BuzzerBeater Forums

Just to make clear, you're saying that anyone with a view disagreeing with a member of staff, or an ex member of staff, is being negative and its fine to use the term mafia along with that?

I typed my post out. I have re-read it a couple of times since I've read the words quoted above. And I am literally at a lack of words to explain how what I typed could have been interpreted as what I've bolded above.

I think I am going out of my way specifically to say that discussion, whether it agrees with the staff or not, is something I wholly endorse. I don't consider honest disagreement at all as being negative. I don't agree with every decision made by the staff, nor do I particularly expect that to ever change.

Before I go further on that, though, regarding "negativity mafia" - I'm not sure I would have used that term directly myself. If I had been in the group he was targeting, I might have reacted pretty much as you did, other than I would not be personally offended by the term since it's pretty generic. And by the time I read the post, you had already responded, and as you know and as I have made exceptionally clear, my bar for deleting a post is very high and that simply did not meet it.

And now we merge back to the main track, the subject of "negativity". If you'd like to consider Manon's post as negative, that's your right. Heck, I wouldn't even argue. Nor did I ever say I approved of his post, other than to say that it was much less sarcastic than some posts that I or Lemonshine, for example, would have made. But of course, I didn't feel obliged to respond to your post, or Manon's, or Ryan's, or really anything in the thread until Lemonshine used the specific words: hypocrisy, censor and honesty (claiming an absence thereof).

Can you see the difference in how you and he reacted to the same post? Your response was an intelligent response to something that you took affront at, and his response was to escalate and throw out specific words that can not be used as part of a constructive argument.

So that, of course, I personally took offense to, especially because he'd used the same hypocrisy word just seven days ago toward me. And so I called him on it - trying to show, factually, that the censorship he accused the staff of in this thread did not exist. I also disagreed with his use of those terms and said that it would be hard for me personally to consider anything he's talking about if he's going to throw out those accusations without justification.

So getting back to it, I don't think disagreement is negativity. I think what *HE* posted was negative in the extreme, and I retain my rights to post here to share my opinions just like he does.

Its easy to attack Lemonshine and other users, but I am always amazed by how quick members of staff are to defend their friends. Always in these threads GMs jump in in threes and fours, without reading the entire thread and taking into account the the context of each post.

It's easy to attack when someone is calling you a hypocrite, or calling you a censor, or a liar. As you said in the part of the post I cut out, you reacted similarly when accused of saying something by an EGM. Call me a liar, call me a hypocrite, call me a censor, and if I notice it, see how I react. Do it repeatedly, see how my opinion of you changes. But, of course, the counterbalance is that if you're not doing those things, the discussions are a whole lot more pleasant, even if we still disagree.

Dishonesty. Censorship. Hypocrisy. Those are loaded words, and they're definitely things to shun.

I disagree. Words are to be used correctly or not at all. Like the word "negativity." Perfectly good word when used properly. Not so good when its the wrong word.

Bad phrasing on my part. The traits are to be shunned, not the use of the words - when appropriate. My feelings on the appropriateness of them in this context I trust ar

Basketball GM is excellent, if it wasnt for the very slow simulation after a couple seasons... I think a multiplayer version exists.

Ya, the data builds up fast since its all stored on your computer (no servers). In case you don't know, the site allows you to clear the data to speed up the simulation when it starts slowing down. Also, I've read about multiplayer leagues, but I'm pretty sure those leagues work by having a single person running it and everyone else just emails him when they want to make moves.

I think if the developer built a regular multiplayer version, it would be very successful. I do like how he seems quite involved with the community and regularly updates the game.

This whole "what have you done for me lately" discussion is useless.

As there is no incentive for me to advertise the game, I'm just stating that nobody should count on me to get word on the streets. If BBs offers little to no value to managers who advertise the game, BB wont get many people to put in the extra work. Thats no cynicism, sarcasm or whatever type of negativity some might read into my comment.

A month supporter (value $4) for 40 referrals. Doubling Austria would be worth like six dollars.

I agree, but your post consisted entirely of over-the-top sarcasm.

Ok that's fair enough. Would you make the same remarks for, let pick a random one, hrudey? I have never ever seen any other GM moving the same criticism to hrudey and he uses sarcasm more often than I do, usually to 'mock' other users, to say it with your words.

That's kind of vague. If you'd like, you can send me a BB-mail consisting of more detail and we can try to resolve these concerns

I will most certainly do.

Source? I'm not being facetious, I'd actually like to see where these comments were written. I was mostly inactive for a two year stretch so it's entirely possible that I missed this.

Will send you this by email so you will also understand that me mentioning hrudey above is not a random comment.

I hope this line isn't in response to the comment I made to you.

Of course it's not, I have no problem whatsoever with you. You seem to be a very reasonable person who is actually reading and trying to understand where people are coming from (although I would have liked that you had spent a word on Manon's post, rather than singling me out). Which is pretty much the opposite attitude other members/former members of staff demonstrate on forums routinely (including Marin when he was a bit more active on the forums a few seasons ago). Clearly I have a problem specifically with these members/ex-members of staff (which includes hrudey), who are, to say the least, unhelpful in their participation in the forums in their 'user' capacity, as they put it.

You can just go back and re-read from the HELPFUL suggestion a new participant to this thread made and that Manon, being one of those that perceive any kind of suggestion/complaint as an attack on the BB staff and management, successfully managed to turn into a discussion about what he thinks users should be prepared to do on their own. Also trying to take the higher moral ground in the discussion (which I find lame, hypocritical and unacceptable and is the reason I finally decided to intervene in the discussion). So we have not discussed the original opinion. We have not praised the user for making a meaningful contribution. Certainly a job well done members/former members of staff (the usual ones, not you) that took upon themselves to drive conversations in the ground or sidetrack them according to their own personal opinions.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/1/2016 8:15:33 AM

I don't know how much your word means to you. I thought you said you'd stay away from the discussion. If I say something like that, I do it.

The above went like this:
1. Someone who does not usually use the forums wrote a post with a sensible suggestion about how to promote the game. This is RELEVANT to this thread. This is spot on on TOPIC. This is CONSTRUCTIVE.
2. God forbid. You came out right away and asked why he couldn't do it himself? This is NOT constructive. Note that you did NOT discuss whether the suggestion itself had merit, you were only out to get someone who dared to suggest that the management should consider an idea
3. Knecht weighed in and said users don't have any meaningful incentive by the game to do things like this on their own. At this point you had already reached your objective since you successfully managed to derail the conversation from "this is a good idea" to "why don't you do things like this on your own"
4. You say that increasing users is a big enough reward. Nobody really challenged the underlying assumption that working for free would produce results, but that's fine
5. Knecht explained it won't make a difference in his country even if he dedicated himself to promote the game for free
6. At this point I had enough of you acting as some kind of Mother Theresa and I pointed out that, logically, if you really believe what you are asking others to do is worthwhile, you can surely show everyone you have done in the past or tell us what exactly you're planning to do to promote BB for free, which is exactly what you are asking others to do.

Note that I CHOSE not to comment after number 2 and I did only after you insisted. The same way I gave hrudey the benefit of the doubt in the FA thread before commenting. And the same way I refrained from posting further there after I collected 5 threads worth of comments from 7-8 years ago regarding the issue.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/1/2016 8:38:59 AM

I don't know how much your word means to you. I thought you said you'd stay away from the discussion. If I say something like that, I do it.

The above went like this:
1. Someone who does not usually use the forums wrote a post with a sensible suggestion about how to promote the game. This is RELEVANT to this thread. This is spot on on TOPIC. This is CONSTRUCTIVE.
2. God forbid. You came out right away and asked why he couldn't do it himself? This is NOT constructive. Note that you did NOT discuss whether the suggestion itself had merit, you were only out to get someone who dared to suggest that the management should consider an idea
3. Knecht weighed in and said users don't have any meaningful incentive by the game to do things like this on their own. At this point you had already reached your objective since you successfully managed to derail the conversation from "this is a good idea" to "why don't you do things like this on your own"
4. You say that increasing users is a big enough reward. Nobody really challenged the underlying assumption that working for free would produce results, but that's fine
5. Knecht explained it won't make a difference in his country even if he dedicated himself to promote the game for free
6. At this point I had enough of you acting as some kind of Mother Theresa and I pointed out that, logically, if you really believe what you are asking others to do is worthwhile, you can surely show everyone you have done in the past or tell us what exactly you're planning to do to promote BB for free, which is exactly what you are asking others to do.

Note that I CHOSE not to comment after number 2 and I did only after you insisted. The same way I gave hrudey the benefit of the doubt in the FA thread before commenting. And the same way I refrained from posting further there after I collected 5 threads worth of comments from 7-8 years ago regarding the issue.

You missed a little bit of it. A more accurate timeline is:

1. Someone who isn't active in the global forums as much as the local forums did have a sensible suggestion.
2. Knecht responded to it with "Whats the incentive to do so? 4 weeks supporter? Yeehaaaaa.."
3. Manon answered knecht: more users in the game".
4. a couple of posts on an earlier discussion from O Bear and justme.
5. Knecht says that users need to be rewarded for doing the work of promoting the game.
6. Manon says "if you don't want new users, I don't know what to say."
and so on.

Now, your assertion is that coachlambini made a suggestion, and Manon immediately came out and asked why he couldn't do it himself. That is absolutely, undeniably false - coachlambini made his post, knecht immediately dismissed it, and Manon engaged Knecht. I'm sure that was an honest mistake and that you'll appreciate the correction.

So to be absolutely clear, this discussion has not been censored.

Meh, look I wasn't expecting you to get it: I was referring to one of Knecht's threads from some time ago (explicitly about a honest discussion about censorship) which I read and chose not to participate in! I hope you feel more at ease now that you know I was not referring to you or this thread. It was to describe the general attitude of some GMs towards some users, I left it generic on purpose...

It serves absolutely no constructive purpose whatsoever, other than to satisfy whatever personal animosity you have towards whatever members of the staff you're currently feuding with.

Ha! and here I thought I had been the bigger person in the other thread (about FA), after I collected -as LeBron would say- not one, not two, not three...but 5 threads from 7-8 years ago which I could have used against you and I let you have the last word that is clearly so important to you. I wonder what you would have said now if I did!

In any case, as everyone can read for himself earlier in the thread, I did not start the shenanigans here. In fact, you will struggle to find some sarcastic and provocative post by me which is not a reaction to somebody else's post. Also it was not me who doubled down on some hypocritical hot take with some organised crime analogy.

Personally, I can't understand how you don't realise that your posts, this one included, will never have the effect you claim to strive for (constructive discussion). And personally I can't, for the life of me, understand how is it so difficult to understand that most people go on a game forum and post when they have a problem. When I was looking for old threads to show you why your claims on FAs were unsubstantiated, guess who popped up several times complaining and arguing with members of staff? Yeah, a current member of staff who was not a member of staff back then.

If you don't like the fact that we're not enthusiastically parroting your every word, speaking only for myself, please excuse me for reserving for myself the same right to express my opinion as I afford you and every other person who posts here.

You couldn't be farther from the truth. The problem is not that you express your opinions, it's that you would like others not to express theirs because you disagree and rather than discussing about the merit of what's being said, you prefer to drive the conversation into the ground (again, for the avoidance of doubt, I'm not talking about myself). And I admit you're not even the worst out there, as you only do that when you have exhausted other options (which usually involve using sarcasm), while others proceed immediately to the final solution.

Hypocrisy. Those are loaded words, and they're definitely things to shun.

Then do tell me which adjective you would use to describe someone who insists someone else does a job for free (apparently for the greater good), but he himself has never done that and doesn't think he should do that either.

highly unlikely to make me consider the rest of the words you throw out alongside them as having any value.

See point about shutting down conversations. It appears the mafia can discuss the merit of a specific point but others can't. So, if person A points out person B inconsistencies, you're not even trying to make the case that that person B is actually reasonable, you prefer to just attack person A or dismiss his entire point because of something completely unrelated to it and perhaps your own personal animosity with person A. So, I ask you, whose opinion has more value, the guy who wants to discuss the merit of an opinion or they guy who wants to avoid discussing it? Again so we're on the same page: I'm A, Manon is B and you're the guy who's trying to help B, not on merit, but by attacking A. If you really wanted to discuss the merit of my assertions you would explain to us why it's not hypocritical to behave like Man