I didn't want to feel like I was luring people in with a Blog title like, "Where has my TG gone" or "After recent posts at TG, I'm saying goodbye" hence a title that might draw some people in, but probably really just the people that read the blogs or people that know me :)
Maybe I'm reading the wrong threads, maybe it's because my time is more limited than it has been in the past, maybe it's my depression getting worse again, I don't know, but lately the forum posts (strike that, the interactions between TG members within these threads) don't represent what I came to TG for and the community I support.
I'm the first to admit, I've crossed many lines here in the forums, I've unjustly attacked individuals, posted profane words to circumvent the forum's filter blocks, I've been spiteful towards other members. I believe that whenever I've crossed those lines I've also gone back and sincerely apologized to those I've attacked or wronged in some way here. I have a tendency to react very knee-jerkishly to posts and after I calm down I (usually) see the folly of my ways and work to correct myself. That being said, how are we as a community allowing individuals to attack each other for 4-6 pages on a forum post and not step in to make it stop? A better question is, why don't the two of you take it to PMs? If there are only two of you arguing a topic (outside of the sandbox), maybe you need to realize that a) no one cares enough about what you two are saying to comment b) everyone is afraid that the hostility you are showing to the other person will be redirected at us if we dare speak against you c) we're so embarrassed at what is posted, we're working at distancing ourselves from the thread in it's entirety.
Here's my naive view and reason I stayed at TG and have continued my supporting membership, whenever financially able. When I've read the State of the Union posts, history of TG posts/interviews and the TG primer, I feel TG wants to support any game it's members have an interest in, some fit easily in the original mold of the ultra realism games that really made TG what it is today, some were modded to fit that mold, some don't fit. I've always seen the in game rules as a means to end actions that make the game unenjoyable for other players because every rule could be argued to death in this petty realism vs. "it's easy to counter so why worry about it" attitude that seems to dominate anything people find questionable. Also, where does it say that just because something doesn't fit within the TG playstyle, that there HAS to be a rule for admins to enforce???? I'm going to give an example of this and it's going to sound ridiculous and outrageous, but this is how ALL of these debates sound to me, just a different tactic in question.
Bunny hopping (if we didnít have a steadfast rule on this, this is how I imagine Ďcurrentlyí this would be debated on the forums)
Someone would create a post stating that this is unrealistic. That in combat, soldiers do not jump around to avoid being shot.
A few would sound in stating that yes/no, giving points this way or that, then there would be a few people that stand out and would state the following:
a) when someone is bunnyhopping, they canít shoot and they lose accuracy and it makes them very easy to kill (basically the argument that there is a very simple counter tactic to this and if you simply shot where they were going to land, theyíd be easy to kill)
b) itís a valid tactic because the developers didnít take jumping out all together
c) it can not be policed by the admins, therefore, a rule canít be made against it, therefore it should just be allowed to happen
and then others would come to rip apart posts a)-c) above by stating
a) in x game, itís been modded so that you canít jump, so we have to follow the same playstyle that x game uses (meaning that x game should be the model for all games)
b) in real life, soldiers canít jump, they carry too much weight it would be impossible (yes I have been guilty of using this very line)
Hopefully Iíve been able to aptly convey my view of how the recent discussions go down and how ridiculous they seem (from both sides) to me. Whenever I see a post about a tactic/action that someone has taken issue with, I think, if I was in their shoes, would that tactic/action make the game unenjoyable for me? or have a LOT of people posted stating that yes, this tactic/action makes the game unplayable? If I answer yes, then I feel itís in the best interest of the community for me to stop participating in that action. Unless the game was boiled down to two firing squads facing each other and each side empting round after round into the other teams line, the loss of a single tactic or ability to do something that helps me win rounds, wonít make the game unenjoyable for me. I can adapt.
Also, as a final note, if youíre having a back and forth argument (sorry ďdiscussionĒ) with another member and you interpret something they said incorrectly, either support your interpretation or apologize to them, you canít do both.
No announcement yet.
Uninteresting blog post