SamSpayed: You post tons of
misinformation, and the saddest thing about that is that when
you do so, you mislead new players who don't know any better.
So that's his biggest crime? Where do you set the bar
on this? How about someone who seems to think wgt can do no wrong for
example, obviously untrue but unlikely to get moderated I suppose. I would also disagree with your apparent assumption
that new players are inherently stupid.
Very few (bordering on none?) new players will read through
Paul's posts (I could stop there but....) and damage their game from doing
that. I personally think that the majority on here mislead new
players about vem, the new players will then see it in their game so instead of
fixing what they are doing wrong they'll just blame mistakes on that.
These reasoned, and genuinely meant, posts are what a forum
is about but I do think they are damaging. I really don't think Paul's
are.
SamSpayed: There is an internet adage
called
Godwin's Law that you might be familiar with. I
am going to coin a new, similar law that I'll call "Sammy's
Law". My new law states that the longer a WGT forum thread goes
on, the higher the probability becomes that pdb1 will post some utter
nonsense in that thread.
The big difference being that Godwin's Law is not aimed as
an insult toward a specific person whereas "Sammy's Law" is.
The fact it's true is irrelevant, it's also true that in these
circumstances the probability of you, me or anyone posting utter nonsense
grows as does the possibility of us posting something to show understanding of
someone who clearly has this forum as an important part of his life, although it may need to be a very long thread for the latter to happen.
I don't disagree that his posts sometimes seem random and
are annoying; one long post accused me of falsely accusing someone and came
with quotes from my post to show this, trouble was the quotes from my post were
in fact me quoting the other person :-/. Confusing enough to get me
moderated? Anyway the thread was frozen before I could reply (or maybe I'd
be moderated now) but if it hadn’t been I’d have answered that particular post
saying where and why it was wrong not join a campaign and suggest publicly that
he should be moderated more.
I could point to other people that I find a waste of space
and annoying, but I don’t think they should be moderated. I can ignore them or, if in the mood for it,
enjoy getting annoyed reading what they say and maybe even reply.
Yes he gets things wrong but generally he apologises and
fixes things as best as he can, as you would if you repeated as fact some utter
nonsense you heard about the gambling laws in Scotland ;-)
Mythanatos:
Some
people think you do it on purpose for troll effect. I personally think it's
more of a comprehension issue. The synapses aren't connecting.
I'm
not sure which is worse.
Are
you seriously suggesting that he should post less as he isn't intelligent
enough for you? Maybe he’s just not pompous enough.
The
bottom line for me here is intention; does Paul try to help people or is he
deliberately misleading them. It looks
to me like he's trying to be helpful and sometimes not
being very good at it, other times he does help people. If he helps half the people he tries to that'll be a lot more than most of us.
Sam the thread you linked, the one nobody replied to, what possible harm did that do to anyone? Personally I did click some of the links and look at the threads.
Simply don’t read his posts if you don't like them, don’t try to ruin the enjoyment he gets from constructing them, that's just destructive.