0Eleazar0

But yet it is your place to tell me it is not my place? Your logic is self-stultifying. If I can not offer any criticisms of PR's decisions, how can you then offer criticisms of my decisions to criticize their decisions. Criticism is not something that is by its very nature harmful. While such things are entirely their decisions, such decisions can be characterized as being a good idea or a bad idea. You also misuse the word judge here and nor did I ever make myself out to be one. You will fail to find any references in any of my posts making myself out to be a judge, at least in the manner you used the word. I did not ever mean to say they were being hostile to the community. You continue to misrepresent my ideas even after clarification upon clarification, this is getting to be absurd. On what grounds is my opinion not constructive, can you even attempt an explanation or is it just to be taken as writ. It only came to semantics because you failed to use them properly. Your erroneous language forced it upon me. You frequently misrepresent what I say and then confuse terms to express this and you declare semantics is not of interest. Is this to be taken seriously? You entered into a debate you were incredibly incapable of undertaking each turn employing tactics which pushed away from analyzing the merits of my arguments. Your idea of constructive criticism is incessantly reiterating the same points over and over again till you are blue in the face, making straw men of your opponents ideas along the way. Given this standard, I am certainly glad you do not assess my criticisms to be "constructive".

You still insist on extrapolating from your own imagination, you cannot read my mind. You have no way of rationally knowing I am being disingenuous. You are really being unreasonable with this. It's a duplication of efforts, unnecessary. Using the CBA would remove this inefficiency and at the same time be of benefit to the community. Except that the CBA would not make things anymore or less accessible. Accessibility has no bearing here, this is the point I have been repeatedly getting at. Why can't the CBA be a part of the complete package? How is the CBA and a stand alone package mutually exclusive? I did and then I partly agreed it would be more accurate to state it as indifferent rather than the full measure, anti-community. You mischaracterize my position even when I partially concede a point to you, unbelievable. You failed to comprehend what I said. I did not say the anti-community proposition was the representation of my complex opinion, rather I stated my opinion in it's whole, given anti-community in it's specific context vs the overall tendencies of PR's pro-community actions wrapped up with the other opinions in my post are complex. As far as I could tell, you were attempting to over-simplify the matter by implicitly alleging I was to be either entirely for or against PR with no privations which I believe to be unfounded. If you do not understand this to be the very definition of a complex opinion, you should consult a dictionary. There is nothing inherently bad about having expectations of a developer. I have a right to my expectations as a free individual ground in natural rights(read Locke). Expectations can be misplaced or unreasonable, but that does not preclude my right to them. You are conflating expectations with entitlement, they are two very different kinds of things. Are you asserting that expecting a developer to contribute to a community standard(e.g. CBA) is necessarily disrespectful? That is quite the proposition, I doubt you could ever even come close to proving such a thing.

Do not tell me what my opinion is. My opinion is the full content of the words I stated and nothing else. Perhaps you failed to see "Not only that", implying the inclusiveness of my prior comments as well as the following. IT being not choosing to use and contribute to CBA. CBA is a community project which would be sensible for a team like PR to use and a great aid to the community if they contributed. How exactly would you characterize actions which choose not to partake in a community standard when practicality allows it. Perhaps you are right, in this regard they could be said to be indifferent to community rather than the totality of that, anti-community. Understand my statement only says what the words state. I never stated PR as a whole in every single case was anti-community, only in this particular case are they anti-community. If you were to ask me what I thought of them overall, they would be pro-community. It is only in this specific area that they are being anti-community. Your failure to read my posts in their proper context is enormous! When did I ever state they were obliged to contribute to the CBA or it is some sort of afforded privilege? I only stated they are only so much to contribute to the CBA as their principles in this specific area are pro-community. As with any decision other factors and principles could be resolved to be greater than contributing to the CBA, but the current statement from PR members have not been compelling. They provided notions that appear as though they will actually be a hindrance and their reasons for doing so, at least to me, are not significant enough to bar the use of the CBA. Lastly, I agree on your point that they are doing the community a favor. This need not be somehow at odds with the views in my prior paragraph. People can have complex opinions, which all or nothing assessments fail to accurately represent.

Could you at least make an attempt at rational debate rather than ad hominem attacks? I am open to any substantiated arguments you are able to make and will respond sensibly. There is no need for your sensationalist antics.

On what grounds is using CBA mutually exclusive to creating a stand alone product. This would be like saying you aren't going to use ANSI C++ and STL because at anytime the committee could change the standards and you would have to redevelop all your code. This is fantasy, the CBA isn't making updates which invalidate or deprecate large portions of code, if any at all. With as much time as you guys are going to spend developing this, any updates you would have to make to your code, if any, would be a toss in the bucket compared to all the time and effort you will put forth in duplicating the CBA's work. Not only that, it ensures anything you do will be compatible with other people's work. So any mod currently in existence or that will be in existence which compliments your mod can be used by community servers. The reason you are getting so much flak on this from the community is because it's anti community. The expertise, knowledge, and experience of your team would greatly aid CBA, making not only your better quality from cooperating with other leading development teams, but also increase the quality of community mods at large via your adept contributions to the project. Lastly, your stated reason for not using the CBA just doesn't add up. The CBA is not a deterrent to creating a stand-alone mod and your fears of spending more time updating your code to the point it becomes more burdensome than had you not participated are misplaced. I think PR has a great team and I have spent countless hours spent playing your BF2 mod. The criticisms people are making of the mod are way off-base, it's as if some people offering criticism of BF2:PR either played the mod very little or absolutely not at all. People also need to realize the limitations of BF2 and that the PR team simply could not incorporate everything they would have liked to. The very fact that PR team members play and enjoy ARMA 2 should reassure everyone here they appreciate it for the same reasons we do. Even if you stick to your decision, I will always be a fan of PR and know your work in ARMA 2 will be commensurate, expectedly more so, to my experiences of BF2:PR. I'm definitely excited about your announcement.

To further prove Mobius' point, we recently played without Armaac and noticed a large increase in the amount of people playing. If I had to guess the mods that are causing people to be booted, I would have to say XAM and 6thsense.eu mod and Sixth Sense Pack. Do you have any documentation on how server admins can add mods to the whitelist?

Interestingly enough I was able to resolve the problem by using the solution I doubted the most. The patch file must have been corrupt. After downloading yet another 1.08 patch file from a mirror I "struck gold". I downloaded the file from gamezone. I originally went here and decided against it because they force you to use an executable which launches a site specific download manager. The patch worked perfectly, finally. There seems to be a mass corruption going on here. I tried 6-7 different mirrors before getting one that worked. This only seems to be happening with the Combat Operation 1.08 patch.

I will receive multiple errors when trying to patch Armed Assault: Combat Operation 1.06, the American release by Atari, to 1.08. An example of the error would be ""Error found in file AddOns\air.pbo (correct value!=wrong value). Things I have tried to resolve the issue. 1. Completely wiped out all instances of Arma in my files and registry. 2. Reinstalled Armed Assault and downloaded another patch from another server 3. Ran the patch I have done this multiple times, each time downloading the 1.08 patch from another mirror. I still get this corruption. I have also tried going to the CD and manually copying over the files it says are defective. This will result in the file not being reported anymore as corrupt, but then another one will say it is corrupt. I go through all of the files that are corrupt just to have another one go corrupt. Then again, sometimes manually copying over the files seems to do nothing. In fact, I have ran the patch before to have it report air.pbo is corrupt, but then the next time I run it, it is fine. The problem is not being caused by my motherboard, hard drive, processor, or memory. I have ran an 8 hour stress test using Orthos along with CoreTemp, PC Probe, and SpeedFAN to ensure no problems arised. It ran perfectly without any problems. PC Probe would have reported any Power Supply issues during the stress test. I am very confident nothing is wrong with the hardware on my machine. I also have the latest BIOS for my motherboard. The problem is not being caused by any software on my machine. I have tried rebooting and ending every single task that I know doesn't need to be running. Leaving all of the windows system tasks running. It still gives me this error. It is not a driver issue unless there is a conflict with the latest drivers. In fact, everything that can be updated on the machine is updated. I have no viruses, spyware, adware, trojan horses, worms, or any other such malicious programs running on my machine. My file system is not corrupt and it has been defragged. I consider myself to be rather computer savvy and have been unable to remedy this issue. This is sort of my last resort, because I find that computer advice on forums tends to be lacking, and I tend to be the type that can always figure the solution to computer problems themselves. I believe the problem with the corruption lies in the patch itself or some very rare application\driver specific problem. I highly doubt it possible that of the 6-7 places I have downloaded the patch, that they are all corrupt. I also highly doubt it is a problem with my computer hardware/software as everything else works perfectly fine. It is also possible there is a problem inherant in the code of xdelta3 that poses a problem for my machine and not others. Any and all suggestions are welcome to help remedy this issue. I have noticed others on these forums to have this very same problem. I am hoping we can come to a fix.