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.

That doesn't surprise me in the least.

Warseer tends to be the home of the most rabid white knights, either that or they live in fear of the GW legal team of crack paper tigers.

WayneTheGame wrote:
It seems like Warseer just deleted the petition thread over there, no trace of it left.

No words...

BoW makes my head hurt too, much less restrictive than WS, but the general level of knowledge of the posters I see on display there appears to be much lower than here.

Gives some perspective on how so many objectively bad things that happen seem to go by with little reaction.

Why delete a petition thread? That makes zero sense, how could there be any ramifications for the site due to it?

Boggles the mind.

It's that attitude of "if you criticise you don't care or are a hater" which makes zero sense.

 Azreal13 wrote:
BoW makes my head hurt too, much less restrictive than WS, but the general level of knowledge of the posters I see on display there appears to be much lower than here.

Gives some perspective on how so many objectively bad things that happen seem to go by with little reaction.

and this is the reason I avoid both of those forums.

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why delete a petition thread? That makes zero sense, how could there be any ramifications for the site due to it?

Boggles the mind.

It's that attitude of "if you criticise you don't care or are a hater" which makes zero sense.

Because Warseer.

They delete anything if they think there will be even the one quintillionth of a chance GW legal may come down on them. Talking about leaked images is also verboten for the same reasons.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why delete a petition thread? That makes zero sense, how could there be any ramifications for the site due to it?

Boggles the mind.

It's that attitude of "if you criticise you don't care or are a hater" which makes zero sense.

Because Warseer.

They delete anything if they think there will be even the one quintillionth of a chance GW legal may come down on them. Talking about leaked images is also verboten for the same reasons.

In their defense, the thread was going off-topic since somebody brought up the old fallacy that GW is cheaper than PP, and some other people jumped on the use of the word "vice" instead of "Versus" as a reason why the petition was poorly written and should be ignored. So they might have moved it to the moderator area and clean it up, and then move it back (which is a really weird way of doing that, and I say that as a moderator on a large MMO gaming site). Or it could be because they're afraid of GW.

 inquisitorlewis wrote:


It would be better if investors took notice. It's obvious GW management isn't concerned. Maybe they would be if investors started holding them accountable for their actions.

Investors took notice a while ago and sold their shares..... I'm not sure we seen the reaction to that yet. Mighty wheels take time to turn....or so the excuse for protracted executive indecision goes!

Knockagh wrote:

 inquisitorlewis wrote:


It would be better if investors took notice. It's obvious GW management isn't concerned. Maybe they would be if investors started holding them accountable for their actions.

Investors took notice a while ago and sold their shares..... I'm not sure we seen the reaction to that yet. Mighty wheels take time to turn....or so the excuse for protracted executive indecision goes!

Those shares had to go somewhere else. Still plenty of people (or groups) invested in GW.

There's a notable (and inevitable) drop off in momentum, but nonetheless, 9000 signatures has just been reached.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's a notable (and inevitable) drop off in momentum, but nonetheless, 9000 signatures has just been reached.

9,012 as of right now. So in other words...

IT'S OVER NINE THOUSAND *crushes Scouter*

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Why delete a petition thread? That makes zero sense, how could there be any ramifications for the site due to it?

Boggles the mind.

It's that attitude of "if you criticise you don't care or are a hater" which makes zero sense.

Because Warseer.
They delete anything if they think there will be even the one quintillionth of a chance GW legal may come down on them. Talking about leaked images is also verboten for the same reasons.

Warseer isn't the only place, although it has always been quite turgid there. I've seen a couple of forums turn into collections of timid little mice and the moderators become delete-happy enforcers, and it's all because they were afraid of a legal notice and no more website. And it would seem those fears aren't completely unfounded as some sites have indeed gone, regardless of whether those legal notices were actually viable. It's really, really sad, and perhaps the thing that upsets me most about modern, corporate-attitude GW, that they can be so cruel and impersonal.

As for this petition? It won't make a scrap of difference, and will be brushed away in the same way as social media with a comment of "they are all trolls, you can't make them happy regardless of what we do, we're not going to bother". You're better off voting with your wallet, play games other than 40k/WFB (not hard, as both games are shadows of their former selves) and encourage your friends to do the same. If the current trends continue a couple more bad financial results and perhaps the company board will look at why they are making less money than they used to, you will then hopefully see some change of attitudes and a move towards the things mentioned in the petition text.

I disagree with the request to make the online exclusives available to FLGS stores. While I'm sure there are a few things the LGS are at a disadvantage to, more often than not, they still have web exclusives on their shelves. Why? I'm not sure myself, but it happens. Maybe it's a problem elsewhere, but not where I live. As far as I'm aware, a FLGS in the United States has the power to do that already, but since this point is more about the request being redundant than it is wrong... My other reason why I'm against this is because it's unrealistic to expect a store to carry the best choices if they constantly have to throw out the old to make room for the new. Physical space. That's what it comes down to. They're already required to provide prime shelf space for the new releases. My FLGS barely has more than 1 of any single games workshop product no matter how high the demand may be. I become increasingly more impressed by how stretched yet condensed the product line is becoming in-store. All that said, I still agree with the concept, I just don't see it as a problem worth bringing up.

 Quarterdime wrote:
While I'm sure there are a few things the LGS are at a disadvantage to, more often than not, they still have web exclusives on their shelves. Why? I'm not sure myself, but it happens.

According to comments from store owners in the past, there are two 'categories' of GW Direct items at the moment. One of those categories can be Special Ordered by stores, but at a reduced discount (so they don't make as much profit on it as a similarly-priced regular items). The other is not available to stores at all.

My other reason why I'm against this is because it's unrealistic to expect a store to carry the best choices if they constantly have to throw out the old to make room for the new. Physical space. That's what it comes down to. They're already required to provide prime shelf space for the new releases. My FLGS barely has more than 1 of any single games workshop product no matter how high the demand may be..

This misses the point somewhat. Having the entire range available to stores doesn't mean that stores automatically have to stock them (although I've always thought it a little silly of stores to not stock the full range, as it has a carry on effect when customers walk in for that slow-moving item and can't find it in hand... they're more likely to just go elsewhere next time).

But stores should have the choice to stock as much of the range as they see fit.

Keep in mind, the Direct Only range isn't just obscure stuff that people don't buy. It currently includes almost every Space Marine character. For a time after the current Eldar Codex was released, it included Wave Serpents.

Not being able to stock core products is bad for stores.

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's a notable (and inevitable) drop off in momentum, but nonetheless, 9000 signatures has just been reached.

9,012 as of right now.

GW will just use it as a "blacklist" and check any resumes/applications sent for employment against it.

Wouldn't want anyone criticizing the company now, would we? Obviously they wouldn't be a team player.

 prplehippo wrote:

WayneTheGame wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
There's a notable (and inevitable) drop off in momentum, but nonetheless, 9000 signatures has just been reached.

9,012 as of right now.

GW will just use it as a "blacklist" and check any resumes/applications sent for employment against it.

Wouldn't want anyone criticizing the company now, would we? Obviously they wouldn't be a team player.

Who would want to work at games workshop the way things are now?

also, 9294 supporters, that's still a good chunk of their "niche market"...

They won't care.

There will come a point where they'll have to. I'm not saying 10k signatures will be it, which is sad enough in itself, but GW are a publicly owned company, and if outside agencies are concerned enough to put pressure on them (debatable in itself, but the other option is to dump shares, neither of which is good for GW) then whether GW themselves care not becomes irrelevant.

While it seems like a lot, for perspective, the current signatories would have to be spending on average ~£1300 per head, per month to account for GW's last reported annual revenue. Taking that into account, I think we'd be at the top end to consider 10k people accounting for 10% of GW's revenue (that's still £130ish per head, per month, and I'm not sure I like that number as an average) so, realistically, 10k people may represent 5-7% of their customers?

A significant number, especially when you consider they're likely representative of further people who may feel the same but aren't aware of the petition, but one could argue that more customers have simply stopped spending based on the last couple of reports.

Nobody should be under any illusions that 10k would have GW over a barrel, they'd barely notice in the grand scheme if we all stopped spending for all time tomorrow, but it isn't so small a number to be irrelevant either.

misuse of "vice"

xraytango wrote:
Warseer tends to be the home of the most rabid white knights, either that or they live in fear of the GW legal team of crack paper tigers.

That forum is amazing at banning posters at the drop of a hat, deleting anything deemed contentious and generally fading inch by inch from the limelight it once held.

Bols is like that for trouble as well, when the mandelbaum debacle was at it's worse in it's most recent incarnation, they freely allowed him to post and deleted anything questioning him.

Again we can be thankful to dakka's Admin and Mods for a far longer leash and tolerance of a much broader spectrum of opinions.

 doktor_g wrote:
misuse of "vice"

No, an unusual use, but a correct use nonetheless, 'vice' can mean 'as a substitute for' or 'in lieu of' which isn't a definition you see often, but it is perfectly valid.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

xraytango wrote:
Warseer tends to be the home of the most rabid white knights, either that or they live in fear of the GW legal team of crack paper tigers.

That forum is amazing at banning posters at the drop of a hat, deleting anything deemed contentious and generally fading inch by inch from the limelight it once held.
Bols is like that for trouble as well, when the mandelbaum debacle was at it's worse in it's most recent incarnation, they freely allowed him to post and deleted anything questioning him.
Again we can be thankful to dakka's Admin and Mods for a far longer leash and tolerance of a much broader spectrum of opinions.

A lot of forums do that. It's just (IMHO) plain old cronyism which the wargaming industry is rife with.

There have been numerous times on several forums where someone has been criticized (rightly or wrongly) and anyone that tried to defend them has had their posts deleted or been banned leaving only the critics and those people who claimed or have "inside information" because they are buddies with "such and such".

People are gullible and, at least to me, seem to be more willing to believe negative things about a person rather than positive. If you try to defend someone then you are either "shilling" or "same-faXXing".

That's just an easy way of discrediting someone, and it works well which is why people use those tactics so much.

 Azreal13 wrote:
There will come a point where they'll have to. I'm not saying 10k signatures will be it, which is sad enough in itself, but GW are a publicly owned company, and if outside agencies are concerned enough to put pressure on them (debatable in itself, but the other option is to dump shares, neither of which is good for GW) then whether GW themselves care not becomes irrelevant.

While it seems like a lot, for perspective, the current signatories would have to be spending on average ~£1300 per head, per month to account for GW's last reported annual revenue. Taking that into account, I think we'd be at the top end to consider 10k people accounting for 10% of GW's revenue (that's still £130ish per head, per month, and I'm not sure I like that number as an average) so, realistically, 10k people may represent 5-7% of their customers?

A significant number, especially when you consider they're likely representative of further people who may feel the same but aren't aware of the petition, but one could argue that more customers have simply stopped spending based on the last couple of reports.

Nobody should be under any illusions that 10k would have GW over a barrel, they'd barely notice in the grand scheme if we all stopped spending for all time tomorrow, but it isn't so small a number to be irrelevant either.

I think it is at least fair to triple the number, so 10K sigs should be about equal to 30K like-minded customers. In that case, you're only looking at about $700 per customer per month to equal GW's last reported revenue. But you can easily carve out the revenue that GW does not get from its regular customers, such as licensing fees. When you care that out, the number gets smaller.

But what happens if you carve out revenue that isn't directly related to customers playing the game?

We know that 40K used to be about 50% of total GW revenue, it is probably proportionally more now, but let's call it 50%. You're down to $350 per customer per month. That's creeping close to the realm of actual possibility, isn't it? Now, I doubt many GW customers spend $4,200 dollars on GW products in a year, but I think that 10K signatures is a far more significant proportion of GW's customer base than you are estimating.

weeble1000 wrote:

I think it is at least fair to triple the number, so 10K sigs should be about equal to 30K like-minded customers.

So how could you get those extra people to sign the petition? It's easy to claim there would be more people out there that feel the same way, and I do agree with your assessment that there are more, but wouldn't it be better to actually get them to sign?

If not, even though it's likely there are far more people than the ones that signed, that number could be dismissed easily by "corporate double-speak".

I liken it to the Retail Industries' 1-7-11 theory. Easy to claim and sounds plausible, but hard to actually prove.

Well, I've contacted people who operate some of the higher traffic wargaming news blogs/sites, and, to their embarrassment, have yet to receive any sort of response directly nor see anything prominent displayed on any of the concerned sites.

I can only assume that this hasn't happened because, actually, I can't come up with a good reason because this is wargaming news, in the narrowest sense, and the fact it hasn't received coverage from these sites suggests there are other agendas at work, because 10000 people voicing their agreement on any issue should be news, regardless of any other personal feelings on behalf of the correspondent involved.

It's been almost a week, so I'm assuming it's not happening.

@Weeble

I agree I'm probably being pessimistic, but that's largely down to conservative numbers being easier to defend against the cavalry charge Ive been anticipating that is now conspicuously overdue.

 prplehippo wrote:

weeble1000 wrote:

I think it is at least fair to triple the number, so 10K sigs should be about equal to 30K like-minded customers.

So how could you get those extra people to sign the petition? It's easy to claim there would be more people out there that feel the same way, and I do agree with your assessment that there are more, but wouldn't it be better to actually get them to sign?

If not, even though it's likely there are far more people than the ones that signed, that number could be dismissed easily by "corporate double-speak".

I liken it to the Retail Industries' 1-7-11 theory. Easy to claim and sounds plausible, but hard to actually prove.

As I understand, it is pretty standard to assume a 3-1 ratio with respect to negative feedback and a 10-1 ratio with respect to positive feedback.

As far as how to get those people to sign, the 3-1 ratio presumes to estimate the number of individuals who will never sign, regardless. If one more person signs, it means that this person effectively represents another two individuals who will never sign.

 Azreal13 wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
misuse of "vice"

No, an unusual use, but a correct use nonetheless, 'vice' can mean 'as a substitute for' or 'in lieu of' which isn't a definition you see often, but it is perfectly valid.

Not sure where you get that idea. Here is Merriam Webster's definition:

a : moral depravity or corruption : wickedness
b : a moral fault or failing
c : a habitual and usually trivial defect or shortcoming : foible <suffered from the vice of curiosity>
2
: blemish, defect
3
: a physical imperfection, deformity, or taint
4
a often capitalized : a character representing one of the vices in an English morality play
b : buffoon, jester
5
: an abnormal behavior pattern in a domestic animal detrimental to its health or usefulness
6
: sexual immorality; especially : prostitution


I don't see anything about "in lieu of" there.

A superior dictionary, clearly.

oxforddictionaries.com wrote:vice2
Line breaks: vice
Pronunciation: /ˈvʌɪsi /
PREPOSITION

As a substitute for:
the letter was drafted by David Hunt, vice Bevin who was ill

Signed, to be honest I'm unsure where this is going to go, is it going to be emailed how will games workshop be receiving it?
I do hope it works, good work BTW