Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hm, I don't know about the other subforums, but 40k at least has a terrible attitude on this forum...

So, I was thinking. Why don't we organise a dakka-wide event, once a year. Say, the second week in July, when everyone's either miserable from the summer being too hot, or the winter being too cold.

During this week, only positive, optimistic comments and threads should be posted. If someone asks for advice, only give advice that pushes them towards doing something, rather than stopping doing something.

One week a year, do we think we could manage it?

Free speech - when there's no longer a need for the government to censor dissenting opinions, because the citizens have taken to doing it themselves!

When you feel the need to create a special space where only happy-happy thoughts are allowed, you know there's a big problem, and sweeping it under the rug won't make it go away, it will only make it worse.

Good luck with that, allot of the posters here are only happy when they're pissing and moaning.

I am for this.

Pre-empting the following phrases "white knight", "cool aid", " casual mafia". If you post something on daka, someone else has a god-given right to hurl negative bs all over it. It will always be this way.

 notprop wrote:
Good luck with that, allot of the posters here are only happy when they're pissing and moaning.

And do you think something like this will help?

Anyway, I'm all for this idea - and NOT just on a 'once per year' basis.

We should all try to incorporate this approach into our routines on a daily basis - and not just online at Dakka Dakka!

notprop seems to only be happy when he's pissing and moaning about other people pissing and moaning.

I'm not for a positive week at all. I think there's sufficient good stuff in the hobby world to be positive about all the time. And sufficient bad stuff in the hobby world to be negative about all the time and each of use gets to pick what we're interested in.

Seriously, check out the miniature painting subforums. They're incredibly positive and helpful all the time because they're about doing the actual enjoyable part of the hobby rather than thinking about the latest dumb thing someone in the industry did.

Yeah, no. I'll make positive comments where positive comments are due and negative ones where negative ones are due.

Thank you for making my point frozenwastes.

So in other words you want people to either lie or not give their opinion. Sorry, no. People aren't negative because they're a-holes (well, maybe some people might be, but not that I've seen), they're negative when there's valid reasons for negativity, and it's quite funny that I tend to see the negative crowd put forth actual reasons and evidence, while the positive crowd tends to just use anecdotes or complain about people being negative.

If somebody posts and says they're thinking of starting 40k, they should get both the positive and the negative, not just positive to steer them towards spending $400 just to start playing a bloated game. The fact there's so much negativity surrounding GW and 40k, here and elsewhere, should indicate that there are major problems not just a small minority ranting and raving. Ignoring those people doesn't make the problem go away.

Basically, if you don't like the negativity then avoid those threads; they exist for a reason, and the solution isn't to just stifle all the negative posts. That's part of the reason there is so much negativity, since that's basically what GW did with its own forums and social media.

You almost never read any negativity in Painting. The worst you'll get is "umm mate? That's, uhm, not a tutorial. Here, let me get a mod to move it for you".

Wonderful, wonderful people.

I'm all for positivity. I listen to Bad Brains all the time. I think that this forum, however, is a place for some people to vent, and I think that's important. There is plenty of good stuff about the hobby *cough* painting sub *cough*, but don't worry about the griping. Its healthy, to a point, and these pisser/moaners are way more passionate and positive (and oddly hopeful) than the people I know IRL.

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
You almost never read any negativity in Painting. The worst you'll get is "umm mate? That's, uhm, not a tutorial. Here, let me get a mod to move it for you".

Wonderful, wonderful people.

I'm all for positivity. I listen to Bad Brains all the time. I think that this forum, however, is a place for some people to vent, and I think that's important. There is plenty of good stuff about the hobby *cough* painting sub *cough*, but don't worry about the griping. Its healthy, to a point, and these pisser/moaners are way more passionate and positive (and oddly hopeful) than the people I know IRL.

Let's not beat around the bush here - I am almost completely certain that the OP is talking about 40k General, where most of the threads are negative pointing out the flaws of 40k and/or GW, and it seems this has riled up the pro-40k crowd because it seems like they get drowned in a sea of negative posters.

I'd be down for a positive thread that promotes positivity, but perhaps only for a day and optional of course.

I'll agree with other posters that you shouldn't be forced to do it, but a middle ground would be to limit the size and scope.

Hm, well, perhaps I should explain my thinking.

The idea is to force people to think about good things! Not to make them 'lie or shut up', but to jigger their brains a little and try to find something to celebrate.

Its very easy to fall into the trap of complaining and talking things down - but past a point it stops being therapeutic and just winds you up all the more.

Freedom of speech, heh. Cute concept, but are you really free to speak if even someone suggesting positivity is bombarded with 'no, stfu'?

Well, anyway. It was an idea.

WarOne, what would you suggest the aim of such a thread would be? A kind of "post something good about the hobby today!" type thing?

It seems to have quietened a bit over the last few days anyway. If GW does something new and just as silly as normal, any promise for a good week won't hold ; p

Many of the negativie posts in 40k general were by players complaining about people complaining about 40k. Far worse than the quantity however is what was in those posts - rather than criticism of a company, it was insults of other players which is inexcusable.

If you don't enter threads titled something like:
- A possible cure for your GW hate
- Why I like 40k better than some of the alternative games
- Opinions of the Ork Codex
- Why does 40k have to be Competitive?
- GW's new business model - cutting up a codex and selling supplements to rebuild it.
you'll manage to avoid 90% of the criticism of GW and the insults of other players. ie. any thread regarding peoples opinions on things GW does where there is substantial opinion that GW does it poorly.

Regarding painting and modeling being better, you still have people suggesting you don't use GW paints, with criticisms including that they're overpriced, the pots are bad, they change ranges which screws colour matching and so on. It doesn't degenerate however because no one throws insults at people there. Those criticisms of the paints come up every time people ask about paint ranges, just as criticisms of GWs rules come up every time there's a rule discussion.

I think the 40k subforum being a a cesspool of rancorous, vitriolic rantings is great. I hate what GW has become. Clearly, I'm not the only one. It's great to be reminded that hobbyists can be critical and discerning.

If you want sunshine, there are plenty of cheery places on dakka. I get that negativity is tiresome to some, but I find the acerbic 40k posts to be a delightful counterbalance to the incessant bleating of the "come what may, happy go lucky money-sheep".

 melkorthetonedeaf wrote:
You almost never read any negativity in Painting. The worst you'll get is "umm mate? That's, uhm, not a tutorial. Here, let me get a mod to move it for you".

Wonderful, wonderful people.

And a lot of the time it's the same people who are negative in the 40k General forum who are positive in the Painting and Modelling forums. If people were all negative all the time, they'd eventually get bored and leave. But since there are aspects they like (eg. painting and modelling) they hang around and say positive things in those forums and negative things on the topics they don't like, which tends to be "40k General" because 40k generally sucks

For the most part, there are two things GW can be praised for - models and fluff. For the former, drop by the Painting & Modelling subforum, you'll find nary a negative post there. For the latter, visit the 40K Background forum - same thing.

Everything for which GW gets flak is everything else and it all winds up in General. There's no point in bringing up models and fluff down here, because those topics have their own subforums. Is it, then, such a wonder that General is mostly negative?

I'm so happy that GW finally because so awful that it pushed me, a 20+ year veteran, to go looking for other games. I'm happy that those games turned out to be so much better than anything GW puts out!

 Furyou Miko wrote:


The idea is to force people to think about good things! Not to make them 'lie or shut up'

If one has to force themselves to even think about something positive, what does that tell you abut the thing you're asking them to talk about?

The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry. There's no factor accounting for antisocial behavior except for moderation, which seems to only take effect as a penalizing force and not a preventative one.

Ultimately, a lot of people on dakkadakka could likely benefit from a good solid run of cognitive behavior therapy. There seems to be a general unwillingness to consider a grey/balanced response to situations. Black and white rules the roost.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry..

Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they feel so they voice their opinions to the community.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry..

Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they fell so they voice their opinions to the community.

Add in the fact much of the "antosocial behaviour" and ad-hominem comes from the pro GW side. All us "haters" seem to be capable of having rational discussion with well made points. The standard response is pretty much "suck it up hater".

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they feel so they voice their opinions to the community.

I sympathize with the sentiment of frustration you're expressing. However, why not consider the rest of what I posted?

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they feel so they voice their opinions to the community.

I sympathize with the sentiment of frustration you're expressing. However, why not consider the rest of what I posted?

Because your very premise, as stated by that first sentence, was incorrect.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry. There's no factor accounting for antisocial behavior except for moderation, which seems to only take effect as a penalizing force and not a preventative one.

That's only part of it, the other (IMO larger) part is that people can sit down and write well considered responses which you can't do in casual discussion with someone face to face. This naturally makes discussions online a far more in depth back and forth than face to face discussions where you don't leave for 15 minutes after each encounter to consider your opponents argument and write up a retort.

There seems to be a general unwillingness to consider a grey/balanced response to situations. Black and white rules the roost.

I somewhat disagree. People are far more grey in their opinions than you might think, just because the discussions appear more black and white (even that is arguable really) doesn't mean peoples' opinions are entirely black and white. The reality of internet discussion is the "grey" tends to get sorted out early and the black and white opinions are the ones that drag on.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they feel so they voice their opinions to the community.

I sympathize with the sentiment of frustration you're expressing. However, why not consider the rest of what I posted?

Because your very premise, as stated by that first sentence, was incorrect.

Let's be honest here, you didn't refute my point, you offered a countering opinion. Neither of us have any actual quantitative evidence to support our arguments, so can we please not pretend to be maintaining any sort of empirical argument.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry..

Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they fell so they voice their opinions to the community.

Add in the fact much of the "antosocial behaviour" and ad-hominem comes from the pro GW side. All us "haters" seem to be capable of having rational discussion with well made points. The standard response is pretty much "suck it up hater".

I think this comes down to the psychology of people who are still enamored by GW, you are attacking something THEY love so even when those attacks are genuine and logical, the response is often emotional.

Like arguing the rules are ok and you're just playing it wrong instead of accepting that better written rules benefits everyone more even the people who like to play non-competitive, open, casual games too.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
That's only part of it, the other (IMO larger) part is that people can sit down and write well considered responses which you can't do in casual discussion with someone face to face. This naturally makes discussions online a far more in depth back and forth than face to face discussions where you don't leave for 15 minutes after each encounter to consider your opponents argument and write up a retort.

This is an interesting response, however I'm not sure I fully agree. I feel you're suggesting the best possible outcome for internet discussion, that all participants will engage the positive aspects of internet / text based discussion. There are also negative attributes that you indirectly eluded to by mentioning the face to face. Discussion on the internet loses tone, eye contact, etc. Though I am not any degree of a psychologist, I suspect that these qualities offer a lot in advertising the posture of individuals in discussion.

I somewhat disagree. People are far more grey in their opinions than you might think, just because the discussions appear more black and white (even that is arguable really) doesn't mean peoples' opinions are entirely black and white. The reality of internet discussion is the "grey" tends to get sorted out early and the black and white opinions are the ones that drag on.

You may be right on that. Maybe then, what would be good to see, would be more recognition by the parties involved of the sentiments they share, rather than a purely adversarial, to the throat, style of discussion? It might help to forge a more common experience.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Or
The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of many people being very dissatisfied with a product they once loved and want to love again and feel frustrated that there's no way to tell the company how they feel so they voice their opinions to the community.

I sympathize with the sentiment of frustration you're expressing. However, why not consider the rest of what I posted?

Because your very premise, as stated by that first sentence, was incorrect.

Let's be honest here, you didn't refute my point, you offered a countering opinion. Neither of us have any actual quantitative evidence to support our arguments, so can we please not pretend to be maintaining any sort of empirical argument.

Here's emperical. I know my thoughts and why I do what I do. What was stated on how I think is not how I think. After reading many posts of people that share my opinion, that is now how they think either.

The frequent acrid discussions on this site are probably the result of online discussion being anonymous and having such a low bar for entry. That's insulting people who have genuine criticisms for GW just because they don't share your opinions. Right off the bat you're claiming moral and intellectual superiority which leaves out any room for a rational discussion. There's no factor accounting for antisocial behavior except for moderation, I'm not anti-social because I voice my complaints about a product. By definition that's incorrect which seems to only take effect as a penalizing force and not a preventative one. I don't think the mods should take premptive action against something the might happen. I don't want to live in a police state and I don't want my opinions controlled. If they were, I would no longer post on Dakka. If someone breaks a rule, they get dealt with, not before they break a rule. What you want is for anyone with a negative opinion of GW to shut up and go away. No.

Ultimately, a lot of people on dakkadakka could likely benefit from a good solid run of cognitive behavior therapy. Again, here's a baseless insult and also vague reference to you being superior to anyone that disagrees with you. There seems to be a general unwillingness to consider a grey/balanced response to situations. Black and white rules the roost. It's the black and white issues that are the most glaring and so get the most attention. The gray areas are discussed quite a bit. For example. I love the fluff beind 40k, I'll keep reading the novels, but I think the rules are a bucket of slop. My opinion of GW and its games are far more nuanced than you believe, but when I spend half the time fending off insults from GW apologists it doesn't leave a lot of time to discuss anything you consider "Gray."