Re: [mepbmlist] Ranking System.... You get what you reward.

[Player]

--- corsairs game 101 <corsairs101@...> wrote:
> Darrell Shimel (whose opinion is valid becuase he lncludes a name)
>
> When does ME Game welcome comment on having to give our name to
> everyone on
> the planet in order for our opinion to be counted?

If you're not willing to put your name to your words,
they (and thusly, YOU) do not deserve to be listened to.
If you have an opinion, the LEAST you could do is admit
to it, otherwise it's unwelcome spam, no different than
a poo-flinging chimpanzee, and deserving of the same
regard in adult society.

Is everyone on the planet on an egroup regarding Middle Earth
Games? Please get over it. Your input is welcome and
important to the discussion, but the venomous chip on your
shoulder reduces your insight to childish rubbish.

Do enjoy your day, Darrell.

Brad Brunet

[corsairs game 101]

>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

[Urzahil]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: corsairs game 101 [mailto:corsairs101@...]
>Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:33 AM
>To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) 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?

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

[corsairs game 101]

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

Wha?!?!?! I think the statements are just as valid (or invalid) now as they
would be if I knew the author.

Words can indeed be used to describe things that have never been seen.
Debates (if not true battles with deadly weapons) can indeed grant better
understanding and connection in shared expereince. I could see how sports
could do this as well (but always seems to get messed up when money or
national pride is tied to the outcome).

I do not need to know the name of the author for the comments to be valid.
Not knowing the author, in no way makes them "suspect" to me.

>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.

So, ignore the posts based upon the content of their character, and not the
color (or lack there of) of the signature. One can tell a post intended to
be rude or to rant. One need not see a signature to know the purpose of a
post.

Finally, if we use a signature sufficient to identify us to ME Games, then
why must everyone on the board or list know our name? Is it not sufficient
that they know who we are?

Signed,
George Washington