Wrong again.

I've been around these forums longer than most of the people in this thread put together. I have seen this type of foolishness come and go. I have seen the big dogs swagger around like they owned the place, and watched as they faded away into well deserved obscurity.

None of this childishness is worth the effort it takes to get angry as hell.

JCC

@ Dowly: sometimes your posts while drunk are unintelligible; sometimes they're mean; sometimes they're even ban-worthy.

This one? I was wanting to say something regarding specific people, and just couldn't figure out how to say it. All I can say to you after this post is - let me buy you another drink.:rock:

Kpt,
Lets start at the beginning and how I found out that GW had taken my NYGM Ship Damage Mod without so much as asking via a e-mail (Monday, 27th February 2006) from Kpt in which he states that GW are and will be using the NYGM Ship Damage Mod. Note I was never asked and I never gave permission.

TB, Your NYGM Ship damage models are the best in the business currently and as a result will be included in GW along with your reduced density minefields. (Anything that prevents possible CTD's is tops in my book.) It will be my pleasure to fully credit you and/or your team as designer of both mods.

I hope you will take this as a complement and not as an effort to undermine your modding efforts. It certainly isn't intended that way. In a similar vein, I would be a fool if I did not include CCIP's Leigh Lights mod or his Wellington radar fix.

He later continues....
There has been no other mod that has even approached the sinking time issues that you have successfully addressed. TB, your ship damage model is purely and simply a work of GENIUS in my opinion. I am CERTAIN that any many hours went into its development. In actuality, we also felt cornered into using it because of the utterly fake way that ships sink otherwise. We ditched our entire custom ship damage model and much hard work as a result. Furthermore, you have successfully NULLIFIED the deck-gun debate by making it a matter of ammunition/damage output instead of reload-rate. I have been a proponent of this for some time and have been slapped in the face repeatedly by Beery who completely dismissed my seven years of artillery and heavy weapons experience. General artillery concepts DO apply... Also, U-boat deck guns are LIGHT artillery. I think that people in general do not fully understand what it would mean to shoot-up a great big ship with what amounts to a pop-gun. (22 rifle versus floating garbage can if you will... it will sink but will take some time to do so.)

Wow full credit! Now all flattery and credit aside it is clear that there was also no request and no question or doubt that GW was going to use the NYGM Ship Damage Mod.

Maybe maybe not. But as you had been using the NYGM Ship Damage Mod for near a year it is somewhat of a mute point don't you think?

Then again it is hard for the layman to know as GW, unlike NYGM, do not publish any of the details of their work.

Funny how the 3 man team of NYGM was able to find the time to publish and discuss in great detail our findings in relation to our work and yet the expansive team of GW cannot.

Why did we put so much time and effort into publishing details of and explaining our work? For the betterment of the community as a whole.

I would like Lehmann, or anyone from GWX, to explain how just 'taking' something without asking, or permission, is justifiable.

This is after all, one of the important matters trying to be resolved here at Subsim, and important for the community.

How does simply giving credit, justify taking something without permission, particularly when GWX stood so strongly behind a modders code that tries to prevent such misconduct.

I was called a hypocrite in this thread. I was told the accusations against GWX are without foundation. Well, here is the hypocrasy of Lehmann and GWX, and the proof from Lehmanns own mouth.

So please tell the rest of us, how you justify this behavior that is the very core of what tears this community apart.

Well I wasnt part of GW then
So cant comment on that
Nor were the bulk of the GWX team

So before you lump everyone in together
Think

DTBs post is directed at KL

I would ask DTB though
Did you say no to the use of the DM when emailed ?
Or just let it go ?

We've had a problem with spambots using hotmail addresses to sign up at the forums over there, so we've put a blanket ban on hotmail accounts, at least for the time being. You are welcome to join the forum if you want; I will modify the "ban list" so you can register with your hotmail account if you so choose.

Crud, came home early as the whiskey dried up way too quickly.

Regarding your post DTB,

Well, that's almost interesting.... digging up an old private message from over two years ago from the development of the old TGW mod. Only you failed to mention that I fielded a public apology to you and the NYGM team for using the material, even though you had released it for public consumption as an individual mod fileset.

At the time of its inclusion, (and proper crediting following communication with you) we were actually perplexed as to why you'd have a problem with it... given that you even called it a beta... and felt that it would bring further recognition to the NYGM team.

Anyway, I got my butt roasted alive after making that apology. (I'm sure it is in the Subsim archives somewhere. I'm not going to chase it down right now.) For a long time afterwards, you and your teamers did your best to destroy and/or discredit TGW and the later release of GWX.

However, I still kept my promise to you... and and ensured that the damage models created by your team were totally/completely removed (prior to the virtually complete overhaul of "TGW" that became "GWX version 1.0" on December 16th of 2006)... and replaced them with our own original material. You are in a better position than most to see it for yourself as the GWX files are readily available.

We learned from our mistake. Though apparently, it wasn't enough for you... and apparently never will be. Your long-standing condescension towards the GWX mod team is also a matter of record.

Now, since people aren't willing to crack open the GWX manual and read it, I will quote it for you.

(The following has been included since the NYGM models were removed over a year and a half ago.... EXCERPT from pages 85-87)

From the GWX manual:

"The original Grey Wolves (TGW) shared the damage model developed for ―Not Your Grandmother‘s Mod‖ (NYGM), which focused on sinking ships through flooding effects, with a lesser emphasis on critical hits than in stock Silent Hunter III and very little ability to destroy a ship through structural damage. NYGM accomplished this by reducing the probability and effect of critical hits and by giving all merchant
ships 2160 hit points compared to the normal range in stock Silent Hunter III of 250 to 300 hit points, effectively eliminating the possibility that a ship would sink through accumulated structural damage.

This approach achieved its objectives but had some unintended side effects when used in TGW:

• The damage caused by one torpedo was limited to one compartment, so that hitting the same ship compartment with a second torpedo produced only a small amount of new overall damage (compared to a ship‘s total structural integrity) and no additional flooding.

• It was nearly impossible to sink a merchant ship with the deck gun unless a player could consistently obtain hits at the water line. This was not generally an issue in TGW since the deck gun in TGW was highly accurate; however, the introduction of Real World Gunnery in GWX greatly increased the difficulty
of hitting targets (such as a ship‘s waterline) with great accuracy.

• A number of players reported that sinking a ship could take many hours or days, even with multiple torpedo hits. Historical examples of such behavior certainly exist, but these seemed to be historical outliers compared to the number of occurrences reported in TGW."

By all rights, we could remove/strike all specific mention of the NYGM damage models as they no longer exist within the GWX mod files. It was discussed. However, we took a 'warts and all' approach to the developmental history of the Grey Wolves mod, and felt that maybe, the continued acknowledgement of the original NYGM effort concerning damage models was deserved... (For the same reason Ducimus' involvement with the GWX team is also still credited... though he became the thorn in our side. Ironically, I seem to recall that you had your own deep problems with that individual. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if Ducimus decided to suddenly descend from his throne and hypocritically call for calm and reason now that things are finally moving towards resolution.)

Moving on, the GWX manual (ALL 600+ pages, appendices, search-functions, etc) WERE WRITTEN FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY. Furthermore... it demonstrates how EVERY EFFORT was made to educate new AND old players on matters relating to the U-boat War! You've got real nerve (again) implying that we did not explain functions of the GWX mod... RTFM!

There is one fundamental difference between our manual construction and that of the old RUB mod that NYGM is based on. Beery stated directly that RUB was not written for the user... but for the experienced file-handler instead. This attitude really seemed to carry forward with the progression of NYGM. It is NOT the GWX approach.

What is written in the GWX manual, is largely written for the benefit of the end-user... and to compliment that... we put in place an active user-support machine.

Concerning contribution to or betterment of the community... there is certainly more than one way to skin the cat. We have no intention of matching your conditional views on how exactly the community should be served by a mod package. We have our own equally valid views on how to go about doing it.

Finally, as far as crediting goes... there is no other mod team or package that has placed a greter emphasis on proper crediting or the execution of same... available at Subsim today.

Now, if you are honest, you will recall that you released a version of the NYGM manual that was virtually DEVOID of credits and tried to pass it all off with "The included mods are all property of their respective creators" or some such equally dismissive statement... and that was that.

As I recall, you had to make your own apology for that. Apparently, it seems you are not immune to making mistakes... but are intolerant of others who do the same.

Now if you intend to fuss over the splinter in my eye... first pull the branch out of yours aye?

In the end, regardless of whatever we may say... or whatever ancient battle we try to re-fight... the downloads do the talking. The end-user makes his own decision. At the end of the day... I sleep well knowing that we gave our best... and that we really did do everything we could to make up for our transgressions.

Ok guys, lets take break from this today. We are going to day 3. I'm locking the thread. If any of the moderators believe they would like to open the thread and monitor the progress, by all means do so. I to not have the time to devote to it until much later on tonight. Feel free to use the PM function to continue any argument or discussion (however you see it). Maybe some resolution will be made between whoever and whoever in doing so.


The thread is for Neal to determine the best course of action. For me, looking in and being a part, I think we ALL need a 30 ban!

We need more guys like this :up:

Thanks, Warhawk, good timing. I think this thread has served it purpose well, to let people get their grievances out. We can use this to see where we want to go.

PS: I will use this timeout to address certain parts of this thread.

Yes, that may be true. We will do our best to manage things but in the end it depends on the individuals involved. Some people are working very hard to earn the title "Banned by Subsim for being a jerk".



Edit: to add some other thoughts.
I don't know if others here view my actions as I view them, but I think as an admin I have tried to be inclusive and patient. I have talked members out of leaving the forum when they thought they were unwanted. No one should leave because another member or a few other members do not get along with them. We will have some friction, that's unavoidable when dealing with people, but it has to remain within the tolerances Subsim is known for.

However, within a large selection of people, there will be some individuals with personality disorders, lack of discipline, or poor social skills. These types will have trouble staying within the forum boundaries and will become more isolated, and this could cause them to act out even further. We will work with everyone as best as we can but neither the moderators or I are professional counselors nor full time nannies. In the end, Subsim has to remain a civil and intelligent place, populated by civil and intelligent people. So if you are banned (keelhauled) permanently from Subsim, you may want to change your online name because most people will recognize that you had to be pretty darn hard to deal with to earn that.

hi Pen,

I understand how you feel about "defending yourself". Honestly, it would be nice if incidents were rare enough that no one felt that need, but obviously, this is not the case :) The moderators, including me, cannot be everywhere and see all, cannot keep score of who said what, and who started it. We do try to nip the baiting in the bud, but I've found that usually someone defends themselves too quickly and then a fracas ensues.

(Not directed at you, Pen, just thinking in general). Defending one's self... it's overrated. If someone in traffic shoots you the finger do you chase them down the highway to right the wrong? If you are walking along the street and a small dog is yapping at you from behind a chainlink fence, do you drop to your hands and knees and yap back?

All sides in this think they are right, and expend a great deal of energy trying to prove their case and win over allies. For what end?

A good idea, I really think a lot of this could be solved via phone conference.

That's a good idea, may be necessary.

Also, if Member A says something that Member B does not like, and Member B reports it, it is up to the moderator to make the call. Member B does not get an automatic ruling in his favor. Everyone needs to be patient, cooperate with the moderators, and dismiss thoughts that the moderators are "against them" or out to get them. Subsim has a very good reputation and the moderators here are a major factor.