221
Post by: Frazzled
The thread in discussions got me thinking on this topic. Ideas for improving YMTC, especially ones not requiring a lot of oversight?
This should go in nuts and bolts but since this is where these posting are made putting here.
Just a sounding board for ideas you may have.
6769
Post by: Tri
Often a post will be ether very wrong or very right. Could we get a thumbs up and thumbs down on each post? This way people don't need to +1 a post (or other pointless I agree with X)
edit ... possibly also a drop down, or appended to the original post, to show those that agree/disagree
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Yeah I've also really been wanting a "like this/agree with this" button lately.
In fact, if there were a thumbs-up button to show agreement with a post, I'd click in now for Tri's post instead of posting this.
411
Post by: whitedragon
Flavius Infernus wrote:Yeah I've also really been wanting a "like this/agree with this" button lately.
In fact, if there were a thumbs-up button to show agreement with a post, I'd click in now for Tri's post instead of posting this.
That's a really good idea, I like that. It also turns every thread into an impromptu poll as well.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
The side-effect is things will become a popularity contest. If a post is good, then people will recognize it as such. I find "I agree with [x]" or "QFT (Quoted For Truth)" posts to be entirely unnecessary. Many times I see people just getting behind someone else's interpretation just because they like that person for numerous reasons, or flaming someone because they dislike them.
I feel a device such as a 'thumbs up/down' will just create or encourage elitism and ostracize the less experienced. So far as I have seen things have been working themselves plenty well, and in my opinion Dakka Dakka doesn't need to encourage fan followings for their users and a method to break down others.
You Make Da Call isn't for people to agree or disagree so much as it is to use logic to help others understand better or work with the rules.
I am not saying such a device is 'wrong' just that it could, and most probably will be, used improperly, as we are people, and this is the internet. Things are already 'anonymous' enough for people to flame or degrade the ideas of others.
171
Post by: Lorek
I concur. We need to ask Lego about this (but be aware that it will probably be in every forum, and I think we should keep it out of the Painting and Modelling forums).
Oh, and a Thumbs Down for Skinnattittar's post. 
10133
Post by: Eight Ball
Yeah, well that's just it. Say there's a rule discussion where it's a couple guys (who may be new or something) VS some of the regulars (you know who you are). On the few occasions where the people less liked/"popular" are correct, using a thumbs up/down thing will get people thinking the people who are actually right, are wrong, because of the popularity contest between the arguers...
Also, the thing is, even doing this will not stop the 5+ page threads where 1/2 people per "side" keep reposting the same two sentences along with insults, which is a HUGE problem in some of the more popular rules "discussions"...
123
Post by: Alpharius
Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.
It would help...
That, and people should not take things so personally here, and on the Internet in general.
16325
Post by: unistoo
The problem with a rating system is that it lets people 'vote' for whichever way they would like a rule to be interpreted, without actually having to provide any arguments or backups to support the side - I think overall it would detract from YMDC's ability to thrash out all aspects of a rule.
I'd like to see a different 'quote' that separates rules quotations from user quotes. I think that would help visually clear up some postings and let people quickly scan a thread for the relevant rules.
6769
Post by: Tri
unistoo wrote:I'd like to see a different 'quote' that separates rules quotations from user quotes. I think that would help visually clear up some postings and let people quickly scan a thread for the relevant rules.
Thumbs up ... sorry couldn't resist ^_^ good idea!
12265
Post by: Gwar!
I think there should be a batphone to me.
But I agree with the agreements on the agreements system.
6846
Post by: solkan
No, not the dreaded road to meta-moderation! Next you'll be moderating the thumbs ups and thumbs down and then meta-moderating the moderation, and who knows where it will all end?!? Do we really want to turn YMDC into something which looks like the Slashdot comment system?
10086
Post by: Neconilis
Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.
It would help...
That, and people should not take things so personally here, and on the Internet in general.
I respect this and I very much so agree with this statement. However, reminding people about rule #1 is not enforcing rule #1 and I see that as a huge problem here. I understand that Dakka has a reputation for having more liberal moderation and that does work to a point. Allow people to police themselves somewhat, and don't enforce things swiftly and with a blunt instrument. This even works for many people. Someone gets out of line, you say hey don't be a jerk, they realize they went a bit over the top and all's good. Some posters abuse that liberal moderation however and repeatedly offend, and when the rest of us see someone repeatedly act like an ass and all that happens is they're told to stop being an ass but that does nothing, how do you think that makes us feel? Why aren't we all being donkey-caves then if there are no real repercussions? Or at best it takes a great deal of time for true disciplinary action to take place and then they come back and start it up all over again and the cycle repeats itself. Of course there are a few where even that never happens. They dance on the line of being utterly offensive and are allowed to stay and do as they please without question simply because we've come to expect it of them? Respectfully, but no, that's just wrong. Of course that leads into a debate of double standards and that's a different, albeit related topic.
The main point of this is honestly what's in my second sentence. Reminding people of rule #1 is not enforcing rule #1. So please do. I mean when the MODs say they no longer visit a section of the forum because it is full of vitriol and rampant hostility, doesn't that strike you as just wrong? Please do your jobs and help clean up this section, and any other sections that have similar problems and users honestly.
When the MODs say we don't want to go there, and they have the power to route the offenders out, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Really.
I'm sorry if this is offensive, but I don't know a better way to say it and in my mind it needs to be said.
1228
Post by: redstripe
Eight Ball wrote:Yeah, well that's just it. Say there's a rule discussion where it's a couple guys (who may be new or something) VS some of the regulars (you know who you are).
I don't like most of the people that post regularly in the YMDC section, so much so that if there were a button I could push that would pour scalding water on the writer of a post in the YMDC forum, my mouse would be broken from overuse. A thumbs down button is a nice compromise, here.
I don't like them, because of this:
Eight Ball wrote:Also, the thing is, even doing this will not stop the 5+ page threads where 1/2 people per "side" keep reposting the same two sentences along with insults,
I realize this post is ironic because I'm doing the exact thing I hate by insulting the insulters.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
redstripe wrote:I don't like most of the people that post regularly in the YMDC section, so much so that if there were a button I could push that would pour scalding water on the writer of a post in the YMDC forum, my mouse would be broken from overuse. A thumbs down button is a nice compromise, here.
Water? You clearly do not know your folklore 
9613
Post by: GiantKiller
I do like the idea of a separate tag for rules quotes that would make them distinguishable from other quotes in some way.
I do not like the idea of a thumbs up/thumbs down rating system for largely the same reasons already posted in other objections: It doesn't require the opinion to be backed up with facts, rules, or argument. When you think about it from the point of view that it's not other people on YMDC we have to convince that our arguments are correct, it's the people we play with and the TO's/Judges we play under, every (non-flame) viewpoint and counter-argument in a thread is helpful to the cause, even if it is mostly restating a prior argument. A thumbs up or down is no more or less helpful than a generic "I agree with Gwar!" post with no supporting material.
-GK
12265
Post by: Gwar!
GiantKiller wrote: A thumbs up or down is no more or less helpful than a generic "I agree with Gwar!" post with no supporting material.
I would like to think "I agree with Gwar!" is much more helpful 
3330
Post by: Kirasu
Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.
Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.
This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.
G
10086
Post by: Neconilis
Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.
Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.
This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.
G
I can get behind this idea as well.
10289
Post by: Blackarandras
I think that topics should be allowed to be hashed out as long as it may take for some people to come to a conclusion.
The, thumbs up thumbs down system, however, is a bad idea. It might help certain people think that they are actually more important than they really are. Instead of having I agree with ____ , and ____ is right a thousand times on our sigs, we will have a thumbs up war. Well, some of us.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Edit: More seriously, YMDC should have the conclusions of long-running and involved controversies written up as articles detailing the positions that are in disputation, the arguments made in support of each position, the arguments made against each position, and some conclusions about how people might go about avoiding the controversy surrounding the rules in actual play. That way people could look up their questions in a Dakka Dakka "FAQ" before asking them, see the arguments made, and use the collected wisdom to inform their own play. Now and then someone could find a fresh perspective, or come up with an idea that isn't featured in an article, it could be discussed in its own thread, and then logged as an edit to the article in question.
For example, the Deff Rolla Question as an article:
Opinions
Opinion #1. Deff Rollas do not allow a Battlewagon to cause D6 S10 hits when ramming a vehicle.
Opinion #2. Deff Rollas do allow a Battlewagon to cause D6 S10 hits when ramming a vehicle.
Arguments for and against Opinion #1
Yadda Yadda
Arguments for and against Opinion #2
Yadda Yadda
When in Question
Pros and Cons for whether playing as opinion #1 might be better than opinion #2, perhaps advice to avoid the Deff Rolla controversy altogether, mention of discussing this with one's opponent, checking with judges beforehand, applying the principle of least-dickery, etc.
60
Post by: yakface
Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.
Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.
This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.
G
If a thread is clearly based on a misconception (like in the case of the Bezerker thread you're referencing), as always, hitting the 'notify moderator' button and telling us that you think the thread has served its purpose and is now wandering OT will usually result in the thread being locked (unless the moderator disagrees with your assessment). So the more people who take a second to alert us to such (fairly rare) threads the sooner those threads can be closed so they don't clog up the forum and/or degenerate into senseless rants.
Beyond that, the idea that the forum is only for "the discussion of rules" is an easier concept to say than it is to define. This forum is designed for the discussion of the rules that make up the game we play. The thing is, many people tend to interpret the rules in a variety of fashions for a variety of different reasons. Having those people voice their opinion about their interpretation shouldn't turn into an issue of 'I'm right and you're wrong' if everyone would simply understand that people are free to share their opinions.
Of course, you can rebut by pointing out that you disagree with their assessment based on rules you quote. But ultimately if everyone would just stick to the basic rules of politeness that you'd tend to use in real life if you were talking to a stranger.
In a written medium, just a few words go a long way towards diffusing a situation (or stopping it from starting in the first place).
"In my opinion. . ." -- instead of just stating something as fact, including this sentiment (even though it is technically redundant) goes a long way towards making you seem less arrogant.
"I disagree with your assessment/argument because (in my opinion). . ." -- Again, this statement is technically redundant, but adding it creates a polite tone to your counter-proposal which helps to diffuse most negative sentiments.
"I choose to play the situation this way because. . ." -- If you want to express the way you play a certain situation simply because you feel some people might appreciate to hear it (for whatever reason) then prefacing it this way lets everyone know that you recognize that you may not be playing it as you think 'it is written'. And on the flip-side, when someone posts this type of comment there is no reason to jump all over them. . .if someone wants to express this type of sentiment there's no reason you can't politely accept it for what it is and (if you feel its necessary) politely rebut with why you don't think playing that way is a good idea.
Beyond that, there are situations where people will quote ancillary information, like how a rule was played in a White Dwarf battle report, what a piece of fluff says, etc. When something like this is posted, again there is no reason you can't politely accept this information for what it is and then respectfully disagree by stating that you feel, in your opinion that the rules are clear in this situation and should be followed verbatim regardless of what was presented in a White Dwarf, etc.
The thing to remember is that some people, for a variety of reasons, if they think a rule is nebulous may choose to utilize this type of ancillary information to come up with a faux house rule to play with. Allowing that type of information to be included in a discussion certainly doesn't hurt anybody. Again, if you politely accept it for what it is and then respectfully disagree with it because it is not actually rules, then everyone wins.
In YMDC, there are basically two types of threads:
A) Simple questions that are easily and quickly answered.
B) Difficult questions with no easy answer that turn into long arguments about semantics.
In the case of 'B', the people actually arguing in the thread are rarely (if ever) ultimately convinced that they are wrong and everyone needs to accept that fact ahead of time. The only thing you can hope to achieve is to present your argument to the best of your ability and perhaps you may convince all those people lurking and reading the thread that your argument is the strongest.
If you keep that fact in mind you'll find that the need to respond to each and every post in a thread really isn't necessary if someone isn't actually bringing any new information or angles against your argument.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.
Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.
I'd be on board with that as well. There's been plenty of threads where the same tired arguments on both sides just get regurgitated ad nauseum. One idea is posted, it is countered with another, and for five pages there is back and forth about how the other is wrong and they are right. That's counterproductive. Once it's been pretty firmly established there are two (or more) opposing interpretations and no cut and dried interpretation is to be had, take it to polls or "How would you play this" threads.
9158
Post by: Hollismason
No it isnt is not a argument.
19146
Post by: brother_zach
I don't like the idea of a "like/dislike? function. From the little bit of time I have spent here, I've learned alot more than what I could ever learn at a GW or local store. If the thread does get a little rediclious, a MOD can shut it down.
17520
Post by: DogOfWar
I'm not a fan of the thumbs up/thumbs down option per say, but I think it could be incorporated in a way that wouldn't unnecessarily boost egos that are in need no such boosting.
In addition to the regular 'discussion' section of the ruling, there could be a 'best answer' (a la Wikianswers, for instance) that could be accessed from the main thread screen, or perhaps it would be locked immediately below the OP's question.
The actually 'voting' would be hidden from view (possibly even the poster's name as well) so that people couldn't see that their buddy was losing by a few votes and 'boost' their score. This way you could enjoy the discussion if you wanted to, or just read the current majority answer if you were pressed for time and just interested in the Dakka-generated result. The 'best answer' could, of course, be fairly dynamic depending on how debatable the rules happen to be for a particular question.
Might need some tweaking but I think that way you'd get the best of both worlds.
 DoW
6769
Post by: Tri
I like that idea DOW, but i think it should also include the a list of the people voting; that way we know who thinks what.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
I think the up/downvoting option will be detrimental to arguments and will probably result in the spread of misinformation.
Take the average YMDC thread. Even with the easy questions, frequently the first reseponse (or first several responses) are completely and utterly wrong. These arguments are easily debunked by those who actually know where to find the appropriate rules. However, this phenomenon is testament to the large volume of posters who read and participate in discussions without having knowledge of the rules in question or even the courtesy to look them up.
Now consider how much easier it is to click on a little up/down arrow than it is to read through several pages of complicated argument. In the end, the vast majority of votes will be cast with little consideration for what is actually being voted on.
Is the purpose of the voting system to identify quality arguments? If so, do you really want people who are completely ignorant to the rules and the arguments having sway over which arguments about those rules are better than others?
Furthermore, while politeness is important, there are many users here who frequently focus more on the tone of posts instead of their content. And then there's the popularity factor which others have mentioned.
Overall, it seems like an idea destined to fail unless there is some way to verify not only that the rules are understood, but that the discussion has actually been read.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs
This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Night Lords wrote:Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs
This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.
Pot, meet Kettle. Your arguments in the "Shooting Passengers from Blown Up Transports" thread show you are guilty as the rest of us of doing this.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Gwar! wrote:Night Lords wrote:Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs
This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.
Pot, meet Kettle. Your arguments in the "Shooting Passengers from Blown Up Transports" thread show you are guilty as the rest of us of doing this.
Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I? Im not the one who made the topic, i responded to the poll, gave a map to clarify what the TC was talking about, and gave my opinion. Seeing as how clearly most people play it the other way, Ive made a mental note to not get into that situation because it seems if I do try to pull that, Im going to get kicked in the nuts and deemed TFG.
So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.
4395
Post by: Deadshane1
Make me a mod.
Problem solved.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Deadshane1 wrote:Make me a mod.
Problem solved.
Only if I get to be one too!
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
Develop an "unwritten assumptions" list for use of interpreting a piece of RAW in YMDC and sticky it.
Obvious common examples that I see people getting frequently wrong (in my opinion):
-The mention of a term that matches the name of a unit does not automatically mean only that unit is what is referred to. Context of the sentence and passage determines whether it is a descriptive term, or a formal unit name.
-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.
-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.
There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.
10086
Post by: Neconilis
I'd like to see something like that Kaaihn. Perhaps not what you said exactly, but the theory is certainly sound.
A commonly asked questions sticky would be nice too, so we don't have to see the same questions again and again. WBB is a 'wonderful' example of this.
12914
Post by: FoxPhoenix135
I see the Gallery Ratings as a good example of what the whole "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" situation might degenerate into... basically a lot of downing on new or less experienced players/painters and over-inflating the egos of some of the more venerated players/painters. I mean seriously, I spend 8 hours painting a miniature and it gets rated at a 4, just because somebody doesn't like Imperial Guard Commissars? I expect to see situations like this if such a feature is implemented in the forums.
Of course, this is all strictly in my own opinion 
13790
Post by: Sliggoth
A sticky post list such as Kaaihn suggested would be a very good idea.
Also, would it be possible to create a new archive section of YMDC threads? A few of the threads do deeply explore some uncertain rules questions and develop a clear understanding of some of the more foggy rules. And a few rules questions are repeated many times in YMDC (necron's WBB comes to mind) with the same lines of reasoning being followed each time.
A collection of important, clear threads in a reference section would very handy and would also serve as a useful learning tool. Some of the debates might become a little less vitriolic if they didnt keep recurring every few weeks as well.
While it is possible to use search to look up topics, many YMDC threads wind through several topics and may well discuss and clarify important points in threads that stray far from what the OP origianally asked.
Sliggoth
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
Kaaihn wrote:
-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.
-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.
There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.
Not stuff like this. If these were actual forum rules, YMDC would become a big discussion of people's arbitrary opinions, just like every other 40K rules forum that ever existed, and nothing would ever get settled.
Strict adherence to language and YMDC's own use of RAW readings are what brought me to this forum (back in its EZBoard days) and drove me away from other rules forums where every question devolves into a lot of pointless talk about "context" and bald assertion.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
Flavius Infernus wrote:Kaaihn wrote:
-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.
-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.
There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.
Not stuff like this. If these were actual forum rules, YMDC would become a big discussion of people's arbitrary opinions, just like every other 40K rules forum that ever existed, and nothing would ever get settled.
Strict adherence to language and YMDC's own use of RAW readings are what brought me to this forum (back in its EZBoard days) and drove me away from other rules forums where every question devolves into a lot of pointless talk about "context" and bald assertion.
What I am suggesting IS strict adherence to RAW. That's the whole point. There are so many different opinions of what RAW actually is though that the majority of the arguments here are pointless, since they are not equal ground arguments.
It's a "how to obtain a RAW answer" guide since so many people seem to need it. It's not like we don't have a source to validate any concepts used. Write it up, send it to GW for validation. There was a bunch of interest at one point of GW explaining their method behind how they determine answers to questions. This would be us documenting the method and getting their stamp of approval on it.
I don't understand why anyone would resist the idea of recognizing that they have a different core concept of the rules than someone else. If you work these issues out the questions themselves will work out on their own most of the time. 16 pages of arguing that librarians in terminator armour can't sweeping advance is all the proof of that needed.
To be clear, I'm not proposing they become forum rules that everyone must adhere to. I'm proposing getting the standards worked out and posted so when an argument is going nowhere because of a difference in standards, there is something to reference and get the core problem resolved instead of going in endless circles with a question.
9613
Post by: GiantKiller
It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.
QFT.
I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC. I'm certainly not advocating threatening people with the banstick for ignoring context, but a gentle reminder, in the form of a sticky post, of concepts that everyone can agree on such as "specific > general," "rules don't exist in a vacuum," and "ignoring context does not equal RAW" would be nice.
- GK
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I think we should adopt an elitist appoach. Everyone can post initially but for stupid remarks you are deducted points and when you bottom out you have to wait two months to post again.
G
12157
Post by: DarkHound
The problem with that elitist approach is that unpopular people get marked down regardless (Gwar! comes to mind).
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
GiantKiller wrote:I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC.
Agreed. We need more "Let's discuss our opinions and exchange ideas" and less "OMGWTF Ur an idiot cheater because you don't agree with me and think it plays the way I do!" If the approach is less "I'm right and you're wrong" and more "Here's what I think and here's why I think it" that would go a long way.
Mods I would suggest the words "Cheat" and "Cheater" and "Cheating" be dirty words in YMDC.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Here is one method to institute a ranking system whereby members lose their privilege to post in this forum for a set period if they incur enough penalty points...
Player X asks a simple question that almost everyone knows the answer. It's black and white. Player X does not accept the answer and continues trying to find a way to get around the rules so he can play as he wishes.
Here's another... Player Y does not bother to read the rules and asks a question. Player Y receives a well explained answer completely supported by the rules with page numbers and still refuses to read the rules while ignoring what had been stated in response to the question.
In fact I would go so far as to say everyone here should always read all relevant rules before asking a question. Let's not use this forum as a substitute for the rulebook and codices. There are players who simply won't buy any of the codices or rulebook simply to save some money.
G
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Sounds like a wonderful way to shout down opposing views and opinions.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I don't know why you say that. I would like to see YMDC return to thr days of it's past glory.
G
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I say that because it will be used to silence unpopular opinions. YMDC has always been a snake-pit where appeal to popularity and the employment of personal attacks are preferred to scholarship and reason. Instituting such a ranking system would simply enable participants to shout down opposing views and opinions more effectively than they already do.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Not at all... Posters here should read all if the relevant rules before asking a question here or postulating some new found discovery. There are plenty of threads that center around the OP not bothering to even make a precursory check of the rules before posting. No one could run a successful business that way.
G
99
Post by: insaniak
Night Lords wrote:Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I?
Is that a trick question? Because it kind of looks like you are... 
So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.
4 so far.
So far as the 'Grammar Nazing' comment goes... Grammar is rather an important part of the written language. Explaining the grammar behind the rule, or pointing out that the way the rule is worded causes it to read a certain way, is often the easiest way of resolving issues with rules that are perceived to be unclear.
Yes, you still sometimes wind up with rules that have multiple possible meanings. But quite a lot of the time extra meanings come from people misinterpreting the given text due to a faulty understanding of the grammar involved. Pointing out that misunderstanding doesn't involve any sort of German political movement. It's simply a way of attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.
9589
Post by: whocares
Obviously the solution is for GW to simply write more clear, concise rules and come out with frequent FAQs which answer common problems in language that clearly defines the rule and doesn't simply 'leave it up to you.'
...  ...  ...
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
After all, that solution has worked so well thus far.
8021
Post by: JD21290
insaniak, dont forget you also have to take area into account when talking about grammar.
English isnt allways the 1st language of most dakka members, and ive seen a few people grilled for it without that being taken into account.
Also, there is using correct grammar, and then theres being an ass
some people tend to jump on someone for making a simple typo (missing a letter, that kinda thing)
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
insaniak wrote:So far as the 'Grammar Nazing' comment goes... Grammar is rather an important part of the written language. Explaining the grammar behind the rule, or pointing out that the way the rule is worded causes it to read a certain way, is often the easiest way of resolving issues with rules that are perceived to be unclear.
Yes, you still sometimes wind up with rules that have multiple possible meanings. But quite a lot of the time extra meanings come from people misinterpreting the given text due to a faulty understanding of the grammar involved. Pointing out that misunderstanding doesn't involve any sort of German political movement. It's simply a way of attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.
Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.
I agree entirely, and would like to add my own observation that the people who seem to have the most trouble with grammar tend to sport the flags of supposedly English-speaking countries. The nice thing about allophones is that they learn English grammar when they learn English.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Aye. We didn't get taught grammar in school, which actually makes learning other languages difficult, as the terminology is alien.
It's definitely something that needs to be fixed with the english curriculum. Of course, there is the other viewpoint that sees language as being very fluid. I think that's all well and good, but you still have to be able to understand and make yourself understood.
99
Post by: insaniak
JD21290 wrote:insaniak, dont forget you also have to take area into account when talking about grammar.
English isnt allways the 1st language of most dakka members, and ive seen a few people grilled for it without that being taken into account.
I'm not likely to forget that... It's been a source of frustration over the years, in multiple forums. The number of people who will happily admit that their English isn't really fantastic (whether due to being a second language or simply because theydidn't pay attention in school) but will then refuse to accept that a given statement doesn't actually mean what they think it means is rather astounding.
Also, there is using correct grammar, and then theres being an ass
There's a very fine line between them sometimes, though... and it seems that which side of the line you're on often just comes down to whether or not you're disagreeing with someone who doesn't want to re-examine the way they've always assumed a given rule to work.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
insaniak wrote:Night Lords wrote:Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I?
Is that a trick question? Because it kind of looks like you are...
So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.
4 so far.
Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.
I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Night Lords wrote:I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...
No-one is forcing you to stay.
99
Post by: insaniak
Night Lords wrote:Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.
I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...
Touchy, much?
You jumped into that thread with an antagonisitc attitude, and are continuing to argue the point despite saying in this thread that you weren't doing so and were happy to admit that you were wrong. I found that slightly amusing, hence the post... which was intended to be light-hearted (hence the smileys) and not a serious dig.
(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)
12265
Post by: Gwar!
insaniak wrote:(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)
Same here. it's one of the little things that annoyed me at first here, having 30 posts per page (I usually had it set to 10, as I was a boring git) but now I'm used to it
9589
Post by: whocares
You guys are now arguing about who was arguing.
In serious answer to the question first posed in the thread: there is nothing that can be done to make this forum "better." The fact of the matter is that people, or at least a good portion of people, just enjoy arguing, fighting, antagonizing, and what have you. It's human nature. And those people tend to find each other and duke it out. In most forums you have the political wing nuts, the alt hunts, the e-drama about which married user is cyber sexing who. Here we have rules arguments and YMDC. Honestly, we have it pretty good, and no amount of change or moderation or clarification is going to stop human nature. Particularly on the internet.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
insaniak wrote:Night Lords wrote:Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.
I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...
Touchy, much?
You jumped into that thread with an antagonisitc attitude, and are continuing to argue the point despite saying in this thread that you weren't doing so and were happy to admit that you were wrong. I found that slightly amusing, hence the post... which was intended to be light-hearted (hence the smileys) and not a serious dig.
(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)
No offense, but maybe you dont understand that there's no way to tell cheeky activity on here, especially when this board is in such a hostile state. On top of that, I read the rest of this post and it seems you're still saying things that arn't true and are making my posts to be something they were not, and I can't say I appreciate it.
Seeing as how I was one of the first posts, and the TC agreed with my view and how Ive played it the few times it's come up, I dont see how I could tell I was being an antagonist. When I saw the lopsided results of the poll, I felt I was wrong, and I havnt argued it since (like page 2/7).
99
Post by: insaniak
Night Lords wrote:No offense, but maybe you dont understand that there's no way to tell cheeky activity on here, especially when this board is in such a hostile state.
As with pretty much any forum, the smileys are intended as a clue.
Seeing as how I was one of the first posts, and the TC agreed with my view and how Ive played it the few times it's come up, I dont see how I could tell I was being an antagonist. When I saw the lopsided results of the poll, I felt I was wrong, and I havnt argued it since (like page 2/7).
It appears that you're actually talking about a completely different thread. The thread in question (Shooting at a transport and assaulting the squad inside) you didn't post until page 3, and your first post was to state how you play it, and to declare that those who do it differently are ' TFG'
I'd certainly rate that as an antagonistic response.
11693
Post by: Thor665
insaniak wrote:Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.
 I knew I should have read this thread before now.
As far as "improving" YMDC, if you're going off the concerns expressed in the 'Personalities' thread over in General Discussion I suspect the only solution is more aggressive/pervasive modding as, really, that's the only way to control internet flames that I've ever noticed working. Maybe just try to train some of the locals to be a bit smarter about flagging posts for attention?
Other then that I support our need for Dark Elf dancing women. We need more dancing women in this forum. (besides, with that mug on Gwar as competition/alternative I like my chances)
15853
Post by: Night Lords
insaniak wrote:
I'd certainly rate that as an antagonistic response.
So it's antagonistic even though it's split, and Ive never seen it played where the unit cannot assault? Or is it antagonistic because I disagree with your opinion?
99
Post by: insaniak
No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
I propose a muzzle on people having a personal argument in this thread separate to the improvement discussion. That would improve the forum immensely
Night Lords, Insaniak, take it to PM's please good sirs!
18700
Post by: DJ Illuminati
I have a few ideas on the matter, but it will probably be swept away in the tsunami of "who argues with who" posts......
and thus is my first suggestion. Put a time limits between posts on a thread to allow other people to voice their opinion so we do not have to filter past 4 pages of a "yes I can, no you cant" arguement that took place in the span of 30 min. Many good opinions are lost in the flood of stupid retorts.......
Perhaps a Mod should be nominated to sheriff the YMDC, while I agree with the need for RAW I also understand that RAI is what makes the game fun. I would say that anyone that proclaims a fanatical view of RAW should be viewed as being contrary for the sake of being antagonistic and violating Rule 1.....Both sides should be allowed to explore the possibility of the RAI without someone shouting "You are wrong because you dont agree with me"
I will give an example.......
In the FRFSRF thread and the discussion as to if Hotshot Lasguns count as Lasguns, I feel that both sides had valid points, and the rule could go either way. Everyone played fair.
In the "do WH get Leman Russes" thread it was made very clear that even though it was a rule that used to work without conflict, and even though all reasonable needs to determine what a Leman Russ is were met, and even though common logic would say that the WH/DH codex should work the way it was ORIGINALY intended.........certain people still refused to budge from a RAW view that was based on nothing more than a minor name change. Such an uncompromising stance with little reasoning other than GW failing to hire lawyers to write thier Codexs like a contract, are little more than a schoolyard bully in my opinion, and should be dealt with by the Mods......
I have already started rewriting my Eldar codex to submit to GW for reprinting as a true RAW document......... here is a snippet.....
.........the the party of the first part (Farseer) if purchased(with points) before the games start (first turn) with said psychic power (Fortune), shall find the range (with an unmodified and correct form of measuring device) up and including but not exceding 6" from the first party (farseer) to the target unit. If the target unit is within range of the first party, and is Eldar, and is not a unit owned by the opposing player (exception given to units that are owned by opposing player by purchase, trade, or theft, and loaned to the first player for use or proxy) then Fortune may be used.........
I figure when I have all the wording and spelling continuity proof-read by my team of writers, it should be 7 years from now and only 320 pages........ only then can we ever be free of the fanatical RAW arguements.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
insaniak wrote:No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.
No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.
7183
Post by: Danny Internets
Night Lords wrote:insaniak wrote:No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.
No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.
And that's not antagonistic...how?
99
Post by: insaniak
Night Lords wrote:No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.
Oh, my mistake. That's not antagonistic at all.
Seriously, I think this post is a good indication that the ' RAW crowd' are certainly not solely to blame for the nature of YMDC as it currently stands.
The way to improve the forum, short of tighter moderation, is really for everyone involved to just take a step back and remember that it's just a game. Whether you're arguing for RAW, for what you think is RAI, or for your own brand of house ruels, there's really no need for this sort of attitude. No matter how right you think you are, there's someone out there who plays it differently.
YMDC is for discussing the rules, not the player.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
I would have to say that more modding in general is what is needed to passify the forum. With the majority of participants in YMDC who will point out certain people are just being asses, or pro-longing a disruptive argument, none have any ability to actually influence the concerned parties. Not 'thumbs up/down,' which is a good idea in theory (sort of like socialized/government run health care), but as the internet has shown, does not work in execution, as it degrades into popularity votes and just exacerbates the issue.
Generally I have found that only certain users make YMDC an unpleasant place due to their attitude towards others, not necessarily their understanding of rules to able deduction. Stupid threads run themselves out and attendants are only punished by their own attendance. The OP is either answered in the first page, or never, pretty much every time. Then the thread degrades into bickering, masturbation, or giving popular/controversial members a 'glad girl special,' if you will.
So in conclusion, more/better moderation, but nothing is actually 'needed.'
15853
Post by: Night Lords
insaniak wrote:Night Lords wrote:No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.
Oh, my mistake. That's not antagonistic at all.
Seriously, I think this post is a good indication that the ' RAW crowd' are certainly not solely to blame for the nature of YMDC as it currently stands.
The way to improve the forum, short of tighter moderation, is really for everyone involved to just take a step back and remember that it's just a game. Whether you're arguing for RAW, for what you think is RAI, or for your own brand of house ruels, there's really no need for this sort of attitude. No matter how right you think you are, there's someone out there who plays it differently.
YMDC is for discussing the rules, not the player.
Do you even know what that word means? From my point of view youre an antagonist because you oppose me. We're all antagonists to someone unless we all agree.
t
People should know that if you play a certain way, youre going to be looked down upon, period. My post, unlike the posts in this topic flaming me (sure enough, its by all the " RAW" people), was not insulting anyone here. However, you and your buddies have done nothing but put me on the defensive here because thats how you all are. You shout and insult and then claim youre right.
Thats EXACTLY what the problem is on here. This topic and your flames prove it.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
If you notice in your own links there is the word "or" (ie. opposing OR hostile). Considering that very quote is not directed at anyone here nor is it hostile to anyone here, my antagonistic approach must simply be an opposing view.
Thanks for trying though.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Seeing as how people in this topic are bringing other posts of mine up, obviously they feel strongly against me enough to feel theyre opposing me. If it were a simple disagreement the other posts wouldnt have been brought up here would they have? Infact, I would argue that the RAWers on here are so threatened by each opposing post that it actually is antagonizing them, or else they wouldnt insult/flame people the way they do.
Anyways, way to divert attention away from the point of my post and actually, funny enough, continue to prove me right. Like wtf is this arguement? What does this have to do with anything? What, youre trying (that's a key word) to prove me wrong? For what?
10133
Post by: Eight Ball
Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is either answered in the first page, or never, pretty much every time. Then the thread degrades into bickering, masturbation, or giving popular/controversial members a 'glad girl special,' if you will.
This is 100% correct. If, after the first page of an argument, nothing is solved, it is incredibly unlikely that their will be anything other that useless arguing going on after that.
As others have said, we really need like 2 more mods to constantly check any threads that are more than one page long, and see if their is any actual discussion going on at that point.
Also, all the back and forth between Night Lords in this very thread proves some of the points people are making...
10086
Post by: Neconilis
I love the irony in this thread.
Also, Skinnattittar, this is not the place for your political views.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Neconilis wrote:I love the irony in this thread.
Also, Skinnattittar, this is not the place for your political views.
I truly think it's great too. By trying to prove someone wrong and flaming them on something so insignificant, they've just proven the other side right on the issue at hand. Couldn't have asked for anything better.
14
Post by: Ghaz
Night Lords, all you've done is proven that you're paranoid and lack an understanding of the English language. FYI, that qualifies as my first 'antagonistic' post in this thread, as well as my last reply in this thread as I have better things to do than waste my time with you.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Ghaz wrote:Night Lords, all you've done is proven that you're paranoid and lack an understanding of the English language. FYI, that qualifies as my first 'antagonistic' post in this thread, as well as my last reply in this thread as I have better things to do than waste my time with you.
More insults. This is what this board needs to get rid of. Attacks on a personal level. Ive explained the definition, and all I get back is "you dont get it, Im right youre wrong, youre an idiot".
^^This is my answer to this topic, as well as every other flame headed my way
99
Post by: insaniak
Night Lords wrote:Do you even know what that word means? From my point of view youre an antagonist because you oppose me. We're all antagonists to someone unless we all agree.
That's one of the meanings of the word. It's not the one that was suggested by the context of my post.
People should know that if you play a certain way, youre going to be looked down upon, period.
While I was going to just leave this thread to die a natural death on its own, I feel that this point is a bit too important to the actual topic to leave it alone.
Unfortunately, the idea that your own way of playing with your toy soldiers is the 'right' one, and anyone who does it differently is a cheater/ TFG/insert-epithet-of-choice is far too common, not just in YMDC but in pretty much every forum I've visited over the years.
Correcting that attitude would be the biggest boon to the board... while it wouldn't cut down the rambling arguments, it would at least cut down the amount of flaming because someone, somewhere, plays differently.
But, of course, I have no reasonable suggestions as to how to correct that attitude, beyond perhaps making people aware of it when they post some such remark and hoping that they're mature enough to take it as constructive criticism and learn from it.
For the rest, Night Lords, if you post something hostile you can't really be surprised when you get a hostile response. That's not people picking on you, it's people reacting to your attitude.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I don't thinks it adding much to the OP. let's get it back on topic.
G
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
I'm not sure that the atmosphere can be improved except by more moderation.
Some judicious use of Ye Mighty Ban-Hammer (more the Time-Out Mallet, but that doesn't sound as good) would help.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Neconilis wrote:Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.
Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.
This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.
G
I can get behind this idea as well.
The problem is if we moderated it intesively half of you people would be banned (its ironic I posted this before reading all the posts-at least three could be suspended for personal attacks on this thread alone-the irony is ironical). Plus we don't have the manpower. Plus we don't have the inclination. Plus this would interferre with our drinking, and we can't have that! Dakka mods, the slacker mods of the intranets...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Can I be a mod? I'm always on
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
Gwar! wrote:Can I be a mod? I'm always on
No man, then I'd have to take away your Irish beer, and I know that it's the source of your unholy powers.
221
Post by: Frazzled
The Green Git wrote:GiantKiller wrote:I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC.
Agreed. We need more "Let's discuss our opinions and exchange ideas" and less "OMGWTF Ur an idiot cheater because you don't agree with me and think it plays the way I do!" If the approach is less "I'm right and you're wrong" and more "Here's what I think and here's why I think it" that would go a long way.
Mods I would suggest the words "Cheat" and "Cheater" and "Cheating" be dirty words in YMDC.
I am down with these suggestions actually. Automatically Appended Next Post: If anyone gets the Irish beer it should be me. Thats like the only beer I can stand at this point afterhaving moved on to cheap wine and rum.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Frazzled wrote:If anyone gets the Irish beer it should be me. Thats like the only beer I can stand at this point afterhaving moved on to cheap wine and rum.
Rum? That is so Last week. Gin is where it's at now!
6829
Post by: Cheese Elemental
My grandfather says gin is what saved him from a heart attack.
171
Post by: Lorek
More moderation simply won't work in a situation like this. The change needs to come from the posters, but we need incentives (good or bad) to get this forum to where we would like it to be.
There needs to be a really big sticky at the top of the forum with the title, "Read more, post less." I actually think that should be our watermark, but that's just me.
The real problem is the snide commentary, the verbal jabs, the confrontations, the lack of empathy. The tone, if you will. Tone is a VERY difficult thing to moderate, and we sound awfully stupid saying things like, "I don't appreciate the tone of your post. Please post something with more flowers, teddy bears and kittens in it". The problem is that we have seen, time and time again, how the tone of a few posters can completely ruin whole threads. Escalation is very rapid here on Dakka. YMDC is, by nature, about debate, which only engenders opposition, and combined with tone, it leads me to use too many commas. I mean, it leads to inflammatory comments, trolling, and a headache for everyone involved in the thread (even people just reading it).
It's really up to you, the posters, to improve YMDC. All of you frequent posters, set a good example. Be polite, be understanding, be conciliatory when necessary. Don't respond harshly to inflammatory posts. Don't talk down to anyone. Don't hide behind "telling it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth"; these are weak excuses that hold no water here. We're perfectly capable of being direct without being abrasive.
Make the effort, people. YMDC used to be, and can still be, a TERRIFIC resource. We are one of the more lenient mod teams out there for Warhammer 40k boards, as we realize people have the occasional bad day. But don't take advantage of this. Step up and make YMDC, and Dakka in general, a great place.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Meh. Gin is like bitterbeerfaceX2.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
How about some more moderaters from among the regulars? Not to ban/suspend accounts but to close threads that are getting out of hand or are concluded and then tidy them up (most threads could be reduced to half a dozen posts or less - question, correct answer, explanation)
221
Post by: Frazzled
Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.
8742
Post by: MeanGreenStompa
Split the area in two?
YMTC - RAI - Come to this section to discuss the intention of a rule and work around clashing rules or inconsistances.
YMTC - RAW - Come to this section to debate the nuances of the written word in detail.
A poster could then post in both areas and see what comes about from each.
------------------------------------------OR-----------------------------------------------
Another idea is a template for the question and a template for the answers people give. Limit the ability to expand these post to incorporate sleights or attacks.
*Brief summary of problem.
*Rules consulted so far/which tome/which page/paragraph.
*Inconsistancy.
*Believed intended outcome.
*Understood actual outcome.
*Impact on game/playstyle/metagame.
*Suggested improvements?
*Counterstatement to prior post by .... :
Its when the posting drifts from the actual question raised that we see most hostility here. Limit the poster's ability to expand past the actual issue.
11268
Post by: nosferatu1001
RAI is waaaaay too nebulous to have a serious discussion - by the very nature of it there are too many possibles for it to work well.
Distracting mods from beer drinking seems like a major no-no as well.
Personally YMDC is fine, opinion up / down would just become Slashdot where people with "mod" points sometimes abuse them, and fits a tree style more than a conversation style thread.
123
Post by: Alpharius
Iorek wrote:More moderation simply won't work in a situation like this. The change needs to come from the posters, but we need incentives (good or bad) to get this forum to where we would like it to be.
There needs to be a really big sticky at the top of the forum with the title, "Read more, post less." I actually think that should be our watermark, but that's just me.
The real problem is the snide commentary, the verbal jabs, the confrontations, the lack of empathy. The tone, if you will. Tone is a VERY difficult thing to moderate, and we sound awfully stupid saying things like, "I don't appreciate the tone of your post. Please post something with more flowers, teddy bears and kittens in it". The problem is that we have seen, time and time again, how the tone of a few posters can completely ruin whole threads. Escalation is very rapid here on Dakka. YMDC is, by nature, about debate, which only engenders opposition, and combined with tone, it leads me to use too many commas. I mean, it leads to inflammatory comments, trolling, and a headache for everyone involved in the thread (even people just reading it).
It's really up to you, the posters, to improve YMDC. All of you frequent posters, set a good example. Be polite, be understanding, be conciliatory when necessary. Don't respond harshly to inflammatory posts. Don't talk down to anyone. Don't hide behind "telling it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth"; these are weak excuses that hold no water here. We're perfectly capable of being direct without being abrasive.
Make the effort, people. YMDC used to be, and can still be, a TERRIFIC resource. We are one of the more lenient mod teams out there for Warhammer 40k boards, as we realize people have the occasional bad day. But don't take advantage of this. Step up and make YMDC, and Dakka in general, a great place.
There's our sticky, right there!
Seriously, that IS what it comes down to.
Well said Iorek!
9230
Post by: Trasvi
I think, if a thumbs up/down system is implemented, it should be three-way.
* Thumbs up for opinion A
* Thumbs up for opinion B
* Thumbs down.
If done properly it could be much easier to prevent people downrating the opposing arguments.
I also think it is a hard task because there are so many different views that people come from:
1) Games Workshop writers are perfect, always write exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they write.
2) Games Workshop writers are not perfect, but they're the best we have so we have to do exactly what they say.
3) GW writers are not perfect but I enjoy being pedantic and arguing as if they were.
4) GW writers know exactly what they mean but fail at (or are unwilling to) putting it into unambiguous technical language, and as such when queries arise we should attempt to find a logical, intuitive solution which makes sense in context.
5)... others. But you get the idea that a #4 and a #1 will rarely ever agree on a rules interpretation. Perhaps people could even add to their signature "I am a #4 type rules debater"
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
We should all endevaour to be quite so clever.
G
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
insaniak wrote:
Unfortunately, the idea that your own way of playing with your toy soldiers is the 'right' one, and anyone who does it differently is a cheater/TFG/insert-epithet-of-choice is far too common, not just in YMDC but in pretty much every forum I've visited over the years.
Correcting that attitude would be the biggest boon to the board... while it wouldn't cut down the rambling arguments, it would at least cut down the amount of flaming because someone, somewhere, plays differently.
QFT.
If we could keep the rules discussion about the rules and not attach value judgments to different conclusions, that would go a long way toward increasing the cordiality of YMDC.
There is no moral value attached to a particular interpretation of the rules. Accusing people of being TFG or bad sportsmen because of their opinion about how the game should be played really has no place on a rules forum. Ad hominem attacks and bullying don't advance anyone's understanding of the rules.
Is this already in the forum guidelines? If not, it should be.
752
Post by: Polonius
I think we just need the sequel to Yak's "How to have an intelligent rules debate" essay, called "How to act after you've figured out the RAW." I mean, YMDC centers on two related but very different questions: What do the rules say to do in this situation, and how should my local group/club/store/tournament play that situation. Allowing people to ask for one or the other, without either side chipping in their 5 cents, would go a long way to cleaning it up.
For example, we're having a small store tourney on sunday. I'm finally taking valkyries, and I'm asking the TO if my birds get a 4+ cover if they scout over 12". I laid out the relevant RAW, the lack of precedent, etc., and his first question was "well, have you asked on dakka how people play this?" That's not a situation with an unclear RAW or a clear RAI, but there is still value in knowing how others play it.
As Iorek pointed out, YMDC is a snake pit because everybody is ready to flame at the drop of a hat. As I pointed out in my thread on YMDC and the personalities, I'm convinced that a lot of that is the result of simply lack of understanding between two separate groups: those that see RAW as the only way to properly play as a way to guard against cheating, bullying, and intimidation; and those players that see the rules as a framework for games to be modified as needed to have a good experience.
Neither group is right, but it will help for people to realize that not every RAW champion is TFG, and neither is every loosey goosey RAI player.
As another poster stated, there needs to be a slight relaxation of sphincters about the moral high ground RAW stands on. That said, more RAI players need to realize that RAW is clear cut and accessible far more often than they realize.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
I still think a great way to tone down the multi page disagreements that go nowhere is to actually define how RAW works. Seriously, if we outlined the system and could discuss different opinions of systemic issues, the majority of what turns into flame wars would never exist past one page.
Almost every multi page thread I see here can be traced back to people using different assumptions of how RAW actually works. The actual issue being argued would resolve itself if the baseline assumptions were agreed on, or at least recognized.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think that may be part of the issue, getting people to agree on the baseline assumptions.
9142
Post by: Axyl
Ultimately any thread that exceeds two or three pages normally devolves into a flame fest or constant bickering over the same points for the rest of the thread. There are a few exceptions, but they are few and far throughout.
Don't know how much free time you mods have, but any YMDC thread that exceeds three pages should be reviewed by a mod and locked if there is no new information that they feel could be added to the debate. If it helps, they could then sum up everything in the final post could with a brief summation of both sides of the argument.
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Gwar! wrote:Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?
At first I thought this to be an insult, but then thinking about it, from your perspective it must mean Im always right and I walk on holy land. Thanks
12265
Post by: Gwar!
I was not talking about Gwar!, I was talking of myself.
752
Post by: Polonius
Frazzled wrote:I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.
I could have been clearer. I think that bulk of the big fights I've seen or taken part in have been between two different interpretations of RAW, but between a textualist approach and more contextual approach. I think rather than a RAW vs. RAI, you see an argument based on if a single sentence or two can be read independently, or if you need to use a certain context to determine the meaning.
To put it another way, the main rift seems to be between people that hold that every scrap of rule is nearly as valid as another, and that nothing was included by mistake or sloppiness and those that see the rules as a whole to be more important, and are willing to excise or ignore certain passages. I'm not sure that's really RAW v. RAI, but I haven't been able to think of a good name yet.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
Polonius wrote:Frazzled wrote:I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.
I could have been clearer. I think that bulk of the big fights I've seen or taken part in have been between two different interpretations of RAW, but between a textualist approach and more contextual approach. I think rather than a RAW vs. RAI, you see an argument based on if a single sentence or two can be read independently, or if you need to use a certain context to determine the meaning.
To put it another way, the main rift seems to be between people that hold that every scrap of rule is nearly as valid as another, and that nothing was included by mistake or sloppiness and those that see the rules as a whole to be more important, and are willing to excise or ignore certain passages. I'm not sure that's really RAW v. RAI, but I haven't been able to think of a good name yet.
You and I are talking about the same thing I think.
We should call it RAW in the raw: A guide for the process of interpreting an answer in the 40K rules using the 'how' statements of the instructions, rather than the 'why'.
527
Post by: Flavius Infernus
I have most of a document written on deductive reading of 40K rules, common logical fallacies, etc. Can finish it up as a supplement to whatever people want to do.
But if Kaaihn is going to co-opt the term "RAW" for his version of reading, then I might need to coin a new term for my "maul it with a dictionary" version. I can call it "ultra-RAW" or "Infernus-RAW" or whatever.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Here's an idea: Each poster can only post once in a YMDC thread. That way, if posters are going to voice an opinion, have only one opportunity to explain and justify that opinion.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
So what happens if someone needs to retort or rebut something? They edit their original post and it becomes a horrible unreadable mess?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Gwar!:
That's the point: We would have no opportunity to retort, rebut, or otherwise answer any criticism of what we have posted except by pre-emptively addressing possible criticisms in our posts, and getting our posts right the first time.
This limit would require posters to put more care and thought into their posts, and encourage posters to discuss the issue at hand rather than each other.
Now that you mention it, though, an addendum to my suggestion would be that one should not be able to edit YMDC posts either. If we don't want to look like idiots, then we should edit our work before we post it.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:
That's the point: We would have no opportunity to retort, rebut, or otherwise answer any criticism of what we have posted except by pre-emptively addressing possible criticisms in our posts, and getting our posts right the first time.
This limit would require posters to put more care and thought into their posts, and encourage posters to discuss the issue at hand rather than each other.
Now that you mention it, though, an addendum to my suggestion would be that one should not be able to edit YMDC posts either. If we don't want to look like idiots, then we should edit our work before we post it.
Honestly this would stifle intelligent (ha!) debate. I post something, you respond, I see a point where you are misunderstanding something I said (or vice versa)...and we can't clear that up because neither of us gets another post. Automatically Appended Next Post: Flavius Infernus wrote:I have most of a document written on deductive reading of 40K rules, common logical fallacies, etc. Can finish it up as a supplement to whatever people want to do.
But if Kaaihn is going to co-opt the term "RAW" for his version of reading, then I might need to coin a new term for my "maul it with a dictionary" version. I can call it "ultra-RAW" or "Infernus-RAW" or whatever.
The title is a joke. Don't get hung up on it
I'm not proposing I make a full document myself by the way, I'm proposing that people that want to contribute to a project like this do so. While we could go with what is agreed on by popular vote as a worst case final, I think the real goal is to outline some cohesive concepts that we see being regularly disagreed upon and get GW feedback as to which is the correct method. That validated method is what should be included in a sticky for reference.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Kaaihn:
That's exactly it, it wouldn't stifle intelligent debate because intelligent debate is about the subject rather than the debaters. If I misunderstand something in my response to your post, a third person should be able to point out and correct my misunderstanding.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
So Nurglitch, you have never ever made a typo I presume?
And what happens if someone posts something while I am posting. I now cannot reply to the point made by that person, as I cannot edit nor make a new post.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Gwar!:
I make typos all the time unless I take the care to edit my work.
As for posting at the same time as someone else, whether you get to reply to whatever point they make is irrelevant because someone else can.
12254
Post by: Kaaihn
Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:
I make typos all the time unless I take the care to edit my work.
As for posting at the same time as someone else, whether you get to reply to whatever point they make is irrelevant because someone else can.
Your system works if you can trust that someone else is going to come and post after you with a correct and comprehensive (to you) reply. I don't trust that to happen. Add to that the fact that I have cleared up misconceptions that people have had through an ongoing back and forth dialogue on multiple occasions, and I don't think your one post system is ideal.
Just my opinion.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
The idea behind permitting only one post is that you have to get it right the first time.
One reason why people's posts tend to be wrong and incomprehensible is that people (yeah, me included) tend to post without really putting much thought into what and how they write.
So while your criticism is valid for a multiple-post environment, where people can just explain themselves post factum (pun intended) and don't really take the time to make sure they're both understood and correct the first time, it's not really valid for a single-post environment.
Something to keep in mind is that people can and do adapt to new systems, despite initial teething problems. A single-post system notably has a nice sharp learning curve for such transitions.
So my reply to your criticism is that I think the reason you can't trust anyone else to come and post a correct and comprehensive reply (to anyone) is that you're used to a multiple-post system where there's no incentive for doing so, and no disincentives for not doing so. You're applying a criticism of people's behaviour under the existing system to people's behaviour under a different system, which makes it somewhat less than valid in its application.
About whether my proposal is the ideal system: The problem with holding out for the ideal is that the ideal is an abstract notion, rather than an actual state of affairs. In states of affairs we just want what'll do the job and do it the most cost-effectively of all available options.
My proposal will make moderation much easier, so it's cost-effective in that fashion. Whether it's the best is an open question, but I offer it and suggest it is because it requires us to think a little harder about getting the rules right and communicating that before we post, and that can't possibly be a bad thing in YMDC.
9142
Post by: Axyl
Perhaps as a compromise a 1 post per page or per 15 posts would be more ideal. It gives us incentive to post a clear and concise argument on the first post, and if it is enough of an issue where it continues on to multiple pages then that poster will be able to reply and give their feedback to what other posters have said after him or her.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?
9142
Post by: Axyl
At the same time...Why NOT allow anyone to reply if a majority of responses are insulting or add nothing to the discussion?
Honestly limiting the amount of responses a user can post is probably not the best idea, but this thread was made for a reason. To discuss ideas to improve the quality of the YMDC section.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Yes and part of that discussion is to poke holes in others Ideas is it not?
9142
Post by: Axyl
Yes, and normally if you want to 'poke holes' or discredit an idea it's normally advisable to provide a decent counter point or alternate idea.
Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?
This would defeat the purpose of the forums which is a place for multiple users from around the net to provide feedback to questions that others may have about rules questions. Only allowing mods to respond would not only take up way too much of their time, but it would only be the view points of a few people. A limit to posts would allow anyone to respond to any questions and prevent flame wars.
Point/counter point.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
It would not prevent flame wars, it would just result in people making multiple accounts or just much slower flame wars.
18700
Post by: DJ Illuminati
Gwar! wrote:Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?
they said limit, not ban.......
its that all or nothing, Black and white approach to YMDC that starts all the fights.........
9142
Post by: Axyl
Gwar! wrote:It would not prevent flame wars, it would just result in people making multiple accounts or just much slower flame wars.
And that is a very good point.
And +1 for what DJ said. There is rarely ever any middle ground in YMDC.
99
Post by: insaniak
Trasvi wrote:I also think it is a hard task because there are so many different views that people come from:
1) Games Workshop writers are perfect,... etc...
It generally has nothing to do with the quality of GW's rules writers. However skilled or not they are with the written word, the rulebook is what it is.
We generally have two types of rules discussions going on: 'How does this rule work?' and 'How is this rule played?'
Neither of those are really affected a great deal by whether or not the writers wrote what they originally intended. The first is answered only by looking at the actual rules, because that is the only real reference that we have, however well or badly written it may be. The second is answered only by the players, and is really completely independant of the rulebook. Or rather, it's limited more by how the players want to play the game then by actual rules.
The moment you step away from the actual written rule into the realm of 'Well, it says this, but probably actually means this' you're no longer discussing the actual rule. You're discussing an alternate way of playing it.
That doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it a different discussion. But I think that's where a lot of the misunderstandings come from. People get a little fixated on making their point, without stopping to consider whether they're making it in the right discussion. People talking about how they choose to play the game get understandably cranky when someone insists that they're cheating because the rules say differently or keeps derailing the conversation with RAW arguments. And people discussing the actual rules get cranky when people keep insisting that the writer obviously meant something other than what he wrote, or that the way they choose to play it is the 'right' way regardless of what the rules say.
I've no idea if this post actually adds anything constructive to the discussion. I'm still on my first coffee of the morning.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Gwar!:
Please explain how limiting the number of posts per thread would not prevent flame wars?
You are aware that sock-puppetry, meaning multiple accounts, is against the forum rules right? And doing so is pretty obvious because your IP is logged when you post.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Nurglitch wrote: And doing so is pretty obvious because your IP is logged when you post.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Funny story: Several years back I was banned from Warseer. For a while I went back using a proxy to vent my displeasure, which resulted in all proxies being automatically banned as soon as they were detected. I no longer require proxies to visit Warseer as a member, but if I wanted my current account there banned, I would visit using a proxy. And since Dakka is in all ways better than Warseer, I feel comfortable assuming the Yakface and Legoburner likewise know how to permanently ban people for sock-puppetry.
99
Post by: insaniak
Nurglitch wrote:You are aware that sock-puppetry, meaning multiple accounts, is against the forum rules right?
Doesn't appear to be.
Unless there are more rules hidden somewhere. Wouldn't surprise me... this site has stuff tucked away in the strangest places.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Ooh, I just noticed the rules page still shows the top Posters. Yay I am #1 This week
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
insaniak:
Imagine, if you will, that you get into a conversation with the manager at your FLGS. In the middle of that conversation the manager happens to very earnestly say something very strange ("GW miniatures are now 100% organic!"), so you ask for some sort of confirmation ("Are you sure?"). Instead of pulling out a rulebook, or suggesting a source, or backing down ("Well, it's what I heard!"), they instead duck behind the register, put on a fake mustache-spectacles combination, and then using a nasally voice introduces themselves as their own cousin. This cousin, or rather the manager in disguise, confirms that what the manager originally said is true ("Indeed my good fellow, styrene plastic is composed of organic molecules, pip-pip!"). This is sock-puppetry. Amongst other thing it is very rude. Being rude contravenes the first rule of Dakka Dakka.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Well what if you are very polite about it?
And anyway, in your example it should be the Manager makes an Outrageous claim, you ask him to back it up, and he can't now because big men with clubs are stopping him say anything else.
9142
Post by: Axyl
I'm sure if they really wanted to stop sock-puppet accounts they could block different accounts from the same IP. It's not really an issue I see around here enough to warrant something that drastic though.
Honestly, that would end up blocking me as well since I usually log on from my work which shares the same IP as a couple other users on Dakka.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
And what happens if two brothers or College room-mates use dakka?
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Night Lords wrote:Gwar! wrote:Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?
At first I thought this to be an insult, but then thinking about it, from your perspective it must mean Im always right and I walk on holy land. Thanks
Man you are paranoid.
G Automatically Appended Next Post: Axyl wrote:I'm sure if they really wanted to stop sock-puppet accounts they could block different accounts from the same IP. It's not really an issue I see around here enough to warrant something that drastic though.
Honestly, that would end up blocking me as well since I usually log on from my work which shares the same IP as a couple other users on Dakka.
I would give my left nut to see the demise of the sock puppets.
G
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
An interesting point about the sock-puppet accounts being a problem is that, if we were limited to one post per YMDC thread, they would be easily detected.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
They would not be easily detected however, as there are 9001 ways to mask an IP.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
No doubt. It's still not a serious problem.
10133
Post by: Eight Ball
Gwar! wrote:They would not be easily detected however, as there are 9001 ways to mask an IP.
This is so true.
Also, Nurglitch and Gwar!, look at your current discussion in this topic. With (some of the) new posts, new points are being brought up from both of you. Now, imagine that you could only post once in THIS entire discussion for example, and how much harder it would be to get your point across.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
I rather like the idea of a single post per user in YMDC. Might promote a little research and thought and less knee jerk. You want to post your one allocated response calling someone a cheater or regurgitating something someone else just posted? Go right ahead. Your voice is heard but you don't get to shout down anyone else because you have more unengaged time to sit in front of the keyboard.
The way I see it YMDC could almost function like a very verbose poll. A question is posited, and the players weigh in on the answer. Once. Then when new players come along they don't have to sift through pages of crap to get new opinions.
Personally I like the direction the "How would you play this?" polls take things because it's very clearly NOT a question about what exact parsing of words create... but how a given situation is best played. *THAT* in my opinion is the best goal. What makes the game the most fun and offends the imagination the least?
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Eight Ball:
Re-reading my exchange with Gwar!, I can't help but notice that no new or interesting points are raised by either of us until a third poster steps in and posts something. I don't know about Gwar!, but I can't honestly say I put much thought or effort into the exchange, and I think it pretty much acts to underscore my point about how such a dialog is pretty much just spam.
99
Post by: insaniak
The Green Git wrote:Personally I like the direction the "How would you play this?" polls take things because it's very clearly NOT a question about what exact parsing of words create... but how a given situation is best played. *THAT* in my opinion is the best goal. What makes the game the most fun and offends the imagination the least?
Which can be useful in some situations, and completely useless in others.
If all you're after is examples of how different people play the game so you can decide which way to go for your home games, those threads are fine.
But if you're playing anywhere else, while they may be informative, they're ultimately useless. You can have a thread in which 99% of the entire Dakka population says that they play a given rule a certain way... and still walk into a gaming club or store and find that everyone there plays it completely differently.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Yup. It's important to distinguish between what the rulebooks recommend, and how the game is actually played.
9142
Post by: Axyl
@ Insaniak: Well, assuming you are right about them playing it differently at different shops...then wouldn't knowing the official answer even if they play it differently be the same?
Of course it certainly helps to walk in there with proof or a good argument that the way you play is correct, if they play it differently at that specific shop then isn't it a good idea to just go along with the way it is played in that shop? Especially on things that do not have clear cut rules (deff-rolla, etc.).
Knowing the rules inside and out is great, but having a rule set that both you and your opponent agree on is best.
99
Post by: insaniak
Axyl wrote:@ Insaniak: Well, assuming you are right about them playing it differently at different shops...then wouldn't knowing the official answer even if they play it differently be the same?
Not sure what you mean. What official answer?
Of course it certainly helps to walk in there with proof or a good argument that the way you play is correct, if they play it differently at that specific shop then isn't it a good idea to just go along with the way it is played in that shop?
Absolutely. My point wasn't that you walk in and start telling them to change their ways because they're playing it wrong. It was that knowing the different ways that the rules are interpreted means that it's less of a surprise when you come across someone doing it differently.
From my experience (for what little that anecdotal evidence is worth) most venues (stores or clubs, generally) play by the rules, with very few house rules thrown in. Differences in different venues come from different interpretations of ambiguous rules, rather than deliberate changes. YMDC helps people to understand these different interpretations before the fact, rather than winding up arguing about it at the table.
House rules, which crop up more frequently in the 'how do you play it?' threads, are less important to this process, since they're going to be (or at least should be) explained and agreed to before you start playing anyway.
Knowing the rules inside and out is great, but having a rule set that both you and your opponent agree on is best.
Again, absolutely. but knowing the rules inside and out makes it a lot easier to reach that agreement, since you're more likely to already understand where your opponent is coming from when he suggests that something works differently.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.
Yes because being polite makes you so much more corrent in a logical debate.
The first rule of YMDC (and this board) should be "Don't be an idiot".
Anyway, taken from another sight with a board that gets 'heated' in the same manner:
Rule 10 - In Serious Debates, Standard Debating Practices and Etiquette are in Effect.
To put this simply one should be expected to back up their science or history based opinions with compulsive reasoning and preferably solid fact. The nature of serious debate is understandably subjective, and staff are expected to use their own common sense to guide their judgement on the issue. Consistent statement of opinion in ths regard without solid backup can be considered trolling, and would be deemed unacceptable. (ie. ban a certain member immediately)
This rule is extended to Versus Debates, also, where opinions in debate are expected to be backed up by valid references under the accepted canon rules.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Honestly, I think a lot of people could stand to have a bit thicker skin.
Saying "you are wrong" is not rude if you've got rules to back you up.
Saying "you're a jerk" is.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
willydstyle wrote:Saying "you are wrong" is not rude if you've got rules to back you up.
Saying "you're a jerk" is.
Completely agree. Too often criticism and debate is taken to be personal attacks, when often it is quite detached from the person you are responding to.
And, by the same token, you can still insult someone whilst being very polite about it.
Sadly Rule #1 doesn't cover that...
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I don't think being polite makes one "more correct" in a "logical debate", whatever those are. However, there's something to be said for adopting a neutral tone if one is attempting to reason objectively rather than simply use rhetoric as a social bludgeon.
Saying "you're wrong" is just as rude as saying "you're a jerk" because it makes the wrongness of a person's opinion personal: in fact it's moreso like saying "you're stupid" than it is like saying "your opinion is incorrect". Notice how the latter is directed at the opinion, and the former at the person holding the opinion.
The real problem comes when someone, for whatever reason, is too stupid to know that their opinion is wrong. Because, as we all know, pointing out that someone is stupid, illiterate, half-witted, and probably carrying too many spare chromosomes for their own good is rude no matter how true such statements may be.
That's why I'm trying to avoid the YMDC forum these days, because if someone either can't or won't use the literacy skills necessary to read the GW rules properly, how can I convince them of a better opinion using a written medium? And pointing out their flaws in this regard doesn't help either, because they have no motivation to alleviate these flaws.
When I'm tutoring or coaching, dealing with stupidity is a simple matter of motivation: the people I tutor or coach want my opinion, and seek it to improve their own skills in an area. Here the discussion of rules is considered a competition rather than a co-operative venture, a contest of popularity rather an earnest search for truth. No one likes being wrong, and no one likes being proven wrong and hence made to look stupid. So people are more concerned with writing short snappy comebacks and trying to be clever than finding the answers to questions, and we're all the poorer for it.
Edit: Formers and latters switched around in second paragraph. Oops.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Completely agree. Too often criticism and debate is taken to be personal attacks, when often it is quite detached from the person you are responding to.
And, by the same token, you can still insult someone whilst being very polite about it.
Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.
Anonymous Sample wrote:
That's why I'm trying to avoid the YMDC forum these days, because if someone either can't or won't use the literacy skills necessary to read the GW rules properly, how can I convince them of a better opinion using a written medium? And pointing out their flaws in this regard doesn't help either, because they have no motivation to alleviate these flaws.
When I'm tutoring or coaching, dealing with stupidity is a simple matter of motivation: the people I tutor or coach want my opinion, and seek it to improve their own skills in an area. Here the discussion of rules is considered a competition rather than a co-operative venture, a contest of popularity rather an earnest search for truth. No one likes being wrong, and no one likes being proven wrong and hence made to look stupid. So people are more concerned with writing short snappy comebacks and trying to be clever than finding the answers to questions, and we're all the poorer for it.
This is a perfect example of indirect impoliteness. This sort of post conveys massive amounts of epeen-enhancing holier-than-thouness wrapped in verbiosity bordering on Elizabethan. The implication that this individual's opinion is correct to the point of professional, and that the rest of us ignorant sods who fail to agree with clear-cut explanations of GW's technical and linear rules system, is wrapped up in ridiculous self-importance.
Especially considering that this individual's arguments and interpretations are no better or worse than any other person's, just longer and more laborious to read.
Why is it that when Gwar! says "You are wrong" and is right, he's somehow breaking Rule #1, but when somebody else is able to chunk out four paragraphs of smug gibberish that's okay?
I have no problem with Rule #1, but 'Be Polite' should extend further than 'Be Polite Unless Morons Can't Understand You'.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
First Gwar! helps reinforce my point about why posting fewer posts might encourage posters to post more content, and now sourclams helps to reinforce my point about how addressing the post and not the poster helps to avoid wasting our time with personal animosity.
In fact, sourclams gives us a good example of why we should grow a thicker skin, lest we grow so sensitive that we perceive insult where none is intended.
The fact is that we simply cannot insult someone while still being polite to them, because that's what being polite is: not insulting someone. It is necessary for offense to be given in the first place, since politeness depends on the person trying not to give offense. After all, one can mistakenly take offense, particularly where there is pre-existing personal animosity, or some other condition that predisposes someone to see insult where there is none.
I'm sure we've all been in this situation: some drunk wants to pick a fight and so they pretend they've been insulted; it's practically a comedy staple. The absurdity of this situation is not simply the self-righteous rage that my style of writing apparently inflicts on sourclams, or the unconsciously self-referential tone of his post, but that someone as obviously intelligent and good-hearted as him would not make allowances for my obvious linguistic handicap.
Of course, this is already covered by the Forum Rules.
Forum Rules wrote:Rule #1: Be Polite.
When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.
Edit: There's a KITH sketch for every occasion.
More Edit: Actually there's two of them.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
Frazzled wrote:Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.
But these would be a lower class of subservient moderator - you'd gain minions!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Scott-S6 wrote:Frazzled wrote:Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.
But these would be a lower class of subservient moderator - you'd gain minions!
Ooh, I like minions. Automatically Appended Next Post: H.B.M.C. wrote:Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.
Yes because being polite makes you so much more corrent in a logical debate.
The first rule of YMDC (and this board) should be "Don't be an idiot".
Anyway, taken from another sight with a board that gets 'heated' in the same manner:
Rule 10 - In Serious Debates, Standard Debating Practices and Etiquette are in Effect.
To put this simply one should be expected to back up their science or history based opinions with compulsive reasoning and preferably solid fact. The nature of serious debate is understandably subjective, and staff are expected to use their own common sense to guide their judgement on the issue. Consistent statement of opinion in ths regard without solid backup can be considered trolling, and would be deemed unacceptable. (ie. ban a certain member immediately)
This rule is extended to Versus Debates, also, where opinions in debate are expected to be backed up by valid references under the accepted canon rules.
Actually no. The first is and should be BE POLITE. Idiocy is relative. Politeness is required in any debate. If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.
13518
Post by: Scott-S6
I really do think that giving some of the regulars thread control is the way to go. (librarian? codicier?)
Concluded threads or threads that are getting out of hand can be closed and extraneous posts removed.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.
Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.
G
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.
Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.
G
I agree with GBF. Yes the world has ended.
171
Post by: Lorek
sourclams wrote:Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.
HA! AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
We're not here to do people's debating for them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
You're also assuming the Mods are: 1. Logical 2. Coherent In GBF's defense, I am fairly certain he wasn't making that assumption about moi. 
8471
Post by: olympia
I got this system from a political blog--trust me things get very heated and this system works quite well. Users have the option of checking a "+" sign next to a post. This is "mojo."
Trusted Users
If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU.
One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.
Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.
G
Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Nurglitch wrote:Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.
Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.
G
Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.
Ah nothing like a gratuitous slam based on a false claim in the morning.
Wait if I wanted to "character assassinate" you I'd just ban you. I'll have to get another mod to look at this.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Nurglitch wrote:Green Blow Fly wrote:I just hope this is not an exercise in lip service from the staff, which is what it's looking like to be completely honest.
Don't listen to Nurglitch, he wants nothing done to improve YMDC.
G
Your opinion is incorrect. I would very much like YMDC to be improved because posting here is a miserable experience when people like you, sourclams, and even moderators like Frazzled are more concerned with character assassination than making constructive contributions.
What you have said is unfounded. I think you are just being paranoid.
G
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Green Blow Fly wrote:What you have said is unfounded. I think you are just being paranoid.
As someone who has suffered from Paranoia during a Major Depressive Episode, I would have to concur.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Ok back to topic guys. Save the paranoia for the OT, where its not only expected, its required!
171
Post by: Lorek
Nurglitch, if you're going to throw around accusations like that, please show some evidence. It's like the old internet adage: "Pics, or it didn't happen."
Thank you.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Frazzled:
Character assassination is when you attack another person's character, including the manner in which they post, rather than the substance of their opinions. It's certainly easier when that person can't fight back, but the fact of the matter is that character assassination is a matter of defamation, not ostracism.
Green Blow Fly:
Perhaps, but consider what you have written. You're not addressing the content of my posts, you're attacking me personally. You could have said that my suggestions for improving YMDC are bad, or that better ones exist, or whatever. Instead you attack my motive, and then suggest I'm paranoid when I complain about you attacking me rather than the content of my suggestions. Considering that your posts seem more interested in tearing me down than in offering constructive criticism of the ideas I have offered, or arguing in favour of your own suggestions, what I have claimed is quite reasonable and well founded.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I'm aware of what the definition is Nurglitch. You made the charge about me. Back it up.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Nurglitch wrote:
Green Blow Fly:
Perhaps, but consider what you have written. You're not addressing the content of my posts, you're attacking me personally. You could have said that my suggestions for improving YMDC are bad, or that better ones exist, or whatever. Instead you attack my motive, and then suggest I'm paranoid when I complain about you attacking me rather than the content of my suggestions. Considering that your posts seem more interested in tearing me down than in offering constructive criticism of the ideas I have offered, or arguing in favour of your own suggestions, what I have claimed is quite reasonable and well founded.
Wow just wow... didn't you read what Iorek posted? Evidence please. Just because I think you are acting paranoid doesn't mean I am attacking you. Much of what you have said has no basis other than you feel we are trying to create a good old boys club.
G
257
Post by: Harkainos
@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)
That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.
/game on
--EDIT--
add to # of posts
12265
Post by: Gwar!
This thread needs more cowbell and baseless accusations!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Harkainos wrote:@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)
That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.
/game on
--EDIT--
add to # of posts
And where was I assassinating the character of anyone but other mods?
171
Post by: Lorek
It does need a bucket of water.
We have wandered off-topic here. Please keep this to thoughts on how to improve YMDC.
If you would like to continue the sidebar conversation, please start a thread in Dakka Discussions.
Thank you.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
One thing I have noticed, is that Mods aren't really doing anything to deter people. There have been several situations where an OP or other thread members have asked others to cease pursuing a subject that all thread members have decided they no longer want to pursue in said thread (due to it being off subject, slanderous, or many other entirely reasonable reasons), but a member continues on said subject and has become increasingly belligerent. Thread members will then go to the Moderators, show the evidence, explain themselves, and ask for some sort of solution and only get a "play nice children" but no other action and harassment continues. This happened a lot, and certain forum members have a history of such actions but are continually just given a most gentle finger wag.
Granted, I have not seen this in a while, but I have also been leaving threads that are completely foundered. But that does not change the fact that the Mods made no action to actually stop the user's abusive actions.
171
Post by: Lorek
We try to be relatively hands-off, Skinnattittar. If everyone else doesn't want to respond to a poster, they don't have to. Believe it or not, we do keep track of warnings given, and once a poster breaks too many rules or causes too many problems, we take further action.
We also prefer to give out warnings, as the only other tool we have are suspensions. We also try to be understanding, as everyone has a bad day now and then. It's the frequent offenders that have action taken against them.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Skinnattittar wrote:One thing I have noticed, is that Mods aren't really doing anything to deter people. There have been several situations where an OP or other thread members have asked others to cease pursuing a subject that all thread members have decided they no longer want to pursue in said thread (due to it being off subject, slanderous, or many other entirely reasonable reasons), but a member continues on said subject and has become increasingly belligerent. Thread members will then go to the Moderators, show the evidence, explain themselves, and ask for some sort of solution and only get a "play nice children" but no other action and harassment continues. This happened a lot, and certain forum members have a history of such actions but are continually just given a most gentle finger wag.
Granted, I have not seen this in a while, but I have also been leaving threads that are completely foundered. But that does not change the fact that the Mods made no action to actually stop the user's abusive actions.
historically thats not been our function. Historically, we've only addressed Dakka rule #1 - #3. Be polite, stay on topic, no spam. Referring discussions and the efficacy of arguments has not been our purview beyond that. Please note Iorek's thread and some key points which may be used in the future.
257
Post by: Harkainos
Frazzled wrote:Harkainos wrote:@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)
That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.
/game on
--EDIT--
add to # of posts
And where was I assassinating the character of anyone but other mods?
You were spot on (in reference to the 8 posts) I tried to make that message short and sweet.
I agree with Nurglitch (at least what is on page 6) in part. I find that there are a lot of personal slanders made. If one needs evidence, please refer to EVERY thread with a page count of 4 or more. See my sig when utilizing the word every...
That is all my post was about.
I, however, have no contribution to the OP other than:
I don't think there is a way to make YMDC better, without including/adding a *fix it* part of rules that are obviously not easily understood, or at least understood different to RaW.... but wait... proposed rules anyone.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Murky.
G
13271
Post by: Elessar
olympia wrote:I got this system from a political blog--trust me things get very heated and this system works quite well. Users have the option of checking a "+" sign next to a post. This is "mojo."
Trusted Users
If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU.
One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community.
An interesting idea, but I think this will lead to 'The Warriors' style (posting) gangs, hunting posts by others and hiding them for lols.
I wanna be in Gwar!'s gang.
5394
Post by: reds8n
It seems to me that we do get a lot of repeat questions asked in here, which normally gets a couple of "learn 2 use search noob" type answers, a pissed off retort from the OP saying " all I wanted was help and then you guys had to.. etc etc " before an argument that has either been resolved or argued to a standstill multiple times continues as various new posters chime in.
Would it be possible to sticky certain questions up at the top of the board to try and prevent this more ?
Perhaps even to avoid the entire front page of the board being one long sticky something like :
MOVEMENT QUESTIONS
SHOOTING QUESTIONS
MORALE QUESTIONS
and so on. I appreciate there are a fair few issues that simply are not agreed on.. but all these do is cause massive arguments which won't end as neither side will budge, but maybe we could stick those in a GREY AREAS sticky or something.
257
Post by: Harkainos
Don't forget
DAEMONHUNTER QUESTIONS
We've been getting a lot of those lately, it seems
5394
Post by: reds8n
I'm sure "we" could have sections or stickies for each and every army/book/edition etc if so agreed.
it's just, when the 2,354th post about NEcron WBB and sweeping advance starts up, with no new or unused argument in it.. it's a waste of everyone's time. Okay this won't stop that 100%, but it means a poster can read the question either direct them to the area, or if there's nothing new in there alert one of our drunken overlords from their modpit and they can lock it.
Or, and it has to happen one day, if someone comes up with a new argument or thought then we're good, with a handy ready made summary of the usual argument to hand for people to refer to.
I'll just point out seeing as this is the HURT FEELINGS BOARD : this isn't a dig at Mr. legoburner or the search engine, honest. Just the way that people use the board.
If an argument is especially contentious, then perhaps get a proponent from either side to write a summary along the lines of what Mr. Nurglitch has been suggesting, get it reviewed like the other articles on the site and then whack both/all POV in the sticky.
Or open a poll in that board.
How many times do we have to wade through the onehanded/pistol/ccweapon/whereisitdefined argument and explanation before someone has mercy on us ?
171
Post by: Lorek
Reds8n, this thought has crossed my mind before. I think making use of the Dakka Articles System would be much better than a bunch of stickies; just have one sticky at the top linking to the articles section about rules debates.
I may take this bull by the horns, but it'll have to wait until this weekend (and we'd need lots of volunteer help).
5394
Post by: reds8n
Actually it was your Dark Eldar sticky in the news/rumours board that made me think it would work.. so
..kudos to us I guess.
I would say that if you the article route then make sure the ATTENTION READ THE "£$^&^^&* articles first sign will have to be big and bold to make sure that people do, and.... it strikes me as odd, almost counter intuitive to takes the rules discussions to an entirely separate board/are.
I guess you guys have the figures for viewing etc but me and, AFAIK, from pms etc, a lot of other people don't go to the articles or read them at all. Truth be told I often don't think about them at all. It might be worth showcasing them more perhaps but that's a whole other thread.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
@ress8n: I had proposed to the mods a sticky article on LoS a while back because so many people were asking questions like such: "Can I shoot x at y with z in the way?"
Where the only answers are: "can x see z?" or "use TLoS."
The mod that I was talking to said they'd discuss it in the moderators' forum.
The sticky post never happened, and I can kind of see why, because if you create that kind of post, you might as well make a post that just says "read the rulebook."
In fact, I think that's a better idea: a sticky post at the top that says "must read" that explains how your answers to posts should generally contain information from the rulebook, and in best cases should contain page numbers and quotations.
15111
Post by: MrDrumMachine
What about a tier like system of posting, where people write major opinions to a topic and are on the same tier of that thread, then people would be allowed to comment on those original thoughts? By doing this I think you could limit threads to a single major post per person with as many comments on any major post as you would like. If you wanted to get extra ambitious you could have it so that when first entering a thread you would only see the major posts in the thread and then the number of comments on each "major" post.
This would allow people who want to give those obligatory "I agree with blahblahblah" while being out of the way, or allowing those with unoriginal arguments to comment under an already established view rather than cluttering a thread to 8+ pages.
I guess this somewhat boils down to nested threads. Someone would pose a question and people would get to post their single position and then under those positions the typical arguments and examples or just affirmations can continue. This would allow people to get the gist of a topic while cutting out most of the BS, and if people want to get into the nitty gritty then they are still allowed to.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Frazzled wrote:If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.
You seem to indicate that being impolite = not swearing at your opponent. This is a narrow view to be taking. You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
H.B.M.C. wrote:You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.
Please be direct good sir.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Iorek wrote:sourclams wrote:Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.
We're not here to do people's debating for them.
Not my intention, and I think you knew this. I'm in favor of less mod regulation, not more. My point is that someone who knows the rules and posts the rules, and gets short with somebody who's not reading what the rules actually say (and there's dozens of these posts, on cut and dry issues) is often times more useful to the community than the person who doesn't know the rules and gets hissy when they're called on it by others.
Yet, it often seems that when mod-Law comes down, Rules-Knowing-Guy gets slammed at least equally with Hissy Guy. I say that Rules Guy is more useful in a Rules Forum and from what I've seen, the impoliteness really spawns from incoherently Hissy guy getting upset.
::shrug:: YMMV.
171
Post by: Lorek
Honestly, I misread your post (honestly, I was reading quickly at that point). I apologize. And thank you for the clarification.
If a person repeatedly ignores the way the rules are written, and throw a fit when called on their bad logic, treat it as trolling. Don't respond to their immaturity.
I'm going to be taking a more active part in moderating YMDC now (I've kind of avoided it for the past year or so), and I'll do my best to keep a lid on this sort of thing. The biggest problem about this is the time involved. I've run into situations where a Mod Alert goes up about someone disrupting a thread with illogical arguments, and the alert hits on something like page 9 of the thread. I ended up having to spend 20 minutes just reading from the beginning to follow the trail, then another 10 untangling everything, sending out warnings, documenting the incident, etc. So just be aware that can be one reason things aren't moderated quite as closely in this forum.
I will start PMing people who put up Mod Alerts for more details as well.
6872
Post by: sourclams
Iorek wrote: I've run into situations where a Mod Alert goes up about someone disrupting a thread with illogical arguments, and the alert hits on something like page 9 of the thread. I ended up having to spend 20 minutes just reading from the beginning to follow the trail, then another 10 untangling everything, sending out warnings, documenting the incident, etc.
I can completely understand how that sucks. I guess ideally a Mod is someone who reads through every-damn-thread so that they're able to stay current, but I don't have such unrealistic expectations. I think that again ties back to why I think politeness applies less to Rules Guy saying 'You're Wrong' if in fact the target is wrong.
13271
Post by: Elessar
I think it'd be worth saying that lOS questions shouldn't even be attempted to be answered unless the OP provides a pictorial example. They don't have to take a photo, I've used Vassal to great effect to illustrate LOS in the past.
/modesty.
5369
Post by: Black Blow Fly
Anytime someone takes time to better illustrate their position they should be lauded. Clarity is the key factor in resolving rule disput3s.
G
13271
Post by: Elessar
Yes and no. I agree in principle, but I also think a degree of clarity should be a given, a minimum requirement for even posting.
Iorek, maybe you could quote a bunch of worthless posts in a thread where they exist, and delete them, leaving them only as quotes on your post, saying "I deleted these pieces of crap posts - explain yourselves, or say nothing at all!"
Or similar fire-breathing goodness.
171
Post by: Lorek
The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Iorek wrote:The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.
I do have that much time. I think we all know what to do
6769
Post by: Tri
Gwar! wrote:Iorek wrote:The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.
I do have that much time. I think we all know what to do
In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Gwar! wrote:Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie
In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Skinnattittar wrote:Gwar! wrote:Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie
In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.
I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem 
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Gwar! wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:Gwar! wrote:Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie
In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.
I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem
There are other problems....and fluff is only a minor one.
GWAR! as MOD = " den bock zum gärtner machen"
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Gwar! wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:Gwar! wrote:Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.
I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie
In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.
I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem
Yes you are, if anyone on YMDC is guilty of that, it is you, Gwar! I constantly see you saying things like "But in the fluff he never died! So he MUST have Eternal Warrior!"
Obviously I'm joking. That was slowed, similarly your comment, Gwar!, as I never said you do that, it was unfair and biased to say I did.
@ hadhq : Something about a ram in the gardener?
13271
Post by: Elessar
Fluff is my main problem.
That, and people with preconceptions about how rules work. Usually, based on fluff, but not always.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
There are also a lot of people posting in YMDC that have never played with an experienced gamer. These are the sorts that bought the Battle for Black Reach with some of their friends, popped open the rule book and started playing it how they understood it. Obviously complications will arise, and some way or another they find their way here and need guidance from the experienced players that frequent the site.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Skinnattittar wrote:There are also a lot of people posting in YMDC that have never played with an experienced gamer. These are the sorts that bought the Battle for Black Reach with some of their friends, popped open the rule book and started playing it how they understood it. Obviously complications will arise, and some way or another they find their way here and need guidance from the experienced players that frequent the site.
I find it's the "experienced" gamer who learned the rules incorrectly in the first place that cause the most problems. Not only do they have poor rules knowledge, but they've been playing it the same way for so long that the poor rules knowledge is ingrained and they are less likely to see their errors. Seriously, I see people try to use 3rd ed rules still. Another big problem is people trying to use 4th ed LoS rules (that they were actually playing incorrectly in the first place) as a basis for their answers for 5th ed LoS queries
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
I am not saying that us old farts (relatively speaking) do not have problems of our own. I was just trying to point out that a lot of these "stupid" questions that get repeated and are easily answered, that seem to annoy some of the YMDC regular participants are from people who have no experience with the game.
I will admit myself, that while playing I often catch myself using older edition rules or summations. Is this a bad thing? Not really, I usually catch myself or the other player points it out and I say "dang, I that's 2nd/3rd Edition" and do it over correctly.
True line of sight makes a lot of problems because it has not been done in 40k in a long time, but the old ways also caused a lot more trouble. With all the old work-arounds still in place and the rules not really geared for true line of sight, and older gamers still thinking the old ways, their are bound to be growing pains. I don't worry about it too much. I more worry about the big problems, such as the Valkyrie issues.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Actually TLoS has been used in some way for every edition of 40k.
Even in 4th ed, people treated units as area terrain, when that was not actually the case. For example, my daemon prince is taller than my rhino. The way most people played 4th ed LoS you could not see the daemon prince on the other side of the rhino, because they were both "level 3".
The way the rules actually worked, only area terrain and close combats blocked LoS up to their level, and every other unit only had a height rating to determine if they could see over area terrain and close combats: it had absolutely nothing to do with shooting over other units, which used a "model's eye view" exactly as it does now.
6769
Post by: Tri
being fair the number of times I've watch GW employs giving out test games and murdering the rules so that the little ships win. Its not really fair to complain about new players that haven't learned the golden rule ..."Managers manage the store because they are good at running a shop. This does not mean they know all when it comes to the game they sell. Take all they say with a pinch of salt, till you can back it up with written rules. "
Hell I'm still waiting on the new beast of Chaos codex that i was told would be out some time around now ... wonder if he meant Skaven ... still not an easy mistake.
4615
Post by: Warboss Lockjaw
What id we set it like Yahoo answers, where the most voted answer is floated to the top as the "accepted solution" ???
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Warboss Lockjaw wrote:What id we set it like Yahoo answers, where the most voted answer is floated to the top as the "accepted solution" ???
And then I set-up a million sock accounts and vote "Space Marines have a 4+ Save" to the top.
221
Post by: Frazzled
H.B.M.C. wrote:Frazzled wrote:If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.
You seem to indicate that being impolite = not swearing at your opponent.
This is a narrow view to be taking.
You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.
No its not. Formal debates do not permit insults-you lose immediately. Courtrooms don'ty permit them either. Neither do policy discussions. You only find this acceptable in the bar room, and that leads to fights, as this does.
Insults will lead to banning if continued. period.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Skinnattittar wrote:No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.
How can you disagree? When, as it has been said in this thread, and demonstrated in most threads, the first few answers to even basic questions are inevitably gak, and when I go to a tournament and have to inform my opponent of even how to resolve vehicle damage, my experience is that most 40k players simply don't know the rules well at all.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
Gwar! wrote:I am perfectly Unbiased and fair!
willydstyle wrote:Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.
That's quite a strong *opinion*.
Personally I'd rather have a mod with an open mind than one that thinks they know everything.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Well, since I don't actually want to be a mod, there's no problem then.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
willydstyle wrote:Because most of the people who post on the forum don't know the rules for squat.
QFT
+1
I Agree
(^_^)
But seriously, if you look at the forum, you do have to admit a shockingly high proportion of answers are incorrect, save from a small core of people.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
I agree with Skinnattittar to a degree: generally people are familiar with how the rules should be applied, even if they decide to apply them differently.
The problem, however, is moreso that this knowledge is instinctual, rather than the result of any analytical treatment. This is much like most of us know that 2+2=4, while only a few of us actually know how to write a mathematically valid proof of such an operation.*
That's obviously a problem when there are disagreements about what the rules say, and particularly the specifics that are so important to high-level play.
*A fascinating thing about the history of mathematics is that many mathematical discoveries/innovations were originally proved using proof-techniques that are no longer considered sufficient by modern mathematicians. Proof theory has changed and evolved over time as new mathematical problems arose, and different branches of mathematics cross-pollinated.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
While I cannot prove 2+2=4, I can offer proof that 1+1=2, and thus imply that (1+1)+(1+1)=4 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f5/Principia_Mathematica_theorem_54-43.png
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
willydstyle wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:No, I completely disagree, Willy. I think the vast majority understand 95% of the rules (from the main rulebook that is) and play their games 99% properly. It is that 5% that they don't understand at all. We can't let ourselves fall to elitism, as that only breeds contempt. Then nobody wants to listen or play with you, or the game. In the end, rules lawyering and elitist ideologies will lead a game to the bin.
How can you disagree? When, as it has been said in this thread, and demonstrated in most threads, the first few answers to even basic questions are inevitably gak, and when I go to a tournament and have to inform my opponent of even how to resolve vehicle damage, my experience is that most 40k players simply don't know the rules well at all.
Because a lot of people think they are helping, but very well may not be. It does not mean they know nothing else about the game, just on the subject they are answering.
6769
Post by: Tri
Nurglitch wrote:I agree with Skinnattittar to a degree: generally people are familiar with how the rules should be applied, even if they decide to apply them differently.
The problem, however, is moreso that this knowledge is instinctual, rather than the result of any analytical treatment. This is much like most of us know that 2+2=4, while only a few of us actually know how to write a mathematically valid proof of such an operation.*
That's obviously a problem when there are disagreements about what the rules say, and particularly the specifics that are so important to high-level play.
*A fascinating thing about the history of mathematics is that many mathematical discoveries/innovations were originally proved using proof-techniques that are no longer considered sufficient by modern mathematicians. Proof theory has changed and evolved over time as new mathematical problems arose, and different branches of mathematics cross-pollinated.
1/9 =0.1r
2/9 =0.2r
3/9 =0.3r
4/9 =0.4r
5/9 =0.5r
6/9 =0.6r
7/9 =0.7r
8/9 =0.8r
9/9 = ?
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?
Actually, 9/9 IS 0.9r. Or, 1=0.999...
6769
Post by: Tri
Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?
its pure maths so follow at your own risk ....
http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=6811268&tstart=0
(damn gwars wiki's better ... didn't find that )
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Gwar! wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:How is 9/9 = 0.9r ?
Actually, 9/9 IS 0.9r. Or, 1=0.999...
I learned something of this, but it was explained as general rounding error of computation. It is not actually possible to write out 0.9r, just 0.9r (i.e.: 0.9r is NOT equal t0 0.999999999999999999999 where 9 goes to infinity). If written as a proper proof, 1/9 * 9 will always equal 1. This is obviously a very simple example. But I could be wrong, I am not a mathmatician nor do I concern myself with coming within 1*10^-99 point of accuracy.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
Skinnattittar wrote:Because a lot of people think they are helping, but very well may not be. It does not mean they know nothing else about the game, just on the subject they are answering.
Generally people answer questions they feel they know the most about. If what they know the most about is still wrong...
12265
Post by: Gwar!
0.9r IS 0.999999999 to infinty. That's the whole point.
6769
Post by: Tri
I'm sorry I've no idea how to put a line above a number to denote recurring. are is a short hand for recurring that I've used for years ... (yes i know it normally stands for radian)
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
1/9 = 0.1r
0.1r is NOT equal to 0.1 to infinity it is equal to 1/9
So, if 0.1r = 1/9 then;
0.1r * 9 = 1/9 * 9 = 9/9 = 1
12265
Post by: Gwar!
0.1 recurring is the same as saying 0.1 to infinity.
0.9 recurring is the same as 0.9 to infinity.
0.9 recurring *9 = 1 the same as 0.9 to infinity *9 = 1.
Wait, WHEN THE HELL DID MATHS COME INTO THIS?
6769
Post by: Tri
Skinnattittar 1/9 is 0.1 to infinity
1/9 = 0.9+ 0.1/9
Gwar! I only mentioned it as 1 = 0.9r and most people can't understand a rule having two correct answers in the same way . Its the same as the Square root of 4 ... the answers are 2 and -2.
11452
Post by: willydstyle
I tried to keep it on topic...
5873
Post by: kirsanth
I rather liked that diversion.
Thanks!
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Square roots I know, but 1/9 is 0.1r where 'r' means recurring/repeating, not 'to infinity' which implies it is a 'solid' number, or one that you can dismiss as not being 1/9. This may just be an argument of semantics, but it really does matter.
0.1i where 'i' means 'to infinity'
0.1i * 9 = 0.9i
0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.
Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Gwar! wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.
Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1
I did, and it essentially said that in many more technical words. Show me an example where 9/9 = 0.9i
6769
Post by: Tri
Skinnattittar wrote:Square roots I know, but 1/9 is 0.1r where 'r' means recurring/repeating, not 'to infinity' which implies it is a 'solid' number, or one that you can dismiss as not being 1/9. This may just be an argument of semantics, but it really does matter.
0.1i where 'i' means 'to infinity'
0.1i * 9 = 0.9i
0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.
1/9 = 0.1 recurring (or as you like to say 0.1 to infinity)
also
0.9r = 9/9
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Skinnattittar wrote:Gwar! wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.
Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1
I did, and it essentially said that in many more technical words. Show me an example where 9/9 = 0.9i
x=y y=z x=z Therefore: 9/9 = 1 1 = 0.9i 9/9 = 0.9i
17665
Post by: Kitzz
I think there should be a list of all of the most nasty questions stickied ( wbb, eldar jetbikes, anything having to do with certain winged elements of norse mythology, etc.) and their best arguments for/against.
(Not to derail the thread or anything)
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
No, 0.9r is NOT equal to 0.9i, that is what I said, Tri. And Gwar, you can not simply say "my proof that 0.9i = 9/9 because 9/9 = 0.9i". Proofs do not work that way.
Now, if you want to say :
1/9 = 0.1r
0.1r * 9 = 0.9r
0.9r = 1
Then you are still wrong.
1/9 = 0.1r This I will agree
0.1r * 9 = 1 This I will agree, but because;
0.1r = 1/9
so
0.1r * 9 = 1/9 * 9 = (1*9)/9 = 9/9 = 1
Automatically Appended Next Post: Kitzz wrote:I think there should be a list of all of the most nasty questions stickied ( wbb, eldar jetbikes, anything having to do with certain winged elements of norse mythology, etc.) and their best arguments for/against.
(Not to derail the thread or anything)
Nice job then! This thread has been high-jacked by the Mathematician Gang!
15853
Post by: Night Lords
Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....
Christ All Mighty, who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?
221
Post by: Frazzled
Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....
Modquisition You're not helping the situation here Nightlords. lets refocus people.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Frazzled wrote:Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....
You're not helping the situation here Nightlords.
That is exactly what I said
Can I propose that Emails from GW Rulez Monkeys be not Permitted in rules discussions? I feel the current wording is far too lenient.
6769
Post by: Tri
Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.
14938
Post by: Orkestra
While I failed to understand the mathematics debate, I was pleased to note that, in it's entirety, not one player was called 'cheater' or 'TFG'. This is a positive sign.
Now, how can we bring the lack of personal attacks from the realm of math to our queries about the rules of warhamster 40 bajillion?
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.
And this is an example of another problem in YMDC, passive aggressive comments. There is nothing 'half truth' about the mathematical proofs I presented, however since it is opposed to another ideology of something they consider 'true' but difficult to refute, it is easier to leave a passive aggressive comment rather than not say anything at all. Another phrase for this is 'I want the last word.' For my part, this is my last word, if someone else wants to trump it, they are more than welcome to take it, but I would appreciate not being goded into making another comment, and either welcome open discussion, or PM me. I am more than happy to take this elsewhere.
17665
Post by: Kitzz
Skinnattittar wrote:Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.
And this is an example of another problem in YMDC, passive aggressive comments. There is nothing 'half truth' about the mathematical proofs I presented, however since it is opposed to another ideology of something they consider 'true' but difficult to refute, it is easier to leave a passive aggressive comment rather than not say anything at all. Another phrase for this is 'I want the last word.' For my part, this is my last word, if someone else wants to trump it, they are more than welcome to take it, but I would appreciate not being goded into making another comment, and either welcome open discussion, or PM me. I am more than happy to take this elsewhere.
He was talking about your point back when this was an actual discussion, about a page ago. He might have done it in a poorly thought-out manner, but he was trying to focus back on the main point of the thread.
15111
Post by: MrDrumMachine
What about a tier like system of posting, where people write major opinions to a topic and are on the same tier of that thread, then people would be allowed to comment on those original thoughts? By doing this I think you could limit threads to a single major post per person with as many comments on any major post as you would like. If you wanted to get extra ambitious you could have it so that when first entering a thread you would only see the major posts in the thread and then the number of comments on each "major" post.
This would allow people who want to give those obligatory "I agree with blahblahblah" while being out of the way, or allowing those with unoriginal arguments to comment under an already established view rather than cluttering a thread to 8+ pages.
I guess this somewhat boils down to nested threads. Someone would pose a question and people would get to post their single position and then under those positions the typical arguments and examples or just affirmations can continue. This would allow people to get the gist of a topic while cutting out most of the BS, and if people want to get into the nitty gritty then they are still allowed to.
I wrote this several pages ago and I think it would have some merrit especially with the off topic-ness of the last few pages to consider as this seems to be a trend on YMDC. I know that I am not a frequent poster, but I am an avid reader of these forums. With this somewhat tiered system of posting I think it would give people a chance to read actual relevant posts while getting to skip out on flame wars, nonsense, and general off-topic posts in a thread. If I could get a little feedback on how possible it is then I'll happily go back to my little corner of the internets and read
13271
Post by: Elessar
WTF. Maths for two pages? Really?
Anyway, I agree with the earlier assertion that most players don't know the rules very well at all. I'd go so far as to say that 90% of players know 70% or less of the rules - otherwise YMTC would not even serve any purpose.
Note, I'm not calling them cheats, just ignorant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
What about a tier system of proofs?
For example, Errata > Codex > BRB > FAQ > Email > logical extrapolation, based on other quotes > logical extrapolation based on 'common' sense > horsegak.
494
Post by: H.B.M.C.
Gwar! wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.
Please be direct good sir.
No need to be paranoid. I'm not talking about you Gwar!.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Dakka Dakka is a place where it's ok to be a spade, but you can't ever point someone out as being a spade, or you'll get banned.
In this example replace "space" with "idiot".
10086
Post by: Neconilis
H.B.M.C. wrote:Gwar! wrote:H.B.M.C. wrote:You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.
Please be direct good sir.
No need to be paranoid. I'm not talking about you Gwar!.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Dakka Dakka is a place where it's ok to be a spade, but you can't ever point someone out as being a spade, or you'll get banned.
In this example replace "space" with "idiot".
Indeed, the part of H.B.M.C.'s Moriarty was filled long before you showed up Gwar! ;-)
6769
Post by: Tri
Kitzz wrote:Skinnattittar wrote:Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.
And this is an example of another problem in YMDC, passive aggressive comments. There is nothing 'half truth' about the mathematical proofs I presented, however since it is opposed to another ideology of something they consider 'true' but difficult to refute, it is easier to leave a passive aggressive comment rather than not say anything at all. Another phrase for this is 'I want the last word.' For my part, this is my last word, if someone else wants to trump it, they are more than welcome to take it, but I would appreciate not being goded into making another comment, and either welcome open discussion, or PM me. I am more than happy to take this elsewhere.
He was talking about your point back when this was an actual discussion, about a page ago. He might have done it in a poorly thought-out manner, but he was trying to focus back on the main point of the thread.
No i was intentionally poking him. Both gwar and myself posted the rules need to prove it to be true and Skinnattittar only paid attention to half. It is a massive abstract but (both the maths and comparing this) there are often times when people over look rules because they don't think they're part of what they're doing or that they've learned to do something another way and aren't open to the option of things being different.
6838
Post by: 1hadhq
Tier system of proofs should be part of the 'tenets'.
errata > codex > rulebook > FAQ > e-mail > logical extrapolation, based on other quotes ( other? which? ) > logical extrapolation based on common sense > result of a Poll.
Another improvement:
- taking threads off topic regularly should lead to be restricted to the off-topic forum for a while
- if you cant comply with the forum rules, why should we assume you care to read and understand the 40k rules?
- ignoring the dakka rules should be sentenced asap
- threads longer than 3 pages should be reviewed automatically.
- the elitist approach should be cut down. Not everyone has the time to stick his nose the whole day into BRB and codices.
- the purpose of the YMDC shouldnt be ignored. Its there to ask, not to glorify yourself. Either help your fellow gamers or keep silent.
Some of the questions seem to annoy some dakkaites. Maybe give the 'tenets' a try and see if those improve the forum.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
1hadhq wrote:- the elitist approach should be cut down. Not everyone has the time to stick his nose the whole day into BRB and codices.
The problem is, it seems a lot of people don't even check the rulebook before posting.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.
I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.
12265
Post by: Gwar!
Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.
I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.
No, I agree. I myself try and avoid that, unless its a question like "Where are the rules for Power Fists" which can be found by looking at the contents or index.
5516
Post by: Major Malfunction
1hadhq wrote:
- ignoring the dakka rules should be sentenced asap
Couldn't agree more. If it's a first time offender, warn then ban. If they are recognized as a regular just slam down the gauntlet. I can't help but feel like some push the envelope knowing they will get a free jab in with only a warning.
1hadhq wrote:
- threads longer than 3 pages should be reviewed automatically.
- the elitist approach should be cut down. Not everyone has the time to stick his nose the whole day into BRB and codices.
- the purpose of the YMDC shouldnt be ignored. Its there to ask, not to glorify yourself. Either help your fellow gamers or keep silent.
Agree, agree, agree. There's no reason for these epic threads. I can pretty much guarantee you that if a thread goes nine pages it's half filled with retorts from the resident Internet Tough Guy asserting his manhood. No post should ever consist of "You're wrong and I'm right" but rather should consist of "Here's what I believe to be the correct way to play this and here's the rules/Codex pages/ FAQ to back me up".
221
Post by: Frazzled
The problem with the above Green git is that that would require a lot of modding. Modding is a finite, and cranky, resource.
Again, I'm thinking we need to do
1. self modding using the rules as a template intitially
2. some test threads with modding to see what happens.
6023
Post by: Skinnattittar
In all honesty, how do the 'spammers' hurt YMDC? Yeah, it can be a bit annoying to see a thread mostly filled with bickering, but a cursory glance at the first sentence of a post will let you know whether you can read it or should skip it.
Most face-to-face debates end up going drastically off topic and usually through multiple topics, rather quickly, it is just human nature. And yeah, there are several regular 'internet tough guys,' (don't know if some people include me in there...) but they are also usually the more knowledgeable individuals as well.
Certain specific ones probably need to have their toes stomped by mods and their egos given a shiner, but ban? No, I think that would be detrimental to the forum far far more than beneficial, and if we warned once, banned second, when people broke Dakka rules, we wouldn't be left with many people who know what they are talking about.
13271
Post by: Elessar
Gwar! wrote:Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.
I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.
No, I agree. I myself try and avoid that, unless its a question like "Where are the rules for Power Fists" which can be found by looking at the contents or index.
Hmmm. A lot of the time, answering with things like "Page 44" (an actual answer to a rules query I answered on Lounge yesterday) is sufficient, ostracising this type of answer seems counter-intuitive. A nudge is often enough for the person to figure it out, and it prevents arguments when people misquote rules and generally talk through their arse with fluff-based answers/previous edition based answers/answers with no discernable source.
221
Post by: Frazzled
Elessar wrote:Gwar! wrote:Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.
I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.
No, I agree. I myself try and avoid that, unless its a question like "Where are the rules for Power Fists" which can be found by looking at the contents or index.
Hmmm. A lot of the time, answering with things like "Page 44" (an actual answer to a rules query I answered on Lounge yesterday) is sufficient, ostracising this type of answer seems counter-intuitive. A nudge is often enough for the person to figure it out, and it prevents arguments when people misquote rules and generally talk through their arse with fluff-based answers/previous edition based answers/answers with no discernable source.
No I agree. A simple-"look under the rules for powerfist," or "look inthe assault section" that sort of thing. Now if its really a specific or more grainy issue, you'd have to get more detailed.
Note:
I'm running these two threads as tests (after page 4) of how the tenets would work
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253678.page
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253981.page
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
Frazzled wrote:
***************************************************************
These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure constructive rules discussions. If you find someone ignoring these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.
Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):
1. Justify Your Opinion
Don't make claims about rules without justification. You have to give a reason for any statement you make about the rules; without this, there can be no debate. In making this justification, you should put it together so that others can follow it step by step, with each step justified by previous steps. Remember to note any assumptions you might make to avoid an eternal regress of justification.
2. Criticize Other Opinions, Not People
Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person. Give reasons for your criticism, and try to suggest a way of fixing you whatever you have identified as a mistake, to make your criticism constructive.
3. Stay On Topic
Stick to discussing the rules, not other posters. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations, wondering about another posters motivation for posting different interpretations, criticizing their writing style, or speculating on their opinion about other topics.
FRAZZLED'S NOTE ON MODERATION: YOU CAN DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF PLAY ON SPORTSMANSHIP, BUT PLEASE SEPARATE THE DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY IN A NEW PARAGRAPH IN YOUR POST AND IDENTIFY AS SUCH.
4. Cite Your Sources
The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs and Erratas. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on. Be sure to verify these claims independently. Otherwise cite your sources giving the document name, section, sub-section or label, and page number. E.g.; Codex: Space Marines, Wargear, Armour: Terminator Armour, p.1.02 ("pp." for multiple page references with a dash between beginning and ending pages).
5. Avoid Analogies.
The 40k rules, while about a fantasy universe resembling the real world, are a game with their own logic. Analogies to the real world, and real world examples, have no bearing on how the rules actually work as a system. Stick to how the rules behave as their own system, rather than what they represent, or what you think they should represent.
6. Distinguish Between Rules and Play
What the rules say, and how you would play are not the same thing. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a discussion.
7. Communicate Carefully
Many arguments can be avoided if we can make ourselves better understood. Don't assume you know which one that your opponent is arguing about, and give them the benefit of the doubt if they are making what appears to be some unreasonable or outrageous claim. Likewise, don't assume that you are always clear, or that the clarity of your position is obvious. In fact, avoid terms like "obviously", "clearly", and "real" if at all possible. To quote Grissom from CSI: "The problem with the obvious is that it can make you overlook the evidence."
8. Be Careful With Words
Be careful with words, and do not make substitutions carelessly. Like any system of rules, GW uses words in 40k to refer to specific parts of the game. Although GW does not do this perfectly (see: 'Chaos Space Marines', 'bonuses', etc), there's not point in confusing things further by carelessly swapping synonyms for the sake of style. In particular be careful with applying dictionary definitions of words, and substitutions recommended by thesauruses, as the English used by GW is a special semi-formalized language, rather than the various day-to-day English dialects we commonly use.
Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.
Rules As Written (RAW) - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations. Some people use it to refer to the rules only as they are written down, or the rules as they are stated in an applicable section of the rules, or sometimes the rules as a whole and their implications.
How You Would Play It (HYWP)- This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above, make things seem fairer to the players, or simply to satisfy the preferences of the players involved.
I edited your Tenets somewhat to show my further suggestions, rather than to try to explain them.
13271
Post by: Elessar
I suggest you Bold the changes. Makes a far easier read.
4003
Post by: Nurglitch
That would involve Bolding most of it. They are somewhat extensive suggestions.
|
|
