Ranking System.... You get what you reward.

mepbmlist
#1

If you're not willing to put your name to your words,
they (and thusly, YOU) do not deserve to be listened to.

Please elaborate. I do not understand why a true name must be known before the words can have meaning. Why do not sensible ideas carry their own value?

Quick, who said, "In debate, the first to raise his voice in frustration, is usually the first that has run out of points to support his position".

I don't know the name of the man. That does not change the fact that their is a lot of truth in the position.

Is my opinion more valid simply because I attach my name to the comment. Are the words, or meaning of the words, somehow altered if signed with a pen name?

Is everyone on the planet on an egroup regarding Middle Earth
Games?

But, anyone is eligable to join. I do not see the reason to attach points unrelated to any given game, to a player. After expressing the comments about the ranking system, it is possible that anyone seeing me in a game as a neutral, will assume I have joined the game to prove my point on how players can achieve high rankings by joining as neutrals and piling on one side.

The point about the flaws in the system is just as valid, without creating misconceptions of my motivations for any future conflict I may find myself in.

Please get over it.

Not until it is satisfactorily explained to me how the content of the message is altered by the attachment of a name.

Your input is welcome and
important to the discussion, but the venomous chip on your
shoulder reduces your insight to childish rubbish.

That, or calling someone elses opinion "childish rubbish" instead of dealing with the content of the message, is in fact the childish rubbish.

Do enjoy your day, Darrell.

You too. And may you spend more time contimplating the content of your next response, keeping the conversation away from emotive comments such as "chimps throwing dung" and "childish rubbish". How is the validity of the comment altered by the contents of a name of the sender?

Your's truely,
Alexander Hamilton

···

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com

#2

Please elaborate. I do not understand why a true name must be known before
the words can have meaning. Why do not sensible ideas carry their own
value?

Quick, who said, "In debate, the first to raise his voice in frustration, is
usually the first that has run out of points to support his position".

I don't know the name of the man. That does not change the fact that their
is a lot of truth in the position.

*** Chairman Mao? Bush? The person who says a thing has a relation to what is being said. They are inextricably linked. Also hiding behind anonymity means that I have found people to more abrasive and out of order. This helps keep things civilised. :slight_smile: A sensible statement does have its own merit, but I have found the delivery of the statement to be more important than the actual statement in many instances. Signing or not signing affects that and is only polite if nothing else.

Is my opinion more valid simply because I attach my name to the comment.
Are the words, or meaning of the words, somehow altered if signed with a pen
name?

Yes by defintion a pen name is used to hide the person who wrote the article in question. This has an impact on the message.

Alexander Hamilton
:slight_smile:

Clint
or Fred Bloggs - different message and meaning depending on who said it?

#3

Email, internet, etc, blah blah blah. We are innundated
with "information". This is a discussion group about
a game that we play because we enjoy it. We don't want
all the rest of the marketting, spam, and crap here.
Treat it as if we're in a room with real people, face
to face. Call it prudish, if you will, but anonymous
flamers and spammers and people screaming conspiracy
don't merit due regard. The world is full of screamers,
many of whose ideas or valid, but they're just giving
the majority of the world headaches.

Take a G7 meeting or World Bank conference. Are you at
the table, or outside wearing a balaklava and throwing
something foul at the security forces? (Don't presume
my sympathies in this example, by the way) It's the
same here.

Come on in, sit on down, introduce yourself, and join
the discussion, otherwise you're wasting your, and our,
time.

Thanks,

Brad Brunet (same name, over and over again...boring,
I know)

···

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@hotmail.com> wrote:

>If you're not willing to put your name to your words,
>they (and thusly, YOU) do not deserve to be listened to.

Please elaborate. I do not understand why a true name must be known
before
the words can have meaning. Why do not sensible ideas carry their
own
value?

Quick, who said, "In debate, the first to raise his voice in
frustration, is
usually the first that has run out of points to support his
position".

I don't know the name of the man. That does not change the fact that
their
is a lot of truth in the position.

Is my opinion more valid simply because I attach my name to the
comment.
Are the words, or meaning of the words, somehow altered if signed
with a pen
name?

>Is everyone on the planet on an egroup regarding Middle Earth
>Games?

But, anyone is eligable to join. I do not see the reason to attach
points
unrelated to any given game, to a player. After expressing the
comments
about the ranking system, it is possible that anyone seeing me in a
game as
a neutral, will assume I have joined the game to prove my point on
how
players can achieve high rankings by joining as neutrals and piling
on one
side.

The point about the flaws in the system is just as valid, without
creating
misconceptions of my motivations for any future conflict I may find
myself
in.

>Please get over it.

Not until it is satisfactorily explained to me how the content of the

message is altered by the attachment of a name.

>Your input is welcome and
>important to the discussion, but the venomous chip on your
>shoulder reduces your insight to childish rubbish.

That, or calling someone elses opinion "childish rubbish" instead of
dealing
with the content of the message, is in fact the childish rubbish.

>Do enjoy your day, Darrell.

You too. And may you spend more time contimplating the content of
your next
response, keeping the conversation away from emotive comments such as

"chimps throwing dung" and "childish rubbish". How is the validity
of the
comment altered by the contents of a name of the sender?

Your's truely,
Alexander Hamilton

_________________________________________________________________
Join the world�s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

______________________________________________________________________
Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca

#4

Quick! Who made the following statements?

"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a
fighter."

"Words build bridges into unexplored regions."

"The sportive, knightly battle awakens the best human characteristics.
It doesn't separate, but unites the combatants in understanding and
respect. He also helps to connect the countries in the spirit of peace.
That's why the Olympic Flame should never die."

Can you guess?

Certainly the name of the author has significance. Not knowing who made
the above statements renders them suspect.

That being said, though, I think that, as far as message boards are
concerned, the basis of taking identified message posters more seriously
than anonymous ones is largely due to the fact that many (though not
all) anonymous message posters are usually more rude and tend to rant.
Most aren't interested in actual debate, and would rather try to force
their views, (usually in an obnoxious way), on anyone who will listen.
The plain fact is that they are just taken less seriously.

Oh, and the author of the above quotes? Adolf Hitler. If that isn't a
good example that knowledge of the author puts the content into
perspective, I don't know what is.

Mike Mulka

···

-----Original Message-----
From: corsairs game 101 [mailto:corsairs101@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:33 AM
To: mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Ranking System.... You get what you reward.

If you're not willing to put your name to your words,
they (and thusly, YOU) do not deserve to be listened to.

Please elaborate. I do not understand why a true name must be
known before
the words can have meaning. Why do not sensible ideas carry their own
value?

#5

All of this may be true...or not. I'd just like to point out that this is forum is NOT a room where you are having a personal conversation. Whether or not the meaning of the words change based on who said it shouldn't be the point. People who prefer to remain annonymous in postings are simply uncomfortable with the security risk involved in any posting. With programs that "troll" the internet looking for information and links to that information, begrudging someone for being cautious in a world wide forum shouldn't be tolerated. My opinion is valid. It may not have the same impact as a GM in a game, but it does count. Sorry, us Yanks have a hard time with ANYONE telling us how to express ANYTHING. That freedom thing and all...

Rick
Mepbmfreak

--- In mepbmlist@y..., Middle Earth PBM Games <me@M...> wrote:

···

>Please elaborate. I do not understand why a true name must be known before
>the words can have meaning. Why do not sensible ideas carry their own
>value?
>
>Quick, who said, "In debate, the first to raise his voice in frustration, is
>usually the first that has run out of points to support his position".
>
>I don't know the name of the man. That does not change the fact that their
>is a lot of truth in the position.

*** Chairman Mao? Bush? The person who says a thing has a relation to what
is being said. They are inextricably linked. Also hiding behind anonymity
means that I have found people to more abrasive and out of order. This
helps keep things civilised. :slight_smile: A sensible statement does have its own
merit, but I have found the delivery of the statement to be more important
than the actual statement in many instances. Signing or not signing
affects that and is only polite if nothing else.

>Is my opinion more valid simply because I attach my name to the comment.
>Are the words, or meaning of the words, somehow altered if signed with a pen
>name?

Yes by defintion a pen name is used to hide the person who wrote the
article in question. This has an impact on the message.

Alexander Hamilton
:slight_smile:

Clint
or Fred Bloggs - different message and meaning depending on who said it?

#6

mepbmfreak wrote:

> as a GM in a game, but it does count. Sorry, us Yanks have a hard
> time with ANYONE telling us how to express ANYTHING. That freedom
> thing and all...

Oh, please, don't give Gavin any more reason to say something stupid. This is not a freedom thing -- it's a simple courtesy to show your face when talking to someone.

Hiding behind pseudonyms and hurling insults (as CO101 as done) merely detracts from your credibility. You have the freedom to stay whatever, and I have the freedom to judge what you say. Clint has made his credibility criteria clear, and you have the option of taking him up on it or not.

      jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
E pur si muove!