Sorry mate for 2 reasons. 1 that I seem to have caused offence and secondly that you seem to think that I wasn't up to speed. What I meant was that it might be better to have a pause for Clint to come up with some sort of overview on the current position. Sometimes its better to look up from the immediate job in hand and get the bigger picture.
Yet again if you feel I was in any way slating anyone I apologise profusely but wouldn't it have been more polite to have asked what my reasons for saying such things? Then I would have realised my error and explained my points.
Apologies to all offended parties. My mistake for not stating reasons. Perhaps I was getting fed up with others making the decisions. Its Clint thats gonna implement the ideas why not let him be the one to choose the best(and probably most workable) and we can go from there. I certainly didn't mean it to sound like I was advocating banning folks from discussion.
Apologetically
Alan J.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I wasn't offended as I accused you of not being up to speed!
In my experience thus far, Clint throws up trial balloons,
and then genuinely listens/reads the responses. I've seen
many "company" proposals amended as a direct result of popular
debate. This is what's happening with Player Ratings. The
Player Ratings were detailed in Bree and this board, since
then, we've been haggling about them. Clint has appeared at
various times to comment "Will be looking in that direction"
or "Can't do this" or "That's a good idea, maybe we should move
in this direction? What do you all think?" types of memos.
So we're simply answering these plea's and continuing the work.
Once they (Clint) put together the next revision, he'll hopefully
explain what ideas were taken into account, which weren't, and
why (so we don't have to repeat many of the debates) and then
we can go on from there (again...??).
There appear to have been a few changes, directly as a result
of mepbmlist participation. That's what we're doing here, that's
why I disagree that "we" here take a pause from a relevant
discussion.
Cheers,
Brad
ps- you wouldn't happen to be a neutral in game 66
would you? the new one, that is..still looking for
the Corsairs and Harad....
Sorry mate for 2 reasons. 1 that I seem to have caused offence and
secondly that you seem to think that I wasn't up to speed. What I
meant was that it might be better to have a pause for Clint to come
up with some sort of overview on the current position. Sometimes its
better to look up from the immediate job in hand and get the bigger
picture.
Yet again if you feel I was in any way slating anyone I apologise
profusely but wouldn't it have been more polite to have asked what my
reasons for saying such things? Then I would have realised my error
and explained my points.
Apologies to all offended parties. My mistake for not stating
reasons. Perhaps I was getting fed up with others making the
decisions. Its Clint thats gonna implement the ideas why not let him
be the one to choose the best(and probably most workable) and we can
go from there. I certainly didn't mean it to sound like I was
advocating banning folks from discussion.
Apologetically
Alan J.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
