Airsoft International,

[chaoslord800]

I just get the magazine because it's something to read that's based around the hobby I'm interested in. True, there's nothing in the magazine I couldn't see on here but like some other people said, it's useful for getting other people interested in the hobby with visual proof instead of just trying to explain it. It does kind of annoy me how a large majority of the guns reviewed in that magazine get an impartial 3/5 which I find kind of leads the "detailed" review nowhere in the end.

[Stealthbomber]

[stuff]

It's probably a bit unfair to be moaning to people here about Paul Monaf.

 

The guys on here have been more than polite in their handling of the criticism levelled at them.

continuing to level petty antagonistic comments at the publisher in (I assume) the hope of baiting him into replying here isn't really worthwhile.

If you want to antagonise a publisher there's a much better way of doing it.

 

If you have any points or discussion that people here can deal with then post em up.

 

Personally, as I said, I WOULD like it if writers cited their references for articles.

I wouldn't ask Gadge to try and cite a source for every fact or anecdote he writes about but, for example, if he's recounting events in a particular battle or the development of specific equipment then I think a reference would be a nice thing to have so that people can read more if they want.

 

As Gadge says, if you DO want this included then feel free to say so.

 

Finally (unless something big crops up), I gotta say that I really don't think this is that big a deal. Sure, it's underhanded and lazy journalism but it doesn't really detract from the experience of reading the mag.

Reading the article still killed 30 minutes on the bus regardless of whether you subsequently found out it's copied from Wikipedia.

[QQexDERA]

I just get the magazine because it's something to read that's based around the hobby I'm interested in. True, there's nothing in the magazine I couldn't see on here but like some other people said, it's useful for getting other people interested in the hobby with visual proof instead of just trying to explain it. It does kind of annoy me how a large majority of the guns reviewed in that magazine get an impartial 3/5 which I find kind of leads the "detailed" review nowhere in the end.

 

 

Actually, you've made a good point there - something i'd completely forgotten about!

 

1 = Very Poor

2 = Poor

3 = Acceptable

4 = Above average

5 = Excellent

 

I'll add that list to articles from now on.

 

[tom lawson]

I'd suggest that, rather than including the references within the article, they're all grouped together on a page, or half-page, at the back of the mag.

 

 

Or even compiling a database that's stored online where all the writers can have their own section, with the article description (WW2 German Camouflage for example) and then relevant links/ISBN numbers and whatnot..

 

I appreciate that not everyone has free access to the Internet, but its an alternative to having it in the magazine, and it means that people don't have to buy back issues if all they're interested in is some wider reading on German WW2 Camouflage..

[Marlowe]

There are people behind publications, people with responsibilities. In the end there's a chief editor who is responsible for the magazine as a whole.

 

I quite agree, and it is clear certain individuals share responsibility for the theft of other's works without consent. However, while one would assume a chief editor would have an awareness of source of materials, if the magazine is hastily produced on a 'no questions asked' basis as many such semi-professional articles are, it's entirely possible the chap is completely unware and being unfairly villified.

 

That's not to say I'm trying to defend anyone - I have no interests in doing so, as plagurism to me is an abhorrent act. However, without evidence of his awareness, any comments made against him are open to being considered slanderous.

 

You raise Miki of Tokyo Hobby as a parallel; as far as I am aware this is not an appropriate comparitor. In Miki case, the comments made were justified given that evidence was presented by multiple parties of his failure to deliver products paid for, or refund the parties. As far as I am aware, no such evidence has been presented of Paul Monaf's awareness or authorisation for plagurised materials to be used. For all we know, he could merely have browsed the submitted articles, thought 'hrm, that's quite good', and authorised their use in AI.

 

I hope that clears up what I'm trying to say. If not, here's the abridged version; please don't name-call unless sure the chap is guilty. I would've thought the people who deserved the criticism would be the 'authors', rather than the editor.

[jimbothepainter]

Adding my 2p worth, not that it's worth that much. I like the magazine, I dont subscribe but it's on order to my local newsagent. I like the pics of the guns, to read about other sites in the uk and the reviews of the guns I either agree with or not, as is my want. IMHO I dont care where the info comes from, as long as its true. I know certain writers like Gadge are passionate about their field of expertise and the other writers are doing a job I couldnt do, so I'm happy buying the mag. Once I've read it I leave it for the airsofters at the range to read so my £4 goes a long way.

Before I was into airsoft I was heavily into air rifle shooting and the Airgun world mag and Airgun international were far worse reviewers of air rifles than Ai mag.

As to the issue of copying stuff from the internet, isn't that how 60% of the students in this country pass their exams nowdays?

Stands back draped in a fire blanket and awaits flaming

[Gadge]

As to the issue of copying stuff from the internet, isn't that how 60% of the students in this country pass their exams nowdays?

Stands back draped in a fire blanket and awaits flaming

 

 

Well with my English teacher hat on...

 

If they are not copying and pasting from the internet then they tend to rely on the heavily 'scaffolded' essay plans we are forced by our schools to provide to make sure their GCSE a-c percentage is high enough.

 

My bottom set year 10 class last year more or less got presented with a full essay plan with the starter sentence for each paragraph completed for them and a selection of quotes they could use.

 

Not my choice, school policy to ensure they get a GCSE, I may as well have written their essays for them.

 

When I sat my GCSE and A-Level it was very much a case of 'learn the whole text, we have no idea what the question will be on'. GCSE and A-Level results improve every year because we make them easier every year.

 

That and children no longer learn a whole text I have to teach 'excerpts'.

 

Its a joke honestly, it's largely why I tend to stick to supply teaching now... better money and less BBS.

 

Anyway back on topic...

 

[jimbothepainter]

I think it is on topic, without getting into the whole state of the country thing, if that's whats become of education, how can anyone logically complain that its a natural reaction to cut copy and paste? When old farts like me were taught to read a text then write my own summary of the text.

[Sale]

The guys on here have been more than polite in their handling of the criticism levelled at them.

Such as brushing airsoft forum debates as genitalia swinging contests? Belittling the voice of forum users because we only make up 30% of actual players? Labelling the valid questions asked here as "rants"? Or do you perhaps mean sarcastic remarks of adding a laptop and cigarettes to the credit list?

 

I would understand the reaction if any of the discontent was aimed at Gadge, but the messages I've read treat him properly as "the messenger". His way of writing articles (well, the fact that he writes his articles) is not under attack. Neither is QQexDERA. These two gentlemen should have no reason to respond like they do.

 

Reading the article still killed 30 minutes on the bus regardless of whether you subsequently found out it's copied from Wikipedia.

Yeah and listening to a pirated record sounds just the same. Doesn't make it right though, especially if it was passed as a genuine one and you paid full price for it.

 

I quite agree, and it is clear certain individuals share responsibility for the theft of other's works without consent. However, while one would assume a chief editor would have an awareness of source of materials, if the magazine is hastily produced on a 'no questions asked' basis as many such semi-professional articles are, it's entirely possible the chap is completely unware and being unfairly villified.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of the disputed articles are credited to the person in question, so I don't see how they could be submissions by third parties that he wasn't able to check.

 

The lack of an explanation is not evidence by itself, but it does raise further questions. Bear in mind that by now he is very much aware of the discussion here, but he is choosing to ignore it. Is it any wonder that the people who raised the issue are getting annoyed with the lack of any explanation? Just an apology would do I'm sure.

 

I hope that clears up what I'm trying to say. If not, here's the abridged version; please don't name-call unless sure the chap is guilty. I would've thought the people who deserved the criticism would be the 'authors', rather than the editor.

Can't disagree with this, but I haven't seen any verdicts passed here. Mostly questions and undecisive speculation.

 

I think it is on topic, without getting into the whole state of the country thing, if that's whats become of education, how can anyone logically complain that its a natural reaction to cut copy and paste?

I don't approve of students copying text either, so I'm not guilty of a logical phallacy here.

 

-Sale

[Stealthbomber]

Such as brushing airsoft forum debates as genitalia swinging contests? Belittling the voice of forum users because we only make up 30% of actual players? Labelling the valid questions asked here as "rants"? Or do you perhaps mean sarcastic remarks of adding a laptop and cigarettes to the credit list?

 

I would understand the reaction if any of the discontent was aimed at Gadge, but the messages I've read treat him properly as "the messenger". His way of writing articles (well, the fact that he writes his articles) is not under attack. Neither is QQexDERA. These two gentlemen should have no reason to respond like they do.

Did you notice that my post was a reply to one made by Guzzihero having a go at Paul Monaf?

 

My response was directed at the more random borderline-insults people have been making toward Mr Monaf.

That was unacceptable since he's not here to explain himself, nor is he under any obligation to do so.

With that in mind, I was simply asking people to remain polite towards the 2 AI writers who are here.

[KWP]

Didn't read anything yet, but their layouting seems impressive for semi-professionals, although I can see flaws that professionals wouldn't do (certain basic rules of formatting, alignments and stuff). It's available in numerous shops here in HK, so they seem to be good in marketing themselves. Seems to be the only non Asian Airsoft magazine regularly available here.

[Sale]

Did you notice that my post was a reply to one made by Guzzihero having a go at Paul Monaf?

Fair point. It easily gets difficult to see what's pointed at who here. But even though you had a snipped quote from one user, I thought I read a more general tone in your post. Otherwise it would look that you are ignoring the valid arguments just because one person went too far.

 

My disappointment in your defence of copying articles "because you still used 30 minutes reading them" stands. Even if some of the accusations in this thread are biased and/or unfair, the principle of selling a magazine that has illegally copied articles should receive no defence speeches whatsoever. Note that I'm talking about the principle here, not necessarily what the magazine and related persons actually have or have not done.

 

My response was directed at the more random borderline-insults people have been making toward Mr Monaf.

That was unacceptable since he's not here to explain himself, nor is he under any obligation to do so.

With that in mind, I was simply asking people to remain polite towards the 2 AI writers who are here.

Let's not put the wagon before the horse here, shall we? I don't think Arnie's is the kind of forum where anyone who ever wrote articles for the magazine would be a suitable target for venting frustrations. If someone crosses the line, they get warn points issued. I know I've had mine, even though I'm not the most aggressive verbal case around.

 

-Sale

[Stealthbomber]

My disappointment in your defence of copying articles "because you still used 30 minutes reading them" stands. Even if some of the accusations in this thread are biased and/or unfair, the principle of selling a magazine that has illegally copied articles should receive no defence speeches whatsoever. Note that I'm talking about the principle here, not necessarily what the magazine and related persons actually have or have not done.

Firstly, as you say, let's not get ahead of ourselves. I don't think copying open-source material with no acknowledged author can immediately be considered "illegal".

It's deplorable and underhanded, at best and, for all we know, the guy who wrote the AI article might have written the Wiki article too so we should probably not get too ahead of ourselves.

Beyond that, as has been said, 70% of the readership doesn't use online forums so they're probably quite happy to read their copy of AI, oblivious of the fact a writer has borrowed part of the copy.

Furthermore, while I agree that making money out of copyright-theft is a step too far (selling fake EoTech stickers or dodgy DVDs etc) but I defy anybody here to take the moral high ground and try to tell me they've never listened to a copied record or watch a torrented movie.

Let he who is whithout sin cast the first stone and all that.

 

Let's not put the wagon before the horse here, shall we? I don't think Arnie's is the kind of forum where anyone who ever wrote articles for the magazine would be a suitable target for venting frustrations. If someone crosses the line, they get warn points issued. I know I've had mine, even though I'm not the most aggressive verbal case around.

Very true.

 

My own personal POV is that I'd rather keep a discussion going and advise people when they're overstepping the line rather than doing the whole robo-mod thing.

However, there will always come a point when constructive discussion is at an end.