Re: [Epic] Infiltrators

From: Andy Skinner <askinner_at_...>
Date: Mon, 08 Sep 1997 12:02:39 -0500

Oh, dear. Here I'm going to say stuff and hope I don't
sound self-righteous.

We've always been a bit smug around here about not being a
flame-fest such as the WH40K lists. We've disagreed about
a bunch of things in the past, and yes, we've had a few
flamewars. (I think the 2nd Ed. Doomweaver one was much worse
than 2nd Ed vs Net Epic vs Epic 40K one that caused so many
to leave. I was very pleased to see the mature way people
got over it and deciding to agree to disagree about it. I
think the number of people leaving after the latter feud was
partly because the Net Epic work wasn't fully welcomed to take
place on this list, and because of people feeling outnumbered.)

Lately I've seen some responses on this list that have been
really caustic compared to the statements that provoked them.
I'm not saying old-timers on the list have any special priveleges,
but a couple of times I've seen lately someone relatively new
flame someone else that has been around for years contributing
in a friendly and helpful way. The more experienced aren't
above being corrected, but the flaming seems awfully rude.
(Very often the flamer has been a contributor to the list,
though new. We welcome the contributions, but ask for some
self-control in the phrasings. Always remember that the
issues just look different to the guy on the other side of
the argument. Your position just isn't as obvious to them.)

In the discussion at hand, we didn't need the assumption that
people that disagree must be unable to take advantage of what
the assumer was supporting. On the other hand, nor did we need
cries of cheese being thrown around. (By the way, Tyler, or whoever
switched to "munchkin" because "cheese" made them hungry, did you
know "munchkins" are the name for Dunkin' Donuts' doughnut holes?
That makes me much hungrier than "cheese" did. :-) If someone's
assumptions of what something in the game represents are different
than what yours are, things that look like misuse to you may seem
like the appropriate response from the other side. I agree with
Mark in not appreciating a comment made about someone else, but
I thought the comment that provoked it was sorta annoying too.

I wouldn't say it was wrong to believe that a suggested tactic
was not in the spirit of the rules. Go ahead and let your opinions
be known. Just don't get personal, and try not to be intentionally
caustic.

(Just thought of an old disagreement on the list. Hey, Agro, what
was it that you supported on the list vs the opinion of just about
every other member? I can't remember what it was, though you caused
quite a few of us to think over some basic part of the game.)

In summary, let's not let this list turn into what seems typical
of most GW discussion groups. I know we've had a lot of turnover.
But let's stay civil. Be yourself, but don't be a slave to yourself.

I'm not intending to preach, and I have no authoritative position
in this newsgroup. I have been around for a while, however, and
have enjoyed the list, and don't want to see this sort of change.

thanks,
andy
askinner_at_...
Received on Mon Sep 08 1997 - 17:02:39 UTC