| jdginaz | 18 Oct 2013 7:46 p.m. PST |
"She looks about 10 years of age. Absolutely priceless and confirms my suspicions!!" Well Raglan it's obvious that you have no experience around Philippine people you simply can not judge them by their looks in comparison to Caucasian women, but your post here make it apparent that you are to arrogant to accept the word of others who have actual knowledge of the subject |
| The Sentient Bean | 18 Oct 2013 10:00 p.m. PST |
Bill, what sort of access do your new editors have to your site? Are payment details (past and present) accessible by your new Editors? I'm interested, in the event that I re-up my membership at some point in the future. |
| Lord Raglan | 19 Oct 2013 1:05 a.m. PST |
These will be my final comments on this matter, as I now intend to deal with this in a different way. Bill
This argument was never about who you employed, their age and nationality. It was about the public image that you were portraying to the world about yourself and by association, the members of TMP. I find it deeply uncomfortable to visit a wargaming forum and to be confronted by random images of pubescent looking Asian females on its pages. What message does this give to the world about wargamers in general. We had a private discussion about this matter a few months ago, at the time I believed that you accepted the logic to my protest and were going to review your standpoint. However, you have persisted with a behaviour that I feel raises some serious questions about your character. Asian females in particular, are often targets for exploitation by middle aged white western men. These predators are not attracted to these women because they are look like young adult women. They are attracted to them because these women look like children. Regardless of their actual age, your "editors" Claire and Alexa look like children, 14 and 10 years of age respectively. I am also informed by a fellow TMPers, that a photo of "editor" Julia in just her pants and not a lot else, exists in the lounge area of this forum. Regardless of your motives (which I truly hope are genuine) I can't except this behaviour as reasonable for a forum of this nature and I need to distance myself from it. There is absolutely no legitimate reason to parade these young women in such a fashion. Instead, you could have simply employed them and have done with it. For those TMP members who do not agree with my opinion, ask yourself this question – if you had a daughter, would you be happy to have her photo displayed in such a way on an international forum which is attended daily by 1,000s of attendees who appear to be male, middle-aged and upwards? I sincerely hope my concerns are mis-founded, however I also hope that paying individual members and supporting companies reflect on whether they want to continue to be associated with this type questionable behaviour. Raglan |
| Marcus Maximus | 19 Oct 2013 1:48 a.m. PST |
Maybe we have all forgotten about this story…. TMP link |
| Lord Raglan | 19 Oct 2013 2:39 a.m. PST |
For those of you who can access the "lounge" section of this forum: TMP link I am certain there are no legitimate reasons to have semi-naked photos of your female employees posted on your website with accompanying lewd comments from your customers. Raglan |
| ferg981 | 19 Oct 2013 2:53 a.m. PST |
All I've followed this conversation for a while now, choosing not to comment. However I feel that a lot of you seem to have misinterpreted or misunderstood the point Raglan is trying to make and its turned into a flame war. My take on this is that I'm sure the deputy editors are qualified to do the job they do. However if this is the case then there is (as Raglan says) no reason for needing photographs like the one linked above. I could sit next to Bill on the bus and be none the wiser, yet I know what a deputy editor looks like topless from behind which doesn't seem right. Equally TMP members should probably avoid the lewd comments. I'm no prude and a fan of banter but some individuals have clearly over stepped the mark on a few occasions, especially as these ladies are lawfully employed for their computer skills not the way they look. I think we've all seen naked 20 something ladies in our lives, but the way some are acting you'd think they spent their lives in a box and never seen such a thing! This is still a wargames forum, there are many websites out there with naked 20 year olds we can choose to view whenever we want, should we wish I think Raglans main point is that the lines appeared to have become blurred recently. thanks f |
| Editor Alexa | 19 Oct 2013 3:23 a.m. PST |
OMG I am surprised you have a topic like this about hiring new editors. just because of gender? or the looks? or the age. Honestly, I am 29 years old. I am not too young to kick all your butts heheheh. Bill explained what happens on this website. He told to me about the age of most here. So what I will contribute on this site. Since I am new here my contribution, my dedication, my hard work, and my eagerness to learn more about this hobby. The only thing I can say is DON'T JUDGE THE BOOK BY THE COVER… Thank you! |
| Editor Alexa | 19 Oct 2013 3:25 a.m. PST |
This is for all of you guys. if you want talk to me about this matter, I am open. |
 Editor in Chief Bill   | 19 Oct 2013 4:57 a.m. PST |
Bill, what sort of access do your new editors have to your site?Are payment details (past and present) accessible by your new Editors? No. |
| Silent Pool | 19 Oct 2013 5:05 a.m. PST |
Hmmn, what do the lady TMPers think about all this? |
| Marcus Maximus | 19 Oct 2013 6:51 a.m. PST |
I hadn't seen the photo in this link Now I'm horrified. I could never condone that sort of behaviour or justify it when concerning members of staff. I have dismissed staff on lesser charges. I agree with ferg981 that the point that Lord Raglan has been trying to state is that lines have definitely become blurred. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 19 Oct 2013 9:11 a.m. PST |
Julia has chosen to remove the photo. TMP link |
| The Sentient Bean | 19 Oct 2013 7:38 p.m. PST |
Good to know, re financials. If what I've read above regarding a semi-naked photo and fauning posters is true.. I'm sorry, I don't care if the photo had been removed, I'm disgusted and disappointed. Can we have The MINIATURES Page back? This development is very creepy. |
| NWMike | 19 Oct 2013 10:32 p.m. PST |
Bringing up the Edwards case is a good example of how overboard this issue has gone. The hysteria of a couple of the members here would be humorous if it wasn't so frightening. "Can we have The MINIATURES Page back? This development is very creepy." No – what is creepy is the reaction of some members. |
| The Sentient Bean | 20 Oct 2013 12:45 a.m. PST |
You're creeped out by people who think that parading "young girls" on a message board about miniatures is creepy? That's creepy, dude. |
| Marc the plastics fan | 20 Oct 2013 4:10 a.m. PST |
Sorry, I don't see Rags problem here. I am middle aged (yikes, 48, perhaps I have more life experience than Rags), but can see a selfie of an asian woman without it making me want to abuse children. Perhaps Rags needs to get out more. I I work in the charity sector, mentor children at school, help teach "deprived" kids to read at schools so have a small understanding of the needs for child protection. But photos of 20 year old asian women is nothing I am going to get worked up over. Methinks he may have his own personal issues to address if he is reading so much into so little. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 20 Oct 2013 7:20 a.m. PST |
…parading "young girls" on a message board about miniatures… If I can remind you of the facts: * we're talking, for the most part, about photos shown when a new person is hired. This is normal for any business.
* the editors select their own photo
* our editors have an average age of 25.67 – they are NOT children
* in one case, Editor Julia posted a questionable photo when joking around with her friend smokeyroan. The photo only displayed a bare back, so I did not think it violated forum rules. Julia has since chosen to remove the picture, and has apologized to the TMP membership. |
| The Sentient Bean | 20 Oct 2013 4:56 p.m. PST |
|
| Editor in Chief Bill | 20 Oct 2013 5:35 p.m. PST |
Indeed they do, Sentient Bean. Glad you see it my way. |
| The Sentient Bean | 20 Oct 2013 5:44 p.m. PST |
|
| JCBJCB | 20 Oct 2013 6:38 p.m. PST |
"Being able to not see topics started by people whom I have stifled would get me to join back right away. As it is now, I will wait till I have something to sell in the market place before I join again." This.^^^ A stifle does not help purge the homepage of endless lists of topics started at random by an individual who seems to have some kind of neurotic need for attention. It's enough already. I find myself accidently clicking on this stuff, and barring the ability to stifle topics started by stifled usernames, I won't renew. It's irritating beyond belief. Per Raglan's commments, repeated photos of editors who all look alike, who are all female, who are all of the same age, all from the same place, etc., seems weird. I'm sorry, it's weird – and I'm perfectly open to the possibility that I'm a prude of a suspicious bent. What are the chances that every single qualified person one hires to work on a website shares a common ethnicity, gender and age range? It's creepy. I'm sorry. Even my wife thought it was strange. |
| Editor in Chief Bill | 20 Oct 2013 6:58 p.m. PST |
…repeated photos of editors who all look alike, who are all female, who are all of the same age, all from the same place, etc., seems weird… 1. You think they all look alike? Maybe you can't tell one Filipina from another, that's not their fault!  2. Does their gender matter, if they can do the job? 3. They're not the same age – Alexa admits to being 29, the average age is 25.67. 3. They are from the same country, but different islands. I have Philippine connections. That's where I've found people to hire. Once I hired Julia, news spread about this great job, and lots of people applied. |
| Abwehrschlacht | 21 Oct 2013 8:12 a.m. PST |
So, are we dumping the Stifles board or what? |
| jpattern2 | 22 Oct 2013 12:24 p.m. PST |
I'd say this falls into the "or what" category. |
| Whirlwind | 23 Oct 2013 9:50 a.m. PST |
How come Andrew Preziosi crumbled? I thought it was a good idea to hold out on upgrading until the Editor gets rid of the stifle counts… |
 John the OFM  | 23 Oct 2013 10:00 a.m. PST |
…until the Editor gets rid of the stifle counts… HOW MANY TIMES are we going to have Polls on this? Every time it's brought up, the TMP membership votes to keep the stifle policy EXACTLY the way it is. The vote was not even close. |
| Whirlwind | 23 Oct 2013 10:31 a.m. PST |
Fine, but the guy said he wasn't going to upgrade to supporting membership until The Editor got rid of it, so I was wondering when/why he changed his mind? I don't know how many polls will be had on it. But there could be 200 and it would still be a terrible idea. Regards |
| Sandinista | 23 Oct 2013 2:39 p.m. PST |
Just read all of this, surreal. Raggers is quality, there are BBC3 comedies not as good as this |
| John Treadaway | 25 Oct 2013 3:57 a.m. PST |
@ Lord Raglan I was surprised to observe the editor of a wargaming forum whose members are mainly "anonymous" middle aged men, had decided to parade his young Asian female employees like a trophy. Here's a thought 'Raggers': try being part of the solution and not part of the problem. If there's one thing that aids grooming, crime and all sorts of other things on the interweb its anonymous postings. I go under the cunning nome du guerre of the one on my Driving Licence/Birth certificate. So how about you stop being an 'anonymous middle aged man' and put your name up there? Own your opinions rather than shouting from the back of the room wearing (effectively) a 'mask'. What are you hiding? As I said several posts ago, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not in my opinion. Most people are entitled to an opinion, I grant you, but not absolutely everyone. In my opinion. It's why, for just one example, I'm against the idea of convicts in chokey being allowed to vote: just one example of people who have been removed from society (temporarily) who's opinions I do not want to e canvassed or allowed to affect the rest of society. Just my opinion… I hope I'm entitled to that. I happen to have 23 years experience in my profession and this situation makes me smell a rat. Me too: working in Social Care and Health for a local authority for over a quarter of a century. Me thinks thou does protest too much. You remind me of a nurse I know who is convinced that riding a motorcycle is tantamount to a death wish because she sees injured motorcyclists all the time. She works in A&E… Go figure. Me… I've been riding a bike for 35 years and had one accident. It depends on what you do for your day job and how much perspective you can bring to muster, I guess. As a paying customer of this group discussion forum, I have a right to voice my opinion about content I find distasteful. You have no more right to a freedom of speech than a non paying customer. The right to an opinion is not based on wealth or spending power. At least – in the UK at least – not in theory (unless you also support the idea that rich people should be allowed to get away with crimes because they employ good, expensive lawyers). However, the right to freedom of speech is tempered by many other things: misfounded accusations in a public area is one such item (ask Sally Bercow) link You have no right to shout "fire" in a crowded theatre. Actually, that's not true: you do have the right. You just have to be prepared to face the consequences… Again, Sally Bercow… Bill runs a great service. And he looks like a fabulously wealthy man on the back of it… Not. Be careful what you wish for, people. What do you not do on your own doorstep? As a final comment, Bill Armintrout (or who ever you are really – that's obviously a pen name…) can employ who the h*ll he likes as far as I'm concerned. John "Not pretending to be someone else" Treadaway |
| idontbelieveit | 26 Oct 2013 9:26 a.m. PST |
|
| Whirlwind | 26 Oct 2013 10:16 a.m. PST |
I might renew. I definitely will if he gets rid of the stifle count. |
| Joes Shop | 27 Oct 2013 4:50 a.m. PST |
I renewed for a year (early). |
| Gwydion | 27 Oct 2013 8:21 a.m. PST |
@John Treadaway Brave rant against a man who can't answer you. |
| Ben Avery | 27 Oct 2013 12:27 p.m. PST |
To be honest Gwydion, I'd given John the benefit of the doubt and assumed he had missed the locking of Lord Raglan's account, as well as the fact he has a picture of himself uploaded. I do wish this nonsense about 'real' names would disappear though. Maybe it's a generational thing, but on a site where people admit to having numerous alternate accounts, condoned by the owner and with no requirement to provide real identification (like most forums), with little chance of knowing more than a tiny proportion of members in real life, then I fail to understand why it's such a big deal. As for Lord Raglan, I think it's unfortunate he started talking about trafficking because it gave a number of members the opportunity to jump all over this issue rather than addressing some rather more pertient points he had raised. Why Macunaima had to bring up the Superbowl or domestic sexual abuse I have no idea. Just because one thing isn't as serious as another thing, doesn't mean it should be ignored though. I don't think that Bill is interested in trafficking the editors, but I think he should have shown more consideration towards his employees. The term 'parading' was used and somewhat appropriately, particularly when condoning what happened in the Lounge. I think Lord Raglan and others raised a number of very valid points, although certain people chose to ignore them in favour of what they wanted to read. I'm sure Bill wasn't really surprised by how excitable certain members got when the new editors were wheeled out, nor stupid enough to not see that lines had become blurred. I would have thought though, that a better command of English would have been required for the position. Ultimately though I think Bill will be delighted with how things have turned out. Making a living, or indeed several livings, from a wargames site is impressive and Bill has shown in the past that stirring the pot, arbitary and capricious decisions and playing the martyr lead to plenty of page hits, supporting memberships aplenty and a chorus of the rather moronic 'Bill's House, Bill's Rules,' which seems to be the equivalent of 'You're either with us, or against us.' I do think 'training' should have made the editors aware of potential issues, when we are talking about different cultures after all, but where would the entertainment have been in that? |
| John Treadaway | 27 Oct 2013 4:03 p.m. PST |
Gwydion I was certainty not aware that whoever Lord Raglan really is had has his account blocked when I wrote that. There's no bravery – or even sarcasm – required. Whenever I write anything on the web I put my name on it (however many other email accounts under imaginary names others may have or use) because I believe it encourages me to temper my responses. Because, as someone who doesn't operate under the (I believe) quite juvenile and potentially damaging veil of annonymity, I run the risk of someone coming up to me at (for example) Salute – where I've been every April for the last thirty years – and punch me on the nose. So my stance on my lack of a nomme de plume aids my civilty, keeps me honest (to my own self be true) and gives others the opportunity to challenge me or my views not on an internet forum (where, to be honest, who cares) but in the real world. "Lord Raglan" – or anyone else who's prepared to give me their name* – can discuss their vkews with me any time they want to. That doesn't require 'bravery' from either party. Just integrity. I don't think, by the way, that this is "Bill's house, Bill's rules" and I don't think he – or his policies are above criticsm or scrutiny. I'm just not a fan of the, I think, ill advised way it has been done, on this occasion. I also cautioned people to be careful what people do "on their own door steps". Consider these points if you so desire: If Bill's only interest was to encourage page interaction and raise page hits (and thereby advertising revenue) why have a policy of curtailing discussion on politcs and religion (even a mention of the 4 letter 'n' word – the 30s-40s german politics one got me doghoused). Allowing discussions on those topics would probably get the hits/revenue up! Yet he doesn't do that. So perhaps hits aren't his sole motivation… If folks don't like Bill's editorial decisions they can make the same choices as I did when I found out a certain coffee retailers attitudes to paying Tax in the UK and stop using their stores. Just a thought… John T
* or even annonymously if they want to, I guess
|
| Gwydion | 28 Oct 2013 8:49 a.m. PST |
John,
Fair enough if you didn't know LR's account had been locked. As for reasons for anonymity – you don't know(and neither do I) why LR availed himself of this option Bill presents for our delectation. It could be for many reasons, many of them sound and reasonable. I see no lack of integrity. I have no desire to punch you on the nose, so Salute seems likely to remain free of that controversy at least. As for a solution regarding coffee stores – there are many responses to a disagreement with their policies – not all involving withdrawal from use.
Best wishes
Guy |
| Ben Avery | 28 Oct 2013 2:29 p.m. PST |
I can only concur with Gwydion's sentiments. I would say though that prisoners can have opinions whether John likes it or not – voting is more than opinion though. |
| John Treadaway | 28 Oct 2013 3:39 p.m. PST |
I would say though that prisoners can have opinions whether John likes it or not pmh1882. I'm sorry, I don't really understand, and I don't think I'm being deliberately thick. People in prison have every right to an opinion. Sure. My argument (which is off thread but was there simply as an example) is that I personally would rather that they didn't have an active participation in the decisions pertaining to our society at large (ie voting in a National Election) if, by dint of their own actions, they wind up detained at Her Majesty's Pleasure. So we agree on that one then, do we? (it's hard to tell from your response). But anyway, like I said, that was simply an example of how (almost) everyone gets a say and is tangential, somewhat, to the argument at hand: that being the assertion – counter to the points made by "Lord Raglan" – which I made stating that (almost) everyone, on the basis of 'freedom of speech', is entitled to an opinion (which I can chose to ignore or not) irrespective of how much money they pay and providing we all accept that you have to pay the price (Sally Bercow/Fire in a Theatre blah blah blah). So the point "Lord Raglan" made of 'I pay my dues and am therefore entitled to an opinion' is, I believe, irrelevant. That was the point I was struggling to make (and obviously not succeeding with the clarity that I strove for). As for reasons for anonymity – you don't know(and neither do I) why LR availed himself of this option Bill presents for our delectation. It could be for many reasons, many of them sound and reasonable. Gwydion, I have an easy stance for that: there are no reasons that I can think of that are either ‘sound' or ‘reasonable' as to why an adult in the UK would hide his true identity on a toy soldier forum. Hense my questioning people's intergrity when they choose to do so. If someone has a form of, say, employment that deems it unacceptable, I guess, maybe that might be a point but – I have to say – I've never come across one. Have you? I am happy to stand corrected, though. Are we so ashamed of our hobby that we wish to hide it away (and our involvement with it) from our loved ones? In the UK at least there are no concerns, surely, about political or religious persecution to posting on a toy soldier web site (and "Lord Raglan" is from the UK). So that can't be it… So, can someone tell, what is the reason that people, in general, don't reveal their true identities on internet forums? In my opinion, it's the same reason that people do anything anonymously: It's ‘fun' in a juvenile sort of way to live out a fantasy where you pretend you are someone else (that's why I play with toy soldiers, of course: I get that, and- on that level at least – there's nothing really wrong with that). However, it also makes it easier to ‘shout from the back' and not have to account for your actions. Who, me sir? No: you must be mistaken – I would never say such a thing… It's much easier to be ‘brave' and forthright when you don't have to be held to account for your words and that's the reason why I don't do it. So the comments about ‘bravery' when someone can't ‘answer back' on a forum is turned on its head if they are too (what's the opposite of brave? I guess ‘cowardly' is the only word I can think of: yes…) ‘cowardly' to declare who they are in the first place and come out of the shadows. As I have said many times on this forum, own your own opinions, gentlemen. Finally, I suspect that the reason that Bill the Editor allows anonymous postings is to keep up the numbers who would simply not involve themselves with this forum if they were made to reveal their ‘given' names. Who knows? What I do know is that I am unlikely to be able to persuade people who are already committed to a mind set that allows for anonymity to a different way of thinking, so – having said my piece – I'll shut up on it for now. As ever, the luxury I offer is that – if you wish to debate this further – I'll be one of the chaps running the Cloudships game at Salute (if all goes according to plan). But can you wait until I've actually finished playing with the toy soldiers? Ta! John Treadaway |
| Cincinnatus | 28 Oct 2013 5:06 p.m. PST |
Companies definitely search out your online activities when considering you for a job. If someone is going for a senior level position at a large company and the search turns up innocent comments related to war gaming, do you feel comfortable that aspect of the person's private life won't impact the company's decision? WE all know war gaming is a hobby but not everyone outside is so well informed (especially here in the US). The last thing I want is some ill-informed HR person putting in a negative comment about me because they don't understand the hobby I am involved in. Whether they think I am a war monger or have a fascination with guns or just that I play with toys on the weekend, it's none of their damn business. The problem is you may never even get a chance to explain. It will just be a hidden ding on the resume that you didn't even know was there. And don't think just because you are always polite when you post that it will make a difference. You will be known by the company you keep. Think of it this way – two guys go for a senior VP job. They are both very qualified. Person A plays golf on the weekend. Person B plays with toys and has posted 30,000 times on a public website about them. Do you really think person B won't be negatively impacted by their hobby choice? |
| John Treadaway | 28 Oct 2013 5:40 p.m. PST |
Sure Cincinnatus, that's why people do it: to leave the way open for their rise to power as they climb their respective corporate ladders… Nothing to do with the reasons I suggested whatsoever. But in all fairness, I did ask for an example. If people cared about that, no one would own a Facebook page or use Twitter: more people have been torpedoed at interviews via those two gems than any other invention mankind has ever created (including dirty shoes). I wonder what the proportion is of people who both use FB and Twitter and post on here annonymously? If statistics are anything to go by, north of 40% would be my guess… Good luck with the interviews everyone :) John T |
| Cincinnatus | 28 Oct 2013 7:41 p.m. PST |
Bug got me. I'll give you the quick and dirty – most people don't hide behind a nickname because they want to be free to say whatever they feel without being punched in the mouth. They do it because they don't care to have their co-workers google them and see they play with toy soldiers on the weekend. Those same people might have Facebook accounts but they don't post about their hobby there either. Your "run off at the mouth because I'm anonymous" is a very small fraction of the people here. |
| John Treadaway | 29 Oct 2013 12:39 a.m. PST |
Cincinnitus… you know what? Maybe you're right. Or maybe I'm right. How will we ever know? Some empirical tests could be done, I guess, but that would probably mean forcing folks to use this forum only if they did a 'reveal' and I'm not up for that, even were it practical (which it patently isn't) because I'm no more a fan of forcing people to do stuff than anyone else is. Peoples' motives for what they do or don't do are their own, whether they admit them to themselves or not. Speculation on them by others is always fraught with danger and replete with opportunities to guess wrongly. A bit like guessing on the emplyoment policies and motivations of the editor in chief of The Miniatures Page, really… John T |
| Joes Shop | 29 Oct 2013 2:17 a.m. PST |
Interesting. I use my real name but honestly don't care if others don't and respect their right not to; it's their choice and has nothing to do with me. I don't ascribe motive to someone's 'name' here on TMP. What a person posts does interest me. In this case, Raglan's real name has no meaning for me: his postings on the topic do. Regards, J. P. Kelly |
| Gwydion | 29 Oct 2013 6:03 a.m. PST |
John Treadaway wrote Gwydion, I have an easy stance for that: there are no reasons that I can think of that are either ‘sound' or ‘reasonable' as to why an adult in the UK would hide his true identity on a toy soldier forum. Hense my questioning people's intergrity when they choose to do so John, you need to do some imagination improving exercises: 1 see Cincinnatus – it doesn't matter what you think about this – it matters what the person concerned thinks his potential employers will think.. 2 – some people are told by their government employers to keep a low web profile – it may seem silly to you but I suggest in that case you take it up with those government agencies in the UK who say this. 3 – some people may not want to have their name, their address and their email being blagged and odd people harassing them. Some people carry innocuous debates to extraordinary lengths. 4 It may not seem reasonable to you but just out of cussedness- why the heck should you have to know who I am? (my name is up) If Bill thinks its okay why shouldn't I have an opinion about anything and voice it without having to provide a reference? Peoples' motives for what they do or don't do are their own, whether they admit them to themselves or not. Speculation on them by others is always fraught with danger and replete with opportunities to guess wrongly. So I guess the lack of integrity comment falls at this point too? |
| John Treadaway | 29 Oct 2013 7:35 a.m. PST |
Gwydion, I do – on some levels – accept some of your first three points but I have a problem with your point 4: perhaps I genuinely don't understand it. And – as I said earlier – please bear in mind that much of this is largely tangential to the original points raised at the start of this thread. However… No: I don't need to know your name. You're not obliged to give me – or anyone else – your name. But I'm also not obliged to take anonymous comment in the same light as I do accredited comment. It's my choice to do so or not, as I see fit. However, when people devise guessing games, or make sweeping assumptions (like I suspect* "Lord Raglan" has) about Bill's editorial/employment policies, if I chose to think less of those that do so from the comfortable anonymity that this site affords, as he has, that's my choice to do so, right? Now, you may not agree with that. Fine. You also don't post with a full 'name and pack drill'. Also fine. Why would you think it's not a good idea to suggest a lack of anonymity. Ohhh: I'm not really very sure. Which way do turkeys vote for Christmas? Ah yes… Look Gwydion – and many others (don't get me wrong: I accept I'm in a minority here), you have your opinion on this and I have mine and that is probably not going to change (however many 'imagination excercises' I do). But my choice is to give greater credence to those who speak in the open rather than from the shadows. My choice. Same as it's other people's choice not to use their 'given' name. But surely it's about context. In day to day stuff – how big is your 40k army, what scale tanks are you using – who cares? Not me. However, when you start accusing the editor – or anyone else – of the sort of moral (or perhaps amoral) position/actions that "Lord Raglan" did, I chose to lend those people very little credence if they haven't got the backbone to step out into the light. You see, if I was making those sort of accusations I'd want to be pretty sure of my facts before opening my gob, but I can be less, um, 'worried' about that if I'm 'shouting from the back somewhere'. Which is what the anonymity option allows. Is there a way out of this heirachy of choices? Perhaps. Someone has already mentioned that – with numerous IP addresses and email accounts, we can all have an (effectively) indefinite number of log on's. So let's compromise, eh? If you wanna talk toys tanks, call yourself whatever you want. Your name. Your cat's name. Your secret imaginary friend. A famous general. Anything that tickles your fancy. But, if you want to accuse someone of something illegal or immoral, how about you sign on with an entirely different account with your actual name and have the front to say who you are? Like in a court of law, where you get to face your accuser… Just a thought. Anyone want to compromise with that? Meanwhile, perhaps we can all go back to talking about toy soldiers… John T * but do not know |
| Gwydion | 29 Oct 2013 10:02 a.m. PST |
Now, you may not agree with that. Fine. You also don't post with a full 'name and pack drill'. Yes I do. Click my nom de forum and its there – I'm an advertiser so my adverts are on my member profile. When I first joined one of my reasons applied to me. It no longer does so I put my name on my profile. Another set of baseless and unfounded assumptions I'm afraid. You are entitled to do pay what credence to who you like on whatever grounds you care to use.
I like to weight my acceptance of an argument based on its logic, its attention to the facts and its ability to address the issues. Not on the sort of chap making it. I note your compromise doesn't run to accepting the logic of your comment about the dangers of speculating on motive and retracting the comment about integrity. |
| John Treadaway | 29 Oct 2013 1:49 p.m. PST |
Full name: Yes I do.
Click my nom de forum and its there – I'm an advertiser so my adverts are on my member profile. When I first joined one of my reasons applied to me. It no longer does so I put my name on my profile. What should I make of that? Nothing at all. Astonishingly enough, Gwydion, this isn't all about you. It was about "Lord Raglan", who doesn't/didn't put his name on his posts and then started accusing people of some pretty unpleasent stuff. That's the real beef I have. Like I said, if people want to call themselves anything they please and then just talk about toy soldiers, I don't care. You are entitled to do pay what credence to who you like on whatever grounds you care to use. At last. Thankyou and good night |
| Gwydion | 29 Oct 2013 4:05 p.m. PST |
John Treadaway wrote Full name:Yes I do.
Click my nom de forum and its there – I'm an advertiser so my adverts are on my member profile. When I first joined one of my reasons applied to me. It no longer does so I put my name on my profile. What should I make of that? Nothing at all. I hoped you would have the integrity to retract a demonstrably untrue comment. I hoped for too much. Astonishingly enough, Gwydion, this isn't all about you You made it about me when you accused me (incorrectly) of doing something you had already said you found cowardly. |
| Cincinnatus | 29 Oct 2013 5:47 p.m. PST |
So if someone signs up with a name that sounds real they have more credibility? Interesting because there's no verification of a person's name in the sign up process. I learned a long time ago that on the Internet it's not important who or what you say you are. All that matters is the content of your posts. |
| John Treadaway | 30 Oct 2013 1:27 a.m. PST |
Gwydion You made it about me when you accused me (incorrectly) of doing something you had already said you found cowardly Re read your own comments re 'bravery' about my postings that preceded this exchange. Your suppositions were wrong then and they still are. Since you seem determined to reduce this to childish "he said, she said", I'll comply. You started it. Cincinnitus: so if someone signs up with a name that sounds real they have more credibility I can see the flaw in my logic and you make a valid point. For all you all know, my name is not John Treadaway: I could actually be the real Lord Raglan (though I would imagine Inigo Arthur Fitzroy Somerset might have something to say about that…). These are my last comments in this thread. Enjoy yourselves chaps. |
