Apology to the Community
Posted: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:23 pm
Dear MECCG Community,
It seems that a conflict with both personal and impersonal aspects between Wim Heemskerk and me has become a matter of public concern. I apologize for antagonizing all those involved, and I hope that the issue can be resolved soon without further increase of animosity or schism.
As you may have read in a thread on this forum that has since been entirely censored, I -- along with Manuel Cabezali -- have recently edited electronic versions of the rules inserts for the 7 MECCG sets (METW, METD, MEDM, MELE, MEAS, MEWH, and MEBA). As this task neared completion, with more than 30 hours of work logged, I posted to meccg.net informing the community that a new electronic edition of the rules would soon be made public. The other members of the Judge Certification Program and I hoped that in completing this task we would help to end confusion amongst players about the rules. There is much work beyond this which we also intend to accomplish, such as the condensation of all 7 rules inserts into a universal rulesbook and the updating of the CRF, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
In my post relating the good news of our progress, I also responded to some harsh accusations made by Wim Heemskerk against the Council of Elrond. He claimed that the CoE had attempted to steal the rules documents from the Dutch Council's website at least twice in the recent past. He also claimed to have given up any hope of progress being made on the rules and/or rulings updates without some kind of official motion from the CoE saying that we would never make the rules documents available on our website. To this I responded by saying that there was no question of "stealing" in a case such as this: the rules belong to the community of players, and anyone who wants to work on them is entitled to do so. I may have put things less diplomatically than I should; in fact, I almost certainly did.
In any case, my post was followed with alacrity by a post from Wim himself, in which he said that the CoE did not have permission to do the work I described. He also accused me of trying to plagiarize his intermediate results on the same project, and said that he would keep all his rules knowledge secret. To this I can only respond with a question: In what sense can anyone be said to plagiarize the rules of this game? To my mind, they are no one's property, and thus should be accessible to all and able to be updated by anyone competent enough to complete the task. Regarding Wim’s intermediate results, I know nothing about them, and have never seen them. Obviously this means I have never attempted to steal them.
Wim also accused me of passing off my plagiarized work with "big boasting". I blush to admit that there is no small degree of pride in my estimate of my own contributions to the rules- and rulings-knowledge of this community, so let his claim stand. I am a boaster, perhaps even a big one. But as a professional academic I cannot accept the claim that I co-opt the intellectual work of others for my own benefit without citation.
At this point Brian Min asked a technical question: he wanted (as far as I can remember -- I cannot check his deleted post now to confirm) to know which documents were proprietary of the Dutch Council and which I could therefore be accused of stealing.
I responded by saying that the new electronic documents the CoE was about to make available (and which, incidentally, now are available) would be edited versions of the tiny rules inserts ICE had provided in each booster and/or starter pack. I distinguished three sets of documents:
(a) the ICE rules inserts,
(b) the electronic rules documents on the Dutch Council's site, and
(c) the new electronic rules documents on the CoE's site.
I said that (c) would conform to (a) better than (b) conforms to (a). This is in fact the case, as anyone willing to peruse all three sets of documents cannot fail to see. As I mentioned above, I worked on this project for nearly 30 hours. I know the failings of (b). Many are cosmetic, but some are serious indeed, involving the omission of whole sentences. In my post I thanked the Dutch Council for maintaining (b) for the many years they did. I also refuted the claim to plagiarism, as outlined in this paragraph, and I mentioned that the CoE was not just willing but elated for other websites to make available our rules documents -- a direct contrast with the hoarding attitude at meccg.net. Finally, I said that it was dishonorable on Wim’s part to keep rules knowledge secret. How does this benefit anyone?
This last ad hominem attack was immediately deleted by Jamie Pollock in the interest of preserving what harmony remained. Alas, this finger in the dyke was not sufficient. Wim signed onto gccg and told me to change my post. He did not say exactly how, or precisely what offended his sensibilities. I refused, saying I was happy with it as it stood. He said, "Have it your way, then," and immediately banned me from the site.
Since then I have been at great pains to inform the community that official rulings are henceforth not obtainable at meccg.net. Neither the rules documents available through the Dutch Council website, nor its Rules Forum, are good places for seeking such information -- the former because better documents are readily available at the CoE website, and the latter because I refuse to read and indirectly respond to questions on a website from which I am banned.
A number (5?) of community members posted in the same thread after I was banned, lamenting the state of affairs. Some went so far as to suggest that the ban be lifted. Presumably it was this latter suggestion that prompted the deletion of the entire thread. Now Alfons Van Impelen is putting up the “official” meccg.net story of the events. I will let you decide which story to believe, but I must make one factual correction to what he says: my ban was never lifted and then reinstated. Or rather, if it was, I was informed neither of the lifting nor of the reinstating.
I hope this does some work towards explaining what has taken place recently. Again, I apologize to the whole community for getting involved in what can only appear as childish internecine bloodletting. I would be willing to come back to meccg.net, but I refuse to apologize meekly and slip in the back door like a prodigal son. The days of censorship towards dissenters and censoriousness towards the CoE must come to an end.
Sincerely,
Mark Alfano
Chairman, Council of Elrond
NetRep
It seems that a conflict with both personal and impersonal aspects between Wim Heemskerk and me has become a matter of public concern. I apologize for antagonizing all those involved, and I hope that the issue can be resolved soon without further increase of animosity or schism.
As you may have read in a thread on this forum that has since been entirely censored, I -- along with Manuel Cabezali -- have recently edited electronic versions of the rules inserts for the 7 MECCG sets (METW, METD, MEDM, MELE, MEAS, MEWH, and MEBA). As this task neared completion, with more than 30 hours of work logged, I posted to meccg.net informing the community that a new electronic edition of the rules would soon be made public. The other members of the Judge Certification Program and I hoped that in completing this task we would help to end confusion amongst players about the rules. There is much work beyond this which we also intend to accomplish, such as the condensation of all 7 rules inserts into a universal rulesbook and the updating of the CRF, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion.
In my post relating the good news of our progress, I also responded to some harsh accusations made by Wim Heemskerk against the Council of Elrond. He claimed that the CoE had attempted to steal the rules documents from the Dutch Council's website at least twice in the recent past. He also claimed to have given up any hope of progress being made on the rules and/or rulings updates without some kind of official motion from the CoE saying that we would never make the rules documents available on our website. To this I responded by saying that there was no question of "stealing" in a case such as this: the rules belong to the community of players, and anyone who wants to work on them is entitled to do so. I may have put things less diplomatically than I should; in fact, I almost certainly did.
In any case, my post was followed with alacrity by a post from Wim himself, in which he said that the CoE did not have permission to do the work I described. He also accused me of trying to plagiarize his intermediate results on the same project, and said that he would keep all his rules knowledge secret. To this I can only respond with a question: In what sense can anyone be said to plagiarize the rules of this game? To my mind, they are no one's property, and thus should be accessible to all and able to be updated by anyone competent enough to complete the task. Regarding Wim’s intermediate results, I know nothing about them, and have never seen them. Obviously this means I have never attempted to steal them.
Wim also accused me of passing off my plagiarized work with "big boasting". I blush to admit that there is no small degree of pride in my estimate of my own contributions to the rules- and rulings-knowledge of this community, so let his claim stand. I am a boaster, perhaps even a big one. But as a professional academic I cannot accept the claim that I co-opt the intellectual work of others for my own benefit without citation.
At this point Brian Min asked a technical question: he wanted (as far as I can remember -- I cannot check his deleted post now to confirm) to know which documents were proprietary of the Dutch Council and which I could therefore be accused of stealing.
I responded by saying that the new electronic documents the CoE was about to make available (and which, incidentally, now are available) would be edited versions of the tiny rules inserts ICE had provided in each booster and/or starter pack. I distinguished three sets of documents:
(a) the ICE rules inserts,
(b) the electronic rules documents on the Dutch Council's site, and
(c) the new electronic rules documents on the CoE's site.
I said that (c) would conform to (a) better than (b) conforms to (a). This is in fact the case, as anyone willing to peruse all three sets of documents cannot fail to see. As I mentioned above, I worked on this project for nearly 30 hours. I know the failings of (b). Many are cosmetic, but some are serious indeed, involving the omission of whole sentences. In my post I thanked the Dutch Council for maintaining (b) for the many years they did. I also refuted the claim to plagiarism, as outlined in this paragraph, and I mentioned that the CoE was not just willing but elated for other websites to make available our rules documents -- a direct contrast with the hoarding attitude at meccg.net. Finally, I said that it was dishonorable on Wim’s part to keep rules knowledge secret. How does this benefit anyone?
This last ad hominem attack was immediately deleted by Jamie Pollock in the interest of preserving what harmony remained. Alas, this finger in the dyke was not sufficient. Wim signed onto gccg and told me to change my post. He did not say exactly how, or precisely what offended his sensibilities. I refused, saying I was happy with it as it stood. He said, "Have it your way, then," and immediately banned me from the site.
Since then I have been at great pains to inform the community that official rulings are henceforth not obtainable at meccg.net. Neither the rules documents available through the Dutch Council website, nor its Rules Forum, are good places for seeking such information -- the former because better documents are readily available at the CoE website, and the latter because I refuse to read and indirectly respond to questions on a website from which I am banned.
A number (5?) of community members posted in the same thread after I was banned, lamenting the state of affairs. Some went so far as to suggest that the ban be lifted. Presumably it was this latter suggestion that prompted the deletion of the entire thread. Now Alfons Van Impelen is putting up the “official” meccg.net story of the events. I will let you decide which story to believe, but I must make one factual correction to what he says: my ban was never lifted and then reinstated. Or rather, if it was, I was informed neither of the lifting nor of the reinstating.
I hope this does some work towards explaining what has taken place recently. Again, I apologize to the whole community for getting involved in what can only appear as childish internecine bloodletting. I would be willing to come back to meccg.net, but I refuse to apologize meekly and slip in the back door like a prodigal son. The days of censorship towards dissenters and censoriousness towards the CoE must come to an end.
Sincerely,
Mark Alfano
Chairman, Council of Elrond
NetRep
