Updating the Desperation Morale site (help needed on a couple things)

[Pitman]

It's your site, you can list or not list whatever items you damn well choose. I'm not going to stop reading your write-ups. You should accept, however, that your approach is inconsistent. You make an unresearched assumption about one company's practices, you make exactly the same assumption about a different company's practices, and yet the products from the two companies are treated differently, apparently only because one is a physical product and the other isn't -- even though you say that doesn't matter. The evidence of what you do doesn't match what you say.

I am not being inconsistent. I have made assumptions in neither case. I treat the two different media differently, for reasons that I have explained above. CH is an unusual case in that it has playtested products and in some cases still publishes playtested products (usually those submitted by outside groups, like the San Marino folks), as well as publishing products that do not require playtesting (such as map sets). It also highlights another reason why I treat the two media differently: you lose nothing by downloading some free digital thing and playing it yourself. You stand to lose a lot if you pay through the nose for a bad product. So it is more important to include write-ups of physical products. I've been consistent about this policy for many years, too.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

What are you ranting about? He's making the same point you are.

It's amusing to see who doesn't read the Facebook ASL groups; they might be better informed as to who was who here if they did.

 

[esprcorn]

I am not being inconsistent. I have made assumptions in neither case. I treat the two different media differently, for reasons that I have explained above. CH is an unusual case in that it has playtested products and in some cases still publishes playtested products (usually those submitted by outside groups, like the San Marino folks), as well as publishing products that do not require playtesting (such as map sets). It also highlights another reason why I treat the two media differently: you lose nothing by downloading some free digital thing and playing it yourself. You stand to lose a lot if you pay through the nose for a bad product. So it is more important to include write-ups of physical products. I've been consistent about this policy for many years, too.

But... as has been pointed out - They are not digital only. They are not widely distributed but there have been occasions whereby the products have been available for purchase. I too own one ASL for Fun which included a printed mapsheet of excellent quality, 4 or 5 extra scenarios and a limited amount of counters.

They are playtested at least once before release even digitally - which is more than can be said of several products on your site.

Maybe consistency as well as a more sensible rationale would be appreciated by your sites users and fans - of which am one.

 

[Philippe D.]

OK, so I checked my (meagre) Vae Victis collection:

#131 (Jan-Feb 2017) has an ASL Scenario, VV105 "Brexit", by Philippe Naud. 5 1/2 turns, one map, infantry only (with two Light Mortars); British Commandos (with one Allied US squad and leader) vs Germans, mostly 2nd line. August 19, 1942, near Dieppe, France.

#132 (Mar-Apr 2017) has no ASL content.

If you need any more details on the scenario, please ask.

 

[Pitman]

OK, so I checked my (meagre) Vae Victis collection:

#131 (Jan-Feb 2017) has an ASL Scenario, VV105 "Brexit", by Philippe Naud. 5 1/2 turns, one map, infantry only (with two Light Mortars); British Commandos (with one Allied US squad and leader) vs Germans, mostly 2nd line. August 19, 1942, near Dieppe, France.

#132 (Mar-Apr 2017) has no ASL content.

If you need any more details on the scenario, please ask.

Thanks very much.. I am still looking for the missing 2016 issues!

 

[bprobst]

I am not being inconsistent. I have made assumptions in neither case.

Apparently "assumptions" means something different where you live. In this part of the world, when you state something as if it were a fact that you have researched, when in fact no such research has taken place, you are making an assumption. And it's nice that you can look in the mirror and claim to be absolutely consistent; the rest of us are seeing something a little different. Whatever. I know that you would prefer self-mutilation than to ever admit that you were wrong about anything, once you have stated your opinion on it. Just keep doing what you do.

FWIW, while "such-and-such product is expensive garbage; stay away from it" is indeed valuable and useful information, simple statements like "this company makes some scenarios/CGs/whatever available for download; doesn't hurt to check them out, but keep in mind they are probably not well-tested etc." might prove useful info to some. You don't need to get into the gory details if you don't want to.

 

[Pitman]

Apparently "assumptions" means something different where you live. In this part of the world, when you state something as if it were a fact that you have researched, when in fact no such research has taken place, you are making an assumption. And it's nice that you can look in the mirror and claim to be absolutely consistent; the rest of us are seeing something a little different. Whatever. I know that you would prefer self-mutilation than to ever admit that you were wrong about anything, once you have stated your opinion on it. Just keep doing what you do.

FWIW, while "such-and-such product is expensive garbage; stay away from it" is indeed valuable and useful information, simple statements like "this company makes some scenarios/CGs/whatever available for download; doesn't hurt to check them out, but keep in mind they are probably not well-tested etc." might prove useful info to some. You don't need to get into the gory details if you don't want to.

Let's talk about "assumptions," Bruce. You know, like your assumption that I have researched nothing, when in fact I have looked at every word written, here and elsewhere, by GK on the subject of his "ASL for fun" projects. So just piss off.

 

[esprcorn]

... when in fact I have looked at every word written, here and elsewhere, by GK on the subject of his "ASL for fun" projects.

Hmmm, maybe then your problem is more one of reading comprehension...

 

[Michael Dorosh]

Let's talk about "assumptions," Bruce. You know, like your assumption that I have researched nothing, when in fact I have looked at every word written, here and elsewhere, by GK on the subject of his "ASL for fun" projects. So just piss off.

George doesn't often brag up his products though, so if you're only "researching" the products based on his forum postings, you're willfully missing the point. Others have talked about testing his products, and George's playtest group has an active Facebook page.

Are you a member/does your "research" extend to that?

Most importantly, have you ever contacted him directly and just, you know, talked to him? I know for a fact you've never done that with me. Instead, you posted a bunch of befuddled comments about my products and pretended not to understand what you were seeing, when all that could have been avoided with a three sentence query by email. Other authors/designers/publishers here have received the same treatment.

So, why not just - you know - talk to the publishers directly and give them a fair shake?

 

[RobZagnut]

At the Point, A.S.L.U.G., etc. were different?

As a playtester for ASLUG I can guarantee that I playtested many of those scenarios. Some of them multiple times.

The four best set of scenarios in a newsletter, module or scenario pack, in no particular order:

Windy City scenarios
ASLUG scenario set
Rout Report scenario set
Valor of the Guards scenarios (including the four from Dispatches from the Bunker designed by Tom Morin).

If you're a newer player I highly recommended looking into these scenarios. Many of them are now free.

 

[RandyT0001]

Rob,
I was questioning the quantity/quality of playtesting of ASLUG, ATP, etc. that is reviewed by Mark and included on his website vs the quantity/quality of playtesting of DC Conscripts' scenarios in their "fanzine" (which, from a semantic POV, are virtually the same as a "newsletter"). As much as I can judge both have about the same level of playtesting but Mark treats them differently. I was interested in understanding what Mark's "standard" was. I see that it is an arbitrary one based on whim as far as I can determine.

I like the ASLUG scenarios and have DL them myself.

 

[Pitman]

Rob,
I was questioning the quantity/quality of playtesting of ASLUG, ATP, etc. that is reviewed by Mark and included on his website vs the quantity/quality of playtesting of DC Conscripts' scenarios in their "fanzine" (which, from a semantic POV, are virtually the same as a "newsletter"). As much as I can judge both have about the same level of playtesting but Mark treats them differently. I was interested in understanding what Mark's "standard" was. I see that it is an arbitrary one based on whim as far as I can determine.

I like the ASLUG scenarios and have DL them myself.

How has Mark treated those things differently? I have not even written about Red Banner scenarios yet.

 

[RandyT0001]

How has Mark treated those things differently? I have not even written about Red Banner scenarios yet.

I read this post:

There are two issues of the DC Conscripts newsletter published thus far (both available as .pdf's).

Not sure if you want to include Lone Canuck's ASL for Fun scenarios.

No, I am not going to include those. They don't qualify.

I misinterpreted this to mean you are not reviewing and including the Red Banner scenarios on your website. My apologies, sir.

 

[bprobst]

Let's talk about "assumptions," Bruce. You know, like your assumption that I have researched nothing, when in fact I have looked at every word written, here and elsewhere, by GK on the subject of his "ASL for fun" projects. So just piss off.

Ah, I see I hit a sore spot. Being aware of your own failings will do that to you.

 

[Pitman]

Piss off.

 

[Aaron Cleavin]

I have spent time with talked to and played both Mark and Bruce and thoroughly enjoyed the experiences.
Both have a great love of ASL with strong and often intransigent ideas around the game.

I think they in fact violently agree with each other on much more about ASL than they in fact even modesty
disagree.

It would be fantastic if they could harness their passions to create something together around the game;
they both at times think and write beautifully on the game.

If they do a crossfire I will be happy to adjudicate.

For the love of the game.

 

[Brad M-V]

Well said, Aaron.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I assume you're replying to someone that has deleted his/her post, so you may want to delete as well.

Click on "see ignored content" to see what he's responding to. I did.

 

[von Marwitz]

Those around here for a little while will have learned to take both Mark and Bruce with a grain of salt.
It can be safely said that both can be headstrong at times. So if both are dropped into a glass and shaken, no surprise when there's a fight - as can be seen by their discussion above.

Yet, I think that despite their abrasiveness at times (English native speakers are invited to substitute better fitting vocabulary) both can be counted to the sensible lot around here.

von Marwitz

 

[bprobst]

Beats me. I thought I was contributing to the discussion about how any why Mark adds (or does not add) particular content to his site. In reply I get childish abuse. It does make me wonder why he started the thread in the first place, since he seems completely uninterested in most of the replies that he has received; certainly "discussion" seems to be the last thing he wants.

I have no personal animosity towards Mark at all. I agree with Aaron's comment that I would agree with Mark far more frequently than I disagree with him. Our differences, such as they are, probably have a lot more to do with what we individually focus on as "important" to ASL. He has his priorities, I have mine, and most other people probably think both of us are equally weird.

Regardless, this isn't the Bruce-and-Mark show. If Mark doesn't want to discuss any thinking behind his web-site and isn't interested in comments that aren't simply gushing praise, that's his affair. I've already stated that it won't stop me from reading his site, although I'll be sure to avoid attempting to provide any sort of suggestions or assistance in the future.