Crews for 1/2" SW counters

[jwb3]

Bill,

I think I need to explain exactly what I meant by the following statement:

I think what this is, is a cautionary tale about the dangers of A/CSM Bird's notion of a "subtle grassroots campaign"... :laugh:

My point was that trying to be less-than-direct about saying, "These crews are here to man the MGs and mortars," might end up backfiring. Since I am aware of the debate about this idea, anytime I see extra crews in an OB above and beyond those needed to man 5/8" weapons, I immediately start wondering whether they were intended to man the MGs and mortars. But for those who are not aware of the debate, using crews for MGs is not the first thing that comes to mind. The ASL system penalizes the use of anything other than full squads for firing MGs. Anyone who wants to encourage the idea of using crews for MGs better come right out and say so, by SSR or otherwise.

The three scenarios I quoted the details of seem like a good example. Since someone said earlier that Steve Swann, who designed the scenarios, is a supporter of the crews-for-SW idea, it seems pretty obvious to me that Steve intended the crews in the various OBs to be used for that purpose. But in the published versions, not only is there no SSR to state that, in half of the OBs there aren't even enough crews! "Danica Air" has 4 crews and 8 "crew-served" SW (CSSW), "Break for Hungary" gives one side 2 crews and 2 CSSW but gives the other 0 crews and 2 CSSW, and only "Prelude to Dying" actually matches 8 crews with 8 CSSW.

Is this because Steve's original designs got modified in playtesting? If so, then it would have been better to state clearly that "the crews are for the CSSW", so the developers would have known what not to change. Is it because Steve is experimenting with throwing random numbers of crews into scenarios, to see how people will use them? I can already tell y'all how people will use them: randomly! :laugh: Some will use them for mortars; some will use them for MGs, but only at ranges > normal range for their squads (more likely > long range). Some will use them for scouts; some will use them for candygrams for Mongo. Some will use them as HIPsters for ambushing vehicles. The best players will use them for something different in every scenario. And without an SSR, not one of these various uses can be considered "misuse"...

So if anyone is planning on including crews for the CSSWs in a scenario, go all the way, and state what they're for. Otherwise the waters will just get muddier and muddier.


John

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Bill,

I think I need to explain exactly what I meant by the following statement:

My point was that trying to be less-than-direct about saying, "These crews are here to man the MGs and mortars," might end up backfiring. Since I am aware of the debate about this idea, anytime I see extra crews in an OB above and beyond those needed to man 5/8" weapons, I immediately start wondering whether they were intended to man the MGs and mortars. But for those who are not aware of the debate, using crews for MGs is not the first thing that comes to mind. The ASL system penalizes the use of anything other than full squads for firing MGs. Anyone who wants to encourage the idea of using crews for MGs better come right out and say so, by SSR or otherwise.

The three scenarios I quoted the details of seem like a good example. Since someone said earlier that Steve Swann, who designed the scenarios, is a supporter of the crews-for-SW idea, it seems pretty obvious to me that Steve intended the crews in the various OBs to be used for that purpose. But in the published versions, not only is there no SSR to state that, in half of the OBs there aren't even enough crews! "Danica Air" has 4 crews and 8 "crew-served" SW (CSSW), "Break for Hungary" gives one side 2 crews and 2 CSSW but gives the other 0 crews and 2 CSSW, and only "Prelude to Dying" actually matches 8 crews with 8 CSSW.

Is this because Steve's original designs got modified in playtesting? If so, then it would have been better to state clearly that "the crews are for the CSSW", so the developers would have known what not to change. Is it because Steve is experimenting with throwing random numbers of crews into scenarios, to see how people will use them? I can already tell y'all how people will use them: randomly! :laugh: Some will use them for mortars; some will use them for MGs, but only at ranges > normal range for their squads (more likely > long range). Some will use them for scouts; some will use them for candygrams for Mongo. Some will use them as HIPsters for ambushing vehicles. The best players will use them for something different in every scenario. And without an SSR, not one of these various uses can be considered "misuse"...

So if anyone is planning on including crews for the CSSWs in a scenario, go all the way, and state what they're for. Otherwise the waters will just get muddier and muddier.


John

Mark addresses this all in his review of Neither Fear Nor Hope in View From The Trenches. The examples he cites makes it clear that SSRs would have to be extensive to make them work. Saying "crews must man SWs" is far too vague; what if the player doesn't, and simply uses them as you say? There are no penalties for other use. Imposing penalties by SSR becomes cumbersome to the point you're actually talking about a variant set of rules, not an SSR or even a set of SSRs.

 

[Jim McLeod]

Imposing penalties by SSR becomes cumbersome to the point you're actually talking about a variant set of rules, not an SSR or even a set of SSRs.

Actually, SSR for the crew can be quite simple.

"Infantry Crews in a player's OB are the only MMC personel that may fire a LATW/Lt. Mtr/MMG/HMG without incurring Inexperienced Use Penalties (quote rule). Infantry Crews manning MG are immune to Cowering."

IMO, that should be incentive enough to encourage a player to let the Infantry crew man the HMG.

 

[jwb3]

The examples he cites makes it clear that SSRs would have to be extensive to make them work. Saying "crews must man SWs" is far too vague; what if the player doesn't, and simply uses them as you say? There are no penalties for other use. Imposing penalties by SSR becomes cumbersome to the point you're actually talking about a variant set of rules, not an SSR or even a set of SSRs.

I tend to agree (although I may have said things that suggested otherwise).

However, it might be as simple as referencing G1.611 (the Japanese rule), such as "SSR X: G1.611 applies to both sides, and also applies to the use of Light Mortars."

Of course, since that drags ATRs into the discussion, it raises the question: Do those of you who are 'true believers' in the CSSW concept think that standard ATRs should be among them? Or are they okay as squad weapons, as LMGs are? What about the Italian 20L ATR?


John

 

[Stalwart]

I will use extra crews to man Support Weapon counters such as ATR, Lt MTR if those extra crews are available. As it is now, only a few scenarios are designed with separate crews for the crew served weapons I would like to see more scenarios with extra crews

 

[jwb3]

Actually, SSR for the crew can be quite simple.

"Infantry Crews in a player's OB are the only MMC personel that may fire a LATW/Lt. Mtr/MMG/HMG without incurring Inexperienced Use Penalties (quote rule). Infantry Crews manning MG are immune to Cowering."

See, now, there you go, making the SSR needlessly complicated. :laugh: :clown:

I'd be interested to see how much agreement there actually is among you 'true believers' about what exactly the right rules are for these CSSW... such as whether they should be immune to Cowering.

Bill, any thoughts on this? Stalwart?

Is Steve Swann lurking around here somewhere?


John

 

[WaterRabbit]

Bill,

The ASL system penalizes the use of anything other than full squads for firing MGs.

I completely disagree with this statement. IME, using full squads to man MMG/HMG/MTRs is a much bigger penalty. Exactly how do you think ASL penalizes not using Squads to man MGs?

The three scenarios I quoted the details of seem like a good example. Since someone said earlier that Steve Swann, who designed the scenarios, is a supporter of the crews-for-SW idea, it seems pretty obvious to me that Steve intended the crews in the various OBs to be used for that purpose. But in the published versions, not only is there no SSR to state that, in half of the OBs there aren't even enough crews! "Danica Air" has 4 crews and 8 "crew-served" SW (CSSW), "Break for Hungary" gives one side 2 crews and 2 CSSW but gives the other 0 crews and 2 CSSW, and only "Prelude to Dying" actually matches 8 crews with 8 CSSW.

Steve already has talked about this on the forum. Basically, since there is such a strong opinion against forcing players to use crews to man MGs, he has provided them for players to use as they please. Man the MGs, do recon with, guard prisioners, etc. They are an advantage for the player who has the imagination to use them.

Is this because Steve's original designs got modified in playtesting? If so, then it would have been better to state clearly that "the crews are for the CSSW", so the developers would have known what not to change. Is it because Steve is experimenting with throwing random numbers of crews into scenarios, to see how people will use them? I can already tell y'all how people will use them: randomly! :laugh: Some will use them for mortars; some will use them for MGs, but only at ranges > normal range for their squads (more likely > long range). Some will use them for scouts; some will use them for candygrams for Mongo. Some will use them as HIPsters for ambushing vehicles. The best players will use them for something different in every scenario. And without an SSR, not one of these various uses can be considered "misuse"...

And your point? Do you need an SSR telling you how to use your squads? Your leaders? It seems to me you are trying to create a problem where there is none.

 

[jwb3]

I completely disagree with this statement. IME, using full squads to man MMG/HMG/MTRs is a much bigger penalty. Exactly how do you think ASL penalizes not using Squads to man MGs?

A half-squad or crew which mans an MG loses its full firepower. A full squad loses nothing.

Firepower wise, that is. Obviously you can argue that it loses its mobility, or whatever else. But if I am setting up my kill stack within normal range of the enemy (that is, normal range of the inherent firepower of my squads), it will always be manned by full squads, while the crews will be used for something else -- anything else.

Even at the squads' long range I might man with full squads, depending on whether I'm the attacker or defender and other tactical considerations. Needless to say, if I never expect an enemy to get within the squads' long range, I won't use full squads.

Mortars are a separate subject. I generally use half-squads with mortars, and if given crews I might very well decide to use them instead... if I don't have better things to do with a 2-2-8 that can rally itself.

Steve already has talked about this on the forum. Basically, since there is such a strong opinion against forcing players to use crews to man MGs, he has provided them for players to use as they please. Man the MGs, do recon with, guard prisioners, etc. They are an advantage for the player who has the imagination to use them.

Thanks for the info.

And your point? Do you need an SSR telling you how to use your squads? Your leaders? It seems to me you are trying to create a problem where there is none.

And it seems to me your ability to be abrasive is right up there with the best on the forum. Congratulations... (if you think they are appropriate).

My point is that as the scenarios I listed were actually published in the Journal, some of them contain too few crews to man the MGs and mortars. This is not, particularly, a problem for me. I would think, however, that it might be a problem for fans of CSSW -- and possibly for Steve himself.


Okay, so Steve has provided crews for the players to use as they please. Will you CSSW fans among us (and I can't tell whether WR considers himself one or not, so this may not be addressed to him) use them to man the MGs and Mortars?

If so, what will you do when you play "Danica Air" and there aren't enough of them to go around? Will you apply some sort of penalty to a non-crew unit using a CSSW? Or will you just go on playing ASL with the "Rules as Written"?


John

 

[A/CSM Bird]

See, now, there you go, making the SSR needlessly complicated. :laugh: :clown:

I'd be interested to see how much agreement there actually is among you 'true believers' about what exactly the right rules are for these CSSW... such as whether they should be immune to Cowering.

Bill, any thoughts on this? Stalwart?

Is Steve Swann lurking around here somewhere?


John

Near the start of Jim's original Ortona project, Jim, George Kelln and me were kicking around ideas for Ortona and other CG's. Jim concentrated on Ortona while George raided my library and started researching the battles in Normandy that involved the Canadians. George's experience with real-world infantry combat and military organization, historical research for Ortona and Normandy lead to the idea for crews for SW. As Jim has noted there were crew rules in the original Ortona rules-set. The monster scenarios and CG's that George designed included these rules as well.
The crews were for the 2" Mtr, PIAT, HMG, and MMG. The RG's they were part of were the Inf Platoon for the 2" Mtr, HQ for the PIAT teams and MMG and HMG sect. So you received crews for all those weapons. Your Inf platoons were 3 squads and a LMG with a crew for the 2" MTR . If you wanted PIAT's you had to buy a HQ for each 3 or 4 Inf PL you received. The PIAT teams were vehicle crew counters IIRC. The HMG/MMG sects had a number of weapons and a crew for each one.

In practice your Inf platoon had a SMC, 3 squads, LMG, 2" Mtr and crew and PIAT and crew. Note you could not stack them without penalty. The HMG/MMG's were usually used on the flanks, for firelanes or as suppressing fire from upper floors or steeples in death stacks.

The rules for the use of these crews were as follows: As per Jim's post HMG/MMG, PIATS and 2" Mtr fired by squads/HS incurred +1 drm in the case of Mg's and TH and B# penalties for all weapons. Crews could not control victory or building locations. Cowering was possible IIRC. The Germans had similar unit structures for PZK teams etc.

In actual game use we used them for their intended purpose. The infantry line could be extended somewhat, not having squads manning SW meant that your infantry was up-front more, you got more out of a platoon than regular old vanilla ASL it seemed. It also played well, I can think of no real actual application by any of the gang (8-10 different players) that played the various monsters that George cooked up that would be considered abuse or weird outlandish gamey use of the units and rules. We played it pretty straight, perhaps because we cooked it up? Were we too close to the design?
I dunno.

The rules themselves were simple. Similar to the CoB rules for the Japanese with some additions. They caused no problems. You noted the limitations imposed by non-crew use of the SW and played accordingly, when the losses were severe these weapons were acquired by squads/HS and used and the various penalties were noted and applied. There was no feeling that any needless complication was being imposed.

To this I'll add that whenever we start a CG or scenario that includes rules for little used weapons, vehicles, climate etc. Do we immediately reflect on how much more complicated this particular match/session is to be? This is ASL after all. No, we hit the RB, scan chapt's H,B,E for the rules we need to know now and play away referring back when neccessary.

The real question should be; will the inclusion of crews for support weapons and rules for same change ASL for the worse?

I say let's find out, and if so sh*t-can the whole idea, but if not......

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I kicked around some variant rules of my own for actual platoon represenations also; they were similar to what you just described; I think a HS for a platoon headquarters, with both the MTR and PIAT added to it - historically this was how they were organized, though they could also split the MTRs in real life and pool them with the Coy Comd and keep a PIAT team with the platoon, so yours would work out better.

 

[WaterRabbit]

A half-squad or crew which mans an MG loses its full firepower. A full squad loses nothing.

Firepower wise, that is. Obviously you can argue that it loses its mobility, or whatever else. But if I am setting up my kill stack within normal range of the enemy (that is, normal range of the inherent firepower of my squads), it will always be manned by full squads, while the crews will be used for something else -- anything else.

A squad manning a SW looses mobility -- the key to ASL. Firepower takes a back seat to mobility -- especially for the attacker. A squad moving forward without a SW is not as high priority a target as a Crew/leader/HMG-MMG (for most of the people I have played). He is one of the faceless mob that presents too many targets for a pressed defender. A squad without a MMG/HMG can double time and place smoke and have enough FP to Encircle units in Stone buildings. A squad without an MMG/HMG has more effective FP than one that sits around firing one. Frankly I am just tickeled when I face an opponent who wastes his squads sitting around firing (H/M)MGs all of the time.

Additionally, it is not like a HS/Crew fires a (H/M)MG with a penalty.

The only thing that is worse than a squad manning a (H/M)MG is one manning a SW MTR -- that is a waste of both mobility and FP.

And it seems to me your ability to be abrasive is right up there with the best on the forum. Congratulations... (if you think they are appropriate).

Is it my ability to be abrassive or your ability to infer something that isn't there?

My point is that as the scenarios I listed were actually published in the Journal, some of them contain too few crews to man the MGs and mortars. This is not, particularly, a problem for me. I would think, however, that it might be a problem for fans of CSSW -- and possibly for Steve himself.

Sorry, still don't understand your point here. You are complaining that some scenarios don't have extra crews/HS? How are they different than the 1000+ other scenarios that don't have them?

Okay, so Steve has provided crews for the players to use as they please. Will you CSSW fans among us (and I can't tell whether WR considers himself one or not, so this may not be addressed to him) use them to man the MGs and Mortars?

If so, what will you do when you play "Danica Air" and there aren't enough of them to go around? Will you apply some sort of penalty to a non-crew unit using a CSSW? Or will you just go on playing ASL with the "Rules as Written"?


John

You see I am still confused by this. IF a scenario designer throws in some extra HS/Crews, I personally am delighted -- especially for the Russians who cannot Deploy.

If a designer doesn't that's OK as well. Do I think it is cool if they are included? Yes. Do I think it reflects "historical reality" better? Sure for most situations (but not all). Do I think it belongs in the RAW? Not especially. At this point I believe they are more suited to scenarios designed with that in mind and/or campaign games where forces are purchased by platoon/company. Do I think that the CCV is too high? Not especially, since if you are going to hunting tanks with them, you are probably going to give them a BAZ/PIAT/PSK/ATR as well and then they represent those AT teams quite well. Do I think we need more rules than currently exist for them? Not really. But I also wouldn't not cry heresy if a designer through in no cowering or exempted them from Mandatory Leadership or gave them a -1 on Repair rolls or etc. There roll can be defined just like the RB defines partisans -- open to appropriate SSRs.

 

[jwb3]

A squad manning a SW looses mobility -- the key to ASL. Firepower takes a back seat to mobility -- especially for the attacker. A squad moving forward without a SW is not as high priority a target as a Crew/leader/HMG-MMG (for most of the people I have played). He is one of the faceless mob that presents too many targets for a pressed defender. A squad without a MMG/HMG can double time and place smoke and have enough FP to Encircle units in Stone buildings. A squad without an MMG/HMG has more effective FP than one that sits around firing one. Frankly I am just tickeled when I face an opponent who wastes his squads sitting around firing (H/M)MGs all of the time.

Sounds to me like this is a debate which could only be settled by sitting across the table from each other (if then!). I don't think that's going to be happening anytime soon, so I guess we'd better just agree to disagree.

Is it my ability to be abrassive or your ability to infer something that isn't there?

Then I strongly, strongly suggest you use the word "you" less in your writing. It is an invitation for people to infer that you are talking about them -- and on the internet, they will accept that invitation. I'm not sure why we take it so much more meaningfully when it's used in writing than we do when it's used in speech, but at least some of us do.

I have to struggle quite often, in my own messages, with needing to reword statements like,
"It seems to me you are trying to create a problem where there is none,"
which I took as not only a personal attack but as tantamount to accusing me of deliberately trolling, into what I am now inferring you actually meant:
"It seems to me this is making a problem out of a non-issue."

Sorry, still don't understand your point here. You are complaining that some scenarios don't have extra crews/HS?

I am stating that in some situations, trying to take half-measures and compromise not only means that neither side's goals are accomplished, but it can actually make things worse for one or both sides. The Croat scenarios were one such situation.


John

 

[Will Fleming]

Seems everything is a kind of balance to me. No one is clamoring for the fantasy 0-6-8 MMC with 8 MF as being the best squad out there. Similarly no one wants to attack using the 8-6-8 with 0MF.

Assuming no PB and Adv Fire, but knowing they are CX, the only single squads I know of that encircle units in stone buildings are ones with 4FP and don't cower. That is a Brit 6-4-8. Pretty high on the firepower scale. I guess you could argue for later shots, but by then, they might not be CX either. The defender might not even be in the same hex anymore.

I like a bit of firepower and mobility. Without some kind of edge in one/both, you probably won't mount much of an attack.

I put my HMG/MMG with squads most of the time. If you can deploy, you will put HS with your HMG/MMG? If I had a crew around, I would consider using them for HMG/MMG, but typically that is RB when I want to assemble 24+ FP kill stacks. Spare crews are pretty rare outside of CG's. A vehicle crew now and then does come up, but I probably wouldn't run him over to the HMG stack unless they were close and/or the leader was down.

 

[RobZagnut]

>A squad manning a SW looses mobility -- the key to ASL. Firepower takes a back seat to mobility -- especially for the attacker. A squad moving forward without a SW is not as high priority a target as a Crew/leader/HMG-MMG (for most of the people I have played). He is one of the faceless mob that presents too many targets for a pressed defender. A squad without a MMG/HMG can double time and place smoke and have enough FP to Encircle units in Stone buildings. A squad without an MMG/HMG has more effective FP than one that sits around firing one. Frankly I am just tickeled when I face an opponent who wastes his squads sitting around firing (H/M)MGs all of the time.

I agree. If I get two Crews they are going with my MGs in my suppression group. This frees up two squads for my manuever group, which is a terrific bonus.

My suppression group is designed to break units in my PFPh that come back into LOS after skulking or to keep defending units from easily reinforcing my attack point. A good defender is hardly ever going to give a suppresion group numerous good shots, so why waste two squads on it?

Secondly, my manuever group is the key to victory, which is why I rejoice by it being bolstered with two full squads. We have already discussed in full that ASL is a game of manuever rather than firepower. Correct? So, why in hell would you waste two full squads and put them in your fire group when you're given to great substitutes that allow you to put them in your manuever group?


*NOTE - Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, such as Red Barricades kill stacks or if you're facing a static defense where they can fall back or skulk. But, overall for most scenarios this is the tactic that I would use.

 

[jwb3]

Secondly, my manuever group is the key to victory, which is why I rejoice by it being bolstered with two full squads. We have already discussed in full that ASL is a game of manuever rather than firepower. Correct? So, why in hell would you waste two full squads and put them in your fire group when you're given to great substitutes that allow you to put them in your manuever group?

It sounds to me like, as with Jeff's similar comments, it would be interesting to sit down across the table from you and see what happens. Particularly since then it would be one concrete example rather than a broad theoretical discussion, and thus easier to do a true compare.

Since I know you usually go to ASLOK, this FTF might actually happen someday in the foreseeable future. (Or who knows, maybe I'll actually install VASL again someday...)

In the meantime, I'll respond with "nolo contendere".

*NOTE - Of course, there are always exceptions to this rule, such as Red Barricades kill stacks or if you're facing a static defense where they can fall back or skulk. But, overall for most scenarios this is the tactic that I would use.

And I'll point out that a large proportion of my playing time and "ASL Philosophy" background comes from RB and other short-range fights, so in my case, RB isn't even an exception. It might actually be the bedrock of what I have been saying!


John

 

[Kevin Kenneally]

So Far

Halfway through the time period and good discussions.

Tell your friends about this poll.

All votes count.

 

[WaterRabbit]

Sounds to me like this is a debate which could only be settled by sitting across the table from each other (if then!). I don't think that's going to be happening anytime soon, so I guess we'd better just agree to disagree.

Mainly an observation from watching lots of very good players.

Then I strongly, strongly suggest you use the word "you" less in your writing. It is an invitation for people to infer that you are talking about them -- and on the internet, they will accept that invitation. I'm not sure why we take it so much more meaningfully when it's used in writing than we do when it's used in speech, but at least some of us do.

If I use "y'all" then I sound like a hick (though being a Texan by birth it is fairly natural ); if I use "youse" then people might get confused with Brian -- I suppose I could use "ye", but that only works for the nominative and I would still be left with "you", "your", "yours" for the objective, genitive, and possessive cases respectively. Maybe I could use you(pl.)?
[/quote]

I am stating that in some situations, trying to take half-measures and compromise not only means that neither side's goals are accomplished, but it can actually make things worse for one or both sides. The Croat scenarios were one such situation.


John

Ok, I see where you are headed now. But I am a firm believer in Occam's Razor (and weild it as a deadly weapon) so the additon of crews/HS without comment or restriction seems to be the simplest and most elegant.

 

[Will Fleming]

I think we all would do it depending on the situation at hand. I guess you can look at it as getting free additional crews, but I assume that to keep it balanced, you would have to give up something to get them.

If you said "Add a infantry crew for each MMG/HMG/SW for free". I would be more likely to use them. If they were vehicle crews as in RB, I would be less likely, but still consider it. In a straight up squad for crew trade, I take the squad.

If the OB is 10 5-4-8 germans and one HMG with a 9-2 leader, I will have a squad manning the HMG. I wouldn't deploy just to get an extra half-squad of mobility and would like the two column shift on the first shot. If I had a spare crew, they would probably go in the mobility force. More likely, you have a MMG too, so that makes things more complicated due to German MG firepower. With other nationalities, it is a bit clearer.

With 4-6-7's, I would go two squads, MMG&HMG with the 9-2. The rest (incl 2 crews) create havoc and try to force the defender into tough decisions.

For a US example, 2x666 + MMG/.50cal, I like having the big first shot and like a 20/24FP attack vice 8/12FP to start things off. You are guaranteed one very nice blast at any targets and enjoy a 3 column shift. Very good for busting up guys in good defensive terrain. If I have 8-10 squads in my OB, that is probably what I will do. I don't like counting on rate to get things done and there usually are times when you would really benefit by breaking a key location.

If the MG stack is likely to face a lot of fire and the crew morale is better, the decision gets harder.

 

[jwb3]

If I use "y'all" then I sound like a hick (though being a Texan by birth it is fairly natural ); if I use "youse" then people might get confused with Brian -- I suppose I could use "ye", but that only works for the nominative and I would still be left with "you", "your", "yours" for the objective, genitive, and possessive cases respectively. Maybe I could use you(pl.)?

Um, no. The correct phrase, as any good Pittsburgher can tell you, is "yunz".

Seriously, it's not a matter of you (sing.) versus you (pl.). It's a matter of "you" (personally referential) versus "one" or "people" (impersonally referential).

If I was riding in a car with one of my friends and somebody nearby ran a red light, I would not hesitate to say, "You really shouldn't drive like that, you know?" My friend would know that "you" did not mean him; he'd have a full frame of reference, he would have seen it happening (and probably would agree), the statement would be in the context of something which had just happened, and he'd be able to hear my tone of voice and possibly see my face. And if it turned out he thought I was talking about him anyway, then I'd be able to see it in his face, and quickly add, "I mean, that jackass who just ran the red light!"

On the other hand, if I got an e-mail from the same friend saying, "I still can't believe that idiot ran that red light," I would not reply, "Yeah, you really shouldn't drive like that, you know?" So much of the context would have been stripped away by that point that he would be perfectly justified in writing back, "What, are you saying I drive like that?"

It's much safer saying, "Yeah, people shouldn't drive like that." Nothing is left to be inferred.

If you insist on sticking with using "you" in such circumstances, I suggest you start putting a lot more smilies in your posts...


John

 

[A/CSM Bird]

Are youse guys hijackin' dis thread?