Bay 12 Games Forum

Your suggestion of how it should be done has a lot of problems.  These problems were discussed and we asked people to give their opinion.  You also need to actually explore the wiki a little before you so seriously criticize it.  40d information is not gone

Virtually impossible to access in a user-friendly manner is the equivalent of "gone" to 90% of people. Bad links everywhere (and a link that doesn't take you where you want to go is by definition a bad link)? Awesome. Opaque interface (and don't go "hurr DF has a bad interface and you play it", you expect a Wiki to not fail)? Even more awesome!

I have explored it, and it's still a really shitty solution. Sorry that that upsets you (and I mean that honestly), but it really, really is. An in-place migration over time--snapshot all the pages of 40d to the 40d namespace, add a "this is potentially out of date, for the last 40d version of the article hit up this link, add DF2010 information here"--would actually allow users to find things. It's not like data storage is a constraint.

Really, I see all the "argh wiki is so useless" complaints as either them not taking the time to look at the 40d pages when confronted with a blank stub or not realizing that with a brand new release it takes more than a week (or even a day; the first criticisms came quickly) to gather all the appropriate new information. The new system is clearly not perfect but it was handled quite well imo, definitely far from "terribly executed."

You're wrong. Sorry, but your opinion is poisoned; you are too close to the process to be capable of analyzing the course of action taken in an uninvested manner. Sorry, but even an open-source project would be crucified for a migration that was handled as slipshod as this. I realize that you're doing it in your spare time, and that's fine, but when you are managing what is essentially the "official" wiki (the wiki is pointed at in the DF executable - it's as official as there is), you have an implicit obligation to your users to be usable.

This method of migration did not uphold that obligation for a lot of users, and they're saying so. One of the most important things for project teams to ever, ever learn is that a user saying "X sucks" cannot be interpreted to "the user doesn't understand it" or "the user doesn't consider Y and Z." It means "X sucks." It may be deeply personally offensive to you that they've been indelicate about it. That's unfortunate. It doesn't change that, for the user...it still sucks. You can take umbrage about their tone...it still sucks. You can argue 'till you're blue in the face...it still sucks.

All you can do is take a breath, learn from it, and make it suck less in the future.

The legacy information has not been scrapped in the slightest. It is simply one single click further away. Main links like url.com/Creatures now go to current version redirects, so whenever the next major version change comes out the non-namespace links will be just as effective. Namespaces will be required for each and every major version that is released. 99% of pages will need one copy per version anyhow. There is little difference between leaving it for now or for later as we have redirects. Really I see both methods as equally effective and with equal flaws.

Do the links on 40d pages go to where the user expects? (No.) Do the search terms put in take the user to an informational, usable page? (Generally not.)

That means, as far as a user cares, it's gone.

Apparently there's nobody here using it who wants to talk about it. For obvious reasons. If you want niche languages, StackOverflow is where you should be asking. (You'll probably get similar results.)

Eiffel? Isn't that a bit on the unorthodox side? Eiffel's not one of the "major" programming languages, but I guess it's a step up from HTML.

I can't find any Eiffel books/tutorials anywhere, but I'd seriously consider learning something like Python or Ruby. I think that Eiffel's a little old to be considered anything but an esoteric programming language.

Eiffel isn't old. It's been replaced most places by ML and Haskell, but it's used in some fairly large shops. It's certainly niche, but there's nothing odd about it.

(Not that I'd suggest spending much time learning Eiffel early. Hitching onto a language without having a solid reason--and if you aren't already competent enough to learn it on your own, you cannot formulate a solid reason to do so. Eiffel has largely been replaced by various ML knockoffs and Haskell, and other modern languages have pulled most of the useful features out of it--C#, Python, and so on.

Any would be a smarter, better choice than Eiffel. Also, seriously, D is not a smart recommendation. It makes Eiffel look mainstream.)

Theres a huge difference between the first volley of shots against the crowd, and the second volley against unarmed civilians stopping to help a dying man. Huge difference.

How do you know they're unarmed when you're airborne? You don't.

I find it immensly more chilling that you place blame on the samaritan for trying to help a wounded stranger than I do the shooting itself. To say that his children deserved to be orphaned because their father was a good man who was unfortunate enough to be born in a city that we invaded is horrifying.

Where did I say "deserve"? Nobody "deserves" anything. Ever. There is no such concept in nature and it is a null statement. If I did use the term, I did so in error and I apologize. What I have been saying is that if you do something dangerous, it can be expected that you will suffer the consequences. If I go poke a bear in the eye, I should not be surprised if I don't walk away from it. Combat zone? Keep your head down and get out of there as soon as possible. Altruism may be noble, but that doesn't make it smart and doesn't make it a good idea.

And yes, I know I'll get disagreement on what is seen in the video, I've read the thread already.  But frankly, if you can look at any part of what that helicopter was shooting at, from the initial group walking and certainly anything after the first volley, and see cause for that level of force unleashed that cavalierly, then we're living in two different worlds.

You're right, you will, and we are. Setting aside whether or not your really amusing analysis of the video is correct (it's not, but I've abandoned expectations of sense on that score), your sources don't support you.

They did not attack incapacitated targets. They attacked contacts not under a flag of truce and not marked with medical insignia, after intelligence confirmed there were no armed friendlies in that area. The misidentification of the original targets is the problem (a problem averted if the Reuters journalists had fucking followed procedures), but it is a reasonable misidentification, and that's the key word here--because firing on their rescuers was a decision based on that misidentification. The assumption--which is standard--is that moving to assist a hostile indicates their affiliation. If an American gets shot in the ass and tossed in the back of his Humvee, that doesn't make that Humvee magically exempt from combat (even assuming that he hostiles actually paid attention to the rules of war, which they don't--we should, and for the most part we do, including this situation). A van that's under hostile identification is similarly not protected. The misidentification does not change the legality of the action; actions in warfare are evaluated for legality based on best-knowledge-available, not after-the-fact knowledge (except in extreme cases, and this isn't an extreme case--rather, it's fairly routine).

They used the expected measure of force in the middle of an active combat zone. "Oh but they couldn't hurt the helo" is misleading, because the helo was reinforcement. The ground targets were under two blocks from ground forces, which is combat engagement range. The helo's orders were not capture-for-intelligence; they were force support for ground troops. This means "pave it if you have to." Their discretion does not include the permission to do so without authorization, which they acquired. If anyone were at fault, it would be the people who gave the fire order.

I don't care what the circumstances of the mission were, I don't care what the climate of the local operations were, and neither does military justice care about those things.

Positive identification was made. It was also incorrect. Identification can be both positively acquired and incorrect; it is the genesis of many friendly-fire incidents on record. American ROE tries to avoid preemptive engagement, but there are situations (including, conveniently enough, support for ground troops in a combat zone) where the bar is lowered.

That bar becomes lowered because the US military, both at an institutional and individual level, would rather see dead Iraqis than dead Americans, and erring on the side of "live Americans" is going to happen. There have been significant actions in Iraq and throughout the War on Terrarrr (aside: don't mistake me, I think this is entirely a boondoggle and we shouldn't be there) that don't have any bearing on keeping Americans alive, and I've been more than a little pissed at them: Guantanamo Bay is a disgusting joke, and, as I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't be against a firing squad for the Abu Ghraib assholes. But this just doesn't merit a whole lot of butthurt; I'm certain it's been internally investigated and dealt with appropriately.


The pilots made a mistake in identification. An unfortunate mistake, and an entirely reasonable mistake given the circumstances. You can cry some more if you want, but this is what war is. I'm sorry that offends your delicate sensibilities and I'm sure you'd wish it was otherwise--but, then, nobody gets their unicorn.

It's bullshit to say, "well, shit happens all the time. Civilians die. Can't do anything about it. They deserve it for being stupid in a warzone."

That's the most terrible outlook I've ever heard of. Not saying it's not within anyone's right to have it. It's a horrible paradigm, justifying terrible atrocities against their fellow man because "they had it coming".

"They had it coming" fails to acknowledge that this is a naturalistic situation. An inability to recognize and operate in your environment is the only capital crime in existence. The punishment is immediate and there is no appeal.

If you do stupid things, consequences result. They did here. It's not pretty, it's not fun, and it's not popular to admit. But it is reality.

The reason most people are outraged is, god forbid, we hold our troops to a higher standard than blood-lusting mercenaries. I'm thankful most are. Facebook showed me recently that a childhood friend died in Iraq and I believe he died making what he believed was a worthwhile sacrifice. When I say "support our troops" I don't mean displaying a bumper sticker or saying "Support the troops!"- I mean working with veterans who have come back home (which I have), and holding them to the standards that make this country great as they fight, and lead by example.

When they do something that violates that, I will be the first one on the line screaming about it. Guantanamo Bay, for example, is possibly the most manifest expression of our failures in the last thirty years. I held great hope when Obama promised to end that shit. This is not a similar case. It is professional soldiers saying things that are ill-advised during the heat of combat but following their rules of engagement.

The cover-up is the fact that the military didn't want the video to leak out.

As a matter of policy these videos are not released. There are a thousand more like this on a hard disk somewhere--the only difference is that, while the attitude was identical, the targets were better supplied. This just isn't that big of a deal.

It's a long video... so complaining about edits? Making people look bad? Politically charged? Of course. It doesn't vindicate anyone. The gunner in the Apache was an overeager moron, and just makes US look bad.

There's nothing to vindicate. He didn't do anything that anybody else who'd be in that seat wouldn't do. When I refer to the video being edited and slanted, I am referring to that it is being used for political purposes. The people who released it don't give two shits about those reporters. They are using it as a propaganda weapon against the United States. And you lot are falling for it.

Nothing the air crew says is particularly notable or surprising--it's just that you are hearing it for the first time. Normal folks shouldn't see the making of sausage, war, or politics for precisely this reason. It's ugly, and your normal sensibilities don't really apply the way you'd like to think they do.

When American troops do something wrong, I'm generally the first one to call for accountability. I wanted those Abu Ghraib sons of bitches put in front of a firing squad because of their actions, which were manifestly against the rule of law. This is not. It is inherently predictable behavior from a combat zone.

What the hell is with policing forces nowadays? Not only they open fire on people without giving them the benefit of the doubt, they don't seem to be able to keep civilians away from nearby firefights. It's like, they're not doing what they're paid for, or something.

Civilians shouldn't be going toward the scrum if they don't want to be involved. These ones were.

Yeah, I spoted some tubelike object in that video. The last thing you'd want in a helicopter is an enemy combatant getting lucky with an RPG, among other things.

My issue with this is that it took so long for it to be addressed, to the point where the video in question is still classified, and had to be leeked to provide information under the freedom of information act.

The reporters were clearly involved, the company should have the right to know what exactly happened to their employees.

But it was addressed. That's what they're conveniently omitting, because it doesn't fit their "Americans are evil" narrative. A press release was pushed after the operation that stated that non-combatants had been killed. The video is classified for two reasons--one, it looks bad, and we are under no obligation to make ourselves look like fools, and two, because there's actual combat data that can be derived from seeing these videos that it might not be awesome to have leaked.

But to insist that "oh it was covered up" is to ignore reality.

Implying the NPR never lies to protect their Jarheads.

Are you insane? NPR is not the friend of the American military. NPR is, in American terms (obviously not global terms), a left-wing news outlet. That they are not hanging them out to dry speaks volumes of how stupid this really is.

Explain to me how its lawful.

Murder has a legal definition that your quoting-the-dictionary bit misses. In the United States--and, until somebody is big and bad enough to compel otherwise or we choose to accept otherwise, that law includes foreign-stationed Americans--murder is the unlawful killing with malice aforethought. There's no malice here.

There's also no unlawfulness here. An action sanctioned by the state cannot be murder. It can be morally wrong. But it can't be murder. And the word is used here in an attempt to frame the discussion in the direction the OP wants. By using such words, one attempts to turn the discussion to "oh they're bad," rather than whether it is or is not a correct and/or reasonable course of action.

Because many correct and reasonable courses of action in wartime are, in fact, morally reprehensible. That does not make them any less correct or reasonable.

Just because you wear a uniform doesn't mean your not a murderer.

You quite literally can't be a murderer when the state orders the action. The uniform has nothing to do with it, although it's a nice emotionally-charged turn of phrase.

But do you not think that when invading a civilian city, it falls to the invaders to try their utmost to prevent civilian casualties?

Sure. But that doesn't include risking your neck "just in case" they're not there to shoot you.

Sure they asked for and got permission... but they were seeing things that weren't there. The only thing suspicious about the van is that it was there.

They were attempting to provide aid and comfort to an assumed hostile. Other than that there was no reason to fire on it. Once the assumption of hostility is established, those attempting to aid them are likewise hostile, unless they are an unarmed vehicle bearing international symbols of aid; the last part is not "optional."

The chopper crew were in no immediate danger at that point. They should've errd on the side of caution, not shot at anything that moves incase it might have been an enemy.

They did err on the side of caution. That's why they shot.

Their responsibility is first and foremost to their mission, which in this case was "cover the asses of the ground-pounders."

The van did absolutely nothing suspicious, they stopped to help someone wounded and dying in the street.

Which, in a combat zone, very much is a suspicious action if you aren't a confirmed medic/MEDEVAC unit. You seem to refuse to acknowledge this, despite the rest of the world doing so.

And while i know hindsight is 20-20, and that we can replay the video with as much time in the world to take in all the details, something the crew of the apache couldn't do... But there were kids in the van. If they could "see" 2 aks and 2 rpgs in the first group, i don't think its unreasonable that they should've (i know they didn't mind you) seen the kids. The fact is, they were seeing things that weren't there, and not seeing things that were there.

Yes. See people inside a closed-box van. That's a great solution right there.

Even if they saw the kids--never mind that there's certainly no precedent in the Middle East for using children as attackers. It doesn't happen at all. If you were dedicated to providing significant opposition to American troops, it doesn't follow that you wouldn't risk your kids. So it's not in any way a reason to hold fire.

And while they had no reason to believe they were reporters. They equally had no reason to believe they were enemy combatants. They also equally had no reason to believe they were civilians. They could've been any one of the three. They thought they saw ak-47s. But as many people say: it was a war zone, and America has been pumping guns into that area of the world for many years. So its not unreasonable to assume civilians would be armed.

If you are not a uniformed member of allied military forces and you are armed in a combat zone, you're an enemy. There are some minor distinctions in the ROE, but they have nothing to do with this issue.

I guess i just think that when you invade a civilian city (cant stress that enough really, its a pretty important part of the whole situation) you have to try your upmost to ensure civilian casualties remain a minimum.

Sure. Not at the cost of your own.

BTW, by 2007, they aren't "invaders" anymore. It's four years after Saddam was toppled. They're acting as military police in an area of the city filled with some really nasty-ass clerical militia. If I were to go the stupid-analogy route I'd call them a glorified SWAT team dealing with criminals, but the situation is obviously more layered than that.

Also: as i said. The coverup is the real story here, not the murder. This isn't the only time this situation happened in Iraq or Afghanistan. But its one of the few times where theres undeniable proof that it was deliberatly covered up and lied about. Thats the really shocking part. Thats the true crime.

It's not a crime at all. The military has a propaganda division, too, and ignorant yabbos who don't understand the exigencies of war--you know, you--who feel bad when you see slanted and editorialized video are a large problem in the context of accomplishing their mission. This video, used improperly (as it has been), is a weapon for the enemy. It doesn't make concealing it right, but it does make it correct and reasonable.

And they didn't cover it up, as Jashugan (who is one of few people in here who seems to have bothered to think critically about the situation) noted. They pushed a press release acknowledging what happened. They didn't publish helo-cam footage. They rarely do, positive or negative (why do you think the same thirty seconds of bomber footage has been used every time anyone refers to the first Gulf War?). If you think that's a "cover-up," you are simply out of your mind.


Go read the link he posted. Stop BAWWWWing about an editorialized video and read it. And try--just this once--to think and to put the situation in context, instead of "hurr Eagleland (cuz im so kewl) iz just plane bad".

I expect little, but maybe I'll be surprised.

I don't think killing civilians and then saying "it's terrible but we followed proper procedure, case dismissed" is

Quote

making up an excuse to be upset

But that's the difference between me and you.

Well, what the fuck are you supposed to do? "Oh no, despite you doing everything properly and being authorized by command to engage, now you're in trouble?" And don't say "I don't know," because if you're going to make the claim that they should do something differently, you'd better be able to back it up.

There's nothing you can do. It's war. It happened. It'll happen again. Maybe you send Reuters a nice bouquet of flowers with a note saying "DON'T SEND STUPID REPORTERS" or something, because quite literally there is nothing the military could have done differently that would not expose their personnel--who, for very obvious reasons, are more important to them than randoms--to possible further danger.

A warzone? It's a damn city. Civilians live in cities.

Civilians go to ground. They don't run around with gear that's easily misidentified as weaponry. They don't point said gear at an attack helicopter and give all the impressions of an anti-air rocket operator.

Targets do that, and if civilians act like they're targets, they're going to be engaged.

But by all means, don't let me disturb your Eagleland tirade 

"hurr Eagleland"

That meme is already tired. If you're going to be stupid, at least be original. It has nothing to do with my country of origin. If an American journalist was running around in Chechnya like a retard and he ate some delicious Russian Army boolet, I'd call him a retard too. It has to do with understanding the environment in which you are attempting to work and not going out of your way to fuck with the guys carrying a brace of Hellfires.

Yes, how dare those civilians be in the country we invaded.

A weak half-assed retort, but at least you've stopped the moronic analogies.

These guys were journalists. Journalists know what they have to do. It's not some secret in order to get Reuters people killed; if you enter the theater as a correspondent they make damned sure you know the rules. Failure to follow proper procedure is going to get you killed. It's not murder and it's not malicious--it's war. Shit happens. Take precautions.

They didn't, and they paid the price for it.