|
Post by [509th] killjoy on Apr 25, 2008 17:44:57 GMT -5
Like i said most if not all of your posts are argumentative and quit frankly this web site is NOT for your constant crying and No i am not out of line!
|
|
|
Post by ≤SBF≥Deviant on Apr 25, 2008 19:07:37 GMT -5
I have kept fairly quiet about this ordeal. I put in my 2 cents worth on the other thread. I have to take into account the way a server is ran and also how the clan reacts to other people and clans. I have been watching and learning. However, enough is enough. Most of us here are older players who have lives jobs and commitments to other areas of life. I personally do not wish to continue on with this application. I am too old and too unwilling to deal with the drama this seems to be bringing.
My final vote is no we just don't need the drama here.
|
|
|
Post by redbaron on Apr 25, 2008 20:04:18 GMT -5
Holy Moly!
You ask us questions, we answer them. Sorry you don't like our answers.
You call us what WE ARE NOT, we defend ourselves ... and you don't like our defensive statements. Sorry for this as well!
Quite simply, your frustration lies in our lack of willingness to LAY DOWN and allow you to call us what you wish. Sorry for this also.
The BOTTOM line is this, in a nutshell ... You have named your community "No Run&gun" and also use the term "Tactical Realism". You have your view of what those terms mean and we have our view. We believe we qualify as a "No Run & Gun and Tactical Realism" server. What's funny is, our different definitions are not all that different. We, quite simply, are more tolerant to unnecessary running than the majority of you. In fact, your tolerance level for unnecessary running is so low that you are willing to lose some "Tactical Realism" ... and our tolerance for running is higher, thereby losing some "tactical realism".
There has to be a happy medium, which is for you members to decide.
You say "Drama" ... I say point counterpoint. You say negative and arguementative ... I say "debate".
Sorry I am not so willing to give up and quit because you are not willing to communicate when the topic is clearly challenging.
You have power in this community, I do not. So, does that make you better than me? Does that make your statements more valid than mine?
Sorry that I have more tolerance than you to challenging communication and backbone enough to back up my statements.
Sorry I won't lay down and quit, because you think I should.
Red
|
|
|
Post by ≤SBF≥Deviant on Apr 25, 2008 21:04:59 GMT -5
People are asking for opinions I gave mine. You can continue to debate this with yourself all you want. You have my opinion, you know my answer. I don't speak for everyone here. And they will make up their own minds, to their decision, without influence from =SBF=. But, as far as I go this subject is dead.
|
|
|
Post by [509th] killjoy on Apr 25, 2008 21:13:59 GMT -5
I agree.
|
|
Jester
New Member
REDSQUAD CO
Posts: 13
|
Post by Jester on Apr 25, 2008 22:53:59 GMT -5
We all are part of a community that has a small niche in cod2 and cod4. We all know that when a new players finds one of our servers, they say "YES!!! Finally, I found the server I have been looking for!!!" Just like any other group, we will have diffferences of opinion. One clan may run their server the X way, another may run it the Y way. As long as we can accept and respect each their point of view we can succeed. We can agree to disagree and move on. None of us run our tactical servers exactly the same, and that is ok. But we all follow the same basic rules. Lets get this community going! I think many have forgotten the original poster's comments.Being able to "agree to disagree" has long been a problem within every and any tactical community that I am aware of, because it would seem that "Tactical" players are inherently born without that ability. These kinds of debates have ALWAYS historically come to pass as soon as a community decides to create a charter or "consistent rules" that serves to determine a clan's right to belong. My own most recent community creation at the TRC was thwarted even though we NEVER tried to create such a charter. The definition of "Tactical Realism" that I wanted to use was intended to be broad, so that many forms of such clans could co-exist, and though different, find SOME common ground. Unfortunately, even though there was no terribly stringent criteria for belonging, the topic of what makes a server "TR" came up, and divergent opinions were the catalyst of debate. As usual, the debate ended in someone taking their ball and going home (figuratively speaking). I think what needs to be understood by all, is that, as video games and the engines that they're built on have changed, so too have the ways that TR clans have administrated their servers. It doesn't mean that anyone is right or wrong, but only that we use different "versions" of Tactical Realism if you will. For some, that definition is more classic to the way it was interpreted and applied back in the "Medal of Honor: Spearhead" days, and for others, it is dramatically different, and involves more of what modding and new engines have allowed. Jazz (or anyone really) can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that even though they've adopted the "NoRnG" tag here, it is fair to say that the clans that founded THIS particular community can also be considered "Crouch Only" or "Crouch Mostly" clans. It's the reliance on player stance being specific that defines these groups within the realm of "Tactical Realism" (and perhaps made them feel less welcome at the TRC although I STILL personally consider us brethren in many ways).It's also important to note that most laypersons are NOT authors. Most of us lack the experience or talent to compose prose that will be understood by the reader just as we intend it. It should be enough that within this or any internet community board, that we all understand that someone may not be trying to sound venomous, and that their words may be more benign than you imagine. My posts on these boards have already been misconstrued by some, and I never felt anger or ill-will toward anyone as I wrote. The problem is that the words, when read, are put through the filters of those reading them, and the result is generally what they want or expect it to be. This, nor any other topic, should ever be considered dead.
Debate is what spurs growth.
Open minds breeds commeraderie.
Opposite points of view develops tolerance.
If we are mostly men of advanced years, then we should act like it. If we truly seek a healthy, and helpful community, then these things should always be in our minds as we communicate.
|
|
|
Post by {MAD} highlonesome on Apr 26, 2008 11:08:58 GMT -5
JESTER!!! I always love your post!! The BOTTOM line is this, in a nutshell ... You have named your community "No Run&gun" and also use the term "Tactical Realism". You have your view of what those terms mean and we have our view. We believe we qualify as a "No Run & Gun and Tactical Realism" server. What's funny is, our different definitions are not all that different. We, quite simply, are more tolerant to unnecessary running than the majority of you. In fact, your tolerance level for unnecessary running is so low that you are willing to lose some "Tactical Realism" ... and our tolerance for running is higher, thereby losing some "tactical realism". Red OK- I think your exactly right. I will go back to my original question. Why do you guys WANT to be associated with a group that does not define themselves by the same standards as yourselves?? This group does not need to try and define TR or Tactical or any of those terms. What should be focused on is defining our group and I think that has been done and labeled NoRnG. We are a group within the TR or Tactical community that plays "Crouch Only". So engage in the forum, befriend the members and their servers, have fun, but don't push to wear TAGS or be included on a list of servers that you admit have a different view on Tactical gameplay. Lets move on to something that binds us not divides us. HL
|
|
|
Post by {LFNY}Sgt.Powers on Apr 26, 2008 12:59:06 GMT -5
Howdy! First I'd like to say that it is great to see everyone discussing the game. It's what perpetuates the community and keeps things going for us all. So in that aspect, excellent. I have been reading through everything a few times over and I see the various points of view trying to integrate themselves. In some aspects, I see them succeeding, in others struggling. However, I think that this demonstrates the nature of what is trying to be accomplished here. Bringing like groups/clans together. The key word here is "like" not "same". Obviously there are always going to be differences. Hence, if you've been reading my other posts, I was trying to suggest a broad enough guideline/statement (or whatever you want to call it) to describe those of us that could be found here, without getting into the nitty-gritty of our differences. So please excuse me as I carefully and politely say, it seems to be that there was a getting off on the wrong foot based on one of these differences. I see what everyone is saying, but as this progresses the more we seem to be posting at each other and less about explaining or clarifying the initial rule observation, which I think has mostly been done to the point where some have decided their own opinion on it and some are still thinking about it. This is actually the goal we're trying to seek. That we come to some understanding of our differences and similarities. Now with that said, I'm just another Admin running a couple servers coming in here, like most of you, seeing what this is all about, talking to people, learning about the different ways we all approach the game. I also appreciate the fact, and fully understand, how different points of view can be frustrating and yet I will say so far you've all tried very hard to keep it as civil as possible. I think that is a great testament to the respect we demand on our servers and how we bring that with us where we go. So I'd like to say that I think were on the right path here and have something good. Let's step back and look at the big picture. A clan has come here that does not allow running except under a certain condition and they try to spell that out in their rules. The powers that be, and maybe that's forming the committee spoken of, need to decide if that is sufficient to constitute a NoRnG server under the guidelines to be established here (Did I mention I was trying to suggest those? ). So if I were on such a committee , I would ask us to make that determination and if there were any indecision, to speak offline to the respective clan about the particulars of the indecision and then come to a conclusion. Then move on to whatever is next. My own members are very familiar with my novella writing style so I hope you don't hold that against me. Thank you for listening, and I hope I haven't pushed any wrong buttons for people. I just wanted to bring another perspective to the table in the hopes it facilitates reconciliation of the issue and allows us all to move on with business at hand. Much appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by copperhead on Apr 27, 2008 7:17:26 GMT -5
{LFNY}Sgt.Powers and highlonesome
You express both exactly what i think no need for me to add more....
Thanks and lets move on...
Copper-Head
|
|