Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu

On 7 jan, 15:07, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
>
> I wanted to ignore this altogether. Developers shouldn't vote but Eddy is
> doing this to collect more votes -

It's "War-Historical's Wargame of the Year",
Not "Non-Developer Regulars-Only Wargame of the Year". 1 man - 1 vote
- all votes in the open.

Don't let me stop you to organize a vote based on other criteria.

> in any case numbers are trivial just as
> this ng is becoming with stance of some people here.

One wonders why you keep posting here then ?

> Some time before Eddy was sarcastic about SC2 - and said "there is no ads to
> be seen". Way to go Eddy. Why is that nececary?

I dunno - I can only vaguely remember posting that anyway - but maybe
because my sarcastic remark was spot-on in ridiculing one of your less-
then-stellar observations ? Please post the context / links so we can
all have a look why you're so upset about this.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 15:09, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... RemoveThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
> > I will give you answer: probably that game is adverrtised on a forum and
> > BFC is not owner of Battlefront.com like your pals at Staten Island
>
> Ups, mistake! LOL
> Should have written Wargamer.com instead of Battlefront.com, I am becoming
> rusty.

I was about to post that it wouldn't surprise me to wake up tomorrow
and find out that BFC is not the owner of Battlefront.com anymore ...

Well, the British and subsequent modules for CM:SF have been cancelled
in favour of going back to a WWII setting - those ingratefull
customers having the nerve to force them to go back to WWII when they,
the gods of wargaming, told them to go play RTS in a modern setting -
where is the world coming to ? Next thing you know they'll be
demanding turn-based gaming again !

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 16:09, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg....DeleteThis@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
> In article <e515d49b-382c-40e7-8490-
> 2a63fd356....DeleteThis@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, eddyster....DeleteThis@hotmail.com
> says...
>
> > > Huh?  I'm offended already.  This is about buyers-users-customers.  You
> > > know, *us*.  
>
> > eh, I thought it was about the people who frequent this part of the
> > 'Net voting - irrespective of the fact whether they are a developer/
> > publisher or not.
>
> > Why would we deny the vote to guys who've been posting here as long as
> > we have, just because they happen to be a developer/publisher ?
>
> *Because* they happen to be developer / publishers.  

We allow the permanently unemployed to vote on how tax payer's money
is to be spend too.

In this election we allow guys who contribute to this ng 2 times a
year to vote (no offense guys) but you wouldn't allow a decade long
regular like Erik Rutins to give his opinion *as a gamer* ?

And were do you draw the line ?

Does a guy who has created scenarios/done beta testing for a game
count as a "developer" too ? Or is money the only criterium ?

It's academic anyway as no developer/publisher has voted yet because
they're afraid their *honest* opinion is going to create too much
fallout.

But what they would like to know is how their fellow developers/
publishers rate their work, that's why they asked me for a separate
(and secret) vote totally separated from the open vote we have in
here.

> "Best of" contests should be about the votes of people *who paid for the
> privilege*,

So if a developer would have bought some other game he'd be eligable
again to vote for that game ? See how murky this gets ?

> not those with a vested financial interest in swaying the
> context.

I doubt our election gets them a single additional sale - from what I
hear it's more a matter of personal pride to get a good score in here
- the feeling of their work being appreciated by the hardcore
wargamers in here.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 16:25, "Vincenzo Beretta" <reck....RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> (*) Full disclosure: I both get games for free to review *and* I buy them. I
> generally buy the ones that I would have bought anyway

Same here - bought both AGEod's games, in fact : bought 2 out of the 3
games I voted for.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 16:58, Big Salad <big.sa... RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>  From a practical standpoint, if you look at the results, I have no doubt
> that the cream is rising to the top.  

Just like last year, and the year before and the year before.

> If in some future poll, there is
> evidence of someone trying to skew the results, it will be right here
> for all of us to see.

That's the beauty of voting in the open : it's hard to screw with.

On the 'Net there are 3 places where you can vote for wargame of the
year. In here, at GameSquad and at The Wargamer. I'm not paranoid, but
this is the only one where I'm 100% sure there's no tampering.

> In fact, it seems like the "honest developers" (to misquote you) agree
> that pimping their own game would cost them more than the award would be
> worth.  They are probably right, and I respect their opinion.

It's not about voting for your own game but more like :

- Developer X worries that a vote for a game at another publisher
would be frowned upon by his current publisher.

- Publisher Y worries that a vote for a game would be construed by
other developers at that publisher as playing favourites.

> If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Looking at the results so far, it's not what I voted for , but it
ain't broke.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 18:07, Giftzwerg <giftzwerg....DeleteThis@NOSPAMZ.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Or if he "buys" a copy of his own game?  Come now.  It's not "murky" at
> all; publishers and developers and people with *obvious* conflicts of
> interests should be ineligible.

So a scenario creator / modder who is eyeing a possible future
publishing contract is part of the in-obvious ones ?

I'm planning on asking HPS for the prize game next year - maybe that's
why I voted for Punic Wars - a suspicious vote to be removed or not ?

And under your proposed rules Arjuna could vote for AATF and Pat
Proctor for BFTB - wouldn't you suspect collusion in that case ?

See, that's why I called it "murky" - because it'll get complicated
real fast - lot's of grey areas. So the KISS principle wins out here.

> How could we take them seriously, anyhow?  What, like we're going to
> believe Jim Rose when he grimly and objectively decides that DISTANT
> GUNS is simply The Best Darn Wargame EVER?

There's no objective truth here - only people *thinking* game x is
better than game y - just like a real election.

> Yeah.  Whew.  How credible.  <g>

Call me a bit funny, but I wouldn't bat an eyelid if he voted for his
game and his vote would count in my book.

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On 7 jan, 18:22, "Bloodstar" <george.washing... DeleteThis @microsoft.com> wrote:
> > It's "War-Historical's Wargame of the Year",
> > Not "Non-Developer Regulars-Only Wargame of the Year". 1 man - 1 vote
> > - all votes in the open.
>
> > Don't let me stop you to organize a vote based on other criteria.
>
> Actually, they can vote anonymously anyway. It's so easy to create addy
> called Monkeys Brain or some other nonsense ))))

I check the headers to see if everyone is playing it honest - and not
vote twice under a disguise for instance - no problems so far

> I just propose that this voting be "Non Activation Based Wargame of the Year
> 2007"
> Because 80% of you have not bought any activation based wargames lately.

So basically what you're saying is that activation hurts sales ? Glad
you finally agree with our pov about it.

> It is entertaining for my brain )))) However, you have noticed that I have
> not posted much lately. but I always like to serve the people and make good
> flame ))))

One could observe that you *only* post to flame, but do continue.

> Maybe just few people on the Internet are better than me: Derek Smart, Oleg
> Mastruko... ))))

Better at what ? Flaming ?

> Hi,
>
> http://www.armchairgeneral.com/articles.php?p=3716&page=1&cat=59
>
> ... and no ads for it to be seen

> ---
>
> I think that it was not aimed at me or it was a bait At that time I was
> just lurking here
>
> Now, explain to me and foremost to Hubert Cater, developer, what have you
> wanted to say by this???
> LOL ))))

Ok - I think I remember now - it was a post by someone claiming they
only give good review scores to games if the publisher advertizes at
the site.

My one sentence reply was a link to a game getting good review scores,
yet the publisher never/rarely advertizes there.

Sorry if this went over your head a bit

Could you post the URL of the forum entry so I can have a look at the
context again ?

Greetz,

Eddy Sterckx
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

In article <e515d49b-382c-40e7-8490-
2a63fd356fdc DeleteThis @d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com
says...

> > Huh?  I'm offended already.  This is about buyers-users-customers.  You
> > know, *us*.  
>
> eh, I thought it was about the people who frequent this part of the
> 'Net voting - irrespective of the fact whether they are a developer/
> publisher or not.
>
> Why would we deny the vote to guys who've been posting here as long as
> we have, just because they happen to be a developer/publisher ?

*Because* they happen to be developer / publishers.

Politicians are allowed for vote for themselves because it's a tiny,
symbolic act lost in the millions of votes cast. But Olympic skaters
aren't allowed to participate in the judging, for reasons too obvious to
enumerate here.

"Best of" contests should be about the votes of people *who paid for the
privilege*, not those with a vested financial interest in swaying the
context.

> > I'm tempted to say they can vote in our best-game election just as soon
> > as they give *us* a voice -  a friggin' *vote* - in *their* decision
> > making process;
>
> Well you do, it's called voting with your credit card

Well, if they'd like to give me free games or outright money, then fine,
by all means.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While acknowledging the difficult road they face, Clinton campaign
officials say they are not panicking."
- The Politico
"TRANSLATION: They are *sooooooo* panicking."
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

eddysterckx DeleteThis @hotmail.com wrote:

> In this election we allow guys who contribute to this ng 2 times a
> year to vote (no offense guys) but you wouldn't allow a decade long
> regular like Erik Rutins to give his opinion *as a gamer* ?

I think we should allow Erik to give his opinion as another one of us
idiots who wastes too much time reading newsgroups.

I think the value of this poll is that it is exactly what it pretends to
be. Simple rules, everything in the open.

From a practical standpoint, if you look at the results, I have no doubt
that the cream is rising to the top. If in some future poll, there is
evidence of someone trying to skew the results, it will be right here
for all of us to see.


>> "Best of" contests should be about the votes of people *who paid
>> for the privilege*,
>
> So if a developer would have bought some other game he'd be eligable
> again to vote for that game ? See how murky this gets ?

Should by vote for COTA last year not count, because I hadn't yet
purchased the game? There were several posts this year that gave points
to games people hadn't bought, on the basis of reviews and discussion.
Do you want to restrict that?

In fact, it seems like the "honest developers" (to misquote you) agree
that pimping their own game would cost them more than the award would be
worth. They are probably right, and I respect their opinion.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On Jan 7, 6:43 pm, Raging Tiger <RagingTi....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:

> BTW, as a person who has a monetary stake in games I've made or helped
> make, I think there should definitely be a form of DRM to protect what
> I and others like me have created.
>
> But then, I shouldn't expect anyone who likely has a plethora of
> software scammed off of Limewire and eDonkey to understand that...not
> that I'm accusing you personally, of course...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Nice to see your absence has not changed your attitude. You are right
in your not-too-subtle inferences of course: only pirates, who dowload
cracked software with the DRM already removed, can *possibly* be
annoyed by intrusive copy protection.

Oh wait...

OTOH, please do vote. You've got just as much right to vote as any
other wargamer, IMO.

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

On Jan 7, 6:53 pm, "Bloodstar" <george.washing....RemoveThis@microsoft.com>
wrote:
> will respond later to you and Eddy Bras Hunting as I must go somewhere right
> now...
>
>
> http://www.womeninwaders.com/largecover05.jpg this is Eddy's assistant
> (Eddy don't tell your wife about this
>
> Mario

heh, nicely appropriate pic. Maybe I was wrong to discount
(carp-)fishing as a sport for the braindead with too much spare
time...

-von Schmidt
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

In article <62bfce31-b244-42f4-9307-3232709345d5
@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, eddysterckx.RemoveThis@hotmail.com says...

> > > Why would we deny the vote to guys who've been posting here as long as
> > > we have, just because they happen to be a developer/publisher ?
> >
> > *Because* they happen to be developer / publishers.  
>
> We allow the permanently unemployed to vote on how tax payer's money
> is to be spend too.
>
> In this election we allow guys who contribute to this ng 2 times a
> year to vote (no offense guys) but you wouldn't allow a decade long
> regular like Erik Rutins to give his opinion *as a gamer* ?

Of course not, for the same reason that every honest contest like this
disallows participation by employees or families of employees.

> And were do you draw the line ?

I'm not sure exactly where the line is drawn, but developers,
publishers, and employees of the very entities whose products are being
rated are *clearly* over the line.

> Does a guy who has created scenarios/done beta testing for a game
> count as a "developer" too ? Or is money the only criterium ?

I'd say the sticking-point is a vested financial interest in the
product. A developer or publisher lives or dies by the success of his
products. A beta-tester gets exactly nothing if Game X he tested is
successful.

> It's academic anyway as no developer/publisher has voted yet because
> they're afraid their *honest* opinion is going to create too much
> fallout.

Damn straight. And who puts any stock in their votes anyhow?

> But what they would like to know is how their fellow developers/
> publishers rate their work, that's why they asked me for a separate
> (and secret) vote totally separated from the open vote we have in
> here.

Fine by me. If they want to hold a separate contest for "Best
Catfood" ... knock themselves out.

> > "Best of" contests should be about the votes of people *who paid for the
> > privilege*,
>
> So if a developer would have bought some other game he'd be eligable
> again to vote for that game ? See how murky this gets ?

Or if he "buys" a copy of his own game? Come now. It's not "murky" at
all; publishers and developers and people with *obvious* conflicts of
interests should be ineligible.

How could we take them seriously, anyhow? What, like we're going to
believe Jim Rose when he grimly and objectively decides that DISTANT
GUNS is simply The Best Darn Wargame EVER?

Yeah. Whew. How credible. <g>

> > not those with a vested financial interest in swaying the
> > context.
>
> I doubt our election gets them a single additional sale - from what I
> hear it's more a matter of personal pride to get a good score in here
> - the feeling of their work being appreciated by the hardcore
> wargamers in here.

How about this as a compromise; developers and publishers can vote - but
they're not allowed to vote for their own product?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"While acknowledging the difficult road they face, Clinton campaign
officials say they are not panicking."
- The Politico
"TRANSLATION: They are *sooooooo* panicking."
- Giftzwerg
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu 

> I will give you answer: probably that game is adverrtised on a forum and
> BFC is not owner of Battlefront.com like your pals at Staten Island

Ups, mistake! LOL
Should have written Wargamer.com instead of Battlefront.com, I am becoming
rusty.


Mario
 >> Stay informed about: Wargame_of_the_Year_2007_election__-_current_statu