Jump to content


Photo

Τhe BOOK of INCIDENTS and COMPLAINTS


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 06:37 PM

not everyone is a cheater

 

I did not say i doing so Satan-NL.



#22 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:07 PM

Dekaeneas-Spy, let me first be clear to say that the Justice Committee and the Tourney Committee are two different bodies (even though now 4 out of 5 do belong to the JC...Welcome Max as our newest member today!).  There are a different set of rules these committee's follow.   Try not to confuse what the Justice Committee does to prevent cheating during regular match play vs the Online Tourney Event.  

 

Yes Dekaeneas-Spy you found an error to our rules and you did the right thing to point it out.  I know you are disappointed with our decision with the match of Manning vs Satan, but by a vote of 3-1 with Lt. Jones unable to vote due to being away at college, we wrote our reasons why we believe Manning should be allowed into the next round.  Max and I wrote a number of lengthy posts and counter points.  However, I believe The Prof best summed up with his only post on this manner and it was short and it best explained what Max and I tried to explain in our number of lengthy posts:  

 

 

 

Sorry I am late to the conversation.  It sounds as if Satan knew he was playing his tournament opponent and accepts that he lost the game.  Now, if a law is broken but the offended party does not sue or press charges, then the case does not go to trial.  Thus, since Satan is not contesting the result, I do not believe we need to judge whether or not his opponent should be disqualified.  The result should stand and Manning should advance, even if what he did broke the tournament rules, although it is not entirely clear to me that it did.  We should always err on the side of letting the games be decided on the board, not by our decisions.  Thus, I vote not to disqualify.

 

I also know you are also disappointed in my being blunt and with the firmness of my posts on this manner.  Do consider these points here:  "If a judging committee can't be firm and stand by their decision, you allow more and more doubt to creep in.  You will also have a committee that has no power to enforce a rule because everything will be questioned."  This is why I tried to move on from this manner, so we don't let it distract from the rest of the event.  If Manning should win this event, I don't want people to put an * at the end of his name saying "He won.....but not really"

 

I respect you as a person Dekaeneas-Spy and I do apologize for indirectly calling you out in one of my posts.  I believe you were doing what you felt was right and I commend you for that.  Do also remember this is our very first attempt at running this event and your dear friend Karaiskakis and others put a lot of hard effort into this event.  Other than this one situation, things have gone well overall, so as Max said it would a loss for all of us if you wish not to play in any other events.  



#23 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:10 PM

yes,  the organizers have spent a lot of time and energy in this but should decide and correct, and not as it suits them as the case.

Lucky, you told me personally that I'm right in what I say on this subject.now you say we do not talk order to rest?

Sorry, you got tired and you will have potential to play. :D

 

Dekaeneas, we have spoken about this matter, but at that time there was no screenshot at all. The screenshot was still posted by Manning, but yes, the name Game Over was shown in de screenshot. 

After a good explanation of Manning and SATAN we have to close this case now. What I said before: I'm convinced Manning has beaten SATAN.

 

I propose that we make a minor change in the rules:

 

  • In case of impossiblity of connection with the account listed for the tournament, players may use another account to make the match possible. In the challenge zone the players discuss this. The player who uses a different account has the obligation to make a screenshot showing that the opponent agrees with this. The screenshot must be posted in the topic of the match.

Lucky


  • Midnightguy likes this

The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#24 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 07:41 PM

LUcky: I propose that we make a minor change in the rules:

 

  • In case of impossiblity of connection with the account listed for the tournament, players may use another account to make the match possible. In the challenge zone the players discuss this. The player who uses a different account is required to make a screenshot showing that the opponent agrees with this. The screenshot must be posted in the topic of the match.

Dekaeneas-Spy: I agree with you.

I said he had to do to be okay and not talking Dekaeneas-Spy and each Dekaeneas-Spy. But indifferent and did and 4 days the manning2cruz, send screenshot Under pressure from the committee members. As you see dear Lucky were not made by the two players and more than manning2cruz them to be done according to the rules.

 

May sound harsh what I say and you have get angry many of you but I have not any of you with nothing, and simply disagree on an issue.



#25 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:04 PM

i did post a screen shot dumbass daekanes.....

 

i cant play challenges on this name... it does not work... I have a second name I do not use but have to use because there is a glitch with my account for challenges, ask Hielco we tried for about 15 minutes, log on log off etc...

 

Zach

 

I posted that screen shot... so clearly I am gameover you ♥♥♥♥ing moron



#26 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:25 PM

Midnightguy:Dekaeneas-Spy, let me first be clear to say that the Justice Committee and the Tourney Committee are two different bodies (even though now 4 out of 5 do belong to the JC...Welcome Max as our newest member today!).  There are a different set of rules these committee's follow.   Try not to confuse what the Justice Committee does to prevent cheating during regular match play vs the Online Tourney Event. 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy: Ι wish you good luck  Μax in JC(I made ​​no mistake now Midnightguy ;) ).

 

Midnightguy:Yes Dekaeneas-Spy you found an error to our rules and you did the right thing to point it out.

 

Dekaeneas-Spy: I say again that mistake Midnightguy not have the rules of the tournament committee (Perhaps they want Supplement). Error they have done both players (the more the manning)
as all three members of the tournament committee not applied the rules of. I live in my position and let us know that you I deplore.

The rules were clear and had to make decisions punishment (shame about the winner of course, but to avoid any insinuations and mind, the Commission had to put them rule over the 1st or 2nd or 3rd or 4th best player.)
These said manning (
You want to ban the two best players here be my guest... over some stupid shit... if we both admit it... and as i said in earlier posts... I would be gone from Friday through the weekend, and I was.)

 

Midnightguy:I respect you as a person Dekaeneas-Spy and I do apologize for indirectly calling you out in one of my posts.  I believe you were doing what you felt was right and I commend you for that.

 

Dekaeneas-Spy:Thank you for your beautiful words Midnightguy. ;)

Αnd I respect you.

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy



#27 Luckypapa

Luckypapa

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Major

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:34 PM

 

i cant play challenges on this name... it does not work... I have a second name I do not use but have to use because there is a glitch with my account for challenges, ask Hielco we tried for about 15 minutes, log on log off etc...

 

Zach

 

I posted that screen shot... so clearly I am gameover 

 

See my other post in the matchtopic M2C-LuckyPapa

 

http://imageshack.us...7/9882/kazq.png

 

I tried to challenge M2C, but is doesn't work.

No need, to become personal, guys. 

 

Lucky


The secret of happiness is not in doing what you like, but in liking what you should do.


#28 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 09:49 PM

Daekaenes I'm not even sure what you are crying about, but don't call me a cheater I have never cheated once.



#29 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:05 PM

I am closing this topic. There is really no more conversation to be had, here. 

 

Manning2Cruz, please watch your language. No need to be calling Dekaeneas names.

 

Dekaeneas, I understand your frustration, but there are times when the spirit of the rule is meant to be followed and not necessarily a strict conservative interpretation of every rule. 

 

As explained before, the purpose of the "two account" clause was to prevent people from trying to get multiple entries into the tournament. No such thing happened in this case. 

 

A reasonable justification was also given for why a different name (GameOver) was used. This has resulted in no dispute among the players involved.

 

The only thing you can really argue is that Manning2Cruz and SATAN-NL conspired to cheat in some way or to misrepresent the outcome of their theoretical game. I don't think this is what you are trying to say. Thus, let us move on and take note of your concern for future tournaments where the rules will continue to be improved and refined. 

 

 

 

As for your point over screenshots, I agree that could have been better handled. But, again, the point of rules is not to fault everyone for every little technicality, bur rather to provide structure and a framework for fair play. If the main objective has been met (getting a reasonable report of the game outcome), then the main purpose has been met. Eventually screenshots were provided anyway, so we are fine.

 

-LTG

(forum moderator, not a member of the tournament committee)


  • Midnightguy and maxroelofs like this
How can I help you?

#30 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,291 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:27 PM

sorry LTG but this topic can not be closed without my post


  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this

#31 KARAISKAKIS

KARAISKAKIS

    General

  • WC Online Team
  • 2,291 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 08 November 2013 - 11:28 PM

Midnightguy, on 08 Nov 2013 - 8:07 PM, said:
Dekaeneas-Spy, let me first be clear to say that the Justice Committee and the Tourney Committee are two different bodies (even though now 4 out of 5 do belong to the JC...Welcome Max as our newest member today!).  There are a different set of rules these committee's follow.   Try not to confuse what the Justice Committee does to prevent cheating during regular match play vs the Online Tourney Event. 

Yes Dekaeneas-Spy you found an error to our rules and you did the right thing to point it out.  I know you are disappointed with our decision with the match of Manning vs Satan, but by a vote of 3-1 with Lt. Jones unable to vote due to being away at college, we wrote our reasons why we believe Manning should be allowed into the next round.  Max and I wrote a number of lengthy posts and counter points.  However, I believe The Prof best summed up with his only post on this manner and it was short and it best explained what Max and I tried to explain in our number of lengthy posts: 

I also know you are also disappointed in my being blunt and with the firmness of my posts on this manner.  Do consider these points here:  "If a judging committee can't be firm and stand by their decision, you allow more and more doubt to creep in.  You will also have a committee that has no power to enforce a rule because everything will be questioned."  This is why I tried to move on from this manner, so we don't let it distract from the rest of the event.  If Manning should win this event, I don't want people to put an * at the end of his name saying "He won.....but not really"

I respect you as a person Dekaeneas-Spy and I do apologize for indirectly calling you out in one of my posts.  I believe you were doing what you felt was right and I commend you for that.  Do also remember this is our very first attempt at running this event and your dear friend Karaiskakis and others put a lot of hard effort into this event.  Other than this one situation, things have gone well overall, so as Max said it would a loss for all of us if you wish not to play in any other events. 

 

I was planning not to go public for this happening because I didn"t want to hurt our event . But the recent facts do not leave me other way.
First of all I am very disappointed because after a secret vote all the members (except Lt.Jones who did not vote and The Prof , but his vote has been already posted above) came outside and clearly  said what was their vote.

Midnightguy posted
Posted A day ago
The Event Committee has render our decision on the match of Manning vs Satan.  The majority of us agreed that Manning should be allowed to continue in the event and we wish him the best of luck vs Luckypapa in Round 3 game 2.  I also give Satan credit for being true gentleman and scholar and thank him for his cooperation while the Event Committee went over this case.  
...........
I take full responsibility for my mistake but, my mistake isn't Manning's problem and I voted for him to go to the next round.

Maxroelfs posted

Posted 10 hours ago
Deat Dekaeneas-Spy,

I can see you are not satifsfies with the way things went so far in the tournament. Let me make sure you realise one thing before I will take responsibility for what the committee did. The tournament committee is just trying to organise a good tournament for everybody and we want to avoid trouble as much as possible, since the main reason we organise it is to have fun here on this site. Though, when something strange happens, like this case you talk about with manning2cruz vs Satan-NL, the tournament needs to make a decision. This is not a decision made by a program, neither some dictatorship on a throne. The tournament committee has five members and we have a discussion first, after that we vote for what we think is the best thing to do. Me myself voted to let manning pass to the next round, though I see a problem in this.

 

I have learned in my life to respect rules and people who cooperate with and always act according my democratic beliefs. All this time I DID NOT GO OUTSIDE TO POST MY POSITION BUT I FOLLOWED THE CORRECT WAY ASKING FROM T.C. TO VOTE ABOUT THIS CASE.
Unfortunately everybody knows now that this member who voted manning be punished was me.
So now it is time to say why I believe that.

 

About the game
Game is finished and the only post was that:

Game is over,,,, Manning2Cruz defeats Satan-NL in a good game.
As you can see there is no mention about this bug and of course no screenshot

My reply was that:

congrats zach! I think we have the first finalist.
I am waiting the screenshot with victory.
I send you with pm my e-mail in case you can not post it.

Satan , can you confirm the result?

According rules
4) Each player must know how to take screen shots and be able to post it in the forum in the results topic or send in E-mail to the Tournament Committee the results of any victory (in case you do not know visit this linkhttp://forum.strateg...view=getnewpost. Failure to do so, will nullify the match and the two players must play again.  No victory will be declared by judges until a legit and readable screen shot has been sent by the winner.

 

Manning"s respond was after 4 days(!!!) and after he had already troubled all of us in the T.C. to decide what we have to do with this game.

i do have screen shot... karais post me your email and i will send it to u i dont know how to put it up here

He asked me  my e-mail which has been already send before 4 days !!!

Finally next day the famous screenshot was received with this e-mail

here is the screen shot

--
Again there isn"t any mention about the bug or  any etiology why in this screenshot there is no name manning2crouz but there is the name gameover.

After that i send him this pm which has not replied yet

Sent 3 days ago
This screenshot i received is from a game between GameOver vs SATAN NL
Further explanation needed.

In committee there was a big discusion about the rules and this part with the double participation.
My opinion was :

2) Only one (1) account her household ISP may enter.  Site Admin will check ISP's to assure no multiple account holders can enter the event.  If multiple ISP has been discovered, both names will be disqualified from the event and the next highest ranked player 33 and 34 will be allowed to enter the event.
If someone tries to participate with 2 or more accounts and be discovered he will be punished with banning from future tournoua and also account reset of his most high rank account.
it is clear that participation each not only sign up but also playing the game.
If it was only for sign up ,rules would be
2) Only one (1) account her household ISP may enter.  Site Admin will check ISP's to assure no multiple account holders can enter the event.  If multiple ISP has been discovered, both names will be disqualified from the event and the next highest ranked player 33 and 34 will be allowed to enter the event.

If someone tries to sign up with 2 or more accounts and be discovered he will be punished with banning from future tournoua and also account reset of his most high rank account.

The meaning of this rule is first to prevent double participation of the same player and secondly and most important to force players play with their original account and prevent cases like this  e.g. kostas2503 vs TheMaestro , kostas2503  can play this game under the account kinigos (who is not him but his friend gkaros) and say that is him ,but in reality gkaros plays the game because kostas for some reason is not able to play.
Even SATAN when i asked him was not sure that the player Game Over was the same person as you can see from this conversation http://www.webpagesc...8e0487-87483128

I voted against his further participation in the event mostly because his irresponsibility and the total lack of respect to our efforts.
If he was responsible person he would explained exactly after his game everything according this game. He found it easier to do nothing and make his own rules , that there is no need to have screenshot or what" s your problem if i use my other account, I am Manning one of the 2 best players(as he has posted) and I can do whatever I want.
ALL THE PLAYERS PLAYED WITH THEIR SIGN UP ACCOUNTS.
ALL THE PLAYERS GAVE THEIR SCREENSHOTS SAME TIME AFTER THEIR GAMES.
ALL EXCEPT ONE.
I DO NOT CARE IF HIS NAME IS MANNING OR SATAN OR NORTROM.
WE NEED PLAYERS LIKE LOSERMAKER OR LUCKYPAPA OR .......
WE NEED PLAYERS WHO RESPECT RULES AND DO NOT CAUSE TROUBLES.
WE DO NOT NEED PLAYERS WHO THEIR OPINION FOR THIS SITE IS
"i dont want to be bothered with a terrible place where no one does anything...unlike you the ♥♥♥♥♥ who wont play on gravon i can go elsewhere i dont feel like wasting my time"

 

 

KARAISKAKIS


  • Dekaeneas-Spy, maxroelofs and v.navigator like this

#32 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:13 AM

Apparently there is still room for discussion/debate, so I have unlocked the thread. However, if the thread starts to go back towards name calling and insults, I will lock it again.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

-LTG


How can I help you?

#33 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 09 November 2013 - 12:45 AM

Following the letter of the Karaiskaki unlocked topic and understand sir LearningΤhisGame that did not end the debate.

 

 

I'm really sorry for addressing that I have here in.

 

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy



#34 Barbe Noire

Barbe Noire

    Bomb

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 09 November 2013 - 11:59 AM

Hi everybody,

 

This is to express the opinion of a still qualified player in this first tournament:

 

first of all I wish to thank all people who spend their precious time to make sure this event will be a success. As this is the first online "World Stratego Champion's Tournament" and knowing that most probably all people who are making efforts to set up this tournament are working for free, everybody is invited to show some indulgence and accept that the rules cannot be 100% perfect from scratch. So room for improvement for next tournaments exist and the lessons learned from this first one have to be reflected through an update of the rules for the next tournament. I'm pretty confident that the passion expressed in this forum discussion and the hard work of all JC and other organizers will result in such improvement.

 

With regard to the M2C vs Satan-NL second round match where M2C has been substituted by "Game over", the fact is that this change of player is not inline with the available rules established for this first tournament. However I'm calling here for the indulgence of all players who love this game in order to accept that the above described deviation from the rules shall be settled in the following way:

as:

1) The majority of the members of JC recognize that M2C is qualified for next round

2) Satan-NL, World N°1 Stratego champion, and who may also have all interest to be the winner of this tournament, has formally recognized his defeat and accepted that M2C continues playing in next round

3) at least 3 of the still qualified other players for round 3 have expressed their agreement to recognize the qualification of M2C for next round (see post above in this discussion from Nortrom and Luckypapa) to which my personal recognition can also be added 

4) the lessons learned from this first tournament shall be used to improve the rules for next tournaments

5) we all readers and contributors to this forum discussion (including Dekaenas spy) are definitely the real LOVERS of this website and want this first tournament to be a success.

for all these reasons I strongly suggest to everybody to accept the settlement of this issue as such at this point.

 

 

i would also propose that after the end of this tournament (or even before) somebody opens a new topic for the posting of all ideas of improvement for future tournaments. There maybe other aspects to be improved in the rules. In particular I'm thinking to the fact that the online startego differs slightly from the conventional board where you see your opponent face to face. In this game (and this is also a big difference from chess) because you don't see the setup of your opponent you have to use all means to gather information (intelligence in words of war) about your opponent's setup. If you have him face to face you may identify some important information just by observing his behaviour, which is impossible online. On the other side, online you don't know if your opponent is playing just based on his memory or if he takes some notes aside.

 

Hope to see this first World Stratego Champion's Tournament to end up in a real success recognized by all.

 

Barbe Noire


  • Midnightguy and LearningThisGame like this

#35 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 14 November 2013 - 07:49 PM

Posted 12 hours ago

Dekaeneas-Spy, on 09 Nov 2013 - 01:08 AM, said:snapback.png

I'm really sorry for addressing that I have here.
lock the TOPIC  saying  Τhe BOOK of INCIDENTS and COMPLAINTS
Why? Do not like in appearance; made ​​you so bad? thank you LearningThisGame

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy

 

 

Dekaeneas,

 

Be careful about making hasty assumptions. I am not a member of the Tournament Committee, so I could care less - on a personal level - if some criticism of the Tournament Committee "looks bad." Frankly, I think you are completely mistaken regarding the point of the rules. You are, of course, entitled to your perspective. I thank you for sharing your thoughts, but the matter is now really no longer worthy of debate given the Tournament Committee has rendered its decision.

 

To be clear for you, the thread you created was originally locked because it was devolving into an exchange of insults. Debate is welcomed; insults are not.

 

Regards,

LTG

 

 

                                                                                          :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

 

Posted 5 hours ago

Dekaeneas-Spy: I suddenly saw the topic be locked when it sent the letter of the karaiskakis opening. Karaiskakis said the things as they were, and begged me not to continue to talk about this topic. Did you write ago the intervention Karaiskaki:

 

LearningThisGame:

I am closing this topic. There is really no more conversation to be had, here. 

 

Manning2Cruz, please watch your language. No need to be calling Dekaeneas names.

 

Dekaeneas, I understand your frustration, but there are times when the spirit of the rule is meant to be followed and not necessarily a strict conservative interpretation of every rule. 

 

As explained before, the purpose of the "two account" clause was to prevent people from trying to get multiple entries into the tournament. No such thing happened in this case. 

 

A reasonable justification was also given for why a different name (GameOver) was used. This has resulted in no dispute among the players involved.

 

The only thing you can really argue is that Manning2Cruz and SATAN-NL conspired to cheat in some way or to misrepresent the outcome of their theoretical game. I don't think this is what you are trying to say. Thus, let us move on and take note of your concern for future tournaments where the rules will continue to be improved and refined. 

 

 

 

As for your point over screenshots, I agree that could have been better handled. But, again, the point of rules is not to fault everyone for every little technicality, bur rather to provide structure and a framework for fair play. If the main objective has been met (getting a reasonable report of the game outcome), then the main purpose has been met. Eventually screenshots were provided anyway, so we are fine.

 

-LTG

(forum moderator, not a member of the tournament committee)

 

Dekaeneas-Spy: Did you write such after the letter KARAISKAKIS:

 

LearningThisGame:

Apparently there is still room for discussion/debate, so I have unlocked the thread. However, if the thread starts to go back towards name calling and insults, I will lock it again.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

-LTG

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy: I had good behavior, regardless if i disagree with all the other players who were discussing the rules.

This issue has been over by 5 days and you too comest now open debate again (telling me that I am wrong as regards the rules).

Αfter 5 days you remembered to my answer? Does he like me remember that I was wrong on the rules? THANKS you, my friend LTG.

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy



#36 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 15 November 2013 - 06:08 AM

Hi, Dekaeneas, 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying or asking. Would you mind writing your questions or comments in your native Greek tongue? I am happy to try to translate it. I think some things are not being communicated clearly in English between us. 

 

As for your behavior, I have no problem with anything you have done. You are entitled to share your concerns and opinion, and I think it is good that you do so.

 

That being said, I do want to make sure you understand why certain actions were taken (e.g., locking the thread earlier). I could be wrong, but it seemed like you thought the thread was locked to stop debate. That would be wrong. The thread was locked because it was beginning to be a source of name calling and insults - and no longer fair debate. Once I saw that Karaiskakis and others still had substantive issues to discuss, I unlocked the thread. Hope this clarifies things?

 

As for the issue being "over by 5 days," I am glad that you consider it a thing of the past; I will consider it a thing of the past, too. I just did not see your post until recently and wanted to clarify my position and correct any misunderstandings.

 

Please don't hesitate to ask any other questions if anything is unclear.

 

Best,

LTG


How can I help you?

#37 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:19 AM

LTG, 

thanks for the explanation and sorry for my English but do not know very well and try to I Become understood.
I have no problem with you and anyone else in site.
I like to talk about the good though this beautiful game(stratego).
If i disagree with some not mean they are my enemies.

 

I thank all the players trying to make better the site.

 

I love the stratego.

 

Dekaeneas-Spy


  • Luckypapa, maxroelofs and LearningThisGame like this

#38 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:01 AM

LTG, 

thanks for the explanation and sorry for my English but do not know very well and try to I Become understood.
I have no problem with you and anyone else in site.
I like to talk about the good though this beautiful game(stratego).
If i disagree with some not mean they are my enemies.

 

I thank all the players trying to make better the site.

 

I love the stratego.

 

Dekaeneas-Spy

 

No problem at all. Τα αγγλικά σας είναι πολύ καλύτερη από την ελληνική μου


  • Dekaeneas-Spy likes this
How can I help you?

#39 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 16 November 2013 - 01:19 AM

I say we close the book on this book, and we all move on.  Think everyone aired their grievances and all misunderstandings are cleared.  



#40 Dekaeneas-Spy

Dekaeneas-Spy

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,391 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 November 2013 - 11:20 AM

I say we close the book on this book, and we all move on.  Think everyone aired their grievances and all misunderstandings are cleared.  

 

 

Ι agree, midnightguy.
I think and I hope to never need this book.

Thank you.

 

 

Dekaeneas-Spy


  • LearningThisGame likes this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users