Hmmm...

Seems like Dakka is full of elitism nowadays. Much of the old-vets croon for the old days, casual gamers scoff at tourney players, who in turn scoff at casual gamers.

IMHO, it's definitely changed from the "tournament forum" it used to be, but honestly if we all calm down we'll see Dakka isn't as different as ever.

Polonius wrote:

I'm sure people liked it, but I'm secure enough in my insecurities to wish that there was a way to become a "name" poster without constant drama.

Depends on the reader though as well.

You are a 'name' to me, I don't skim your posts, I've learnt that you often post highly insightful commentary and whether or not I agree with all of it (I'm unaware of ever disagreeing with points you've raised), I do give it time and attention. I'm sure most of us skim over threads in parts until we come across familiar names or avatars and pay them a certain amount more concentration, whether for good or ill.


I think a certain amount of drama is not only inescapable (being as most of us are human), but a wee bit desirable in the old 'bread and circuses' vein. It does give us something to talk about when there aren't any new releases.

Are you not entertained?

I agree that "harsh" modding would be necessary at first. Hours and hours ago I said:

Manchu wrote:I think that a good part of the modding work would be posting this message:

This subject is already being discussed in url= link]this thread[/url]. If you cannot find the information you after posting in that thread, try posting a thread with a more specific title. Remember to always check the Tactics Board Sticky for advice on how to title your thread and to see if the topic you want to know about is already being discussed. Thanks!

And then *thread lock*.

SO you can see that I am pretty much on the same page as DoP when it comes to starting a reorganization. But the goal of my proposal is to foster a culture of self-moderation. The Swap Shop has managed it successfully. No reason why it couldn't be done in tactics, too. If it takes a new mod, fine. But the standards themselves have got to be discussed. Appointing a mod is not step one.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:2. Authority without power is meaningless and empty. If you are granted authority over something without the means to enforce or uphold your authority, you have none in the first place. It reminds me being a West Point cadet....where cadets are assigned "authority" over their peers and are responsible for their actions, but have no authority to either reward or discipline their peers - it makes the position of authority a sham.

Funny, the way I understand Leadership is that by exhibiting the qualities of Leadership you inspire a following on your own merit without having to resort to threats and bribes.

That is a true statement. However, leadership without authority will never be effective. That is also a true statement. Total compliance without authority is impossible without mass hypnosis.

You are getting sleeeeeeepy.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I think a certain amount of drama is not only inescapable (being as most of us are human), but a wee bit desirable in the old 'bread and circuses' vein. It does give us something to talk about when there aren't any new releases.

Are you not entertained?

It's entertaining to a point, but then someone gets their feelings hurt and gets all serious on you or it just gets old. I take great pains to eliminate drama irl, and don't find a lot of need for it online. That's just me though, maybe.

---

I've taken to letting people know via PM when they post something that I really enjoyed. Maybe if more of us did that people would feel more appreciated for their posts.

What the heck? Isn't this the general attitude towards warseer? People are dumb. Dakkdakka is fine.

I've never really heard anyone talk down dakkadakka. How dare they?

Nurglitch wrote:Manchu:

If the moderators were oriented towards enforcing standards of content, then quality threads wouldn't be buried in a mountain of dross. Cutting out Off-Topic would free up moderator time to moderate the forums that are actually pertinent to the site. Let people 'blow off steam' elsewhere on the internet.

Regarding the duplication of threads, I always thought that the article system was wasted. It could have been used to collate and archive thread data, such as common rules disputes and questions and common tactics and whatnot, but it's really an invisible part of the site. Whenever I propose measues to make Dakka Dakka a resource for gamers rather than for campers like Gwar to stroke their own egos, I get told the moderators are too busy, and then a new non-game-related flamepit forum opens up.

Speaking of using Dakka as their personal playgrounds, it used to just be Frazzled, but I'm baffled at how otherwise good moderators like Killkrazy have started posting troll threads.

I totally agree with you. Dakka would be a much better place if Gwar and those like him were not a part of it.

It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

NecronLord3 wrote:It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

A bed. Made out of Battlefoam.

Dashofpepper wrote:Enforcement is key though - Killkrazy (and others?) have pointed out that their stickies are ignored.

It would take a bunch of threads getting this message, "Greetings OP! Welcome to the Tactics forum. Please see the stickied thread at the top of the page. If you did a quick search through it, you would have seen that this thread is already under discussion here <link>. Please reference the Tactics Index before creating duplicate threads in the future.

*lock*

Bingo, they just learned to use the Tactics Index. 25 people click on the thread to see why it was locked and see that they should use the tactics index as well - and they will use it before creating new threads in the future too, realizing that duplicate threads will get locked.

(snip)

And sooner than you think, traffic is cleaner.

Tactics isn't the only place that needs help. The army list section needs help, so does General Discussion. Signal to Noise there is out of control.

I think the swapshop is the only area of the site where certain titles are required. It takes a *lot* of work to enforce this, and from our experience a lot of times it's easier just to edit the title without posting in the thread. Otherwise, half the replies in the forum are from mods about titles!

When we're implementing a change (like recently with bumps) we post more often, but this can rub people the wrong way and isn't a long-term solution.

I think posting that message in people's threads would discourage lots of posters, especially new ones.

I'm also not sure if people want title standards for the rest of the site, or if it's needed. Again, Dakka is pretty loose and easy-going for the most part, and this kind of enforcement is done elsewhere... I just don't see that as being how Dakka is, or should be.

It's different in sections with very, very clear (and narrow) purposes and guidelines, like the gallery or the swapshop. The rest of the site is for lots of different kinds of things, and is more broad- and thus hard (and imho, impractical) to enforce the kinds of things you're suggesting.

The mods have mentioned that some of these things have given them ideas, which is great. However, a lot of the ideas being mentioned involve (as I said above) a *lot* of work. I think Manchu is on the right track about doing this as a user thing. Make a thread, gather all of the information you're talking about, and who knows maybe it'll get stickied! Either way you can reference / link to it. But I don't personally think that adding more moderation (and/or more mods) and title standards to the rest of the site is the right way to go at all...

Monster Rain wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

A bed. Made out of Battlefoam.

You mean like this:

Lol KR multicase foam:

I prefer KR foam because it is softer...

Monster Rain wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

A bed. Made out of Battlefoam.

I don't think Dakka has a choice. They don't get to pick what advertisements they get, it's up to the domain controller or something. It's nice that dakka gets actually useful advertisements as opposed to 'meet hot young singles in your area' and 'make your own zwinky!'

RiTides wrote:I think Manchu is on the right track about doing this as a user thing. Make a thread, gather all of the information you're talking about, and who knows maybe it'll get stickied! Either way you can reference / link to it. But I don't personally think that adding more moderation (and/or more mods) and title standards to the rest of the site is the right way to go at all...

*shrugs* To each their own. I've gone the distance to try bringing something useful and helpful to Dakka. Hundreds of hours and sweat and blood and sleeplessness and procrastination of work. I'm happy to give ideas here, but nothing promotes the abandonment of a good idea like the inability to implement it. The last thing any section of the forums needs is a "team" of people to internally discuss how to index or sort something before finally coming to agreement about what to posit forth to someone else who will ultimately eventually probably disregard it.

Samus_aran115 wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

A bed. Made out of Battlefoam.

I don't think Dakka has a choice. They don't get to pick what advertisements they get, it's up to the domain controller or something. It's nice that dakka gets actually useful advertisements as opposed to 'meet hot young singles in your area' and 'make your own zwinky!'

No I'm fairly certain that they do. Even lets say they don't, for argument's sake, they don't have to lock every negative Battlefoam thread. Now that I've mentioned it, let the countdown begin.

I dunno, Dash- many of us devote hours every week to contributing content to the site... honestly, a lot of the moderating side of things just comes down to deleting things, sending PMs about the rules... it's not grand, and it's not really what I see as "Dakka". For me, that's the ideas and content we all post... not what the mods are doing (or not doing).

DakkaCon, for example, is an unofficial thing that a bunch of Dakka members want to do, and are making happen. Imho, that's how the best ideas happen on this site... how it's always been, and always will be! Rather than enforcing more rules or policies (whether about titles or content) other than the basic "be polite".

Just my $0.02, of course...

Dashofpepper wrote:

RiTides wrote:I think Manchu is on the right track about doing this as a user thing. Make a thread, gather all of the information you're talking about, and who knows maybe it'll get stickied! Either way you can reference / link to it. But I don't personally think that adding more moderation (and/or more mods) and title standards to the rest of the site is the right way to go at all...

*shrugs* To each their own. I've gone the distance to try bringing something useful and helpful to Dakka. Hundreds of hours and sweat and blood and sleeplessness and procrastination of work. I'm happy to give ideas here, but nothing promotes the abandonment of a good idea like the inability to implement it. The last thing any section of the forums needs is a "team" of people to internally discuss how to index or sort something before finally coming to agreement about what to posit forth to someone else who will ultimately eventually probably disregard it.

I'm not disagreeing with DoP about needing authority--this will take a mod to make happen. Swap Shop is a lot of work, I know. I just don't know why other boards could not also benefit from a lot of work. What you're disreharding, DoP, is that without some kind of consensus you'll be accused with good cause of being a self-aggrandizer. I think you'll find that real communities work with teams, not solo "men of action."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RiTides wrote:DakkaCon, for example, is an unofficial thing that a bunch of Dakka members want to do, and are making happen. Imho, that's how the best ideas happen on this site... how it's always been, and always will be! Rather than enforcing more rules or policies (whether about titles or content) other than the basic "be polite".

Just my $0.02, of course...

But that's not how you guys straightened out Swap Shop, either.

Good point, Manchu. I guess my view is that the rest of the site doesn't need straightening out, and that better tactics discussion and the like can be accomplished by generating more "good" content (or pointing people to where it's already been generated) rather than by more moderation.

I can only say again that much of the "good" content is indeed drowned out. And that drowning out is undermining the purpose of the sub-fora.

I agree that the messianic search fix will help a lot, however.

I find the .... irony in the fact that there are two versions of the same thread in the top 10 most recent posts this morn. I also am amused that one of them contains a poll. Just... funny.

the_ferrett wrote:I find the .... irony in the fact that there are two versions of the same thread in the top 10 most recent posts this morn. I also am amused that one of them contains a poll. Just... funny.

That was the point of KK's joke.

Hellfury wrote:

Frazzled wrote:But all I see here is people who have been suspended or warned by Mods griping about the Mods or how they themselves can't zap people.

Show me and tell the world how many times I have been warned.

*crickets chirp*

Thats what I thought.

+1.

In the multi years (5+ at least - 3 diff versions of dakka) I have been here I have had about 2 warnings and each one was deserved during some fun flame festing. If fact I think I have had less warnings or suspensions than you Frazz so suck it - funny that - less suspensions than a MOD. Talk about topsy turvy. Actually talk about idiotic. I wonder if you have had less suspensions than GWAR - now that would be frikking funny.

Keep up the uninformed comments Frazz as you just keep proving my extremely low opinion of your suitability to be a MOD.

RiTides wrote:Good point, Manchu. I guess my view is that the rest of the site doesn't need straightening out, and that better tactics discussion and the like can be accomplished by generating more "good" content (or pointing people to where it's already been generated) rather than by more moderation.

Not true.....its been explained time and again by quite a few parties now.

Dashofpepper wrote:It would take a bunch of threads getting this message, "Greetings OP! Welcome to the Tactics forum. Please see the stickied thread at the top of the page. If you did a quick search through it, you would have seen that this thread is already under discussion here <link>. Please reference the Tactics Index before creating duplicate threads in the future.

*lock*

Bingo, they just learned to use the Tactics Index. 25 people click on the thread to see why it was locked and see that they should use the tactics index as well - and they will use it before creating new threads in the future too, realizing that duplicate threads will get locked.

And then tomorrow, when those threads have moved off the front page, the whole saga starts again.

Not saying it won't help, but it's not the easy and instant fix that you seem to be suggesting. As evidenced by the fact that I'm still moving rules questions from 40K Discussions on pretty much a daily basis, despite the sticky that's been there for months now.

NecronLord3 wrote:It would also be nice if Dakka would get out of bed with Romeo and Battlefoam.

The what to the who now?

the_ferrett wrote:I find the .... irony in the fact that there are two versions of the same thread in the top 10 most recent posts this morn. I also am amused that one of them contains a poll. Just... funny.

you should also find it amusing that one of those threads was started by a moderator as a troll.

Athera wrote:

the_ferrett wrote:I find the .... irony in the fact that there are two versions of the same thread in the top 10 most recent posts this morn. I also am amused that one of them contains a poll. Just... funny.

you should also find it amusing that one of those threads was started by a moderator as a troll.

That's the most amusing thing about it.

Dashofpepper wrote:

RiTides wrote:Good point, Manchu. I guess my view is that the rest of the site doesn't need straightening out, and that better tactics discussion and the like can be accomplished by generating more "good" content (or pointing people to where it's already been generated) rather than by more moderation.

Not true.....its been explained time and again by quite a few parties now.

Having read both threads I am with DofP on this (I know, don't faint).

I am in the camp of more moderation, but the key word is effective. A more effective tactics forum with closed down threads where required would be a good idea. After a while people would get "trained" by having posts locked. A "like" function that displaces the number of "likes" would be useful. As some one who went into the tactics forum when trying to get back into v5 i think I lasted 10 minutes and have never been back since. DofP, if this isn't your position it isn't because I haven;t read the posts it is because I am senile and cannot remember who is proposing what anymore and I am a dork.

I recently found myself embroiled in a very unintentional and childish argument on a thread about EmpChild's design contest.

I was very disappointing to have a mod post in there without attempting to calm things down... I try to be very well behaved on this site, as I appreciate the distraction and entertainment it provides, but more and more often I find just about any thread gets derailed with pissyness and people who respond to your posts based on the first line, not even bothering to read the whole thing...

No one wants to discuss anything, just tell other people what they think and that's it... in that thread I am probably guilty of coming off that way, however unintentionally. which sucks as I have seen there are plenty of intelligent, well spoken lads on the site I would love to have a proper, civil debate with.

Cryonicleech wrote:Hmmm...

Seems like Dakka is full of elitism nowadays. Much of the old-vets croon for the old days,

Not this one. The old Dakka was a shark pit and the moderation sucked and it was full of people sharpening their epeen; which on reflection seems a strange metaphor. Todays MOD's are pretty good (except one, just got to get that cheap shot in) and I think overall they do a good job considering it is unpaid. Alph particularly when he joins in a an antagnostic thread still maintains a good hold on the bile and the new crop of MOD's over the last year have done well IMHO.

I'm clearly a noob here and have no recollection of the good ol' days, but as a member one suggestion I've seen that makes a great deal of sense is with respect to modifying forum structure: any time I have a question or thought I attack the Search button first,but it might be very useful to have things such as army specific forums and more stickies for the most "authoritative" positings or threads. Since that could lead to infinite stickies, perhaps there should be a "best of the best" section that moderators can place on their own that can't be modified, with a separate area within the same thread for good, "academic," and intelligent wargame discussion. One problem for new users may be that sometimes it's tough to know where to start, while the seasoned Dakka veterans have literally read most posts that have ever been on Dakka within their personal interest bubble.... noobs don't always have this frame of reference, and the Search button by itself cannot provide it either.

Dashofpepper wrote:

RiTides wrote:Good point, Manchu. I guess my view is that the rest of the site doesn't need straightening out, and that better tactics discussion and the like can be accomplished by generating more "good" content (or pointing people to where it's already been generated) rather than by more moderation.

Not true.....its been explained time and again by quite a few parties now.

It's a good point, and it's definitely given me a lot to think about as far as what I contribute to the other sections of the site.

That's got to be the best thing to come out of threads like this- giving people more to think about and possibly bringing about change for the better. However, I don't completely agree with your take on what would make the site better, and I guess I was trying to point out from my experience what I thought was good and what could be implemented in other ways.

Imho, it's a bit silly to say you'll only work towards these kinds of things if given a position of authority. That doesn't show commitment to the idea. In your cadet example, often future leaders are chosen as "peer leaders"- even if it's a hard thing to pull off, leading by example is a very good way of starting things off.

But like I said, lots to think about...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

So Dakka becomes a popularity contest? I fail to see that helping things.

Pretending some basement-dweller named "Kelets" appears and actually has good tactical advice, how would his +/- rating be interpreted?

Would Kelets' positive tactical acumen outweigh his negative behavior?

I was thinking the "like" would be for the thread not the poster. Why have a dislike - simply the lack of "likes" would suffice and therefore no negativity yet achieving same effect.

Reecius wrote:@MagickalMemories

You are correct. You do not have to rely on insults to get your point across. Look at Shep. He presents great advice and tactics and does so in a respectful way. So does Yakface. That is fine. I do think though, that a little bit of sass helps to put a sense of accountability in people. If you know you're gonna get ribbed a bit, you think twice before spouting something off.

I know not everyone is as thick skinned as me, but I think that is perfectly reasonable.

Did we just agree, disagree AND agree to disagree? All at the same time? Without arguing or calling names?

OMG! What is Dakka coming to? : )

Eric

Though, this thread has been quite dramatic in itself. I posted this after finishing page 2, so I'll defiantly be reading the rest. It looks super exciting.

Nah
Just a lot of bluewalling and smartarse comments from people like yours truly getting in the way of posts from people actually trying to do something constructive.
So ...a typical Dakka thread really.

Sorry just caught the subtlety of your wording.
you will be DEFIANTLY reading the rest of the thread.

I felt compelled to complicitely skip most of it.
Would seriously advise this course of action to preserve your sanity.

MagickalMemories wrote:Did we just agree, disagree AND agree to disagree? All at the same time? Without arguing or calling names?

OMG! What is Dakka coming to? : )

Dakka-ocalypse

fullheadofhair wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

So Dakka becomes a popularity contest? I fail to see that helping things.

Pretending some basement-dweller named "Kelets" appears and actually has good tactical advice, how would his +/- rating be interpreted?

Would Kelets' positive tactical acumen outweigh his negative behavior?

I was thinking the "like" would be for the thread not the poster. Why have a dislike - simply the lack of "likes" would suffice and therefore no negativity yet achieving same effect.

Yeah, you're likely right that the lack of a "like" = "dislike". The only reason I mentioned "Dislike"...was it would be an easy way for users to move spam/silly posts off the front page without alerting a mod.

AgeOfEgos wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:

AgeOfEgos wrote:I would think the Like/Dislike option would work.

So Dakka becomes a popularity contest? I fail to see that helping things.

Pretending some basement-dweller named "Kelets" appears and actually has good tactical advice, how would his +/- rating be interpreted?

Would Kelets' positive tactical acumen outweigh his negative behavior?

I was thinking the "like" would be for the thread not the poster. Why have a dislike - simply the lack of "likes" would suffice and therefore no negativity yet achieving same effect.

Yeah, you're likely right that the lack of a "like" = "dislike". The only reason I mentioned "Dislike"...was it would be an easy way for users to move spam/silly posts off the front page without alerting a mod.

Isn't it better to let Mods handle that though? It just seems like that sort of thing is way too open to abuse.

Monster Rain wrote:

Athera wrote:

the_ferrett wrote:I find the .... irony in the fact that there are two versions of the same thread in the top 10 most recent posts this morn. I also am amused that one of them contains a poll. Just... funny.

you should also find it amusing that one of those threads was started by a moderator as a troll.

That's the most amusing thing about it.

In an "absolutely terrible and does nothing for the reputation of the site" kind of way yes.

I love Dakka Dakka, this is the only online forum I post on. Then again, it is the only one not blocked by my work's anti-fun web site blockers.

I think the web site is great with great people. Ok, so sure, sometimes a thread gets repeated, big deal, dont read it if you dont want to or let them know what is already being discussed and send them a link. Do the right thing, or nothing at all.

I spend most of my time in the different painting/modeling sections. So hardly anything gets repeated there. Or, if I am not in the mood to read, I waste away the hours just voting on the gallery pictures.

If those other people dont like Dakka Dakka because they are too snooty, then that is their problem. I am glad we dont have to read through their smug comments. Sure, we might have a few who might not be considered the brightest crayon in the box, or the sharpest knife in the drawer, but every pond has bottom feeders.

@Ncronlord3

Hahaha, You should send Romeo a love letter. Dude, don't you have anything better to do than hate on Battlefoam? You and the other guy with the anti battlefoam avatars. You guys have to be championing the most lame cause of all time.

Did Romeo kiss your girlfriends or something?

Reecius wrote:@Ncronlord3

Hahaha, You should send Romeo a love letter. Dude, don't you have anything better to do than hate on Battlefoam? You and the other guy with the anti battlefoam avatars. You guys have to be championing the most lame cause of all time.

Did Romeo kiss your girlfriends or something?

Agree with Reece, and not just because he's my teammate.

Good thing there's not a like button then, ISN'T IT?

Just joking

whitedragon wrote:
Agree with Reece, and not just because he's my teammate.

whitedragon wrote:

Reecius wrote:@Ncronlord3

Hahaha, You should send Romeo a love letter. Dude, don't you have anything better to do than hate on Battlefoam? You and the other guy with the anti battlefoam avatars. You guys have to be championing the most lame cause of all time.

Did Romeo kiss your girlfriends or something?

Agree with Reece, and not just because he's my teammate.

Agreed, and not just because you two are my team mates.

Where's Lorek? We need more solidarity of DD2.

Reecius wrote:@Ncronlord3

Hahaha, You should send Romeo a love letter. Dude, don't you have anything better to do than hate on Battlefoam? You and the other guy with the anti battlefoam avatars. You guys have to be championing the most lame cause of all time.

Did Romeo kiss your girlfriends or something?

You seem to have as much of a vendetta against me as I do against Battlefoam, so what are you still pissed about what I did to your girlfriend? Don't worry she liked it. And I don't have to have my friends come in to back up my comments like you seem to.

We really don't need comments like this. ta.

Please save DakkaDakka from stupid arguments about foam-cutting companies.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Reecius wrote:@Ncronlord3

Hahaha, You should send Romeo a love letter. Dude, don't you have anything better to do than hate on Battlefoam? You and the other guy with the anti battlefoam avatars. You guys have to be championing the most lame cause of all time.

Did Romeo kiss your girlfriends or something?

You seem to have as much of a vendetta against me as I do against Battlefoam, so what are you still pissed about what I did to your girlfriend? Don't worry she liked it. And I don't have to have my friends come in to back up my comments like you seem to.

I thought the purpose of visiting his girlfriend was to punish him not her? Most women lie about how good men are - except mine, I am sure she is always telling me the truth and she says size doesn't matter so I know she is telling me the truth.

Is Dakka really so bad? Im a relatively new member and dont have any problems here. Sure there are the ego maniacs that love the sound of their own voice but you have that anywhere you go. I say leave Dakka as it is. This is a wonderful place.

Has dakka been saved yet? I sure hope so!

Dashofpepper wrote:

RiTides wrote:I think Manchu is on the right track about doing this as a user thing. Make a thread, gather all of the information you're talking about, and who knows maybe it'll get stickied! Either way you can reference / link to it. But I don't personally think that adding more moderation (and/or more mods) and title standards to the rest of the site is the right way to go at all...

*shrugs* To each their own. I've gone the distance to try bringing something useful and helpful to Dakka. Hundreds of hours and sweat and blood and sleeplessness and procrastination of work. I'm happy to give ideas here, but nothing promotes the abandonment of a good idea like the inability to implement it. The last thing any section of the forums needs is a "team" of people to internally discuss how to index or sort something before finally coming to agreement about what to posit forth to someone else who will ultimately eventually probably disregard it.

You can implement this by making tactics articles. You could even make an article discussing how to organise tactics articles. You don't need to be a moderator to do that.

Frazzled wrote:

Zid wrote:I completely agree with what most people are proposing here.

Sure, I'm a newbie on the boards by some standards... but hell, I've received more help from these boards than any other. I rarely get flamed for my ideals, though there are a few egomaniacs here. And i agree wholeheartedly that digging through the "crap" is an all too common occurrence; one in ten threads are great.

Dakkadakka is great for new and experienced gamers alike. Dash helped me a lot when I was trying out dark eldar a while back, and I helped him with modeling some disintigrators. Theres something for everyone. I just think that the "filth" (such an ugly word tho) could be controlled a little more.

Don't honestly have much more to say than that.

Here's the rub though,

(This is purely an example) there are many posters who think DoP's posts fall into that filth category, and we've had lots of PMs etc. to get rid of DoP. Others like DoP.
This goes back to the immortal Mauleed. For every person who likes their posts, there is another who think's every statement by that poster just defiles Dakka. Its an issue.
There are even people who strangely have an issue with me, although secretly we all know they are really just chihuahas jealous of the awesome power that is Team Weinie.

The problem is the popular vote isn't always the right vote.

If a lot of the military (which I'm a part of) could have it their way, where would we be? The higher ups (Moderators) pick and choose the good suggestions from the bad. If 10,000 people want something done, but its a bad idea, then look; it ain't gettin done.

I agree, overmoderation is as bad, if not worse, than undermoderation. That being said, I also think a little more attention needs to be paid to certain areas; background being one forum. I never visit it because... theres just so much bleh. Sure, I can see some people genuinely being interested in arguing primarch powers and what have you... but by the 15th thread of the same stuff it just seems like people argue just to argue.

I can see why some people don't like Dash; he wins. A lot. Hes a competative gamer thats good at it. He takes what some people see as "crap" and makes it win. But he makes winning fun as does he make losing. I've read every one of his reps and they're great reads and I learn a lot about what I face be it orcs or dark eldar. Hes a good player and he beats people who hate to lose. Hes like the cowboy in a western movie; moseys into the bar, shoots a few bad dudes, steals a damsel, and away to the next town. I can see why people would get upset at this - especially if they're the "local" champ.

But thing is, Dash has some valid points. A lot, actually. And as hes said, hes not going to sit around and take all the heat and not fire back - especially when people hit below the belt. Nobody with any shread of dignity would do any less. Hell, if people bashed me as often as he gets it, I'd probably not be able to hold my temper (honestly don't see how you do it dash). And Dash has helped a lot of people. Its a friggin GAME guys - you lose some, you win some. Its not real life, no ones going to die if you lose this GT, or flub that tourney... have fun with it.

Either way, I agree a little scrubbing would do any place good. I love dakkadakka; its the site I visit when I get home from work tired as hell working on planes. I genuinely love reading others lists and ideas; and getting feedback on my own. But like everyone else I hate to have to search more than 2 pages back to find something worthwhile!

Here, I added some content

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319613.page

I don't post often (most of my latest posting has either been in the OT section or the Dakkacon thread) but I've been a member just over a year, and lurking long before that, and I agree with Dash and Manchu: something has to be done about our forum. Dakka is my internet home, and I too have watched it go slightly downhill over the last year+. I'm staying out of the Tactics section, as I don't spend alot of time there (partially due to the mentioned reasons). But Background and Discussions are in serious need of a scrub. I pulled these off of the FRONT PAGE of the Background section:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319367.page
This doesn't belong here, I'd put this in Discussions if I didn't get rid of it for repetition.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/317900.page
Good thread, wrong section

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318980.page
...another one?

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/238779.page
Once again, belongs in Discussion

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/279549.page
I think I even voted on that one, and I feel not as smrt for it

And yes, before you all look through my topics started, even I have been guilty of this sin:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/314061.page


Not to mention all the DYI Chapters/craftworlds/regiments that belong in the Fiction section but are camped in Background

Background is meant for just that: Background about 40k. But from what I've seen its one of the least moderated sections I've had the fortune to look through. I wouldn't mind sitting down and going over ways to improve that board with people, not that Background would require massive amounts of work, just vigilance and the occasional beatstick.

I would submit more content (mostly in Fiction, Background, and Batreps) but they get buried under all the "40k vs xxx" threads, and I'm not building an army yet, so I have extra time to sit here and think of ways to improve stuff

Swordbrotherjim and I have been saying the same things... there's a lot of sage advice to get from talking to hundreds of other players, but we have to weed through a bunch of flamers and b$%chfests and decode useless and misleading abbreviations...

Hulksmash wrote:Here, I added some content

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319613.page

I like it.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Hulksmash wrote:Here, I added some content

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/319613.page

I like it.

So did I, but he forgot a certain something...

Background is for Fluff. Threads like the ones you pointed out should be flagged for moving to the 40K General Discussions thread.

IMO Fiction should be kept for actual stories, while homebrew chapters should go in either Background or Discussions, depending on how 'serious' they are.

So if I were to just post my army's background, I'd put it in the 40k Background board, but if I was planning on adding stories and such to it I would put it in Fiction, yes? Thats what I'm working on right now, and don't want to be putting stuff where it don't belong after my little rant above.

Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO Fiction should be kept for actual stories, while homebrew chapters should go in either Background or Discussions, depending on how 'serious' they are.

When folks put up their homebrew chapters fluff for the rest of us to see and comment on, to me, they are saying 'Folks, just created this chapter of marines, do they fit the 40k mythos comfortably or do they need some trimming around the edges to be a better fit?'

Background would seem the natural place for those.

Yes, I agree. The one proviso is that if your chapter or army is a non-serious army it should go in General Discussion, as Background is for serious fluff.

If you also produce fiction for your army, the Fiction forum is the natural place to show off that and get feedback.

Finally, you could combine your finished fluff and fiction into an article.

NecronLord3 wrote:I totally agree with you. Dakka would be a much better place if Gwar and those like him were not a part of it.

This would be a sadder place without poster like Gwar, his FAQs show a real interest in contributing unlike the nonsense that fills up certain sections.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:I totally agree with you. Dakka would be a much better place if Gwar and those like him were not a part of it.

This would be a sadder place without poster like Gwar, his FAQs show a real interest in contributing unlike the nonsense that fills up certain sections.

+1
Dash and Gwar make this place worth visiting

Dashofpepper wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I have to stop bfore more coffee goes out nose....Newb!

Would this thread be permitted in Tactics under the DoP?
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/317162.page
Who would be permitted to post? What could they post?

Same to same for this one:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/318382.page
Who would be permitted to post? What could they post?

Have you and Monster Rain not read this thread?

My suggestion isn't to decide what is or isn't sound tactical advice, and I've explicitly addressed this very point that neither of you have read (or are explicitly ignoring). Rather, here's what tactics (and possibly other sections of the forum need.


1. Someone to write a sticky outlining how to post in the forum, and in what form.
2. Someone ENFORCING those standards, such that a viewer can readily see what a given thread is about by the title.
3. Someone INDEXING all of the common tactical discussions taking place so that others can later benefit from the discussions already having taken place.

Frazzled, in a DoP moderated tactics board, your first thread would get nothing from me. Its a unique situation, not often repeated and would simply be discussed, answered and in time it would sink out of attention.

Frazzled, in a DoP moderated tactics board, your second thread would get indexed under ORKS, possibly with the tags, "Most competitive, Ork competitive." More likely though, this discussion has probably been hashed to death already? If possible, I would merge the two threads, PM the OP with the link to the merged thread, and tag THAT thread as the one that goes into the index.

Its not about moderating what is or isn't allowed to be posted, or what is or isn't sound tactical advice - that's for posters to decide as they explore each thread and post in them. Rather, its about directing traffic and making everyone use the same traffic signals. I'd volunteer to do that.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:I still don't think we should let the idea of non-mod volunteer work slip away (I mean, look at Malfred's contributions!) without more discussion. I'm really up for getting a team together to organize the tactics threads. I don't think the first step needs to be appointing new mods.

(1) Would anyone else be interested in this? Again, I am specifically asking DashofPepper since we seem to have arrived at the same potential solution here.

(2) If we can do that, would mods be willing to bring down the thread locks on people who post duplicate threads?

I'm seeing this thread veer away from practical suggestions that could actually be accomplished (with hard work) toward an unresolvable argument. Could this be the real problem?

Two phrases come to mind.

1. If you want it done right, do it yourself.

2. Authority without power is meaningless and empty. If you are granted authority over something without the means to enforce or uphold your authority, you have none in the first place. It reminds me being a West Point cadet....where cadets are assigned "authority" over their peers and are responsible for their actions, but have no authority to either reward or discipline their peers - it makes the position of authority a sham. In terms of "organizing the tactics section" I've made my suggestions for how it should be done. Would I be part of a team that takes notes of threads, or makes suggestions for indexing, and reports all of those things to someone else so that they can decide to do it or not? Absolutely not. Either make me capable of doing what needs to be done or do it yourself.

Thats a lot of work DoP. I wouldn't depend on volunteers. In my experience that lasts about a week except for hardcores.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Is Dakka really so bad? ... Sure there are the ego maniacs that love the sound of their own voice.

just look at the posts above yours quoted, and the personal sniping that has nowt to do with the topic being discussed

People ALWAYS get jealous of larger forums because they're not "exclusive" anymore.

In mass quantities, you will ALWAYS have some people who make constant simple topics.

You can't really fight human nature. I don't really see a problem with it: it's just a by-product of being a large site.

As someone who has ran a few communities over the years, I've seen tons of people "break off" by saying "it's just not the same, man!"

By that they mean "I'm not the top dog anymore, man! There's all these...community members here now".

It happens in cycles - usually every few thousand users or so.

You know how you "save it"? By posting.

Some people have said that they "avoid entire forums" - how about sprucing them up and making cool topics of your own? Or kindly posting - "can you elaborate on this topic?" Think about it - those "simple" users are contributing to Dakka's post count, hit count, and advertisement purse - the "tried and true" members are ignoring all those facets. Coach new users. Tell them to introduce themselves before posting. The mods can't do everything - and in my experience, most of them work for free!

Damn, 13 pages my brain hurts!

Can I suggest that any additional thread scoring/weighting system that is introduced should be measured in Teef.

Very in keeping with Dakka me thinks.

On its introduction I would expect to be awarded ONE MILL-ION teef in recompence of this great idea, thus ensuring that even my most inane ramblings are read by all!

Zid wrote:I can see why some people don't like Dash; he wins. A lot. Hes a competative gamer thats good at it. He takes what some people see as "crap" and makes it win. But he makes winning fun as does he make losing. I've read every one of his reps and they're great reads and I learn a lot about what I face be it orcs or dark eldar. Hes a good player and he beats people who hate to lose. Hes like the cowboy in a western movie; moseys into the bar, shoots a few bad dudes, steals a damsel, and away to the next town. I can see why people would get upset at this - especially if they're the "local" champ.

That's a little simplistic. People can dislike other people without it being anything to do with whether or not they win a lot...

Inquisitor Lord Bane wrote:But Background and Discussions are in serious need of a scrub. I pulled these off of the FRONT PAGE of the Background section:

And how many of them did you hit the Mod Alert button for?

FWIW,and IMO most of those were fine where they were. The '40K vs 'x'' threads could arguably be considered appropriate for either background (because you're comparing elements of the 40K background to other settings) or 40K discussions. I tend to steer them towards Background, to leave Discussions more for general discussion about the actual game that doesn't fit into Tactics or YMDC.

Not to mention all the DYI Chapters/craftworlds/regiments that belong in the Fiction section but are camped in Background

As has been pointed out, Fiction is for actual fiction. Army backgrounds are more appropriate for Background, particularly if people want feedback on how well they 'fit' the fluff.

Background is meant for just that: Background about 40k.

Which covers an awful lot of ground, and doesn't just include the 'official' fluff.

*Quietly sits back down*

fullheadofhair wrote:

Cryonicleech wrote:Hmmm...

Seems like Dakka is full of elitism nowadays. Much of the old-vets croon for the old days,

Not this one. The old Dakka was a shark pit and the moderation sucked and it was full of people sharpening their epeen; which on reflection seems a strange metaphor. Todays MOD's are pretty good (except one, just got to get that cheap shot in) and I think overall they do a good job considering it is unpaid. Alph particularly when he joins in a an antagnostic thread still maintains a good hold on the bile and the new crop of MOD's over the last year have done well IMHO.

Put this vet in the same camp. At its nadir, Dakka was almost like a private club forum rather than a public forum. The membership drove away valuable contributors and basically laughed about it. And even from a tactics standpoint -- although it had some very skilled players -- it had become a bit of an echo chamber. As Redbeard sagely pointed out in the other thread, this path ultimately ends up with one person on a blog spouting their views with no "idiots," "retards," or "newbs" to say they're wrong.

My vote is for some kind of reputation or like button. I think that addresses the issue without monkeying with what Yak has tried to create here.

gorgon wrote:this path ultimately ends up with one person on a blog spouting their views with no "idiots," "retards," or "newbs" to say they're wrong.

Instead, we have a bunch of "idiots" "retards" and "newbs" posting advice, and competent players unwilling to step in and call them on the garbage that they're spewing because its easy to be offended at someone disagreeing with you, leading to flamewars and banning. Reecius has explained this in significant depth, and its been discussed ad naseum.

The problem is NOT someone espousing views that get disagreed with. The problem is that readers have to wade through the "garbage" to find something worth reading, and there is no quality control. These topics are all being addressed now I think; if we get a "40k watercooler" forum, and all of the "Who's primarch is best in the bedroom?" threads get tossed in there...that would be a great start towards filtering out the noise from the rest of the stuff being posted.

I thought there was already a "like" button - it's marked "Subscribe"

Perhaps a better measurement of views or posts would be subscriptions?

Some sort of system for reputation would be useful - but I can appreciate the development headaches and timelines on that Some ideas from http://stackoverflow.com/faq might be good (admittedly a programmer Q&A site - but it does try to address similar issues of reputation - which is important when determining the validity of answers - much like 40K Tactics )

I think showing "posts" is perhaps promoting the wrong idea though...

Dashofpepper wrote:

gorgon wrote:this path ultimately ends up with one person on a blog spouting their views with no "idiots," "retards," or "newbs" to say they're wrong.

Instead, we have a bunch of "idiots" "retards" and "newbs" posting advice, and competent players unwilling to step in and call them on the garbage that they're spewing because its easy to be offended at someone disagreeing with you, leading to flamewars and banning. Reecius has explained this in significant depth, and its been discussed ad naseum.

The problem is NOT someone espousing views that get disagreed with. The problem is that readers have to wade through the "garbage" to find something worth reading, and there is no quality control. These topics are all being addressed now I think; if we get a "40k watercooler" forum, and all of the "Who's primarch is best in the bedroom?" threads get tossed in there...that would be a great start towards filtering out the noise from the rest of the stuff being posted.

Explain how that relates to the tactics forum DoP? The "who's primarch has the best tan" types threads only make it into tactics by accident and are re-routed with ease if they are reported. Are you espousing only certain posters be allowed to comment in the tactics forums?

Frazzled wrote: Are you espousing only certain posters be allowed to comment in the tactics forums?

Absolutely not; what I'm espousing has been explained and repeated time and again here, repeated elsewhere....I shouldn't need to do it again (and for your benefit again!).

Dashofpepper wrote:

Frazzled wrote: Are you espousing only certain posters be allowed to comment in the tactics forums?

Absolutely not; what I'm espousing has been explained and repeated time and again here, repeated elsewhere....I shouldn't need to do it again (and for your benefit again!).

That goes against what you just said above though. thats not related to tactics threads.

You're saying you're getting crap replies o tactics threads no? How are you going to filter that?

I would think that a crap reply is not necessarily an opinion that is different from yours, even if you're a successful competitor. Rather, some elements of a good reply include: being more than one sentence, responding meaningfully to the ongoing discussion, evincing that the poster has read the entire thread before posting, etc. Like anything, it would be case-by-case.

As an example, I would cite Sanctjud's replies in the Tactics threads.

How would you mod that ManchuQueo? Absent doing it 24/7 of course.

This is a very complex issue with many points of view, each with(theoretically) equal weight. I'm not certain that what's been proposed so far by any of the proponents is necessarily workable. That being said, I think some form of solution possibly does exist, I'm currently mulling it over, and seeing what I can think up to help streamline and improve the tactics/army list section. I know the mods are having their own discussion on what should/shouldn't be done, and hopefully, something productive should come out of this. Possibly not what anyone was expecting, but something nonetheless.

I'm noting a lot of people getting all worked up here though. I recommend everyone leans back, has a sip of something relaxing, and treats this like the forum for toy soldiers that it is.

Frazzled wrote:How would you mod that ManchuQueo? Absent doing it 24/7 of course.

No doubt it would take a very strong presence to begin with. There would need to be a lot of mod encouragement of some behaviors over others. But mods are not the most important link in the chain precisely because they cannot be everywhere at once. The key is developing culture among "core users" who will feel (1) a personal stake in keeping their internet playground quality (as proved by the contributions of posters like Hulksmash, Malfred, Polonius, DoP, etc, etc, etc) and (2) empowered/supported to foster quality among other, "non-core" users. Basically, it involves rebuilding a better version of what the vets are waxing nostalgic about: a Dakka that is quality, tough-minded, but not a place for ego-burnishing.

BloodThirSTAR wrote:Is Dakka really so bad? Im a relatively new member and dont have any problems here. Sure there are the ego maniacs that love the sound of their own voice but you have that anywhere you go. I say leave Dakka as it is. This is a wonderful place.

No BloodThirSTAR, Dakka is not so bad. You can lead a very fulfilling and positive "internet life" on dakka and never run into the issues discussed here. Decide to be a positive influence and support others who you think are also positive influences... that's all it takes.

That being said, it does not mean that the problems cease to exist... but you do not need to involve yourself in them, perpetuate them, or seek to solve them. All of those options are voluntary... enter at your own risk.

Frazzled wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

gorgon wrote:this path ultimately ends up with one person on a blog spouting their views with no "idiots," "retards," or "newbs" to say they're wrong.

Instead, we have a bunch of "idiots" "retards" and "newbs" posting advice, and competent players unwilling to step in and call them on the garbage that they're spewing because its easy to be offended at someone disagreeing with you, leading to flamewars and banning. Reecius has explained this in significant depth, and its been discussed ad naseum.

The problem is NOT someone espousing views that get disagreed with. The problem is that readers have to wade through the "garbage" to find something worth reading, and there is no quality control. These topics are all being addressed now I think; if we get a "40k watercooler" forum, and all of the "Who's primarch is best in the bedroom?" threads get tossed in there...that would be a great start towards filtering out the noise from the rest of the stuff being posted.

Explain how that relates to the tactics forum DoP? The "who's primarch has the best tan" types threads only make it into tactics by accident and are re-routed with ease if they are reported. Are you espousing only certain posters be allowed to comment in the tactics forums?

DashofPepper's idea of discussion on the tactics forum is to challenge all who disagree to vassal games. What's the old saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate?

BloodThirSTAR wrote:

That being said, it does not mean that the problems cease to exist... but you do not need to involve yourself in them, perpetuate them, or seek to solve them. All of those options are voluntary... enter at your own risk.

This what I was saying in a nutshell.

Ignoring the "problem boards" and pidgeon-holing users into basically non-human beings who aren't capable of becoming community members is a shame.

I came into Dakka farily recently, and I don't see any problems other than the common ones seen once every major forum community grows to this point. If you walk into any community setting, you're going to find people who want to have a meaningful conversation, and people who just want to mess around and small talk.

The solution isn't "mods, do more work and create cool new features that filter people out".

It's "as a community, visit these problem boards/users, and talk to them like human beings".

I understand where your coming from Magnalon and I agree that the number one way for the community to become better is to improve the quality of posts overall. After all if people cultivate better posts and the member work together to make the community better then it will become so.

However that on its own won't fix things. It is really easy for a minority of users to post more messages then people who want to improve community and drown them out.

So yes having people actively work towards a more constructive community is the first thing that needs to be done to make this place better but its not a cure all, nor should it be.

Post ranking ranking systems are a great way for people say a post isn't that good without joining a flame war.

What about something like this?

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=203801

MeanGreenStompa wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
IMO Fiction should be kept for actual stories, while homebrew chapters should go in either Background or Discussions, depending on how 'serious' they are.

When folks put up their homebrew chapters fluff for the rest of us to see and comment on, to me, they are saying 'Folks, just created this chapter of marines, do they fit the 40k mythos comfortably or do they need some trimming around the edges to be a better fit?'

Background would seem the natural place for those.

Agreed.

And if the person gets angsty/defensive when their precious creation is told it "doesn't fit"...then move it to Discussion.

olympia wrote:

DashofPepper's idea of discussion on the tactics forum is to challenge all who disagree to vassal games. What's the old saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate?

That's both ludicrous and false. I remember when you weren't an eyesore here, its a shame that you post what you do now.

Hmm...is it possible to get a consensus about what must be done rather than re-re-re-reargue these points?

doomworcs wrote:
Post ranking ranking systems are a great way for people say a post isn't that good without joining a flame war.

Systems similar to Reddit can work, but in my opinion, it's a slippery slope.

Just like how a minority of users can flood the forums with bad topics without reprisal [the current system], with the new system, a minority can spam vote down people that they don't like (ie I see a lot of Dash hate in this thread).

Or, vice versa, elitist members can downvote new community member's posts and dissuade them from posting again.

It's a tough issue to crack for sure. My Philosophy is to keep things simple, and breed community tolerance. It's possible some non-staff members may act like they have more clout, and stake in the site than others (which is an unfortunate by-product of the donation scheme), but the fact is every community member is equal.

Dashofpepper wrote:

olympia wrote:

DashofPepper's idea of discussion on the tactics forum is to challenge all who disagree to vassal games. What's the old saying, if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate?

That's both ludicrous and false. I remember when you weren't an eyesore here, its a shame that you post what you do now.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/295233.page#1580954

1. As soon as he grows testicles and steps up on Vassal.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/295737.page#1588321

I have an idea. You know what Vassal is right? Why don't you meet on me on Vassal for a game of 40k with this list for a 1750 game. I'll play at a point disadvantage to make things a little more fair, AND if you beat me, I'll buy you $50 worth of your choice of stuff from The WarStore.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/297456.page#1622131

Why don't you take this 1500 point list here....step it up 500 points on Vassal and I'll play a game against you; and I'll voluntarily play 1500 against you 2000. I'd like to take a mediocre list at a 500 point deficit and table you with it; I don't know how better to show you that your list is junk than to take a mediocre, untailored list at a huge point deficit and take your army apart with it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/298113.page#1640460

You're welcome to bring your most painful Tyranid list and I will crush it too.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/285415.page#1437906

I've yet to lose against Tyranids, and I find their new iteration incredibly weak. See other threads, battle reports of mine, etc.

If you or anyone feels that your tyranids have got a magic touch, you're welcome to meet me on Vassal, which is the next best thing to a game in person and find out in person.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/289360.page#1489826

Since you're so comfortable discarding my thoughts on why your list isn't unbeatable, how about this:

1. Download Vassal. Its free....

and so on and on and on....

Agreed.

I don't think that any kind of ranking system on here would be a good idea just for the fact that it WILL be abused by horrible posters... espically users that have a blind cult following behind them.

Curses! I had a whole bank of terminals with weiner dogs at the ready to implement my nefarious ranking system plans. If it weren't for you meddlesome kids!

Olympia, most of those are in my battle reports, or in the army list section. When I'm talking about a method of doing something and someone argues that their way is better....there's no better solution than to offer them a first-hand demonstration to *see* what I'm talking about instead of just theorying it out.

Pointing out several such instances is fine; Vassal is a useful learning tool in that respect for helping show people the finer points of something I'm explaining. That's not the issue.

Your blanket assertion that my only contribution to the tactics section is to challenge people to vassal games is both untrue and inflammatory. That's why you're an eyesore; most of your posting these days is that kind of imflammatory crap.

Modquisition on, and ironically so.
Lets employ chillaxation techniques no and get off attacking each other, no?

I've been on dakka fo rlord knows how long. I think i've seen every topic imaginable. I mostly just hangout in news and modelling.

My suggestion for bringing dakka back is simple..and dayes me..

Just bring back Mauleed. At least when he flamed you it was for a reason other than you having disagreed.

And get rid of the OT forum. Nothing good in there at all.

ender502

zoinks!

Magnalon wrote:

BloodThirSTAR wrote:

That being said, it does not mean that the problems cease to exist... but you do not need to involve yourself in them, perpetuate them, or seek to solve them. All of those options are voluntary... enter at your own risk.

Actually I never said that.

Anyways I am opposed to the neo elitist movement some are trying to push on Dakka.

Tacobake wrote:zoinks!

Wow... that bottle in the upper right is VERY suggestive.

How about we have the next some odd posters do a list of the three things they would like to see happen and perhaps we can see where this will lead as to the things that we may want to change here at DakkaDakka.

1. Tactics Forum clean-up- Stickied threads that help direct people to either tactics threads or articles that are frequently updated and maintained along with a more or less permanent introduction to a current army and a break down of said tactics along with insightful unit analysis and upgrade discussions. In short, a mix of the current Ork and Tyranid tactical articles for 5th edition in the Articles section, which actually do help a newb discover what can and canno be good in an army.

2. Painting and Modeling help- perhaps we get some of the better artists out there and as a community have them provide insightful critiques into artistry and modeling done by others. A panel of sorts rather than moderators that offers better advice than "add more wash" or "that suxxorz."

3. Define other forums- there was discussion over fluff and fiction and where things go. it may sound technical and detailed, but how about adding to the thread a sticky of examples of what belongs in each forum that helps people define what goes there. Not every forum has it and it may not be that intuitive, but it will probably help.

And those are my three ideas.

1. people stop sniping each other in posts.

2. people stop acting entitled because they post a lot on an internet forum. Just because you are here all the time, doesn't make your opinion better than anyone elses.

3. consider a tactics forum for each army. This works great on the Privateer Press Forums, and they are much smaller. Have a main, game-wide tactics forum, but stuff all the army
specific stuff in its own section. Dakka members number enough that I think this can work. This does create more ground for mods to cover though.

skrulnik wrote:1. people stop sniping each other in posts.

2. people stop acting entitled because they post a lot on an internet forum. Just because you are here all the time, doesn't make your opinion better than anyone elses.

3. consider a tactics forum for each army. This works great on the Privateer Press Forums, and they are much smaller. Have a main, game-wide tactics forum, but stuff all the army
specific stuff in its own section. Dakka members number enough that I think this can work. This does create more ground for mods to cover though.

1: Like it

2: Love it (QFT x100)

3: Gotta have it.

WarOne wrote:Hmm...is it possible to get a consensus about what must be done rather than re-re-re-reargue these points?

Agreed.

I would like to see some objective points on the following:

1. What actually is the problem? At the moment it seems still to be vague complaints that there is too much crap. (I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.)

2. What specifically would people do about it? For example, if you propose naming rules for a Tactics thread, what are those rules in detail? If you think it will help to be rude to people, please give some detail about the words and phrases that would be acceptable. You may have a vague idea, but Moderators will have to put it into practice so we need clear guidance.

3. An analysis of why the issues complained of are not addressed by other facilities already in the site, such as alerting Mods by the yellow flag, putting nonsense into General Discussion rather than Background, and writing Articles which collect the best Tactical and List wisdom. For instance, Top Tactics threads should be collected and stickied -- Yes, good idea, why not make an article?

I'm not sure that breaking up Tactics would help much but I'd definitely like to see more discussion.

Would this be sufficient?

Tactics: CSM & CD

Tactics: IG

Tactics: SM of all colors

Tactics: Xenos

Would you need to break it up further? If so, why?

Would a general tactics board still be necessary? If so, why not simply keep it all togthere (as is)?

Example of a reputation system more involved then simply up/down voting) - if anyone is interested. Of course - implementation would probably give Legoburner a heart attack...

stackoverflow.com wrote:What is reputation?

Reputation is completely optional. Normal use of Stack Overflow — that is, asking and answering questions — does not require any reputation whatsoever.

If you'd like to help us run Stack Overflow, you'll need to earn some reputation first. Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you. Reputation is never given, it is earned by convincing fellow users that you know what you're talking about.

To gain reputation, post good questions and useful answers. Your peers will vote on your posts, and those votes will cause you to gain (or, in rare cases, lose) reputation:

answer is voted up +10
question is voted up +5
answer is accepted +15 (+2 to acceptor)
post is voted down -2 (-1 to voter)
A maximum of 30 votes can be cast per user per day, and you can earn a maximum of 200 reputation per day (although accepted answers and bounty awards are immune to this limit). Also, please note that votes for any posts marked "community wiki" do not generate reputation.

Amass enough reputation points and Stack Overflow will allow you to go beyond simply asking and answering questions:

15 Vote up
15 Flag offensive
50 Leave comments†
100 Vote down (costs 1 rep)
100 Edit community wiki posts
200 Reduced advertising
250 Vote to close, reopen, or migrate your questions
500 Retag questions
1000 Show total up and down vote counts
1500 Create new tags
2000 Edit other people's posts
3000 Vote to close, reopen, or migrate any questions
10000 Delete closed questions, access to moderation tools
† you can always comment on your questions and answers, and any answers to questions you've asked, even with 1 rep.

At the high end of this reputation spectrum there is little difference between users with high reputation and ♦ moderators. That is very much intentional. We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does.

Kilkrazy wrote:I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.

I think the original complaint, which I have been working to address, is that there is too much crap in the threads (not that there are too many crap threads). I would add that the lack of proper crossreferencing means that these threads are too short (i.e., disappear too fast) and therefore end up overly narrow but at the same time superficial.

Problems:
1. People don't know how to self-moderate.
2. People do not know how to critique. Rather they spout their own opinions and how they feel, based on their own experiences.
3. People want others to do the hard work, instead of putting in a little effort to make things better.
4. People blame the rules are too harsh and limit them from writing effectively, instead of working withing the rules and changing their writing style.

That is my take on the "problems" after reading 14 pages.

Is there some way the more eloquent, experienced players could mentor younger/newer posters.
Purely voluntary of couse

Get rid of the post counter its lame and promotes people posting rubbish to get their count up.

Fix the search function.

1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce. I realize this sounds like I'm sippin' on a big bottle of grape-flavored Haterade, but it will come a long way in allowing the community to demonstrate what is and is not acceptable within the community, both on a social and intellectual basis. It may only make the slightest dent in the median maturity of the of-age users in here, but it will allow for a slowdown in the creation of garbage threads and posts. Allowing them to create accounts that are "Lurk only" until they've reached the proper age will help weed out the fly-by-nighters.

2. Fix the search function, and institute both a user and thread rating system, as well as some sort of way for users to filter the content based on these criteria, that way the "garbage" threads very quickly evaporate from the up-front and visible parts of the site. If the users are calling for a content refinement, let them do the filter work themselves, that way you're automating the process and keeping it from putting a larger workload on the backs of the Moderator staff.

3. Perhaps this hasn't been mentioned previously, but given some of the influencial cliques that seem to form here, why not allow for the creation of user-moderated, invite-only groups that can have their own little private, unseeable by outside members and non-mods corner of dakka to agree with eachother? Give the fanbois a place to congregate and maybe they'll expend more of their vitriol and vinegar behind closed doors, as opposed to on the public sections of the forum. The theory here is that the groups will, eventually, be self-moderating to a degree, and allow for a sigher S:N ratio within the main site by (hopefully) reducing the number of flame wars that break out. This is certainly the one most likely to backfire, but if it's successfull, it's implications could be quite positive.

Of course, I could be completely off base with all of this, but I figured I'd chime in with my own $.02 on the matter.

Manchu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.

I think the original complaint, which I have been working to address, is that there is too much crap in the threads (not that there are too many crap threads). I would add that the lack of proper crossreferencing means that these threads are too short (i.e., disappear too fast) and therefore end up overly narrow but at the same time superficial.

Have to agree with this.

I know myself, and several others at that, are just tired of the following:

OP: Hey guys, Here is my idea on a CSM list.
#1: Looks good, but why do you use Chosen?
#2: Yeah Chosen suck
OP: Well, I use em cause of this.
#3: That sucks.
#1: You suck.
#3: You suck.
#5: (Insert Demotivational Pic that has nothing to do with the thread topic here)
#7: Eldar like Lance weapons
OP: What the hell does that have to do with my thread?
*Insert multi page flamefest here*

Ect ect ect.

Manchu wrote:I'm not sure that breaking up Tactics would help much but I'd definitely like to see more discussion.

Would this be sufficient?

Tactics: CSM & CD

Tactics: IG

Tactics: SM of all colors

Tactics: Xenos

Would you need to break it up further? If so, why?

Would a general tactics board still be necessary? If so, why not simply keep it all togthere (as is)?

That could work. My thought behind breaking them up is, there are what 15 armies?
If there is one thread from each, that is most of the first page taken up already. At least most of what is seen before scrolling down.
With a breakdown, you will funnel new players into the appropriate area easier. If they think they want to play orks, they will check the ork tactics section.
Also it can allow for more stickies, and can lead to someone stepping up and collating the good info into articles easier.

Diving into the entire tactics section would be overwhelming. But someone may choose to take responsibility for "their" army and get it rolling.

1. Search Function could be improved, and that is apparently already in the works.

2. ...

Okay, I can only think of one thing. Everything else seems like it stems from that one issue.

Everything else is dependent upon the users.

I will say that Manchu's outline for streamlining the Tactics Forum is a very good idea. I just don't want this to get too much like other boards that shall remain nameless. The main reason I like Dakka is how dissimilar it is to most other GW Fansites.

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

I'm all for it.

Dakka for President!

insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

Anything from the honor system to doing what pr0n sites do and requiring CC verification to sign up. Ban or convert the account of anyone who openly admits to being under the minimum age for posting. There are plenty of options, though the devil, as always, is in the details.

Although I see the point of the criticism, I don't think it's at all bad to have kids posting. The site is about a game that they play, after all. One of the aims of the site should be to cultivate and perpetuate the hobby--that involves helping the younger people. There must be better ways to curb the crap.

I think discouraging younger membership is rather shortsighted. They are, if you'll forgive the cliche, the good posters of tomorrow.

There's also people of the age of majority that make complete asses of themselves on this board with startling regularity.

ohoh, me!

mini-mods! If you're trustable, you have the ability to ban users for a couple hours for getting severely OT, or arguing too much. Basically, you get to tell people to 'take a chill pill'

But then if you don't like someone, the privilege could easily be abused...

insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

By vote, anyone who's been chased by, er chased a Mastadon raise their hand (Frazzled raises hand). Ok. Everyone else to lurker status. Its the Frazzled Weiner dog variety show all day! every day!

Dronze wrote:Anything from the honor system to doing what pr0n sites do and requiring CC verification to sign up.

CC validation also excludes anyone without a credit card (I can't speak for overseas, but that's a lot of people here in Oz) and anyone who doesn't want to go signing over their credit card info for the sake of joining a wargaming forum. Not an option.

Besides, banning the young'uns isn't the answer. We've had younger posters in the past display more maturity and contribute more worthwhile content than many of the more 'mature' posters on the site.

That said, the idea is appreciated. I am sure the Administration will consider it.

If I may be so bold, I think I'll give this a shot.

Kilkrazy wrote:
1. What actually is the problem? At the moment it seems still to be vague complaints that there is too much crap. (I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.)

The big issue here is that there a lot of repetitive and misplaced threads on dakka. I'll stick to the particular forums I'm familiar with, so I'll bring up YMDC (both 40K and WHFB), 40K Tactics, and 40K Army Lists. Though in Army Lists, seeing 4 or 5 "1500 Points Mech IG" threads is understandable, seeing 4 or 5 "Can my Space Marines regroup within 6 inches of an enemy?" within a few days in YMDC is silly. This is worse in Tactics, where we see several "How can I beat Y with X army?" almost daily, and though each thread is for a different "X", it's the same advice over and over. Sometimes it's just poorly placed threads, where the thread is borderline appropiate (but not really) for that forum. For instance, "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" probably doesn't belong in tactics. Though it involves the tactical thinking behind how you run it, but it's been less of a "debate and disscuss" and more of a "show off" kind of thread.

And while only about 10% of the threads in tactics are (were, as more recent posting has changed this slightly) repetitive or "silly", it's also some of the posts in the other threads that affect their quality. Most of the time, it's the posts in the threads rather thread themselves actually that make it hard. Going through and reading a Tactics or YMDC thread looking for good advice or rulings can take easily 30 minutes or more. Most of the posts are petty off topic squables and blatant flaming attempts.

Kilkrazy wrote:
2. What specifically would people do about it? For example, if you propose naming rules for a Tactics thread, what are those rules in detail? If you think it will help to be rude to people, please give some detail about the words and phrases that would be acceptable. You may have a vague idea, but Moderators will have to put it into practice so we need clear guidance.

In relation to what I answered for 1, there have already been steps to improve. In YMDC, insaniak has posted a sticky to help remind people of the rules. In Tactics, there have already been several different threads with different topics started by competant players offering up suggestions and disscussions of tactics. I also noticed that the duplicate thread to "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" was locked. These are perfect steps in the right direction.

However, there needs to be more:
1) Promote more self moderation. Make it a suggestion in the rules. Peers helping peers may not be as helpful as mods cracking down, but improves not only the individual posters, but the community as a whole, whereas the mods cracking down will only cause the gap between users and staff to grow. All the mods would have to do is keep doing what they're doing and mainly enforcing rule #1. This should cut back on the "crap" posts and threads they create.

2) Add another mod. I really appreciate what you guys are doing, but the mod team has their hands full. If there was a mod specifically devoted to one or more of the problem forums, it would east up the work load of the whole team. I think it needs to be a Tactics mod. They would have the following duties within the Tactics forums only:
>Collecting and organizing commonly asked about tactical queries into an sort of index, presented to users as a sticky.
>Lock repetitive threads in Tactics and redirect the locked thread either to the index (if the question has been asked) or to the appropiate thread.
>Move threads that don't belong in Tactics to the appropiate forum. This includes threads that may be intially about tactics or strategy, but are not a disscussion or debate. A good example is the "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" thread. It should be moved.
>Enforce the rules. I think this one's a no brainer.

3) Fix the search function (I'm aware it is being worked on, and I'm sure we all appreciate that legoburner is working so hard on it, but I figure it couldn't hurt to mention it again).

4) Reward good user rated material. Particularly in articles. I've been on forums that give out awards or metals that show up under a users name. Why not institute something similar? A user gets a "medal" on their profile for all to see when they create an article that reaches so many hits from unique IP or user views? Also, maybe allow mods to award "medals" as well, for contributing members (not DCMs, those who post exceptional tutorials). This would help establish who can be trusted as a source for tactics, modeling, llist bulding, etc advice. There could be a setting to hide your "medals" and an option to hide those of other users. Also, mods giveth, and should be able to taketh away. If a "like" function for threads is established, "medals" could give a user more "pull".

Kilkrazy wrote:
3. An analysis of why the issues complained of are not addressed by other facilities already in the site, such as alerting Mods by the yellow flag, putting nonsense into General Discussion rather than Background, and writing Articles which collect the best Tactical and List wisdom. For instance, Top Tactics threads should be collected and stickied -- Yes, good idea, why not make an article?

This is the really big issue. No one feels that that flagging a post works. It could be for several reasons. Most of the time, it's because no one is neccesarily breaking the rules. Someone posting "Yeah, why would you ever use Z unit, it sucks hard" doesn't break the rules, but is a terrible post. If that post were to get flagged, there'd be no reason to edit or delete the post, so it would appear as though no action has been taken. So, the person who flagged the post feels cheated, even though they think they flagged a post legitimately. So, when "lawlz dat unit sux cus ur stoopid" comes up, they won't flag it.

The to be honest, I can't tell you why people haven't stepped up in the past to address the issues presented here. I'll try to speak for most users though, and say that we feel undeserving or scared to do anything ourselves. Making an article that shows top tactics or commonly disscussed tactics and doing it well is rather intimidating for a new user or inexperienced player.

Self Moderation could be a bit of a trick though.

Someone role-play with me here for a moment. I'll post something that might be considered objectionable and pose as it's 15 year old, anti-social author.

"lol i jsut had awsum idea!!!!11! wht if their wuz female space marines?"

What would you say to the little scamp?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Here on dakka, we value many things. Among these things, we include little things such as spelling, grammar, and the search for past threads. In the future, please take a few moments from your very busy life, and browse the forum to see if your idea has or has not already been posted. If it has, we ask that you do not post duplicate threads. Also, please refrain from using text speech and spell out your words. If you need help in spelling, then you can go online and visit one of the many free spellchecks.

Have a nice day.

"lol feth you dildo likker"

And off we go.

Now, in my mind, it would have been more prudent to simply report that OP to a moderator. YMMV

I was sort of joking around a bit there, but it seems like users attempting to police other users is just an invitation to more silly posts, not less. Not that your post was silly, but attempting to reason with some ballbag on the internet can be a seriously fruitless effort.

Oh yes.

Though I have to admit, I don't really have a huge problem with "flags" not getting results.

Mainly cause I go through lengths to make sure I am in the right before I flag it.

(As in I like to cite the rules they are breaking )

jp400 wrote:Oh yes.

Though I have to admit, I don't really have a huge problem with "flags" not getting results.

Mainly cause I go through lengths to make sure I am in the right before I flag it.

(As in I like to cite the rules they are breaking )

I agree, I don't have an issue with it either.

Monster Rain wrote:Self Moderation could be a bit of a trick though.

Someone role-play with me here for a moment. I'll post something that might be considered objectionable and pose as it's 15 year old, anti-social author.

"lol i jsut had awsum idea!!!!11! wht if their wuz female space marines?"

What would you say to the little scamp?

Unless you're a mod, you either ignore it, or hit the mod alert button.

Posters correcting other posters on their spelling and grammar rarely ends well, regardless of how politely it's done.

'Self moderation' means policing your own posts, not other people's...

insaniak wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Self Moderation could be a bit of a trick though.

Someone role-play with me here for a moment. I'll post something that might be considered objectionable and pose as it's 15 year old, anti-social author.

"lol i jsut had awsum idea!!!!11! wht if their wuz female space marines?"

What would you say to the little scamp?

Unless you're a mod, you either ignore it, or hit the mod alert button.

Posters correcting other posters on their spelling and grammar rarely ends well, regardless of how politely it's done.

My point exactly.

The thing about self moderation is that its really, really difficult to practice when the community is particularly large. In smaller contexts its easy for the people that are capable of constructive responses to effectively take the reigns of the conversation by addressing the original poster, and anyone else that might not be helping the matter. However, as the scale grows larger, it becomes increasingly difficult for the more mature posters to manage the situation; eventually leading them to either give up, or join the mob.

Monster Rain wrote:
And off we go.

Now, in my mind, it would have been more prudent to simply report that OP to a moderator. YMMV

I was sort of joking around a bit there, but it seems like users attempting to police other users is just an invitation to more silly posts, not less. Not that your post was silly, but attempting to reason with some ballbag on the internet can be a seriously fruitless effort.

I understand entirely. But if a few or several users tell that person "Hey, you really should read the rules and clean up your act" it will have an impact. And if all else fails, then call in the mods. Of course it'd be more prudent to flag them the first time, but if it happens all the time it becomes "DakkaDakkaPoliceForum, where Big Mek is watching". Plus, it'll help weed out the posts that aren't actually breaking any rules.

darkdm wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
And off we go.

Now, in my mind, it would have been more prudent to simply report that OP to a moderator. YMMV

I was sort of joking around a bit there, but it seems like users attempting to police other users is just an invitation to more silly posts, not less. Not that your post was silly, but attempting to reason with some ballbag on the internet can be a seriously fruitless effort.

I understand entirely. But if a few or several users tell that person "Hey, you really should read the rules and clean up your act" will have an impact. And if all else fails, then call in the mods. Of course it'd be more prudent to flag them the first time, but if it happens all the time it becomes "DakkaDakkaPoliceForum, where Big Mek is watching". Plus, it'll help weed out the posts that aren't actually breaking any rules.

I've been here for a little while. Please, please don't take that as sounding elitist.

I only bring it up to illustrate the point that I honestly believe that the Mods here are pretty fair minded and aren't going to just go on banning and locking sprees just to amuse themselves.* They aren't robots that would just say "Thread reported, kill it with fire." Based on their character I think that Dakka could stay the fun, laid back place that it is with a little more yellow-flagging. Hell, I think it would make it better.

*unless is was clearly ironic and hilarious.

darkdm wrote:I understand entirely. But if a few or several users tell that person "Hey, you really should read the rules and clean up your act" it will have an impact.

Yes... it will tell the poster, whose main sin is probably just not stopping to think before posting, that Dakka is a pretty unfriendly place, and they should go elsewhere.

Whereas just leaving it alone and hitting the mod alert means the poster gets a polite message from a moderator explaining why we have expected standards for posts, and the vast majority of the time the poster takes that on board and puts a bit more effort into future posts.

And if all else fails, then call in the mods. Of course it'd be more prudent to flag them the first time, but if it happens all the time it becomes "DakkaDakkaPoliceForum, where Big Mek is watching". Plus, it'll help weed out the posts that aren't actually breaking any rules.

It's nothing to do with being a 'police forum' and everything to do with just doing the right thing the right way. Hitting the mod alert button isn't 'dobbing'... it's fixing a problem before it escalates into silliness.

Actually experience tends to bear out Insaniak on this Darkdm

The problem will be that the fictional OP will get defensive and stroppy in many cases.
Otherwise will enjoy the opportunity to troll for whatever pleasure people get from that.

The other thing will be the you ain't got the orfority to tel me wot to do attitude.

Sorry to extend a single issue from what was imho a well thought out post.

I do not think that in general terms the concept of self moderation should be dismissed, as I have alluded to before. It is up the users to set the tone and try not to get embroiled in facile, repetitive arguments.

We can help the mods by enacting Rule1 ourselves in our own postings. There still may be a mechanic that can allow users to highlight/deal with minor abberations of etiquette.
I just don't know what that maight be.

insaniak wrote:
Yes... it will tell the poster, whose main sin is probably just not stopping to think before posting, that Dakka is a pretty unfriendly place, and they should go elsewhere.

Whereas just leaving it alone and hitting the mod alert means the poster gets a polite message from a moderator explaining why we have expected standards for posts, and the vast majority of the time the poster takes that on board and puts a bit more effort into future posts.

....

It's nothing to do with being a 'police forum' and everything to do with just doing the right thing the right way. Hitting the mod alert button isn't 'dobbing'... it's fixing a problem before it escalates into silliness.

Your first point is good. Had not thought much about that. I'd also assume most users would be more polite than "Hey, clean up your act!". I do see where you're coming from though. And no, I don't think dakka is a "police forum" (sorry if that's the impression I gave), but every rule breaking post getting flagged gets old for everyone really quick. Personally, I like the level of mod intervention there is now (except in the areas I outlined earlier). But both of your points make plenty of sense to me.

But what I was really trying to say would be fixed by self moderation are the posts that aren't breaking any rules. In all fairness, while the example the Monster Rain provided is a problem, it's not one of the issues users like DashofPepper have. Those users have issues with the "crap" posts that don't break the rules. For instance:

OP: Does rule X affect unit 2 like this? And if so, does it let me do C?
Poster 1: No, it wouldn't. It says so on page Y. Nice try, but no dice.
Poster 2: Nuh uh.

Poster 2 hasn't neccesarily broken any rules, but it's a useless and silly post. It's a much bigger problem and happens far more often than "lolz femmemahruns ftw!!!1111one1!". I think that's where self moderation would really come into it's own.

I suspect that we're still talking about two different things here...

As I mentioned earlier, 'self moderation' isn't about posters policing others' posts without bringing the mods into it. That would be 'peer moderation' rather than 'self moderation'... and should pretty much be avoided as it causes more problems than it solves.

The 'self moderation' that we mention from time to time is about posters moderating their own posts so we as moderators don't have to. It's a goal that can be encouraged by ensuring that whenever a poster does step over the line, that post is reported.

And for what it's worth, your 'poster number 2's answer, at least in YMDC, technically would be against the rules, since we ask posters to actually back up their answers with an appropriate reference. It's not always enforced as strictly as it should be, although that's something I want to work back towards.

insaniak wrote:As I mentioned earlier, 'self moderation' isn't about posters policing others' posts without bringing the mods into it. That would be 'peer moderation' rather than 'self moderation'... and should pretty much be avoided as it causes more problems than it solves.

This is something that I think should be stressed. We want users who are going to think before they post. I don't just mean that they will think about whether or not their post breaks the rules. They should think about whether and how their post contributes to the discussion. Self-moderation isn't just about being polite. It's about being a contributor. When you have a thread with many self-modding users participating, you're less likely to have some one showing up and acting like Monster Rain's hypothetical dbag. And if he does . . .

The 'self moderation' that we mention from time to time is about posters moderating their own posts so we as moderators don't have to. It's a goal that can be encouraged by ensuring that whenever a poster does step over the line, that post is reported.

Seriously, there is nothing wrong with using the yellow triangle button if you're not being petty.

And don't reply to those inane posts. Let them drop to the bottom where the dregs are supposed to go.

Must agree on dropping the post counts. They serve no purpose.

Thats another common complaint. Post count.

Tbh I hated this problem. I just kept post count in, I wasn't removing a valid feature because some people abuse it, it was the same with a reputation feature on tech tutorials.

People abused them and when I caught them I put them into stasis.

I also got the argument for creating rules that change and flow with the community over time instead of been set in stone or that they were to 'vague'. Some people draw there lines in different places I accept that but you get extremes in every case and I was not going to individually document each case.

There's a delicious irony to rail against things that "serve no purpose" on a Space Barbies fansite.

What purpose, besides amusement and diversion, does any of it serve really?

I was a very long time poster on one of those other forums. Much of the garbage you described earlier occurred there also. The major differences between that other forum and Dakka is that Dakka has a large following (I personally know several users that have a lot of posts on Dakka) and that Dakka allows news from non-GW miniature sites to be posted. That second one is huge. GW is a great company and offers its players more in prize support than any other company I know of but they don't make models for everything and secondary model sources are necessary. Long live Dakka!

Monster Rain wrote:There's a delicious irony to rail against things that "serve no purpose" on a Space Barbies fansite.

What purpose, besides amusement and diversion, does any of it serve really?

You keep beating to death the idea that miniatures are a hobby, and thus not worthy of any serious discussion. If you don't want to be a part of serious tactical, hobby, background, or any other discussion, that's fine. But other people would like to.

Amusement does not need to be superficial.

It's worthy of serious discussion but you shouldn't get mad when people do treat it like a hobby, that's all.

I didn't mean any offense.

Monster Rain wrote:It's worthy of serious discussion but you shouldn't get mad when people do treat it like a hobby, that's all.

I didn't mean any offense.

Well, it comes off as if you're basically saying people that don't want to treat everything as a joke are some sort of wierdos who take the hobby way to seriously.

Even in your statement, you're saying that some people treat it like a hobby. What do you think the other people treat it as? Why can't a hobby be taken seriously? And why is it so bad that sometimes people want to have a serious discussion without it being sidetracked? Nobody is calling for the elimination of the goofy stuff on dakka, just that some areas could benefit from a more serious minded approach.

I'm not just giving you a hard time, I'm genuinely interested to see if you think that people are taking this too seriously, and if so, why you think that. If not, then why do you keep saying the things you do?

Is there any merit to the idea of having two forums: "Competitive play tactics" and "Casual play tactics?" One would focus on killer lists and optimization. The other would focus more on best ways to use units, trying to massage themed lists into something playable, etc.

A great quote I once heard. "Over-specialise and you breed-in weakness, its slow death" It brings me to this topic. Why Over-specialise a topic if it is good enough as it is.

You could go as far to cut it into each individual army then further into competitive play, casual play and themed. But that is just too far. There comes a point when things should stop being put into a sub thread of a sub thread.

As for army lists, I think it is good to have them all in the one area. Separate the lists and you separate the community. The idea of a forum is for people to come together talk serious business and have fun. If you split that up then the community splits into each section.

edited by mod. Seriously, drop it

@Hulksmash

Way to go! Unlike the rest of us, you contributed instead of complaining! You rule the school, dude.

I would be willing to write tactics and list forum guidelines if that is something you guys would like to consider.

I would outline the use of logic, correct titling, and backing assertions based on factual evidence, not baseless opinions. Also, I wold be sure to direct posters to give all the necessary information so that critiques are constructive. I would also include the proper way to offer said critiques.

If the MOD squad is interested, let me know. I would be happy to assist.

Am I really missing something here but aren't we just over complicating everything? Won't a simple "like" (no dislike) on threads and a actually moderation policy that is enforced a bit better.

A few more warnings and suspensions might get the message across - heck, I might even catch up with Frazzled.

Reecius wrote:I would be willing to write tactics and list forum guidelines if that is something you guys would like to consider.

Yes, I would like that very much. You know where to post them first.

OK, tomorrow once I am settled into my new place, I will put that together. Hopefully it can help to provide some structure to the chaos we have at present.

New peeps and kids will always open the same old threads. I think it's just a matter of remembering that at one time, before we knew the answers, those same repeat topics were awfully interesting to us too. It's hard to remember to search when you are excited and think you are on to something clever.

Frankly, when I see a missing legion thread, or Primarch questions, it kinda makes me nostalgic for times when there was something new to be learned lol!

That is true, but if we have a sticky with rules, we can direct them to that so that at least more of them will understand how to post a good question that will give them good answers.

In theory yes, but I don't think anyone really reads the stickies until they have already made a booboo, and maybe not even then. Not saying I endorse that or anything, obviously everyone should, but I'm not sure stickies are going to save the day here unfortunately, especially with younger members... and russian spam bots lol

You may be correct. But isn't it worth a try? If everyone gets in the habit of directing new posters tot he sticky, over time we may see higher quality questions and answers.

Reecius wrote:That is true, but if we have a sticky with rules, we can direct them to that so that at least more of them will understand how to post a good question that will give them good answers.

I agree. Moderate it and close it but also have a place where this threads are kept

I agree. I will draft up some guidelines and we can see if they look solid.

Reecius wrote:You may be correct. But isn't it worth a try? If everyone gets in the habit of directing new posters tot he sticky, over time we may see higher quality questions and answers.

Absolutely no harm in trying, and I suppose no benefit in pointing out it's faults if I don't have a better option to offer! Actually, what if when they signed up they had to click an 'i agree to the terms and conditions' with an extremely brief set of rules... like

- Do not swear or be overly aggresive, if you have a problem with someone, tell a mod
- Do not post in all caps
- Do not use txt talk or 733t speak
- Do not create topics in news and rumors to ask questions
- Do not post in tactics and background without searching first
- Try to respect the tone and topics of each sub-forum


Welcome to Dakka and have fun!

[ ] I agree


???

I propose an idea.

Everyone need to follow forum #1 rule , no exceptions. And will be enforced properly.

Now here is the difference. Other than a slap on a wrist that does nothing , or a ban that is too heavy , which all too often , any charges gets dropped
and the guilty walks free to re offend right away , here is what i suggest.

For the rule breaker , implement a probation period , where the user gets 1 week probation where their posting privileges will be limited to say 10 post every 24 hours.

Reecius wrote:@Hellfury

You know better than I do what it used to be like. If you were acting like a dumb ass, you got called on it. Now, any knucklehead can say what ever he or she likes, no matter how inane, and we can't say anything to help correct the situation.

The MODs are like ninjas too, they delete posts in stealth mode. Trying to encourage a healthy, friendly environment is one thing, but protecting the idiots at the expense of the site is only going to be detrimental in the long run. What made Dakka unique was the fact that you got the straight dope on playing well. No one tried to candy coat anything. You were expected to be an adult about giving and taking criticism. Now everyone's feelings are involved and the quality of the content has greatly suffered, IMO.

And back before THAT, Dakka was a civil place where you didn't have to be thick-skinned to deal with every jackwad who math hammered the crap out of his lists.

So go easy on the "back in the day". The best modeling/painting used to be featured here as well. But cynicism and general douchiness drove away plenty of quality posters.

The place evolves.

I think a little too much is being made of the "insulting dumb people" aspect of the old dakka. I don't want things to be a nonstop flame fest.

What I do kind of miss is being able to make it clear when a person didnt' know what they were talking about. So when the same tired claim was repeated in tactical threads, they were shouted down. Not to silence them, but to make it clear to readers that they were probably wrong.

I mean, after explaining patiently a few times why a person is wrong, only to have them ignore you, sometimes it's convenient to simply say "you're a moron, STFU."

LunaHound wrote:I propose an idea.

Everyone need to follow forum #1 rule , no exceptions. And will be enforced properly.

Now here is the difference. Other than a slap on a wrist that does nothing , or a ban that is too heavy , which all too often , any charges gets dropped
and the guilty walks free to re offend right away , here is what i suggest.

For the rule breaker , implement a probation period , where the user gets 1 week probation where their posting privileges will be limited to say 10 post every 24 hours.

Well I could argue that to is a bit aggressive but it is a start to a plan. Although I would like to think of a way that would be easier for the mods to implement. Such as making a group called X where they can do everything but post and have the forum mod send them a copy pasta of the rules and a friendly message in a PM with a receipt attached. When this receipt has been confirmed then the mod takes them out of the group and next time they do such a thing they get a probation along the lines of what you said.

Imagine you are new excited, you use the search bar but nothing comes up. You make a thread only to find out you were not specific enough in your search and now you can only make X amount of posts in the next day. You would be put off the forum for being to strict.

LunaHound wrote:Everyone need to follow forum #1 rule , no exceptions. And will be enforced properly.

This is already the case.

The thing is, the mods won't always agree with you as to whether a given post breaks rule #1.

Keep in mind that different people can read an entirely different 'tone' into a given piece of text. So something you read as rude (particularly where you're already predisposed against a given poster), someone else might read as being not so bad.

Other than a slap on a wrist that does nothing , or a ban that is too heavy , which all too often , any charges gets dropped
and the guilty walks free to re offend right away...

I have no idea what you are actually saying here...

For the rule breaker , implement a probation period , where the user gets 1 week probation where their posting privileges will be limited to say 10 post every 24 hours.

How will that help, over the current system?

syanticraven wrote:

LunaHound wrote:I propose an idea.

Everyone need to follow forum #1 rule , no exceptions. And will be enforced properly.

Now here is the difference. Other than a slap on a wrist that does nothing , or a ban that is too heavy , which all too often , any charges gets dropped
and the guilty walks free to re offend right away , here is what i suggest.

For the rule breaker , implement a probation period , where the user gets 1 week probation where their posting privileges will be limited to say 10 post every 24 hours.

Well I could argue that to is a bit aggressive but it is a start to a plan. Although I would like to think of a way that would be easier for the mods to implement. Such as making a group called X where they can do everything but post and have the forum mod send them a copy pasta of the rules and a friendly message in a PM with a receipt attached. When this receipt has been confirmed then the mod takes them out of the group and next time they do such a thing they get a probation along the lines of what you said.

Imagine you are new excited, you use the search bar but nothing comes up. You make a thread only to find out you were not specific enough in your search and now you can only make X amount of posts in the next day. You would be put off the forum for being to strict.

The consequences can be fine tuned easily , i was just throwing the idea of a probation period.
The length the days can be altered depending on the number of offense.
So are the post limits during the probation.

I like this idea alot because not only does it pose enough annoyance to the offender , it wouldnt drive them off the forum 100%
they can still stick around and contribute , so its up to them how they wish to use up the 10 post during the period.
In a way , it also allows them to reflect on their action and recompose themselves.

Screw a probation period. Just make them watch all of the American Idol tryouts.

Ironhide wrote:Screw a probation period. Just make them watch all of the American Idol tryouts.

K but then i insist we ductape their eye lids

Appologies, I have not read the whole thread, so this may be repetative, but this is the advice I have been offering to the mods for several years now.

insaniak wrote:

For the rule breaker , implement a probation period , where the user gets 1 week probation where their posting privileges will be limited to say 10 post every 24 hours.

How will that help, over the current system?

For me, the gold standard of "the best policed forum" is the World of Warcraft fan and theory site Elitist Jerks. What differentiated them is that they are not only rigorous about enforcing their rules, but they make it very plain the consequences for violating them. To wit, they have an entire sub-forum devoted to the "Banhammer"; where the mods reveal publicly the messages they send to rule-breakers along with their discipline.

Now, there are several virtues to this manner of rules enforecement;
-First, it guarantees transparency, as the infraction procedure becomes a matter of public record.
-Second, it provides evidence to the posting community at large as to what is, and is not, acceptable.
-Third, paradoxically, it encourages quality, because it serves to inform quality contributors that trolls, flamers and simply un-constructive posters are not tolerated.

While some may claim that enforcing draconian rules of conduct will spell the end of a forum, the EJ forums show precisely the opposite reality: that a rigorously enforced code of conduct can allow high-level discussions to occur without fear of disruption. As a result, for years now the EJ forums have acquired an air of "authority", that is, citing back to threads on EJ became common on the official WoW boards, because the perception of the discussions was so high.

Granted, the model may not be applicable, owing to the extremely tight control that GW has on information, and the relative paucity of other "stuff to talk about". The speed of content outlay, the amount of information from the company, and the depth of information means that there is simply more "content" to sustain a MMO game site.

To a certain extent, it's possible that the state of Dakka is a reflection of GW's new information restrictions: with "nothing to talk about", people end up talking (and arguing) about nothing for large stretches of time.

I was only going to write rules for tactics and lists. If the MODs like them we can implement them.

Alright, after reading a surprising number of posts for just a couple of days, here's my reaction to this all.

Firstly, Dakka is the best moderated forum I've ever participated in. When there are real breaches of rules (like posting armylists in the discussion forum), they've tended to be fixed quickly with a single click of the yellow button. Meanwhile, mods don't interfere with things just because someone got their feelings hurt. The mods are not the waaaaaaahmbulance. Nothing is worse than a forum full of overbearing moderators.

Secondly, as for the noise ratio, I think it breaks down into a few separate problems:

- When you're new, nothing is trash. You want to learn everything, and so everything is valuable. The longer you go, and the more experienced you get, the less new stuff you get. What is repeditive and boring to you is still new to someone. At some point, you have to either change your focus from "what new stuff can I get from dakka?" to "what stuff can I provide that's new to someone else on dakka". Either you step up, or you wander away. Most people do the latter. There is no real change you can make to dakka that will fix this.

- Certain things will be trash to certain people. I like information on the armies I play or am interested in, or whatever, and I don't care about the rest. Having to scroll through space marine armylists to find something I'm interested in feels like sifting through trash to find what I want (even though space marine armylists are definitely not trash to other people). As has been just recently mentioned, applying more organization (such as splitting apart armylists and tactics by army, for example), would make it so that dakka still has just as much trash, from my perspective, but the organizational structure has pooled the treasure into easily accessible places.

- repetition of topics. Yeah, I've noticed that a lot. Basically there is one solution:

Dashofpepper wrote:Enforcement is key though - Killkrazy (and others?) have pointed out that their stickies are ignored.

The one thing I think that the moderators are lacking at the moment is sticky enforcement. Certain things do get repeated an AWFUL lot, and really could use a sticky. In order to be effective, chronically repeated topics need to be linked to the stickies and shut down. Every time.

- Also, in certain places and at certain times (especially in the tactics thread), there are topics that tend to contain a lot of bloat. Otherwise on-topic threads can be quickly reduced by posts that have absolutely NO precious characters typed in that have actually anything constructive whatsoever to the discussion at hand.

Of course, fixing this probably requires a terrible amount of work by the moderators, but the only way for tactics discussions to have actual tactics without trash is to make it impossible to post trash, or have any trash promptly cleaned up. Of course, this isn't helped by people erroneously identifying "things I don't agree with" with "trash".

The only way I can see out of this other than by serious moderator intervention is by having some sort of a debate structure where people posting in a thread have some strict code that they operate by and steadfastly refuse to address anything that doesn't actually help the topic at hand (or post things that aren't actually consctructive themselves). Perhaps there could be volunteer moderators instructing everyone which posts are striken from the record (a moderated debate (not to be confused with forum moderators)).

Oh, and the idea of a like/dislike button is a terrible idea. What we don't need is quantified mob hysteria.

And just because I'm not going to wade through 16 pages without putting up a fight...

Polonius wrote:you could allow a bit more tussle in the tactics (I should be able to call a guy playing ridiculous army to a .500 record out for giving advice in every single IG thread).

Polonius wrote:I mean, after explaining patiently a few times why a person is wrong, only to have them ignore you, sometimes it's convenient to simply say "you're a moron, STFU."

I have to applaud your steadfast passive-aggressiveness.

Of course, people not being convinced because the arguments that someone else is making are based solely on logical fallacies is not justification for personal insults.

Polonius wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's worthy of serious discussion but you shouldn't get mad when people do treat it like a hobby, that's all.

I didn't mean any offense.

Well, it comes off as if you're basically saying people that don't want to treat everything as a joke are some sort of wierdos who take the hobby way to seriously.

Even in your statement, you're saying that some people treat it like a hobby. What do you think the other people treat it as? Why can't a hobby be taken seriously? And why is it so bad that sometimes people want to have a serious discussion without it being sidetracked? Nobody is calling for the elimination of the goofy stuff on dakka, just that some areas could benefit from a more serious minded approach.

I'm not just giving you a hard time, I'm genuinely interested to see if you think that people are taking this too seriously, and if so, why you think that. If not, then why do you keep saying the things you do?

I don't think everyone is taking it too seriously.

I like 40k. A lot. Some would say to an unhealthy degree. I feel like I give a lot of good advice, some of it is accepted, some of it is not. If they don't care for what I have to say I move on.

Why do I think someone would be taking this too seriously? The answer is simple.

These games are supposed to be fun. I understand that there is a very competitive scene, and I would humbly suggest that I am a part of it. Even with that being a factor, if this hobby is causing you to feel any kind of negative feeling other than the occasional sting of a particularly disappointing loss I feel like it's being taken too seriously.

Polonius, you know that your articles are insightful and intelligently written, just as I know that it's harder to phase out Necrons than simply "lol ingnor the 'liths l2p noob". There are way too many people with access to these forums to worry about a little negative feedback, or for that matter, a lack of positive feedback. Contribute for the sake of making a good contribution and the people who know the difference will appreciate it.

That said, posters could take a second to let others know that they notice their effort and do, in fact, appreciate their work.

I hope that clears up my position.

dienekes96 wrote:

Reecius wrote:@Hellfury

You know better than I do what it used to be like. If you were acting like a dumb ass, you got called on it. Now, any knucklehead can say what ever he or she likes, no matter how inane, and we can't say anything to help correct the situation.

The MODs are like ninjas too, they delete posts in stealth mode. Trying to encourage a healthy, friendly environment is one thing, but protecting the idiots at the expense of the site is only going to be detrimental in the long run. What made Dakka unique was the fact that you got the straight dope on playing well. No one tried to candy coat anything. You were expected to be an adult about giving and taking criticism. Now everyone's feelings are involved and the quality of the content has greatly suffered, IMO.

And back before THAT, Dakka was a civil place where you didn't have to be thick-skinned to deal with every jackwad who math hammered the crap out of his lists.

So go easy on the "back in the day". The best modeling/painting used to be featured here as well. But cynicism and general douchiness drove away plenty of quality posters.

The place evolves.

I came in when it was the meanest place on the net. I liked it as weird as that sounds.

Now, I don't like being mean to people. But I did like the end result.

You can get your point across without being a dick, but I'd rather have rudeness and good information than politeness and garbage information. If that's just me, then fine. I can accept that. I am simply voicing my point of view.

The way I look at it is like a stern teacher. If you screw up you get reprimanded. If you get it right, you get praised and that praise really means something. When everyone just pats each other on the back, no progress is made.

If the majority doesn't agree, then so be it. I just want to at least put forth my POV. Right now what we have in tactics and lists isn't very useful, at least not from a veteran gamer's POV. I remember Dakka teaching me so much about what it takes to play well. Now, a new gamer wouldn't walk away with much useful information. They are actually highly likely to get very bad information. Something needs to change or we become Warseer with nothing but bad advice that does no one any good.

dienekes96 wrote:You know better than I do what it used to be like. If you were acting like a dumb ass, you got called on it. Now, any knucklehead can say what ever he or she likes, no matter how inane, and we can't say anything to help correct the situation.

Careful! Using the word 'inane' to describe a post can get you suspended for a whole week!!!

@Reecius, there are not two polarities only of debating style. It is possible to argue with people, and point out flaws in their arguments, without being rude.

For example, Polonius says he should be able to call out someone with a 0.5 record, who is posting crap advice about tactics.

"I notice you only have a 0.5 winning record. That does not support your claim that your tactics are very successful."

@Buzzsaw -- There is a lot in what you say. 40K by itself can't support a forum with lots of top quality content, fresh every day. Long term users mine out the available content, especially in areas like tactics, lists and background where we rely on the twice a year releases of new codexes to give things a shake up.

LunaHound wrote:

Ironhide wrote:Screw a probation period. Just make them watch all of the American Idol tryouts.

K but then i insist we ductape their eye lids

That's doable.

This thread is wonderfully indicative of the problems of internet forums.
16 pages and the really useful posts could be distilled down to much less than that.

It's the internet. We all chime in with opinions as I am doing now dammit

The useful stuff gets drowned in all the mini threads which develop their own sub plots as more members pile in to voice their opinion.

Good luck sorting it out.

Rather than stickies that no one reads, each OP could have a brief statement of posting guidelines. This wouldn't be necessary in all threads/forums but certainly in the ones discussed above.
It would be implicit that anyone posting in that thread is agreeing to keep within the guidelines.

just a thought.

This thread reminds me of a story from the Political field....
Supposedly, Rush Limbaugh would constantly go onj radio and tv and tell his listeners/veiwers what was wrong with the country. Following being elected to his second term, Bill Clinton offered Limbaugh a cabinet level position to help correct many of the issues Limbaugh spoke about.
Limbaugh turned it daon, allegedly saying that it wasn't what he did. His job, he explained, was to point out the wrongs and let some-one else correct them.

A lot of people want to complain about what they see as wrong, but when asked to help correct the issues simply say not.. its not MY place ....

I wonder how Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would have fared if they had the same attitude.....

helgrenze wrote:This thread reminds me of a story from the Political field....
Supposedly, Rush Limbaugh would constantly go onj radio and tv and tell his listeners/veiwers what was wrong with the country. Following being elected to his second term, Bill Clinton offered Limbaugh a cabinet level position to help correct many of the issues Limbaugh spoke about.
Limbaugh turned it daon, allegedly saying that it wasn't what he did. His job, he explained, was to point out the wrongs and let some-one else correct them.

Wow, if that's true, what an donkey-cave.

Of course, there's not nearly as much money in public service as there is in broadcasting though.

I've got an idea....

1. Post intelligently
2. be polite

If either 1 or 2 is beyond you... just don't post.

If anyone recognized problem posters...report them.

If someone is wrong..try to convince them.

Most of the problems people are complaining about are really nothing new.

Fix the problems by not being the problems.

Simple.

ender502

The thing is that isn't of itself working now.
It is unlikely to change with an increasingb population.

Not disagreeing Enders, in fact I have already said the same. We need to start with self moderation.

Mods have been saying it on the forums.
but it needs some way of ensuring that message gets across because people aren't listening and we often just jump into a thread repeating what has already been said

Hands Hoc I do it myself

@Kilkrazy
I fully understand this and these are the rules that we go by in real life.

But, how do you propose that we implement change on the net? There are different rules that govern social interaction on the internet.

How do you think we can self moderate out the crap so that we can focus on the good information? I am all ears.

I am an amicable person in real life. Ask any of the many, many Dakkites I have met. It's just that here, if we are to provide any kind of useful resource, there needs to be a filtering system in certain areas. If you know of a way to do this while still being nice to everyone, let's hear it. That would be the best of all solutions. I just don't think there is a way, although I could be wrong.

Anyway you look at it, people's feelings may get hurt on this.

However, the ones who's feelings are going to be hurt are the ones that need to get em hurt.

The Spammers,
The Resident Trolls,
The All Around Idiots,

ect ect ect.

The hammer needs to fall and something needs to be done, or you are going to loose even more quality posters then what you already have/are.

Reecius wrote:@Kilkrazy
I fully understand this and these are the rules that we go by in real life.

But, how do you propose that we implement change on the net? There are different rules that govern social interaction on the internet.

How do you think we can self moderate out the crap so that we can focus on the good information? I am all ears.

I am an amicable person in real life. Ask any of the many, many Dakkites I have met. It's just that here, if we are to provide any kind of useful resource, there needs to be a filtering system in certain areas. If you know of a way to do this while still being nice to everyone, let's hear it. That would be the best of all solutions. I just don't think there is a way, although I could be wrong.

I haven't actually advocated self moderation, though it is a good thing to do.

We aren't talking about the whole internet here, only one forum. We suffer leakage from other forums (e.g. Spess Mahreens, and 4Chan) but we are not helpless.

No-one can change the behaviour of other forum members by force. It can only be done by example and persuasion. (The persuasion may involve some moderator action.)

As you understand there is a middle ground between the two poles, you could join in that middle ground.

Ah yeah, I meant here on Dakka, no the net in general.

I would just like to avoid seeing a Warseer atmosphere where all there is is noise. I am sure we can find a way to at least aim things in the right direction.

helgrenze wrote:This thread reminds me of a story from the Political field....
Supposedly, Rush Limbaugh would constantly go onj radio and tv and tell his listeners/veiwers what was wrong with the country. Following being elected to his second term, Bill Clinton offered Limbaugh a cabinet level position to help correct many of the issues Limbaugh spoke about.
Limbaugh turned it daon, allegedly saying that it wasn't what he did. His job, he explained, was to point out the wrongs and let some-one else correct them.

A lot of people want to complain about what they see as wrong, but when asked to help correct the issues simply say not.. its not MY place ....

I wonder how Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would have fared if they had the same attitude.....

Not at all. I started this mess. I complained about the mess. I've offered to clean it up. =p

I don't care who does it, as long as it gets done. If I need to do it myself, I will - I just don't have the power to do so. My tag says [DCM] not [MOD].

The "ignore" button might be our answer, as others have mentioned before. Information-hiding is a vital skill for sorting the wheat from the chaff. Using ignore liberally effectively creates a personalized filter. Go to the forums, specifically look for crap posts, and ignore the terrible posters. Tactics blowhards sans real experience, +1 commenters, etc. It might accidentally filter out some good stuff, but that's the glory of living in the age of information glut: there's always other good stuff to read. It still might be a bit too 1/0, though. People do mature, post differing quality, etc. Hmmm, more thought required.

In fact, I think I'll start doing that today as an experiment.

Here's something I do wonder about, though: if you're looking for specific info (like DE release dates) and you perform a search, will the search return still show posts from folks you've ignored? That'd be convenient.

So extensive ignore-buttoning is still a chore, requiring reading/evaluation of crap posts and innumerable judgment calls. If the ignore approach works, the next logical step would be for someone with a trusted opinion to curate such a list for others and share it via some back channel. Sure, that's elitist. Whatever.

Come to think of it, perhaps one could incorporate some sort of voting function into an ignore list. If someone gets enough "ignore this twit" votes, they make it onto the ban list. Set a threshhold that should exclude personal vendettas- say 10. Or better yet, let users set their own thresholds- "View all posters with less than 20 ignores", or less than 5, or whatever. As mentioned above, what's missing would be a mechanism for examining ignored users' material to find signs of them bettering their quality, and then unbanning them (un-consigning them from Outer Darkness, as it were).


Another, totally separate idea: a higher-class forum that required one to perform some minor work to earn entry, say writing a few articles. _If_ those articles are rated as well-written by enough other forum members (say, a net result of 5 with negatives working against you), you get entry. Repeatedly posting dumb stuff gets you banned, but should be set high enough to excuse the occasional drunken rant


Just tossing out some ideas here...

I've been feeling for a while that I should make an effort to contribute something more to this site. I think that's the way forward for people who want to improve things. My problem is I'm only a passable painter, a middling tactician, and I'm not interested in the background enough to make serious contributions.
I was thinking of posting some Dark Heresy and D'n'D campaign resources or something, since it's something I'm good at. *shrug*
Overall I think the forum is pretty good though. People always whinge about online fora.
I will echo people's comments about 40K tactics though. It sucks hard. I don't know if it's moderation or what, but some of the ork advice I see in there is simply awful. WFB tactics is pretty solid, and you get some really nice discussions in there. Probably because of the smaller population. Dunno how we could tackle the tactics problem- it did result in me giving up on that forum.

Kilkrazy wrote:@Reecius, there are not two polarities only of debating style. It is possible to argue with people, and point out flaws in their arguments, without being rude.

For example, Polonius says he should be able to call out someone with a 0.5 record, who is posting crap advice about tactics.

"I notice you only have a 0.5 winning record. That does not support your claim that your tactics are very successful."

Sure, people can use whatever silly means of ascertaining truth that they want and shout it as loud as they can. How it pertains to the conversation at hand is twofold:

- Should we have mods be "idea police" who make sure that only "correct" opinions are expressed so that dakka only has "good" advice? I think this idea is as bad as it is dangerous to the health of the community. Several people here have expressed opinions that ultimately boil down to the only way to decrease trash is to get the mods to force everyone to believe what they do.

- At what point is it okay for a person to post comments that are nothing but derisive and don't have any other contribution to the discussion. Should it be allowed whenever any given poster thinks it's the most appropriate action at the time? Is it never acceptable? Who decides and how should decisions be enforced? When is it considered acceptable to give up in a discussion and just start name calling?

Da Boss wrote:WFB tactics is pretty solid, and you get some really nice discussions in there.

I agree Another reason for you all to switch to fantasy already!

Well, there's one thing that I have noticed about the site pertaining to mods.

It isn't about speed, because usually when I hit the yellow button a mod is there pretty quickly. And it isn't that the level of moderation is poor or anything like that, it's just that sometimes I wish that mods could be a little more direct.

Hypothetical situation here.

Poster A: posts something, anything really.
Poster B: responds
Poster A: responds back
Poster B: gets frustrated and posts a flame baiting or outright trolling response. (someone hits the panic button here)
MOD: "Hey guys let's not insult other posters."

Poster A then thinks to themselves, "Hmmmm, was I being out of line? I don't know if I really wanna post anymore because it appears that what I find acceptable is bad."

Poster B thinks to themselves, "Yeah! That'll show that jerkface Poster A."

Poster C, G, and L think to themselves, "Hmmmm, I'm not 100% sure who the mod was referring to, I'm now a little less clear on what is and is not acceptable to post."

Whereas if MOD said something along the lines of "Poster B, that sort of post isn't acceptable on this forum as it's likely to start a flame war and derail the thread, please be more polite when posting."

It could just be something that I have trouble with, but when I see mods post a somewhat ambiguous warning in the thread it often confuses me which post or posts were unacceptable.

That, and I wouldn't want to be Poster A, and I definitely wouldn't want to be Poster B.

Another thing that I thought about after reading this thread was about the user rep thing, while being much better than the post count system, still has some problems. One of those being a sort of "Home field advantage."

Let's use another hypothetical example.

Poster A is a long time member of the community and typically posts good information and has accumulated a lot of this rep.

Poster Zed is a new poster, but has been playing the game for some time and is a good tactician.

Poster A posts a new tactic that they thought of, but it isn't exactly optimal.

Poster Zed replies and points out some flaws in the tactic.

They both present decent arguments, but it seems that everyone's dumping on Poster Zed because Poster A is a more reputable source.

Posters P, Q, and D are newer players and trying to learn new tactics. They see this debate going down in the forum, and both posters have some good points, but Poster A has a lot more rep that Poster Zed, which seals the deal for them.

Too many ego's on dakka

There can be only one.

@AIlaros

The point is not the spat between you two, it's that there needs to be some semblance of structure.

For example, you don't go to a classroom and just spout whatever thing comes to mind. You raise your hand and ask an intelligent answer and in turn receive an intelligent answer.

By imposing, or at least encouraging, a systematic and structured system to guide the asking and answering of questions we will have a much better system.

Dashofpepper wrote:

helgrenze wrote:This thread reminds me of a story from the Political field....
Supposedly, Rush Limbaugh would constantly go onj radio and tv and tell his listeners/veiwers what was wrong with the country. Following being elected to his second term, Bill Clinton offered Limbaugh a cabinet level position to help correct many of the issues Limbaugh spoke about.
Limbaugh turned it daon, allegedly saying that it wasn't what he did. His job, he explained, was to point out the wrongs and let some-one else correct them.

A lot of people want to complain about what they see as wrong, but when asked to help correct the issues simply say not.. its not MY place ....

I wonder how Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would have fared if they had the same attitude.....

Not at all. I started this mess. I complained about the mess. I've offered to clean it up. =p

I don't care who does it, as long as it gets done. If I need to do it myself, I will - I just don't have the power to do so. My tag says [DCM] not [MOD].

And I hope your tag never does say [MOD].

Ironhide wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:

helgrenze wrote:This thread reminds me of a story from the Political field....
Supposedly, Rush Limbaugh would constantly go onj radio and tv and tell his listeners/veiwers what was wrong with the country. Following being elected to his second term, Bill Clinton offered Limbaugh a cabinet level position to help correct many of the issues Limbaugh spoke about.
Limbaugh turned it daon, allegedly saying that it wasn't what he did. His job, he explained, was to point out the wrongs and let some-one else correct them.

A lot of people want to complain about what they see as wrong, but when asked to help correct the issues simply say not.. its not MY place ....

I wonder how Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin would have fared if they had the same attitude.....

Not at all. I started this mess. I complained about the mess. I've offered to clean it up. =p

I don't care who does it, as long as it gets done. If I need to do it myself, I will - I just don't have the power to do so. My tag says [DCM] not [MOD].

And I hope your tag never does say [MOD].

Indeed; then personal attacks would *really* get cracked down on. Oh noes!

This thread seems to have yielded the maximum possible amount of useful ideas. As it is now starting to spiral, I shall close it.

Thank you to all who contributed.