Re: Cerbere Landing - 10/05/07

**Crux** · 10-08-2007, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Catman1975

On a side note, I don't see how boasting that TG is a great way to play violates the "TG way", most of us are here because we can't stand to play on other servers the teamwork and support from other members is unfounded. Now if I had just read your first post, I would have thought you were just asking a question, but to challenge that Rali's post violated the 'TG way' should have probably be handled through PM's

If you go back and read my post without the outrage over a supposed insult to your fellow 8th, you might just notice that I wasn't challenging Rali's post violating the TG way. I was commenting on the original post that began the thread, and having read it multiple times now I still don't see anything there that I would consider an AAR. It just smacks of "we're so 1337". I just wish it had been done right. It doesn't require flair. It simply requires a mature approach.

"Tonight as PAC our team managed to cap out the opposition on Map XXX. It was particularly satisfying because due to a lack of admins on the server at the time, the other side was formed mostly of non TG people who were bunnyhopping and using other questionable tactics. My squad was assigned to do XYZ. We took route "K" and were able to take our flag with no resistance. The commander did a great job of <fill in the blank> and a lot of teamwork was shown as we pushed them back to the final flag before capping them out. Great job done by <insert player names here>."

**Catman1975** · 10-08-2007, 04:31 PM

Originally Posted by Crux

If you go back and read my post without the outrage over a supposed insult to your fellow 8th, you might just notice that I wasn't challenging Rali's post violating the TG way. I was commenting on the original post that began the thread, and having read it multiple times now I still don't see anything there that I would consider an AAR. It just smacks of "we're so 1337". I just wish it had been done right. It doesn't require flair. It simply requires a mature approach.

"Tonight as PAC our team managed to cap out the opposition on Map XXX. It was particularly satisfying because due to a lack of admins on the server at the time, the other side was formed mostly of non TG people who were bunnyhopping and using other questionable tactics. My squad was assigned to do XYZ. We took route "K" and were able to take our flag with no resistance. The commander did a great job of <fill in the blank> and a lot of teamwork was shown as we pushed them back to the final flag before capping them out. Great job done by <insert player names here>."

I wasn't outraged by you attacking a fellow member of the 8th. I am insulted that you assumed I only made my post because he was a fellow 8th member, because technically he's under review still. I wasn't outraged at all, but I'm tired of hearing admins throw around 'the TG way' as an absolute to everything that is posted here. I realize you were not suggesting that Rali's post was un-TG, but you flat out said it about Doc's. Doc's post doesn't have to be worded pretty to get the point across, maybe Doc's not good at putting his actions into words, I felt it was in poor taste for an admin to attack a post in public as opposed to sending him a PM. I thought Rali's post got the point across quickly and this isn't the, "Tactical AAR", it's just the AAR

Battlefield 2142 - After Action Reports Discussions regarding Battlefield 2142 After-Action Reports on Tactical Gamer Servers.

So Doc started a post on a cap out and everyone discussed that round, sounds like a perfect AAR to me.

Regardless of how you posted, you are an admin of the BF forums and every post you make is different from that of any non-admin poster because you are here to regulate these forums and the game. You can't come in after one of your posts and state:

I'm not posting this as an admin 'coming down' on this thread or any of you.

If you post something stating that it is un-TG or not 'the TG way' everyone takes it as gospel and you are more accountable for your posts because you are an admin and as such are held to a higher standard than we are.

**Catman1975** · 10-08-2007, 04:35 PM

Originally Posted by Crux

I just wish it had been done right. It doesn't require flair. It simply requires a mature approach.

Or maybe instead of calling him out in public about a post you (an admin) didn't like you could have PM'd him and given him your thoughts on how an AAR should be written and asked him to rewrite it, especially since he's only been a member of the forums for about two months.

**Lorax74** · 10-08-2007, 04:40 PM

The original post is not an After Action Report at all. Let's look at it line by line:

Originally Posted by ThaDoctah

Round 2 - Cap out (254-0) at ~5 minute mark

This says absolutely nothing about what happened during the round. The only thing that I can take away from this is that EU really did not have its act together at all. I have no idea how how the cap out happened, what role ThaDoctah's squad played in the cap out, who came up with the round winning plan, etc.

Originally Posted by ThaDoctah

Can't bunny hop when you can't spawn eh? XP

From this statement I can only assume the EU team was hopping around a lot which implies a team of pub players not well acquainted with our rule set or our style of play.

Originally Posted by ThaDoctah

We Rock, woot woot.

Is there something wrong with this line? I guess that depends on the rest of the post really. Had this post consisted of an actual AAR with squad members mentioned and something describing the turn of events, then I think this line would be fine. With the AAR missing, this turns into someone ringing their own bell, which is something that has never really flown well around here.

And for the record, an AAR does not need to be written with the flair of Prophaniti but it should contain something more than this post does.

**Tempus** · 10-08-2007, 04:57 PM

Closed.

Thread Tools

Display