you want.
>
>
>Well, I don't think killfilters are the way to go personally. I think
[snippage]
>So, rather than a railing against Old Salt's self-appointed position
>which I think is valuable and would have to be done by someone else if
>Old Salt wasn't doing it I think perhaps we should just look for a
>slowing down of his reaction times so that most OT threads could die
>naturally but ANY which were a real consumer of bandwidth would be
>stopped relatively quickly.
>
Good logic, Fionn.
I think unfortunately you're preaching to the choir, as it were.
Anyone who's bothering to read this probably is already mature enough
to
a) post basically on-topic.
b) ignore someone they don't like.
I *like* the fact that I don't have to delete 85% of the posts here
before d/l the ones I want to read like the much-maligned c.s.i.p.g.s.
But a bit less vituperation in the moderation would be welcome. Hey,
if OS wants to moderate newsgroups as a hobby, great. But, if one
sets oneself up as the arbiter of "what's right and good", one has to
expect that people are justified when they ask 'who made you king?'
IMVHO, a simple pretext of [OT] is sufficient for me.
Bob
something - anything. Heck, go buy a condo and terrorize the
association board!
And trim that dam sig file!
Old Salt <old....@att.net> wrote in message
news:Q=38N7vsixEi5Gn...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 11:06:54 -0700 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> "Aaron Liebling" <aa...@medpool.com> said about, "[OT] Not silent
> anymore was Re: trying to negotiate..",
>
> >Let us regulate things
> >ourselves (mainly through the use of killfilters,...)
>
> That was the agument give in csipgs. So what your saying is
> you want that type of NG here. If the majority agrees. Fine, they
> you will get just what you want.
>
>
> --
> Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct
others to make their life fulfilled.
> Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
> Support the anti-Spam amendment Join at http://www.cauce.org/
> If you POST don't E-MAIL me also. Plus if you do e-mail use your
real address in the reply field..
> You read the spam, now read the FAQ: http://home.att.net/~marjie1/
> My Mail Server is Protected by SPAMKILLER
Skip
thread. I personally like Old Salt, but find this rather ironic. It is
starting to take on a life of it's own. In fact, it is starting to
remind me of another long-running controversy over another strong
personality in a certain other strategy newgroup. The irony just drips
from the computer screen.
Gamer Man
don't think anyone has the right to be the moderator in an
un-moderated group. That's what USENET is all about. When I called my
ISP about his threat to cancel a thread after 3 days, they were VERY
interested. If he has the ability, he wouldn't have had it for long.
Now that he's backed down though, maybe we can get back to some
wargaming talk though huh?
Gamer Man
Gamer Man
Johan Vandendriessche
And since we all agree this is OT, why don't we just make a new NG for this
discussion so you can all be happy (and I can get back to reading those
high-quality posts)? What about alt.sys.destroy.OS or
alt.sys.OS.has.no.right.but.does.so.anyway.so.I'll.call.at&t.to.cancel.his.a
ccount
or maybe alt.sys.moderator.hatemail.OS
or better even
alt.pc.we.don't.know.what.wargame.to.talk.about.so.we'll.do.the.old.OT.discu
ssion.against.OS.again.and.again.so.we.can.bore.everyone
fffffff
Do you want more titles? I'm sure I can invent some more.
________________________________________________________________
Aquila non captat muscas
To reply by e-mail, remove the colons before and after @
Johan Vandendriessche
news:bfevpncxarg.f...@news.apk.net...
> :>Does that make sense to anyone else here?
> Yes, with one caveat.
> I like to think of this newsgroup as the place where wargamers
> discuss things - not just where everyone discusses wargames. Thus, a
> discussion of 1/2 OT things from a wargamer's perspective is
> something I don't mind seeing. H&D is a good example - H&D obviously
> isn't a "wargame" as is meant by the charter, but I found the thread
> on it here interesting, and far more valuable than the threads in
> other ngs.
This is very disturbing. 1/2 OT????? Why don't you start a new NG
(alt.sys.we.are.wargamers.that.want.to.talk.about.something.else.than.wargam
es)? Or vote to alter the charter? (I will vote against, I can tell you that
already).
Johan Vandendriessche
news:37fd4331...@news.gte.net...
Hmm, I particularly like this Jonathan. So you agree that action can be
taken by someone else, but no by OS? Or at least, OS cannot be the first
one? Sounds like you're leaving the principle of an unmoderated NG. Or
aren't you?
Maybe it's just that no one bother to cancel spam except OS. At least I
don't, but I'm glad OS does.
This whole discussion is a big nuisance and I'm really considering
unsuscribing to this NG. This NG went just fine, sometimes OS reminded
everyone of the charter, sometimes cancelled a post and then everyone starts
feeling like a freedom fighter and talks about rights this and rights that.
Mind you, if it weren't so boring, it would be an excellent joke.
And what's worse, we've had this discussion before and before that and
before that.
Johan
Jonathan K.
>> Excellent strategy which I think will go far to further the goal of
>> maintaining this as a newsgroup that's actually topical.
>
>Hmm, I particularly like this Jonathan. So you agree that action can be
>taken by someone else, but no by OS? Or at least, OS cannot be the first
>one? Sounds like you're leaving the principle of an unmoderated NG. Or
>aren't you?
You are reading entirely too much into what I'm saying. Please try
again, setting aside all the assumptions you seem to want to make.
>This whole discussion is a big nuisance and I'm really considering
>unsuscribing to this NG. This NG went just fine, sometimes OS reminded
>everyone of the charter, sometimes cancelled a post and then everyone starts
>feeling like a freedom fighter and talks about rights this and rights that.
>Mind you, if it weren't so boring, it would be an excellent joke.
Well, we all have that choice.
--
Jonathan K.
Johan Vandendriessche
> You are reading entirely too much into what I'm saying. Please try
> again, setting aside all the assumptions you seem to want to make.
Then what exactly do you mean? I was not assuming anything, just analyzed
what you wrote.
Tarquelne
<snip>
:>
:>This is very disturbing. 1/2 OT????? Why don't you start a new NG
:>(alt.sys.we.are.wargamers.that.want.to.talk.about.something.else.than.wargam
:>es)? Or vote to alter the charter? (I will vote against, I can tell you that
:>already).
Oh come on, taking the weakest possible form of my argument is no way
to be. I'm talking about _almost_ wargame games, AI, needed hardware
upgrades for wargames, and _short_ threads on related topics. Meet
me 1/2 way here, eh?
There's no need to alter the charter, just having OS (or someone
else) refrain from immedietly stomping on every thread that isn't
mandated by the charter is all that's needed.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"If you tell the same story five times it's true."
--White House spokesperson Larry Speakes
Tarquelne
:>> again, setting aside all the assumptions you seem to want to make.
:>
:>Then what exactly do you mean? I was not assuming anything, just analyzed
:>what you wrote.
Ooo, ooo! I think I know! Taking a favorable, rather than
unfavorable, interpretation of J.K.'s statement, I believe J.K. was
tacitly agreeing that the problem was not "people" self-moderating
the ng, but rather OS's sometimes over-zelous moderating of the ng.
By advocating OS's "no first use" policy J.K. reconcilles OS's desire
for a patrolled ng with his own policies.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"Capital punishment is our society's recognition of the sanctity
of human life."--Senator Orrin Hatch, R.-Utah.
Johan Vandendriessche
> unfavorable, interpretation of J.K.'s statement, I believe J.K. was
> tacitly agreeing that the problem was not "people" self-moderating
> the ng, but rather OS's sometimes over-zelous moderating of the ng.
> By advocating OS's "no first use" policy J.K. reconcilles OS's desire
> for a patrolled ng with his own policies.
Very well, but then you have to drop the "no rights" and "unmoderated NG
principle". It's one way or another, not both ways.
In fact; I find this proposition absurd. It's not allowed for OS to react,
but all may and if we do Old Salt may. It thought everyone's argument was
"unmoderated"?
Jonathan K.
>Jonathan K. <apostate@gte.*r*e*m*o*v*e.net> wrote in message
>news:380044c5...@news.gte.net...
>> You are reading entirely too much into what I'm saying. Please try
>> again, setting aside all the assumptions you seem to want to make.
>
>Then what exactly do you mean? I was not assuming anything, just analyzed
>what you wrote.
Well, it had to come from somewhere, and it didn't come from anything
I said; there is no way.
That being said, what I was doing was simple: having criticized
Salt's strategy for newsgroup hygiene at polite length, now that he
had taken some suggestions to heart and decided on a strategy I
considered more productive, to express approval and encouragement. If
one is willing to criticize what one doesn't care for, one should also
be willing to encourage when the criticism gets positive results.
It is (and was) that straightforward, with no other agendas.
--
Jonathan K.
Tarquelne
:>principle". It's one way or another, not both ways.
:>
:>In fact; I find this proposition absurd. It's not allowed for OS to react,
:>but all may and if we do Old Salt may. It thought everyone's argument was
:>"unmoderated"?
There's a practical difference of degree, if not essential
conception, between collective 1 self-moderation, 2 moderation, and 3
moderation-by-1-individual-who-isn't-the-"moderator." (OS has been
accused of #3, and many people have said they don't want #2, but I
havn't seen any invictive aimed at #1.)
We can argue principle vrs. principle all day, and never decsend from
a pure world of conception and logic. However, this is a real
newsgroup, with real people (I'm sure at least _some_ of them are
real people), and principle bends to the practical realities - we
don't have to choose between totally binding law or utterly
unfettered freedom - there's alot of conceptual space in between
those 2 extremes.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"I'm going to jail, and I'm taking you as my caddy."
--Just-indicted commodities trader John Baker to a colleague.
Tarquelne
:>>else) refrain from immedietly stomping on every thread that isn't
:>>mandated by the charter is all that's needed.
:> Immediately? I did't say a word for 3 days with that post.
:>Please even if you didn't like what I did, please lets not make
:>things up to prove your point, ok.
I'm not specificly refering to only that thread. From my
perspective, and from the perspective of many readers I'm sure, your
responses have often been effectivly immediate because when they
download the articles they find "OT" Post #1, OT post #2, and your
message. Also: Imediate or not, the basic point remains.
Tarquelne
<os...@apk.net>
I know how God can make a rock so big He can't move it.
************************
"There's no moral problem there. I used to teach ethics--trust me."
--Drug Czar William Bennett on the proposal to decapitate drug dealers.
Johan Vandendriessche
> Oh come on, taking the weakest possible form of my argument is no way
> to be. I'm talking about _almost_ wargame games, AI, needed hardware
> upgrades for wargames, and _short_ threads on related topics. Meet
> me 1/2 way here, eh?
> else) refrain from immedietly stomping on every thread that isn't
> mandated by the charter is all that's needed.
You guys were talking "principles", not me. I just wanted to give you the
same argument you gave OS. A principle = a principle.
Anway, let's stop this discussion (or mail me privately) and let's talk
wargaming.
Paul Murray
> Tom, do a search on him in this NG. You will find in the
>last 30 days he has made 2 posts. Both to this thread. He is from
>csipgs NG. And we all know what that NG is like. He is just
It is a very busy newsgroup which has a lot of on-topic discussion
about games, mostly organised well with tags for specific games so you
can easily skip games you are not interested. Yes it has the
never-ending D*r*k Sm*rt threads, but those are pretty easy to
killfile. csipgs is not the cesspool you always try and make it out to
be.
>unhappy that this NG isn't a mess like that one. Go figure.
Looking at both groups at the moment, I'm seeing a much greater
proportion of noise in war-hist than in strategic, and you seem to be
the cause of most of it, same as last time I looked.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>What if, for example, a regular poster (Old Salt, for example!) wanted to
>post that their child had just been born? Great news and we're all glad to
>hear it, but clearly off-topic. Using OS curent rules, it should (as far as
>I understand, please correct me if I'm wrong) be cancelled. Would any of us
No, absolutely not.
There are a very limited number of situations where it is considered
acceptable to cancel posts, such as:
a) Misplaced binaries
b) Excessive multiple posting
c) Forged moderator approval
'Off-Topic' is not a valid reason for a post to be cancelled, anyone
doing this would be what is termed a 'rogue' canceller.
See the Cancel FAQ at
http://www.killfile.org/~tskirvin/faqs/cancel.html
-Paul Murray
Finris Wolf
Hey,Old Salt, what has been up your butt lately? I used to enjoy reading
your posts here (I've been a daily lurker for ages), but here lately, the
majority of your posts have been OT, either picking a fight, or defending
yourself in a fight that looks like it was started by you!
Please bring back the (mildly cranky) Old-Old Salt that I know and love (in
a very hetero way, of course!). :)
fini
Old Salt wrote in message <+AwWOCzyb2fFAN3c9WkRgD=GE...@4ax.com>...
>On 26 Oct 1999 14:50:31 GMT Plato was dumbfounded by what,
>murra...@usa.net (Paul Murray) said about, "Re: Try reading his
>post Ally",
>
>>csipgs is not the cesspool you always try and make it out to
>>be.
>
>Subject: What do you do for a living?
>Subject: YOU'RE ALL FUCKIN BIG MOUSE
>Subject: Why teenagers commit suicide
>Subject: Should I become a PhD?
>Subject: Bashing Bill Clinton
>Subject: I have no friends
>
> Just love all those on topic threads.
>
>
>>Looking at both groups at the moment, I'm seeing a much greater
>>proportion of noise in war-hist than in strategic, and you seem to be
>>the cause of most of it, same as last time I looked.
>
> Then go back to csipgs, were you will feel more at home.
>
>
>--
>Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to
make their life fulfilled.
>Politically Incorrect and proud of it.
Paul Murray
> First your dealing with an old thread, that some from csipgs
>have found out about just now, and wish to come here to flame. Or do
>you really believe Paul that csipgs noise free. BTW, I just posted
I never said it was noise free, it said that for its size it had quite
a low level of noise, with the obvious exception of ...
>the subjects of just a few threads that are there in that NG. The D.
>Smart flames make up 1/4 of the posts/threads there.
... the D*r*k Sm*rt flamewar, which has flared up again in the last
week or so, and is easy to killfile.
OS, when you were in csipgs there were huge 'OS plonk war' threads,
now you have left they are not there, and there is less noise. Now in
this group there are huge noise threads about you.
Anyway, I don't think this thread is achieving anything other than
creating more noise, so if you want to continue, do so by email.
-Paul Murray
Paul Murray
>murra...@usa.net (Paul Murray) said about, "Re: Try reading his
>>creating more noise, so if you want to continue, do so by email.
>old thread up again.
? Starting it ?
There were hundred of posts about you before I posted.
-Paul Murray