Killer1 wrote:
I'm right there with you on your feelings towards some of the players on this site. I too am appalled at the unwillingness of some players on this site to allow possible improvements in the game.
It just goes to show the extent on how some gamers lack sufficient educating and/or knowledge on this subject.
Regis wrote:
Possible improvement does not mean ascertained improvement.
This is a true statement, however, the only sure way to determine the efficacy of an improvement is to execute it. Given that the change could have been made without disrupting the existing situation, one wonders why people were so set against allowing a possible improvement.
Regis wrote:
Because someone disagree does not mean he lacks education or knowledge (he could return you the same anyway).
Your statement, in general, is quite correct. However, it does not apply well in the current situation. The majority of those arguing the fuel issue repeatedly fell back upon one point or a variant of it; that German aircraft typically had less fuel than Allied aircraft. While this is an accurate statement, it isn't a primary issue in the tactical combat under discussion. What these individuals were displaying was a general lack of knowledge and/or understanding about aerial combat and specifically World War I aerial combat. Therefore, I believe that, overall, Killer1's statement is justified.
Regis wrote:
If a majority of Youplay.it BM players is against the change, then it may be that the proposed improvement is not perceived as such.
Again, an accurate statement, but one which does not go far enough. A perception on the part of someone that something is not an improvement does not mean that the proposal does not have merit. It is quite possible, as we have just seen, that those opposed either do not understand the merits or the change, or simply are set against any change. Remember, while a majority may rule in a democracy, history has shown that the majority is often very, very wrong.
Regis wrote:
So instead of blaming the people refusing the change, obviously setting them against you, why not trying to counter argument the given reasons and convince them of the possible benefits?
And again, a statement which is reasonable, but not applicable. Actually, what you suggest was done, repeatedly. Neither historical points nor logical points made an impact. You must also recognize that sometimes reason does not work when people are unwilling to listen.
Regis wrote:
Your are definitely not a politician 
Here we can agree, while noting that there are very few of those on this forum.
|
Donate
Leagues
Gonzaga
Blue Max
Cartagena
Wooden Ships...
King Me!
VampiRing
