Page 128 of 130

Re: LOEG season 10

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 6:10 am
by Okie
I put in for all 4 in Div.C. Thanks! Okie :roll: :D :D

Re: LOEG season 10

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 11:15 am
by kmaher
Presuming there are still spots as a new player I'd like to sign up for Division C Medieval and Classical


Re: LOEG season 10

Posted: Sat Mar 30, 2013 12:31 pm
by ericdoman1
Now this link is locked, please go to "Recruitment Open ...." links and read the rules, first post on this link

Thanks to all.

Should mention this, welcome back to pantherboy. Let all who know of him, be afraid, be very afraid

Field of Glory Digital Vs. Tabletop

Posted: Tue Apr 02, 2013 6:50 pm
Does FOG digital follow the same rules as FOG tabletop?
I have been playing the digital game and have found a few armies to be real tough to beat and I
may want to create a physical army to match.

Re: Field of Glory Digital Vs. Tabletop

Posted: Sun Apr 07, 2013 12:50 am
by Okie
I believe so and I think the Swiss and Deilami are unfair against almost everyone. :shock: :roll: :o Okie

Re: LoEG 9 RESULTS & TABLES (Links and entry)

Posted: Tue Apr 16, 2013 7:57 pm
by cromlechi
error wrong season!

LoEG Open League

Posted: Mon May 13, 2013 7:40 pm
by flatsix518

I'd like to advocate for an "Open League" next season.

The Open League would allow any army from any period. I could be split up into multiple divisions like the established leagues.

I could see two LoEG rule modifications.

1) Different players could select the same army. (That'll probably result in half of them being Dailami...but oh well...).
2) I think to be admitted into Open League play, you have to have successfully completed a season of "normal" LoEG play. Successful meaning you completed all your games and didn't p*ss off the administrators.

I do think that over successive seasons in the Open League players should have to change up their armies (as in the regular leagues). If you run Dailami in Season 11, you will have to run something different the next season, like, say the Swiss or the Hebrew Horde. ;-)

flatsix518 "the thick"

Re: LoEG Open League

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 6:59 am
by stockwellpete
They had this before in Season 6 and 7 and it was called the Super League. :wink:

Re: LoEG Open League

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 11:53 am
by flatsix518
But wasn't that available only to Div A players? I'd like to have it available to every division and only exclude LoEG rookies.

Re: LoEG Open League

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 12:14 pm
by stockwellpete
flatsix518 wrote:But wasn't that available only to Div A players? I'd like to have it available to every division and only exclude LoEG rookies.
No, if you have a look at the Season 7 line up here, John, you can see it was a mixture of A and B division players . . . ... CQVE#gid=0

I think there were two divisions in Season 6 but only one division in Season 7 (I will check) which might suggest dwindling support for it then. The problem might be that the very top "A" division players are so much stronger than "B" division players generally that there were/will be a higher proportion than usual of very one-sided games. But if there is sufficient support for another season of Super League then why not? :wink:

Re: LoEG Open League

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 12:16 pm
by stockwellpete
John, there were two divisions of the Super League in Season 6 with a total of 16 players altogether; there was only one division in Season 7 with 9 players.

Re: LoEG Open League

Posted: Tue May 14, 2013 12:23 pm
by flatsix518
I was busy getting my tail kicked in Div D, Season 6 -- so didn't notice. I went off into pickup play land and skipped LoEG (7-8) until I could at least give most opponents a decent game. My recollection was that Super League was restricted to top ranked players. Maybe not accurate.

Request to all organisers and league players

Posted: Sat May 18, 2013 10:50 am
by pantherboy
I'm very dissapointed with the current stream of events and how things are being turned inside out in regards to the league I established. I kindly request both parties in question plus organisers to desist in this matter until I have had time to consider appropriate action. I know Pete and have a favorable view of him as I do of other parties involved. I don't know Aristides but from reading his comments he seems to be erudite and makes valid arguments. I think a calmer perspective needs to be taken and then we will be able to find some middle ground to satisfy all involved. I do not wish to see the ejection of any players. I also have noted Fogman withdrew due to some concerns and I had a match with him and found his game play beyond reproach but would like to look into this matter too. It is important for everyone to be aware that the purpose of the league was to have fun gaming with a wider community and to provide an opportunity for recording ones deeds. I look forward to organisers and all players giving me due consideration and providing me with any assistance that will be required. Currently I'm very busy so please be patient and I'll attempt to get back to everyone within the next few days.



Pantherboy's response

Posted: Wed May 22, 2013 5:37 pm
by pantherboy
I’ve created a timeline of posts with how I interpret them.

It all started with a query by Aristides as to whether agreed upon draws should receive a point or not. What followed were a series of posts amicably discussing the topic involving a number of players.

The real criticism begins when Aristides posted comments in rebuttal to Claymore’s comment “All part of the fun.” Aristides drew upon his game with stockwellpete to support his argument without directly indicating Pete though it is reasonable to conclude that his comments would probably provoke a reaction especially as he proffered information regarding an offered draw. After that he debates whether we need further rules to adjudicate these situations. (I consider this stage to be the catalyst for all further troubles. I also believe Aristides chose his words poorly if his intention wasn’t to ruffle feathers.)

The next escalation of the issue is when Pete replies to Aristides comments. He takes a counterpoint to Aristides and uses sarcasm to illustrate his point though he also uses smiley faces to show he isn’t being hostile. Then finally he expresses his exacerbation with Aristides slow play and asks him to speed up or accept the draw. (In my opinion using sarcasm is never a good tactic unless you are on intimate terms with the individual and as such it is likely to provoke a negative response. Also Pete’s final comments regarding speeding up the game should have been far more polite if he was hoping not to upset Aristides.)

Next we have Aristides defense regarding his slow play. There is nothing particularly constructive in what he says and he makes an inferred slight.

Now there are a series of posts regarding draws/slow play including a post by Pete pointing out that Aristides still hadn’t moved. We now have Eric joining in who attempts to defuse the situation by citing his experience from previous seasons regarding this matter. He indicates draws are not so common and recommends that both players put there game on hold and to continue at some latter point. He also points out that Bagration is in charge of the division and that he would have the final say should he choose.

Next we have a negative comment by Aristides to Pete followed by a statement that he would continue the game.

Now Pete attempts to justify his position to Eric regarding the match that he wasn’t playing for a draw. He also expresses dissatisfaction with putting the game on hold. At this point he indicates the game will finish in June at the current rate.

Eric responds that Pete didn’t correctly understand his post and that there was no reference to him playing for a draw. Eric also discusses the topic of slow play.
Rather than letting the point drop Pete responds that it was inferred about playing for a draw by Eric. (I disagree with this and feel it wasn’t necessary to refute what Eric said anyway.) Pete then goes on to discuss the extension of the season deadline to be counterproductive.

Bagration now steps in and requests all parties to cease discussing this topic and to let him make a ruling if needed.

Aristides steps in to say that a ruling isn’t required and to further explain that the intent of all this discussion was to see if some common ground could be found between himself and Pete and to make everyone aware of this trending negative play. (This post is in direct contravention to Bagrations request).

Now Pete posts that Aristides hasn’t moved in 4 days and that he has asked the organisers to adjudicate the game. (This is also in contravention to Bagrations request. His asking for adjudication privately is fine but public posting is not. Also I feel 4 days is not a big deal to wait for a turn and that further patience was required of Pete. Pete should also have been aware that this controversial situation would not be aided by any demands especially in the public forum.)

Next we have another post by Pete telling everyone that Aristides hasn’t moved for 10 days though he has finished other matches. He also states that he hasn’t been accorded the courtesy of a reply by Eric or Bagration regarding his private mails to them. He then goes on to insult both organisers and Aristides. Pete also threatens Aristides with exclusion from any of his own run tournaments unless the matter is resolved promptly. (There is no merit to any of Pete’s comments and I feel that he has overstepped the mark at this stage. Insulting, cajoling or threatening others will never resolve a situation.)

Bagration attacks back in his post. (As an organizer I think you have to take the higher ground and avoid being dragged into negative criticisms. It would have been smarter for Bagration to have privately responded to Pete rather than in the public forum as it creates a negative image of the league and of his credibility as an organizer.)

Next is Aristides hostile response.

Now Pete’s hostile response to Aristides.

Aristides hostile response to Pete.

Pete now responds to Bagration though he words it expressing his empathy from running or supporting other events. Unfortunately he ends it with a criticism towards how the current organisers are handling things.

Now there are a series of posts between Pete and Aristides regarding putting the game on hold. Pete quarrels with Aristides over the interpretation of Eric’s advice and that it should have been Bagrations call. Finally it ends with Aristides commenting that he should have sent Pete a polite note requesting to delay the game. (In these exchanges I find Pete to have been too pedantic in regards to this matter. Also Aristides made a quip at the end of his consolatory words totally negating there intent).

Things settle down a little and Pete talks about how to improve the league and then queries Aristides as to why his play was negative in his view. Aristides responds with his opinion articulating his points. Some other players wade in expressing possible solutions or their own view points on these matters regarding draws or slow play in constructive manners. This banter is amicable and goes back and forth between the parties for many posts. It ends with Aristides politely saying ‘we have to agree to disagree.’

Now Eric posts that he couldn’t respond to Pete because Pete deleted his mail before he could read it. This implies to me that Eric saw that he had a post from Pete but chose not to open it at that particular time and when he came back to it that it was deleted. (I’m not sure what Eric’s intent was in publically posting this unless it was to goad Pete into a response or simply to notify him that he wasn’t aware of the mail’s content. My guess is the latter reason.)

Pete now refutes Eric’s comment about the deleting of the post saying it is in his sent folder. Pete also indicates that a general private post was circulated to certain players and that he still hasn’t received a direct reply. Pete also is sarcastic towards Eric regarding new rules that may need to be introduced for next season.

Eric responds that the general mail was sufficient in his opinion to satisfy Pete and that he had contacted Aristides about getting the game with Pete rolling (which it appears to have occurred). Eric also responds politely to Pete’s insult to organisers about being negligent from much earlier (it seems Eric only just read that comment many days after the fact otherwise I suspect an earlier response). Eric also requests that both Aristides and Pete delete all their posts that include negative remarks and to keep this matter out of the public forum. Eric also stipulates any further offenses by Aristides or Pete will end in their banning from the league.

Pete insults Eric and calls his bluff.

Eric isn’t bluffing. He axes Pete.

Pete posts his private mail to Eric which he never received a reply for (I would argue that Eric did in the general reply and on the forum a couple of posts back which indicated that Aristides had been asked to get a move on).

Pete now posts a challenge to Eric’s decision implying that he never got approval from the other organisers. (In my understanding Eric was the overall organizer so that would mean he would have the right to handle the situation as he saw best.)

Eric responds by quitting as an organizer.

I step in requesting a halt to the discussion.

After this there are further posts to try and assuage Eric but only further provoke him and result in Eric pulling from the league forfeiting his remaining matches. I will point out that hidde commented regarding Eric’s resignation which brought on an outburst from Eric which I thought was unwarranted though understandable since his tensions were so high. I’m sure Eric regrets his comments to hidde.

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

What can I say. Ultimately the issue here is in regards to conduct. Lets start with Aristides. He is to blame for allowing this issue to fester rather than simply getting the game over and done with once he saw what direction this issue was taking. It was transparent how Pete felt and it served no purpose to goad the situation or bring it out into the public forum in such a negative manner. Constructive discussion on the matter is welcome but one must also be mindful of others. Aristides presented many well thought out arguments but inevitably undid a lot of his ideas with negative quips or insinuations. I am not stating that Aristides was at fault in anything he did regarding his game but rather his selection of words needed to be better to avoid antagonising his opponent.

As for Pete I feel that he expected far too much from people and was enforcing his own opinion when he had no right to. I believe that Pete read too much into what Aristides and organisers said seeking umbrage when at time none was intended. I understand his consternation with such a slow game but that doesn't entitle him to belabor the point and force organisers to rule on something that doesn't need to be finished for another couple of months. Everyone encounters things that they dislike in life but what sets one apart from others is how you handle it. The league rules set a completion date and provided how to adjudicate a match if not completed by August. That should of sufficed. To raise an idea for future leagues on how to improve things is great but not in conjunction with attacks on other people. Also to insult organisers or players is certainly poor conduct. It is never acceptable even in response to anothers comments. We have all been taught good manners and if we can stomach some measure of pride then we should be able to resolve these issues amicably.

To the organisers I can only advise that responding to players privately is probably the best course of action. In the public forum a player is more likely to become defensive and reticent to any proposal. Simple posts indicating receipt of a mail and stating a response will be sent at some latter point can do wonders for satisfying someone. Also if you see something getting out of hand then you should step in and be firm but polite. It is not necessary to always justify your decisions since this may provoke a disatisfied party but it will make it clear in future postings if someone is at fault. Also I can understand Eric's response but I feel if you undertake doing something then you should see it through to the end (obviously not when there are extenuating circumstances).

What would I like to do? I've deleted all the posts involved but kept them in a 19 page document on my hard drive for reference. I want to see players get back to gaming and fun. I don't want to see players being banned but I do believe that Pete's conduct went too far and as such I would like him to be mindful of this fact in the future. A bit more perseverance and patience otherwise I will enforce Eric's decision. Lets move forward from here and look to how we can improve the gaming experience for everyone.

Should anyone have a grievance with anything I've posted then please feel free to privately mail me. I guarantee to listen to what you have to say without prejudice though it doesn't mean I will agree with you but I don't mind being a sounding board.



Re: Pantherboy's response

Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 9:42 am
by Morbio
Steve, a great summary and analysis of the situation. I agree with all aspects and would reinforce the points that this is meant to be fun, the rules should be followed, organisers and other players given respect and, finally, organisers adjudications should be followed.

Arsitides' Response

Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 5:09 pm
by Aristides
Pantherboy's response puzzles me, not just in itself but because of the lack of (public) response.

Are we willing to be treated like naughty children so long as we can play our games in peace?

Sometimes people on forums got a bit stroppy with each other for a while. We're human, it happens.

But long public judgements of people's posts?
Deleting of people's posts?

Private posts to the main players in an argument and to try to get everyone to shake hands would be the way to go for a moderator. I don't think public blaming and judgement is a good idea.

Deleting posts: surely only needed when truly offensive or involving racism/religious bigotry, etc?
Otherwise it looks heavy-handed to me and to infringe on free speech.

The banning of SP by eric (not SP's one of me, for those are private tourns) was the only thing that required action by a moderator. The rest should have just been left as it was. SP had already wisely moved the discussion on draws to another thread.

To blame my remark (about games not being fun when the opponent plays for a draw) for actions like banning is like blaming deaths at a bar brawl on the guy who first muttered that the beer wasn't very good (the barman took exception, someone told him to shut the hell up, the barman's brother punched that guy, punched man's brother drew a gun, etc.).

As it seems we should not even respond to off-topic posts on forums, I would like to quote a post from the Med thread made in response to pantherboy's:

"Why is it such a bad thing that an issue that affects all players is debated on an open forum? This decision isn't just yours to make, since it effects everybody I think it only fair that viewpoints are aired so that we can all decide what the best course of action is.

To keep half the facts undisclosed is to invite an incorrect decision as nobody will know the entire picture."

This is absolutely right and I can't help thinking democracy is on the way out on the internet...

Re: Arsitides' Response

Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 5:53 pm
by Aristides
PS: obviously, I welcome any comments, public or private, although in the current climate I'm not sure how long the thread will be aloud to remain, and also it could well be that no-one is interested. But to be clear: my intent is... ... hang on, let me think about this.

Ok, my intent is partly to see what others think about the recent happenings (bannings, post-deletion, etc.) because I am honestly unsure what most people think about these things.
I'm probably one of the older people on the forum so maybe it's that younger generations feel that control that looks to me (and others of my ilk) as outrageously heavy-handed is totally fine.

We just want to play our games and not deal with odious squabbling and the like.
But I really think that things like free speech and democracy have to be... well, we have to be aware of them and not take them for granted even on a small scale. It is surely in our daily lives that the big things matter?

Re: Arsitides' Response

Posted: Sat May 25, 2013 8:03 pm
by voskarp
OK, I think you have a point. But the way the arguing of you and Pete looked like now and then, I would have been happier not seeing it.

If you're having a dispute in the main square for all to see, keep it civilised!

Re: Arsitides' Response

Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 3:02 am
by pantherboy
I'm sorry Aristides that you are so puzzled as to why your conduct was percieved as negative and that you feel as if you've been vilified for your poor conduct in addition to cloaking the whole matter under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But your intent appears to be not about advancing the league or building community but rather exercising your ego. Like a dog with a bone you just won't let go.

Now I would of provided a far more detailed response rather than the criticism I'm directing at you here if you'd conducted yourself better. I asked for any response to my public posting to be sent privately to myself as to avoid further disruption to the league. I certainly came down harder on Pete than you but the difference is he has continued to make posts either relating to his matches or suggestions for future leagues. A very constructive step forward. As for what happened he and many others privately contacted me to either express support or in Pete's case ask for further details as to how I came to my decision. I have responded to all to acknowledge what they have said and in Pete's case to address the specificity of my post.

Next I'm going to anticipate that you'll respond with but I (Aristides) did send a private message that should of brought to your attention the gross misuse of power that I (pantherboy) exercised plus the request for the parts of the document that I (pantherboy) created when deleting posts that pertain to what you wrote. I find it rather disingenuous that you would first create this thread with a verbal attack upon my decision without first approaching me as per my request. You contacted me between your first and second post so I'll take it as you became acutely aware that you may of overstepped the mark after making the initial post. So I have little desire to feed into your narcissistic behaviour and provide you with a document that you will perform selective editing over to post inflammatory points in an attempt of self-importance. If you really want to do the world a favour than raise the topic of freedom of speech where it is needed rather than here. You must know where I'm talking about since in your private post you compared my control of the forum to what happens in PRC or Russia.

Now you also quoted me 'beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam' which means 'blessed is the man who finds wisdom.' I'll assume that wasn't directed at me but rather at yourself in an attempt to seek enlightenment upon this issue. Let me respond with 'bonum commune communitatis' since you are so fond of Latin phrases or 'for the common good of the community'. What I did was end a petulant series of postings in a thread that was reserved for results and notifications of posted matches. As the sole creator of the league and official moderator I hold the right to edit all postings as I see fit. There was ample time for people to read the incriminating posts between when I posted that I would take action and when I finally acted. The fact that you show no remorse that in some part your actions were responsible for the chain of events that drove Eric away and created such ill will is unimaginable. I know Eric was directly upset by Pete but in no way does that lessen your part involved.

In regards to my infringement upon yours and everyone elses freedom of speech I'll respond with this. Today it is widely recognised that the issue of human rights is a very difficult matter and possibly something beyond the reach of society to fully implement. They are a set of ideals that we should strive to abide by but some 60 years on from the UN's declaration it is very hard to navigate these troubled waters. The development of law, in particular its depth and specificity, it makes it very difficult to truly understand what constitutes abuse or not. I argue that as the moderator of the forum and father of the league that I am afforded the leeway to make decisions that may prove distasteful to some. I have to use my own conscience as a moral compass and make tough decisions when required to further the communities interests. The intent of the league was for a group of players to enjoy themselves through gentlemanly play and behaviour. This is the standard I set for the league and for the first 8 seasons before I stepped down and took a break from FOG I never read a single contrary post and was never required to exercise my power to delete posts or ban players. As of yet no one has been banned but I have deleted the string of missives in question in the vain hope that this issue may be put to rest and a more constructive dialogue set up for future leagues. It was obvious to me players were not listening to the organisers and someone needed to take the initiative to resolve this issue. I know I cannot satisfy everyone but I ask for all players to show understanding and drop this matter. It has nothing to do with the league or gaming in general but everything to do with ego. I have always invited players to contribute their thoughts towards improving the league but I don't see any further merit in this debate. Sometimes a decision has to be made so please accept my wishes or opt to resign from the league rather than continue this issue. I don't want to see any players depart and I hope Eric comes back to finish the season since in no small part my delay in intervening allowed such a sorry state of events to occur and as such I feel guilty for his departure.

I will leave this thread open for those who desire to resign. Simply post that you would like to resign from your remaining matches without further elaboration on this thread. The simple act of resigning will indicate your displeasure with my position.

Yours sincerely,


Re: Arsitides' Response

Posted: Sun May 26, 2013 10:49 am
by Aristides
You have all the power here, and the majority agree with you - if it were my ego I was interested in I would not post so honestly, exposing myself in this way.
Isn't calling me a dog more ego-based than anything I wrote? (I thought I had kept my message polite, to be honest.)
How would you respond if I had insulted you in such a way? [Edit: see Londo's post below; felt insulting when I read it.]

Yes, you asked for private responses, but I wanted to say something publicly - in response to your public statements, partially about me.
If we don't respond to public statements made about us out of fear of the repercussions, something is very wrong.

It was by no means a verbal attack, Pantherboy, but simply me voicing my disagreement. If you feel any disagreement is an attack, you will respond with anger.

I agree: no remorse, as I don't think I in any way 'drove eric away'. Also, when he asked for all to stop posting on the subject, I did. He said he left because he felt unsupported in what he saw as his struggle with SP.

No, the Latin was for both of us, as I had hoped we could understand one another and meet somewhere in the middle. In my experience, even in the midst of an argument, we may have a sudden realisation and see things, or ourselves, differently. Also, we may later (sometimes much later) see things more clearly. But if we do not express the truth at the time, even though it is more convenient not to, these realisations cannot happen, for ourselves or for others.

I agree that human rights are a difficult topic. You speak of being father of the league, doing as you see fit, and having to use your own conscience as a moral compass, but such language can be used to justify those who do not want their power interfered with. And do we need that old patriarchal model of power? Can't we share power, to reach a common goal? E.g., why not just move the posts to a more appropriate thread - why not have such a thread, where people can discuss this if they want to?
And if you do feel to make a public judgement, then let people respond if they want to. Nobody has to read such threads, just those who are interested.

I don't believe you think it right to comment on a man and his behaviour in public and not allow him a response. My responses have been calm and polite in their disagreement, so I cannot see that I do anything wrong.

Though the gap is wide, I do hope for reconciliation and mutual understanding on this. It does happen!