BuzzerBeater Forums

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

Correction accepted. I'm sure you will accept that Manon has been the only person who has argued in favour of users acting on their own to prop the number of users, which is the reason why I challenged him to do it himself. Knecht had a perfectly understandable position about it: I don't think that should be done for free, the benefits and rewards are not enough, so I won't do it. Manon: it should be done for free, rewards are enough, but I've not done it and won't do it.

I stand corrected also on the fact that Manon didn't jump coachlambini the way you guys have done to others, though.


Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/1/2016 9:26:22 AM

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

A few quick notes, as I have many other things I need to be doing today and I'm not at all intent on going into everything you typed now or possibly ever.

First, whatever opinions I choose to express or not are my own choices. The fact that A and B are disagreeing on something doesn't mean that I have to specifically take a side on that or address that - or else I'd spend my entire life posting in every forum thread in which there's any hint of disagreement. A could post something I entirely disagree with but don't feel strongly enough to comment on, B can post something I agree with but in a way that I disagree with, and I can choose to discuss the part that I feel like discussing.

Second, Manon has already disputed your statement that he's suggesting users should be responsible for recruiting. If that was the point you were hoping to make, it appears we're in universal agreement.

Third, if your post had been something like "Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" then it would have been clear that you were trying to make a point, and that a reasonable expectation would be that Manon would (as he had) clarified his remarks, maybe some other people would have agreed with you, and we'd all be done with that.

But that wasn't at all what you posted. Not one sentence in your post was at all like that; the only reference at all to the topic of recruiting users began with "If you had any honesty at all". And your insistence that my post was to help Manon's point in this A/B nonsense is nonsense - I'm not defending what he said, or what you claim he said. Nor was your post on that topic at all. The post I responded to was nothing but taking an opportunity to react to one negative comment by pissing all over Manon in specific and the staff in general - and *that* is what I was responding to.

Read post 179 again, and tell me honestly if you think the point you are trying to make was: "Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" or if it was instead an attack on the staff to the point that there was not a single sentence that was primarily intended for anything other than to denigrate the staff.

If you're going to call out the idea of attacking the messenger rather than the topic, read post 179 again. Read my response again. Ask yourself why you have this notion that I should be discussing a topic that you yourself didn't feel worth the effort of making an honest attempt at.

I haven't been following forums lately, and don't have the energy to read through all of this, but something else has been bugging me.

Where exactly is the money going? There was plenty from Utopia, and community was hoping it would be invested into game development.

Since we know current active BBs are employees, and Mark owns the game, I'm starting to think Mark fills his pockets, while Marin,Patrick,Ryan do all the work. This would be really bad.

I apologize if it's against the rules to write about this kind of stuff, delete it if it is. But in that case, an ownership change would be the most important thing this game needs. Let the people who work get the rewards, and they will naturally try to improve their business.

taking an opportunity to react to one negative comment by pissing all over Manon in specific and the staff in general - and *that* is what I was responding to.

Not sure whether you're saying Manon was negative or not. The whole paragraph is a bit convoluted.

"Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" or if it was instead an attack on the staff to the point that there was not a single sentence that was primarily intended for anything other than to denigrate the staff.

I haven't made any remark about the mafia comment as there is none to be made, except that it shows that there are double standards applied towards different people. And a specific group of users which includes him and you (and others) and, surprisingly, is composed by GMs/ex-GMs, get really pissy when someone else writes things like that, but go out and defend or justify when it's one of you guys who does it.

There is no excuse you can bring up that will make me change my mind on this. And besides, I really don't want care about talking about the mafia comment and more about how you lot feel entitled to sabotage threads or people you don't like.

Read post 179 again, and tell me honestly if you think the point you are trying to make was: "Hey, Manon, I don't think that mafia comment was helpful. I don't think we should expect users to recruit" or if it was instead an attack on the staff to the point that there was not a single sentence that was primarily intended for anything other than to denigrate the staff.

No, no, you misunderstood there. My point was that there is a group of users which includes you and him, who are pathologically incapable of discussing anything they disagree with, mostly behind the reasoning that some users are only out on the forums to criticise. And if perchance someone points out the inconsistencies, the hypocrisy, the flip flopping, then the only way you react is accusing the other people of something, usually about them being negative and unconstructive and anything they say being irrelevant.

You have had so much of this attitude of yours on forums that Trainerman came out with the first post in months (some people even sent me emails about whether I knew what happened to him lol) and there you have people insulting him right away openly admitting they did not even read what he wrote. That dismissing attitude, that superficiality. If you haven't read a post and tried to understand what the other person had said what is the point of replying? How can it ever hope to be considered as constructive. You've had one such episode yourself here above...

If you're going to call out the idea of attacking the messenger rather than the topic, read post 179 again. Read my response again. Ask yourself why you have this notion that I should be discussing a topic that you yourself didn't feel worth the effort of making an honest attempt at.

Post 179 is clearly about Manon being hypocritical in his stance and trying to run away when being called out. At that point we were in fact discussing the hypocrisy of suggesting something you're not prepared to do yourself. He steered the discussion that way, he was given the chance to explain why he wasn't being hypocritical and instead he chose (see previous paragraph) an ad hominem attack.

In the context of post 175, post 179 looks actually right to the point. I just widened the scope a bit, to highlight that this kind of behaviour is not limited to this instance, but is fairly common to a specific group of people. He did nothing to refute my point, so he could have gone away quietly or he could have lied and said he proudly distributed 10k fliers in Stockholm to promote buzzerbeater, but he rather chose to close the conversation (that's what I meant by shutting down, not that you close the threads), but not before attacking the guy making the point! Which is exactly what post 179 was about.

Last edited by Lemonshine at 4/1/2016 6:52:38 PM

Hey guys, I found on old article on the origins of BB. Some of you might find it interesting .http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/blog/mass-high-tech/200...