I’ve been playing EU commander for many years, and this mod since it was released in 2012. That is over 13 years of experience. Players know me as Kaluros (and before about 2018 as Caboudal). I have never been kicked or banned in this time. I continue to play almost daily/weekly.
Kruse is new. I have seen him maybe 2-3 times. Kruse is certainly a new admin. He kicked me arbitrarily without warning as I criticised him banning other players who broke no rules, but by his own admission, annoyed him and challenged his authority. He banned others for saying words close to swear words. He used slurs himself at this time. He notified no one about his change in policy and his new histrionic and stalinistic approach. Hence, there was not even any time for players to adjust or learn his standards. Naturally, he failed to moderate important things like ramboing. Kruse has banned so many people in so few days that I am receiving DMs from my brothers in arms.
This is bad for NW and for EU Commander:
1) Other admins have demonstrated that this job can be done well.
2) Like it or not, EU Commander is the only active server for NW Commander, and hence, private or not, it shoulders a greater responsibility. It is `too big to fail' and has a fiduciary duty beyond the usual requirements for a server.
3) The user base is small and fragile; Kruse may well kill it. I have had discussions with players who are united in their opposition to Kruse (even players who heartily debate with me and insult me on the server in the heat of battle).
4) One of the attractions of EU commander is that it is one of the last free speech zones on the internet: we come there to speak freely with our friends and enemies.
5) Everyone but Kruse is a human who can take an insult (maybe give it), laugh at a joke, and understand that this is a game. Many players can be angry at me one day and my best friend the next, and vice versa, and if ever any of us doesn't want to engage we can always MUTE the other player on our own. It is interesting to note some players I have had disagreements with over the years rally in opposition to Kruse. We all respect one another even when we are enemies (call this the spirit of the Napoleonic age where people confront challenges like gentlemen, respect their enemies, and leave the fighting on the field of battle, in obvious contrast to Kruse's infantile woke ideology).
I would like to see Kruse removed as an admin and banned from the server for his horrendous attitude, lack of accountability, and arrogant response to criticism. His responses to criticism are childish mantras, ``free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences": logical fallacies trotted out by all authoritarian regimes to label criticism of their authority as `hate speech' and `consequences' as carte blanche for them to destroy the critic. Anyone with a working brain knows that punishment for speech means there is no free speech. Further, I declare that by his own reasoning, Kruse's actions are hateful and that banning him is the natural consequence of his free action.
I speak for very many veterans and I think new players too.
APPENDIX:
Kruse should read the following before even considering any position of leadership again:
The Morality of Law
Fuller, Lon L. The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
Positivism and Fidelity to Law
Fuller, Lon L. “Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 630–672.
The Authority of Law
Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
The Rule of Law and Its Virtue
Raz, Joseph. “The Rule of Law and Its Virtue.” Law Quarterly Review 93 (1977): 195–211.
Practical Reason and Norms
Raz, Joseph. Practical Reason and Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Jeremy Waldron, The Rule of Law and the Importance of Procedure
Brian Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law (Cambridge, 2004)
Here is a summary for how good laws work in case Kruse cannot/will not read:
I. Existence & Form of Law (Fuller)
These are the conditions for something to count as law at all.
Generality
Laws apply to classes of persons and actions, not ad hoc individuals.
Publicity (Promulgation)
Laws must be publicly known, not secret.
Prospectivity
Laws govern future actions, not punish past behavior retroactively.
Clarity
Laws must be intelligible; people must be able to understand what is required.
Non-Contradiction
Laws must not demand incompatible actions.
Possibility of Compliance
Laws must not require the impossible.
Relative Stability
Laws should not change so frequently that people cannot plan their lives.
Congruence between Rule and Official Action
Officials must actually apply the law as written, not subvert it in practice.
If these fail, legality itself breaks down (Fuller).
Action-Guiding Capacity
Laws must give people practical reasons for action they can rely on.
Predictability
Similar cases should be treated alike so people can foresee legal outcomes.
Limited Discretion
Officials’ discretion must be constrained by rules, not personal judgment.
Institutional Integrity
Courts and legal institutions must be independent, competent, and rule-bound.
If these fail, law ceases to function as an authority (Raz).
Rule-Governed Governance (Non-Arbitrariness)
Power must be exercised through rules, not whims, moral improvisation, or expediency.
Kruse is new. I have seen him maybe 2-3 times. Kruse is certainly a new admin. He kicked me arbitrarily without warning as I criticised him banning other players who broke no rules, but by his own admission, annoyed him and challenged his authority. He banned others for saying words close to swear words. He used slurs himself at this time. He notified no one about his change in policy and his new histrionic and stalinistic approach. Hence, there was not even any time for players to adjust or learn his standards. Naturally, he failed to moderate important things like ramboing. Kruse has banned so many people in so few days that I am receiving DMs from my brothers in arms.
This is bad for NW and for EU Commander:
1) Other admins have demonstrated that this job can be done well.
2) Like it or not, EU Commander is the only active server for NW Commander, and hence, private or not, it shoulders a greater responsibility. It is `too big to fail' and has a fiduciary duty beyond the usual requirements for a server.
3) The user base is small and fragile; Kruse may well kill it. I have had discussions with players who are united in their opposition to Kruse (even players who heartily debate with me and insult me on the server in the heat of battle).
4) One of the attractions of EU commander is that it is one of the last free speech zones on the internet: we come there to speak freely with our friends and enemies.
5) Everyone but Kruse is a human who can take an insult (maybe give it), laugh at a joke, and understand that this is a game. Many players can be angry at me one day and my best friend the next, and vice versa, and if ever any of us doesn't want to engage we can always MUTE the other player on our own. It is interesting to note some players I have had disagreements with over the years rally in opposition to Kruse. We all respect one another even when we are enemies (call this the spirit of the Napoleonic age where people confront challenges like gentlemen, respect their enemies, and leave the fighting on the field of battle, in obvious contrast to Kruse's infantile woke ideology).
I would like to see Kruse removed as an admin and banned from the server for his horrendous attitude, lack of accountability, and arrogant response to criticism. His responses to criticism are childish mantras, ``free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences": logical fallacies trotted out by all authoritarian regimes to label criticism of their authority as `hate speech' and `consequences' as carte blanche for them to destroy the critic. Anyone with a working brain knows that punishment for speech means there is no free speech. Further, I declare that by his own reasoning, Kruse's actions are hateful and that banning him is the natural consequence of his free action.
I speak for very many veterans and I think new players too.
APPENDIX:
Kruse should read the following before even considering any position of leadership again:
The Morality of Law
Fuller, Lon L. The Morality of Law. Revised ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969.
Positivism and Fidelity to Law
Fuller, Lon L. “Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart.” Harvard Law Review 71, no. 4 (1958): 630–672.
The Authority of Law
Raz, Joseph. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979.
The Rule of Law and Its Virtue
Raz, Joseph. “The Rule of Law and Its Virtue.” Law Quarterly Review 93 (1977): 195–211.
Practical Reason and Norms
Raz, Joseph. Practical Reason and Norms. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975.
Jeremy Waldron, The Rule of Law and the Importance of Procedure
Brian Tamanaha, On the Rule of Law (Cambridge, 2004)
Here is a summary for how good laws work in case Kruse cannot/will not read:
I. Existence & Form of Law (Fuller)
These are the conditions for something to count as law at all.
Generality
Laws apply to classes of persons and actions, not ad hoc individuals.
Publicity (Promulgation)
Laws must be publicly known, not secret.
Prospectivity
Laws govern future actions, not punish past behavior retroactively.
Clarity
Laws must be intelligible; people must be able to understand what is required.
Non-Contradiction
Laws must not demand incompatible actions.
Possibility of Compliance
Laws must not require the impossible.
Relative Stability
Laws should not change so frequently that people cannot plan their lives.
Congruence between Rule and Official Action
Officials must actually apply the law as written, not subvert it in practice.
If these fail, legality itself breaks down (Fuller).
Action-Guiding Capacity
Laws must give people practical reasons for action they can rely on.
Predictability
Similar cases should be treated alike so people can foresee legal outcomes.
Limited Discretion
Officials’ discretion must be constrained by rules, not personal judgment.
Institutional Integrity
Courts and legal institutions must be independent, competent, and rule-bound.
If these fail, law ceases to function as an authority (Raz).
Rule-Governed Governance (Non-Arbitrariness)
Power must be exercised through rules, not whims, moral improvisation, or expediency.