Conquer Club

Concise description:

• Please create a means for mass game creation for TO's

Specifics/Details:

• It would be great if we could upload a .csv file to generate all the games we want to create in one blink of an eye. That would allow us to create formulas in Microsoft Excel or Google Sheets. This is especially useful for tournaments that feature participants selecting a home map. Any TO who has run such a tournament will attest to the insane amount of time that adds to his/her life. If the process is a little technical, you could require a training period where the file is first submitted to an experienced volunteer who would make sure that the TO in question knows what he/she is doing. After a training period, the TO could be untethered from supervision and not overburden the volunteer (or non-volunteer) staff. The key to this suggestion is to allow the creation of 100+ games at one time, all with different settings.If you could allow the games to be created with invitations automatically sent out ... wow

How this will benefit the site and/or other comments:

• I guarantee that the number of tournaments that start and do not finish will decrease.
• I guarantee that the number of tournaments with a variety of maps in them will increase.
• I guarantee that allowing automatic invitation sending will multiply the effect of #1 and #2 by a factor of at least 5.
• I guarantee that this suggestion poses a series of real challenges to he who codes it in terms of preventing corrupt/incorrect data from doing harm to the site.
• I guarantee that DaveH will give whoever codes and implements this a foot massage.Every Day. For a year.

Gratefully,

Robespierre__

I support this, as long as you can prove the veracity of the foot massage offer.

This seems to be a lot of coding work to assist only a few people who would be able to and would use it correctly. And if mistakes happen, that could mean a lot of games that have to be gone back to and deleted.

i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

greenoaks wrote:i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

This doesn't have to be used to create complex tournaments. It could simply be used to massively save on the number of button clicks that someone has to perform when setting up a round of even a normal tournament. Think about how much effort is required to create a game and invite people 64 times, and how much work could be saved if the data is entered in a spreadsheet and then the 'upload' button is clicked. It's an obvious win from the efficiency standpoint.

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

This doesn't have to be used to create complex tournaments. It could simply be used to massively save on the number of button clicks that someone has to perform when setting up a round of even a normal tournament. Think about how much effort is required to create a game and invite people 64 times, and how much work could be saved if the data is entered in a spreadsheet and then the 'upload' button is clicked. It's an obvious win from the efficiency standpoint.

i understand that. why stop there. automate it all like the Conquer Cup is.

greenoaks wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

This doesn't have to be used to create complex tournaments. It could simply be used to massively save on the number of button clicks that someone has to perform when setting up a round of even a normal tournament. Think about how much effort is required to create a game and invite people 64 times, and how much work could be saved if the data is entered in a spreadsheet and then the 'upload' button is clicked. It's an obvious win from the efficiency standpoint.

i understand that. why stop there. automate it all like the Conquer Cup is.

I'll have a chat with blake and bigwham at some point and see how likely tournament automation is.

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

This doesn't have to be used to create complex tournaments. It could simply be used to massively save on the number of button clicks that someone has to perform when setting up a round of even a normal tournament. Think about how much effort is required to create a game and invite people 64 times, and how much work could be saved if the data is entered in a spreadsheet and then the 'upload' button is clicked. It's an obvious win from the efficiency standpoint.

i understand that. why stop there. automate it all like the Conquer Cup is.

I'll have a chat with blake and bigwham at some point and see how likely tournament automation is.

make sure you cease to give out medals to TO's as well.

Could this be done with a third-party addon?

Green Oaks, I am personally offended by your treatment of this topic. First, I am not someone who comes here to complain or second guess. My default position is that the people running this site are 100% well-meaning and deserve our support -- both financial and emotional. If I have taken the time to write this suggestion, I think I am due respect that I believe I have earned. Running the NCAA tournament has been an absolute slog. I recruited 4 other people to help me with the game creation load so that I could concentrate on scheduling and results recording. In this context of having easily spent 120+ hours over the last 6+ months (that is just my time I would say that the other TO each spent an hour a week creating games), I make the suggestion that I made. The tournament has required the creation of 5,469 unique games thus far (just a few more to go) as you can see by the results google sheet.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtVtXGQIZiUddElzYkZhUEt3anozdGY5NUJFNjJ4TWc#gid=3

Do you know how much time it took to create all the results automation for that sheet? How about when you add in the time for these sheets:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtVtXGQIZiUddFA1RXVfVWIySHBldWRmdldHRGtpb3c#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AtVtXGQIZiUddENfOGQwRGladWdpdG00NTRrSTJkU3c#gid=0

Notice how every how the winning team has their score highlighted in color? I had to teach myself to code that using Google Sheet's scripting language. I have other ideas of what I would like to do, but I honestly can't implement them because of the amount of time that game creation takes unless I want my company to go out of business or to be the worst father that I possibly can be.

"encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned."

I am trying to respect your opinion, but given my personal experience, it is hard not to be incredibly offended by that sentiment. Really? A dedicated volunteer is calling out for help to reduce the workload associated with tourney running and your thought is that his idea will lead to MORE tourneys being abandoned? How about the fact that the NCAA tourney has now twice had to be saved with one of the TOs dropping out of CC to save his marriage? Do you think if he had a method for getting rid of all the game creating responsibilities that he might not have found himself where he found himself? How about me as I sit here thinking about the fact that the NCAA season is about to begin again? Do I really want to put the time in again?

The reason I took up the NCAA mantle was because it is such a good tournament. I had fun playing it and did not want it to go away. I am telling you that this kind of tournament will always go away because it is too much work for people to handle -- and they don't realize what they are getting into until they are into it I surmise. Whatever the case may be, not wanting this automation since "more tourneys will be abandoned" because you make them less tedious to run is simply absurd. So TOs like me are supposed to spend hours of their lives creating games because other people abandon tourneys? Game creating is completely tedious. I don't want a fucking cookie, medal, or whatever else in exchange for doing it. I want it done as efficiently as possible so my mind can concentrate on other things CC or otherwise.

I apologize to all for what might seem like an overreaction, but to have someone just snark away at my suggestion is just typical internet behavior where it is far too easy to disrespect people because of the impersonal nature of the medium.

Man I am pissed off.

Robes

be pissed off my opinion is the same as Night Strike, the Tournament Director.

this suggestion assists you, and hardly anyone else.

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

Metsfanmax wrote:

greenoaks wrote:i'm not a fan of this.

encouraging TO's to create complex tournaments will result in more tourneys being abandoned.

This doesn't have to be used to create complex tournaments. It could simply be used to massively save on the number of button clicks that someone has to perform when setting up a round of even a normal tournament. Think about how much effort is required to create a game and invite people 64 times, and how much work could be saved if the data is entered in a spreadsheet and then the 'upload' button is clicked. It's an obvious win from the efficiency standpoint.

i understand that. why stop there. automate it all like the Conquer Cup is.

I'll have a chat with blake and bigwham at some point and see how likely tournament automation is.

Or maybe you should let the Tournament Directors handle such discussions since it kind of falls under our job description........and as long as I'm a TD, I'm opposed to such a system (as the admins have been told before).

So, I was thinking about this and here's my uneducated guess at the effects and response to GO:

My feeling is that there would not be a significant increase in the number of TOs. However, the TOs that already use spreadsheets would make more tournaments. Therefore, I think that we would see more tourneys overall. I also would bet the use of spreadsheets is directly correlated to the higher complexity tournaments. Therefore, I also conclude that we would see more complex tournaments from existing TOs. Put another way, I think that TOs of tournaments (especially complex ones) spend a lot of time translating their excel results into forum posts and actual games created. This update would lower the time spent in that last step and increase the amount of tournaments by increasing the speed in creating the "infrastructure" of a tournament: games.

I don't find GOs argument convincing for a couple reasons: (1) Robes' idea limits the use of this tool to those that have proven that they can handle it; (2) I do not believe that there would be a huge increase in the number of TOs making tournaments that are significantly aided by this tool; and (3) most damningly, I believe that GO not only has to convince that more tournaments will be abandoned (which he states), but also that the increase in abandoned tournaments will outweigh the increase in completed tournaments.

I fully understand GOs argument that making tournaments easier to run invalidates at least part of the reasoning behind awarding medals to those folks. However, I think his argument puts the cart before the horse. It is perhaps a reason to not give recognition if tournaments get easier to run. But it is not a reason to avoid making things easier just because we give recognition.

show: Aside

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

agentcom wrote:Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

Night Strike wrote:

agentcom wrote:Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

I will say we have no plans to automate all tournaments, nor do I have any desire to automate all tournaments.
I do believe that tournaments could benefit from a few automated features, mainly the upkeep of a signups list, however automating tournaments both removes the fun from tournaments and removes all room for creativity on the part of the organizer. I stand beside NS's opposition to a fully automated tournament system.

As far as this specific suggestion goes, I understand that it could be useful in certain circumstances. However, a large part of deciding which suggestions go and which ones don't is balancing developer time against community benefit. While this would have some benefit for a limited group of users (Tournament Organizers), this would require a substantial amount of time to develop, and I believe that time could be better used elsewhere within tournaments.

On that note, I Officially Reject this suggestion.

agentcom wrote:So, I was thinking about this and here's my uneducated guess at the effects and response to GO:

My feeling is that there would not be a significant increase in the number of TOs. However, the TOs that already use spreadsheets would make more tournaments. Therefore, I think that we would see more tourneys overall. I also would bet the use of spreadsheets is directly correlated to the higher complexity tournaments. Therefore, I also conclude that we would see more complex tournaments from existing TOs. Put another way, I think that TOs of tournaments (especially complex ones) spend a lot of time translating their excel results into forum posts and actual games created. This update would lower the time spent in that last step and increase the amount of tournaments by increasing the speed in creating the "infrastructure" of a tournament: games.

I don't find GOs argument convincing for a couple reasons: (1) Robes' idea limits the use of this tool to those that have proven that they can handle it; (2) I do not believe that there would be a huge increase in the number of TOs making tournaments that are significantly aided by this tool; and (3) most damningly, I believe that GO not only has to convince that more tournaments will be abandoned (which he states), but also that the increase in abandoned tournaments will outweigh the increase in completed tournaments.

I fully understand GOs argument that making tournaments easier to run invalidates at least part of the reasoning behind awarding medals to those folks. However, I think his argument puts the cart before the horse. It is perhaps a reason to not give recognition if tournaments get easier to run. But it is not a reason to avoid making things easier just because we give recognition.

show: Aside

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

btw, this suggestion is not limited to existing TO's. if it was the op would be excluded as he hasn't completed a tourney yet.

yes creating games is time consuming but the biggest time factor is the scoring. all that speadsheet stuff that needs to be recorded and put into the thread. putting in place a function for TO's (even new ones) to create 100+ games at a time will encourage them to come up with huge and/or fancy tourneys which sounds great until you have to do the back office stuff and then you realise what a chore it becomes. as someone who regularly rescues tournaments it is not the game creation that is a pain in the ass.

i fully support the functionality we have now allowing some multiple game creation & multiple invites but does not go over the top.

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:So, I was thinking about this and here's my uneducated guess at the effects and response to GO:

My feeling is that there would not be a significant increase in the number of TOs. However, the TOs that already use spreadsheets would make more tournaments. Therefore, I think that we would see more tourneys overall. I also would bet the use of spreadsheets is directly correlated to the higher complexity tournaments. Therefore, I also conclude that we would see more complex tournaments from existing TOs. Put another way, I think that TOs of tournaments (especially complex ones) spend a lot of time translating their excel results into forum posts and actual games created. This update would lower the time spent in that last step and increase the amount of tournaments by increasing the speed in creating the "infrastructure" of a tournament: games.

I don't find GOs argument convincing for a couple reasons: (1) Robes' idea limits the use of this tool to those that have proven that they can handle it; (2) I do not believe that there would be a huge increase in the number of TOs making tournaments that are significantly aided by this tool; and (3) most damningly, I believe that GO not only has to convince that more tournaments will be abandoned (which he states), but also that the increase in abandoned tournaments will outweigh the increase in completed tournaments.

I fully understand GOs argument that making tournaments easier to run invalidates at least part of the reasoning behind awarding medals to those folks. However, I think his argument puts the cart before the horse. It is perhaps a reason to not give recognition if tournaments get easier to run. But it is not a reason to avoid making things easier just because we give recognition.

show: Aside

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

btw, this suggestion is not limited to existing TO's. if it was the op would be excluded as he hasn't completed a tourney yet.

yes creating games is time consuming but the biggest time factor is the scoring. all that speadsheet stuff that needs to be recorded and put into the thread. putting in place a function for TO's (even new ones) to create 100+ games at a time will encourage them to come up with huge and/or fancy tourneys which sounds great until you have to do the back office stuff and then you realise what a chore it becomes. as someone who regularly rescues tournaments it is not the game creation that is a pain in the ass.

i fully support the functionality we have now allowing some multiple game creation & multiple invites but does not go over the top.

I'd even be fine with some tools to allow you to look at results towards the end of the game, but without the human element throughout organizing the tournament, the magic of tournaments is lost.

blakebowling wrote:

greenoaks wrote:

agentcom wrote:So, I was thinking about this and here's my uneducated guess at the effects and response to GO:

My feeling is that there would not be a significant increase in the number of TOs. However, the TOs that already use spreadsheets would make more tournaments. Therefore, I think that we would see more tourneys overall. I also would bet the use of spreadsheets is directly correlated to the higher complexity tournaments. Therefore, I also conclude that we would see more complex tournaments from existing TOs. Put another way, I think that TOs of tournaments (especially complex ones) spend a lot of time translating their excel results into forum posts and actual games created. This update would lower the time spent in that last step and increase the amount of tournaments by increasing the speed in creating the "infrastructure" of a tournament: games.

I don't find GOs argument convincing for a couple reasons: (1) Robes' idea limits the use of this tool to those that have proven that they can handle it; (2) I do not believe that there would be a huge increase in the number of TOs making tournaments that are significantly aided by this tool; and (3) most damningly, I believe that GO not only has to convince that more tournaments will be abandoned (which he states), but also that the increase in abandoned tournaments will outweigh the increase in completed tournaments.

I fully understand GOs argument that making tournaments easier to run invalidates at least part of the reasoning behind awarding medals to those folks. However, I think his argument puts the cart before the horse. It is perhaps a reason to not give recognition if tournaments get easier to run. But it is not a reason to avoid making things easier just because we give recognition.

show: Aside

Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

btw, this suggestion is not limited to existing TO's. if it was the op would be excluded as he hasn't completed a tourney yet.

yes creating games is time consuming but the biggest time factor is the scoring. all that speadsheet stuff that needs to be recorded and put into the thread. putting in place a function for TO's (even new ones) to create 100+ games at a time will encourage them to come up with huge and/or fancy tourneys which sounds great until you have to do the back office stuff and then you realise what a chore it becomes. as someone who regularly rescues tournaments it is not the game creation that is a pain in the ass.

i fully support the functionality we have now allowing some multiple game creation & multiple invites but does not go over the top.

I'd even be fine with some tools to allow you to look at results towards the end of the game, but without the human element throughout organizing the tournament, the magic of tournaments is lost.

I fully admit to never having running a tournament before, but what Robes described of his NCAA tournament experience sounds less like magic and more like torture.

blakebowling wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

agentcom wrote:Fastposted by NS:

NS, why are you opposed?

I'm opposed to automated tournaments because it's not CC's job to run tournaments for organizers.

I'm opposed to this suggestion for the reasons in the 3rd post of the thread: a lot of coding work to integrate such a feature that only a few people would try to use and even fewer people would be able to use correctly.

I will say we have no plans to automate all tournaments, nor do I have any desire to automate all tournaments.
I do believe that tournaments could benefit from a few automated features, mainly the upkeep of a signups list, however automating tournaments both removes the fun from tournaments and removes all room for creativity on the part of the organizer. I stand beside NS's opposition to a fully automated tournament system.

As far as this specific suggestion goes, I understand that it could be useful in certain circumstances. However, a large part of deciding which suggestions go and which ones don't is balancing developer time against community benefit. While this would have some benefit for a limited group of users (Tournament Organizers), this would require a substantial amount of time to develop, and I believe that time could be better used elsewhere within tournaments.

On that note, I Officially Reject this suggestion.

I fully understand and respect the fact that coding this suggestion might be quite difficult since the original code was not written with this in mind. Since BlakeB has been very proactive about implementing requested changes that are easy while also working hard on ones that are probably not, I have to concede that the cost/benefit analysis of my suggestion may be in the "not worthy" column.

That said, I would ask the following:

Do we find any value in running tournaments like the NCAAs? Night Strike played in it so I guess that means he likes this kind of thing though he might claim otherwise at this point. If we value this kind of a tournament, I strongly suggest we consider ways to make the lives of those running them less impacted by them. I disagree with GO's claim that game creation is less of a problem than results recording/all the other stuff for my particular tournament. Every set of 3 games has different settings (63 sets of three games released twice a week for 13-15 weeks before the 8-game March Madness elimination matches begin 78 teams to 64 to 32 to 16 to 8 to 4 to 2 to 1 -- all of those numbers divided by 2 * 8 for games needed to be created). How many man hours does it take presently to create? If you can create a set of three in one minute, that is roughly 1800 minutes of labor required (30 hours). And that is not mentioning the fact that game creating mistakes are basically eliminated (which costs a TO even more time to sort out). That is not to say that what he said is not in general true ... just not in my case (once I got the spreadsheets all set up).

Why is it you most often see tournaments created that are on one map (or move all the players from one map to another)? It is because game creation is *easy* when you are creating a bunch of games with the same settings.

So anyway ... Blake ... I thank you for the work you are doing. I think it is easy to think that this kind of change is not one the community is clamoring for because this is the kind of change that is not obvious. That it is only useful to a "limited number of users". It is not 12-man games. It is not "no fortification" game setting. But what it is is giving a TO a tool that will expand the kinds of tournaments that are possible. And how many users are affected by that? A limited number? Many people who participate in the NCAA tournament will tell you that it is their favorite event of the year (it was mine before I helped rescue it). There is something about the format that just works (for me ... and some others). So this is a change that has incredible and lasting effects on the community because it allows people to create more opportunities for people to have fun together en masse in a way that lasts over months or even years. It is so tangibly different than a one off tournament. I have played in my fair share of tournaments but could not for the life of me recall more than one or two of them. These leagues happen year in and year out, and they are the most taxing things a TO tries to do. I also think they are highlights for the people that participate in them. Community building is what keeps people playing this game rather than doing something else. Like clans, big tournaments build community because of the regular contact that people have with others in the tournament. For some, I think that is what keeps them playing this particular game rather than trying something new.

If this idea will not/cannot happen due to its complexity or because a project like this needs to happen in lieu of some other big projects you are planning, I get it. But I do feel your reply to this thread (and this is just my feeling) indicates that you are not fully understanding what it is that I have experienced as the lead TO of the NCAA tournament. I think it would be useful for you to understand what we go through fully just so you have some context to understand the suggestions that come your way from CC's TOs (and the people that run clan leagues and clan wars for that matter). If you agree with this and want any further back and forth with me to understand how TOs run this kind of tournament, I am more than happy to share my experience. If not, that's OK too. I continue to support your efforts to make this site even better.

Robes

P.S. to GO

"btw, this suggestion is not limited to existing TO's. if it was the op would be excluded as he hasn't completed a tourney yet."

What is it that you personally get out of behaving this way? I know you don't care about this, but your behavior has eliminated any respect I had for you, and therefore your opinions no longer hold any weight with me. I am just some random dude that you don't know and will never know, but if being respected by other members of this community means anything to you, I suggest you up the level of respect you offer others. I do realize I am pissing in the wind by even thinking to write this paragraph.

where is the problem with correcting agentcom's understanding of this suggestion ?

Though it seems all in charge (and greenoaks) oppose this feature, I just wanted to post in support of it.

I get wanting the human element in the tournament creation but the UI is also not currently all that friendly to doing this. It's getting better in being able to make 5 of the same games at a time but all that did was kept us from hitting F5 four times after the first creation.

The thing that got me initially hooked on this site was Viper's massive 1v1 tournament. If that didn't exist, I probably wouldn't have gotten hooked, once I realized there were tournaments I started signing up for all of them, it was great until I realized how fast 4 freemium spots were filled... Then I purchased premium and have been stuck here since.

No offense Greenoaks as you have put work into your series but most of what we have for tournaments now is a lot of 16 player, standard bracket tournaments. When I see someone with some tournament trophies, I just assume most of them come as a result of winning 3 or 4 games in a row. When I see someone has hosted a shit ton of tournaments and have a ton of medals, I also assume they are the run of the mill, standard bracket, 1 loss and you are out tournament. I've ran a few of those myself (with multiple games per round).

Tournaments and clans are really the two main things to promote cc and assisting your volunteers to run more fun tournaments, like a basketball league or a big round robin, only seems to make sense.

And whoever made the comment about not giving a TO a medal for running one of these, that's fine but in that same regard I think someone who runs 1 simple tournament shouldn't get the same exact medal as someone who successfully completes a more large complex tournament. Now I really don't believe that but right now the minimum work to get a medal is creating a forum thread, creating/watching 18 games, sending 36 invites and maintaining the thread throughout. To me, a TO that creates a medium-large tourney, formats a CSV or XML file, imports it, verifies all inputs are correct, is about the same amount of work.

Also, someone said something about more games to be deleted. How is this a concern with the drop games or cancel invite buttons. If a TO screws up, it's up to them to do this.

I can see this being a little lower priority than other things but I think this would benefit more than just a few members. It might actually attract more people to the site that are like me a few years ago.

greenoaks wrote:where is the problem with correcting agentcom's understanding of this suggestion ?

It is continuing to be lawyerly at best and disrespectful at worst.

Isn't it quite obvious that I as a new TO taking over a massive tournament like this would have to pair myself with an experienced game-creating TO in order to avail myself of the game creating engine that I am seeking? I am the first to admit that I had NO idea how time consuming running this tournament would be.

You don't like the idea or think it is a low priority. No problem. Have enough respect for the person who took the time to suggest it to (a) understand where he is coming from and then (b) answer with respect: "I can see how this is important to you given your experience running the NCAAs but I still think it causes more problems than it solves".

If I can't convince open-minded people that this idea is a good one, then it is probably not a good idea.

Robes

I never created a tournament and have no clue how to even begin going about it. But I play a ton of large tourneys and anything that would make those organizers' lives easier I am all for. I don't know how some of them would have time to do anything besides CC with the amount of work that goes into some of them.

Robespierre__ wrote:

greenoaks wrote:where is the problem with correcting agentcom's understanding of this suggestion ?

It is continuing to be lawyerly at best and disrespectful at worst.

Isn't it quite obvious that I as a new TO taking over a massive tournament like this would have to pair myself with an experienced game-creating TO in order to avail myself of the game creating engine that I am seeking? I am the first to admit that I had NO idea how time consuming running this tournament would be.

You don't like the idea or think it is a low priority. No problem. Have enough respect for the person who took the time to suggest it to (a) understand where he is coming from and then (b) answer with respect: "I can see how this is important to you given your experience running the NCAAs but I still think it causes more problems than it solves".

If I can't convince open-minded people that this idea is a good one, then it is probably not a good idea.

Robes

i posted i don't like the idea and gave my reason for not liking it. at no point has anyone in this thread attacked or belittled you. so why are you being such a dick about it ?

i've then pointed out to a mod this sugg is to assist new TO's like yourself as well as old hands and you continue to attack me.