For a while, it's been a trend to not give the specific names of people in Warhammer rulebooks of various kinds. Personally, I think that this is quite unfair. Do you all think we would go back to crediting specific people in these publications instead of just 'The Warhammer Studio'?
beast_gts wrote: No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.
I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.
beast_gts wrote: No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.
I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.
It can be both. In fact, it's almost certainly both.
Don't forget that VERY RECENTLY that dude that was doing warhammer fan animations quit 40k entirely because of the death threats he got from the 40k community after that whole debacle.
Yeah this policy came in hot off the back of codex writers getting death threats, which was all very public.
I'd remind people that this is the 3rd known about time its happened
1) Against at least more than one codex writer
2) Against writers for the Warhammer Childrens books
3) Against the fan animator, who got them when they were approached by GW to work with GW. They'd not even had time to get into any agreement before they were attacked.
It's a horrible side to the community online with Warhammer. It's thankfully/hopefully a TINY number of people. But it is there and it does hurt those who create stuff that the rest of us enjoy and engage with.
beast_gts wrote: No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.
I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.
It can be both. In fact, it's almost certainly both.
Don't forget that VERY RECENTLY that dude that was doing warhammer fan animations quit 40k entirely because of the death threats he got from the 40k community after that whole debacle.
I believe that's a half truth, at most. Death threats can be reported and taken seriously.
If there were some sorta legitimacy to it, at minimum one person would've been called out on it and we'd know. In the age of the internet, that info doesn't stay hidden.
I think it's just mostly that the writers don't like being called out for being gakky at their job and that animation dude didn't like bring called a sell out (which we all saw compared to all these death threats)
Overread wrote: It's a horrible side to the community online with Warhammer. It's thankfully/hopefully a TINY number of people. But it is there and it does hurt those who create stuff that the rest of us enjoy and engage with.
Yep - go have a look at the current "black Ultramarine" social media rage if you have any doubts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: If there were some sorta legitimacy to it, at minimum one person would've been called out on it and we'd know. In the age of the internet, that info doesn't stay hidden.
It's out there if you can be bothered having a look. For example:
Gert wrote:This thread needs to be locked before people come in here saying it's a good thing that GW writers get death threats. I give it a day at best.
Gert wrote: This thread needs to be locked before people come in here saying it's a good thing that GW writers get death threats. I give it a day at best.
I for one would like to know who was personaly responsible for writing the Grey Knight 8th ed rules, and what projects did they write before that book.
I cannot say I know of any specifically tabletop designers being injured, however...
Death threats and doxxing and gak like that should not be taken lightly, at all. It happens unfortunately often with people like Twitch Streamers, where people will stalk them to try and find out where they live, then call in a bomb threat or a hostage situation to local PD on that address, causing SWAT units to have to respond to any potential occurance. And these things can very easily become fatal for the streamer.
beast_gts wrote: No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.
I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.
It can be both. In fact, it's almost certainly both.
Don't forget that VERY RECENTLY that dude that was doing warhammer fan animations quit 40k entirely because of the death threats he got from the 40k community after that whole debacle.
I believe that's a half truth, at most. Death threats can be reported and taken seriously. If there were some sorta legitimacy to it, at minimum one person would've been called out on it and we'd know. In the age of the internet, that info doesn't stay hidden.
I think it's just mostly that the writers don't like being called out for being gakky at their job and that animation dude didn't like bring called a sell out (which we all saw compared to all these death threats)
The dude got death threats. The writers got death threats back in the day. They were all over the place. This is a weird denial-ism hill to die on when a lot of us were in the community at that time and half of every comment in this thread is like 'oh man, yeah; I remember the death threats. Man, that was rough.'
Also, 'can be reported and taken seriously' does NOT mean 'are reported and taken seriously'. Especially when you're getting hundreds of them at once.
People have been cyber-bullied to the point of suicide MULTIPLE times with none of the perpetrators ever even being charged. Random online death threats will rarely raise an eyebrow unless they're against a major political figure. Or there's significant evidence they represent a genuine, imminent threat. The idea that there couldn't have been death threats because there wasn't a major investigation is naive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thadin wrote: I cannot say I know of any specifically tabletop designers being injured, however...
Death threats and doxxing and gak like that should not be taken lightly, at all. It happens unfortunately often with people like Twitch Streamers, where people will stalk them to try and find out where they live, then call in a bomb threat or a hostage situation to local PD on that address, causing SWAT units to have to respond to any potential occurance. And these things can very easily become fatal for the streamer.
Or a random father of 3 at a house totally unrelated to anything that was going on because the streamer gave a false address and the swatter sent the cops to some random guy's house. As happened in the fatal shooting of Justin Finch in 2017. Also, just because it irritates me , the cop who actually pulled the trigger on him was never charged. He lasted 6 seconds from the moment he opened his front door.
Alternate conspiracy theory (I have no evidence for this): We've had this leak that GW pays their writers peanuts, and if any of their writers got credited and we knew who they were they might start to develop fans, and if they complained about their salary and quit the fans might get angry.
ERJAK wrote: Random online death threats will rarely raise an eyebrow unless they're against a major political figure. Or there's significant evidence they represent a genuine, imminent threat.
Because a teenager sending an angry email has no teeth to it. Swatting and doxxing are serious issues, but death threats alone are the background radiation of the Internet. Not saying it's acceptable, but there's a big difference between credible, serious threats and people just being donkey-caves behind the protection of anonymity.
I have zero doubt that GW's writers received death threats; if you do anything remotely controversial on the Internet you'll get them. But receiving threats credible enough to warrant taking their names off of all the codices is another matter; if there were fans out there looking to hurt those at GW responsible for negative changes, you'd think Jack Kirby would need a personal protective detail, and folks like Hewitt wouldn't be so candid about what they worked on (in his own words, he helped kill WHFB- talk about painting a target on your back). Alternative explanations like corporate wanting to present their products as a team effort, discouraging 'stars' (see: Chambers, Cavatore, and Priestley who went on to other projects), or just plain avoiding the morale drop that comes from seeing your name cursed by fans of the property you work on, all seem more likely to me.
But this is rampant speculation and we'll probably never know one way or the other.
As someone who has appeared in the credits of numerous 40kRPG books, can I say that I quite like having my name in there.
In fact, the one time FFG forgot to include me (The Lathe Worlds) they were massively apologetic about it and sent me two free copies, all signed by the folks in the studio, and a nice letter to go with it.
Because a teenager sending an angry email has no teeth to it. Swatting and doxxing are serious issues, but death threats alone are the background radiation of the Internet. Not saying it's acceptable, but there's a big difference between credible, serious threats and people just being donkey-caves behind the protection of anonymity.
Well I do sports, and sports mean that betting is involved. Online as it is mostly illegal to bet on stuff in Poland or extremly complicated. One of the first lessons we get from our trainers is that first ignore what other people from other school write or claim they will do and second imidiatly inform teachers and trainers, if someone involved in betting starts telling you that they will beat you up etc. One is stupid and illegal, the other is mob style groups. Both things are not the same thing.
It's happened multiple times in the past, recently IIRC.
Except that is not what happened in that thread you are referencing and you know it. YOU decided to tar the whole community with the same brush and those of us that quite rightfully defended ourselves from this sweeping accusaation were apparently now supporting giving out death threats. But you do you, keep forging your own narrative there mate...
I mean there were users who said that death threats were fine because its just one of those Internet things and there were others who very much said that GW writers deserved to be sent death threats.
Its not like this never happens. Every few months someone asks "why no credit", they get told its because people sent death threats to GW employees, others deny it, evidence is provided, then the others say its either not a problem to do a crime or its a good thing because "it holds GW writers to account".
There is a difference though between someone saying I kill you and doing it, and people saying the same online and there never been an example of it ever happening. One is an actual threat, and if it happens to you too, you do have be extremly worried. The other is like event talk. If everyone called when anyone else says they will seriously injure you in sports, most of the contenders in events where there is no TV would have problem with the law sooner or later. oddly enough, more often in sports that aren't combat orianted.
As far as online "death threats" goes sooner or later everyone gets them, and the more public you are the more often it happen. And again it is a question of how serious something is. I wouldn't want to have an event ,of any sports right now, that has both ukrainians and chechens in it. While getting a threat from Grzegorz Brzenczyszczykiewicz, born in 2005, that he will no scope me for a how bad, or good, a codex is, probably isn't.
Overread wrote: It's a horrible side to the community online with Warhammer. It's thankfully/hopefully a TINY number of people. But it is there and it does hurt those who create stuff that the rest of us enjoy and engage with.
Yep - go have a look at the current "black Ultramarine" social media rage if you have any doubts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EviscerationPlague wrote: If there were some sorta legitimacy to it, at minimum one person would've been called out on it and we'd know. In the age of the internet, that info doesn't stay hidden.
It's out there if you can be bothered having a look. For example:
It's a combination of two factors we know for certain, and a possible third:
1) the death threats being tossed at writers by insane people with an addiction to being online
2) wanting to avoid obvious favoritism accusations which, because the internet is a hell-scape, often feeds into the first
3) harder to demand GW pays their staff more if we don't know who they are.
That doesn't sound like a death threat. A death threat is something that goes "Because you lost of money for bets in the regionals, we are going to break your leg" a real threat when it comes from any specific group to have been know to be violent in the past. When "Misiek" who threw a knife, that stabbed Dino Baggio in the head, durning a Wislaarma football match 23+ years ago, says he will kill you. You know he means it and you will not be suprised that he is also the head of the Sharks hooligan clan, which was so succeful from its dealing that it bought the club they were fans of.
AdmiralRon wrote: It's a combination of two factors we know for certain, and a possible third:
1) the death threats being tossed at writers by insane people with an addiction to being online
2) wanting to avoid obvious favoritism accusations which, because the internet is a hell-scape, often feeds into the first
3) harder to demand GW pays their staff more if we don't know who they are.
Number 3 doesn't really make much sense honestly. If you are outraged by pay it doesn't really matter WHO is getting the pay, the key aspect is what the pay is. And we had an article that did seem to show a few weeks ago that GW's pay for rules writing is potentially very low, or at least lower than many would expect. Of course this can be compounded by the fact that rules writing might be pay given to staff alongside other pay for other duties. So it might appear artificially lower because the staff are also doing other jobs and getting pay for them as well. But in general I don't really see that it had any impact beyond some chatter and the world moving on fairly quickly.
I suspect it has little to do with any of that and more about the general corporate ethos. We know from the info about how underpaid GW rules writers are that not only are they underpaid, they are also expected to develop products for the company on their own time as well. And that generally there is an overriding ethos that runs through the whole company that the company always comes first, second and third.
People quote the death threats as the reason the crediting stopped but really I suspect it was something GW was more than happy to do generally as it transitioned from a collection of big personalities working together in a basement to a multinational brand.
Karol wrote: There is a difference though between someone saying I kill you and doing it, and people saying the same online and there never been an example of it ever happening.
There is a mountain of examples of threats being followed through on. Just because the person threatened doesn't actually die doesn't mean nothing happened. Sane, rational people don't make death threats over a rules book for a miniatures game. They just don't. So the person issuing the threat is demonstrably suffering some degree of mental illness, has a high degree of aggression towards the target, and lives in an age where someone's full name is often enough information to find their address.
So now this author is going about their lives, wondering if that person driving behind them the past few minutes just happens to be going the same direction or is a psychopath intending to attack them. And they don't know. Because yeah, maybe 99.9% of death threats have no follow up, but even a 0.1% chance of someone trying to harm you over a rulebook for a miniatures game is utterly abhorrent.
AnomanderRake wrote: Alternate conspiracy theory (I have no evidence for this): We've had this leak that GW pays their writers peanuts, and if any of their writers got credited and we knew who they were they might start to develop fans, and if they complained about their salary and quit the fans might get angry.
Not to deny the seriousness of threats and harassment, Gav Thorpe and Matt Ward got a lot of hate on the boards, but I think there may be a lot to this.
I seem to remember after Andy Chambers left hearing that GW had a policy of not crediting creators lest they get too big for their breeches.
I was told that no table top game designer was ever killed for writing a book someone did not like. So the threat doesn't seem to be real, even when the 0.1% is included in to it.
I mean if it was the way you say, then people living in less fun places or near bad neighbours would go insane, because the threat is more real then threats on the internet and much higher then 1%.
Karol wrote: I was told that no table top game designer was ever killed for writing a book someone did not like. So the threat doesn't seem to be real, even when the 0.1% is included in to it.
Then you have entirely misunderstood the reason people send death threats and also why they are serious.
Death threats are used as a form of harassment. It doesn't matter if they are acted on or not because the recipient (in this case writers) has no idea if the threat is legitimate or not and that is entirely the point.
For this specific discussion, the people we are discussing have one big thing that you and I don't have, a publicly stated place of work. These writers were working at GWHQ in Nottingham and from there all a person has to do is wait around to see if that writer leaves the building and goes home. From there they can very easily follow that person to where they live. At that point, they have the name, work address, and home address of that writer making them a credible threat to that writer. Hell, they don't even need to follow them home, they can just wait outside their place of work and attack them there. Even without that it can take a smart person no time at all to use the Internet to track where you live, where you work, where you frequently visit or who is closest to you.
As soon as the writer receives this threat they are now on alert everywhere they go. Is that car behind you following you? Is that person looking a bit too closely at you in the street? Could you walk into Warhammer World and walk straight into the person who just threatened to kill you? At that point, entirely justified paranoia sets in, and the writer can become afraid to even leave their house. THAT is the reason people send death threats, to force the recipient to lose their entire life to fear.
I mean if it was the way you say, then people living in less fun places or near bad neighbours would go insane, because the threat is more real then threats on the internet and much higher then 1%.
It is like that.
There are times when you need to stop talking and listen to people who know what they're on about/have experience. You've made it clear you live a very isolated life with no wider life experience, you would do well to listen to those who know more than you.
Karol wrote: I was told that no table top game designer was ever killed for writing a book someone did not like. So the threat doesn't seem to be real, even when the 0.1% is included in to it.
I mean if it was the way you say, then people living in less fun places or near bad neighbours would go insane, because the threat is more real then threats on the internet and much higher then 1%.
By your logic if an author is attacked, mutilated, and paralyzed but does not die, there is no threat.
As for the second point, yes, they can and do. Are you really this naive on the topic?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Insectum7 wrote: I'll say it again, if my project gets to the point where I'm getting death threats, I'll frame the first one.
Well that's nice, we'll just tell people receiving death threats to frame them and they'll be OK.
NinthMusketeer wrote: As for the second point, yes, they can and do. Are you really this naive on the topic?
Something Karol only made clear prior to their period of absence was that they were in fact a teenager. Combine that with their life in rural Poland and ignorance doesn't seem so far-fetched. The confidence of a young person and the relatively sheltered life of someone who doesn't live in a major population centre is what we are seeing here. It would be the same if Karol was from middle of nowhere Iowa or the Orkney Islands off Scotland.
Sorry, but I remain totally unconvinced that "Matt Ward got death threats!" is the reason why GW stopped crediting their rules writers (or that it is even a valid reason to stop crediting writers).
1. They're still front and centre in White Dwarf, making no bones their identities. They put their pictures in White Dwarf, and tell you exactly who they are and what they do. 2. Somehow the Black Library is immune to this phenomena, so they get credited as normal?
I mean, Matt Ward just announced that he's on the writing team for Dark Tide. If he was endlessly afraid of the "totally serious" death threats, wouldn't he be forever in hiding, operating under a pseudonym? No. Of course not. Because death threats are like saying 'hello' on the Internet - a hollow meaningless gesture of impotent rage expressed in an idiotic manner (sound and fury, signifying nothing, if you will).
I think back to sites like Gamespot and IGN, where their reviewers would death threats for giving a game a bad review. Hell, sometimes they'd get death threats for giving a game a good review; that's how pathetic some people can be. They still put their names up there, their pictures, and continue to post reviews week after week.
So again, I'll just restate the simple truth of it:
Let the author choose if they want to be credited or not.
Anyways, I suspect the various books are not the sole creation of one person. Sure, someone's got to write it all down but I would hope that the results of collaboration, input and oversight from the whole design team to some degree.
Stormonu wrote: Let the author choose if they want to be credited or not.
That seems perfectly reasonable.
Stormonu wrote: Anyways, I suspect the various books are not the sole creation of one person. Sure, someone's got to write it all down but I would hope that the results of collaboration, input and oversight from the whole design team to some degree.
No doubt. Every FFG book I worked on had a team of writers, sometimes 2-3, sometimes as many as 8 or 9 for the larger books (plus the editor). Everyone had their sections to write, and we'd give feedback on what everyone else was working on.
Dai wrote: This is all starting to get very "ethics in game journalism, honest guv"
NinthMusketeer wrote: By your logic if an author is attacked, mutilated, and paralyzed but does not die, there is no threat.
As for the second point, yes, they can and do. Are you really this naive on the topic?
.
From what I understand the number of attacked, mutilated and paralyzed table top designers is also equal to zero. I spent a few hours trying to find at least one example of one getting hurt. To me this looks a bit like what TV or politicians do. Where they force laws where if you say that X should Y, you get a fine, get removed from social media and in case of politicians you also can end up in jail. And they only enforce it for their own people, so if opposition or outside companies get treated the same way, there is zero reaction and suddenly you get told about freedom of speach by a dude who sent horse police 6 weeks prior against a demonstration of mostly women. Again I understand if the industry really had problems with violance, if they were groups willing to travel and beat up, or worse, designers . I know, from sports, that when some people say that they will kill you, that the threat is extremly real. With table top games it doesn't seem to be the case. Unless there are some extremist groups in western table top gaming that have not popped out in any arguments in my history of the hobby since the start of 8th ed.
Karol wrote: From what I understand the number of attacked, mutilated and paralyzed table top designers is also equal to zero. I spent a few hours trying to find at least one example of one getting hurt. To me this looks a bit like what TV or politicians do. Where they force laws where if you say that X should Y, you get a fine, get removed from social media and in case of politicians you also can end up in jail. And they only enforce it for their own people, so if opposition or outside companies get treated the same way, there is zero reaction and suddenly you get told about freedom of speach by a dude who sent horse police 6 weeks prior against a demonstration of mostly women. Again I understand if the industry really had problems with violance, if they were groups willing to travel and beat up, or worse, designers . I know, from sports, that when some people say that they will kill you, that the threat is extremly real. With table top games it doesn't seem to be the case. Unless there are some extremist groups in western table top gaming that have not popped out in any arguments in my history of the hobby since the start of 8th ed.
And you are still missing the point.
How about you stop and actually read some of the replies people have posted in this thread instead of assuming you know more about the subject because you go to a rough school.
It's "funny" because there's a big difference between some neckbeard sending a "death threat" on the internet and actually physically attacking someone.
Insectum7 wrote: I'll say it again, if my project gets to the point where I'm getting death threats, I'll frame the first one.
Well that's nice, we'll just tell people receiving death threats to frame them and they'll be OK.
People are free to deal with the price of fame or notoriety however they wish, but to expect that negative attention won't occur is totally naive.
I have seen this attitude before, even among people receiving such threats. But never among those who have actually been attacked. Funny, that.
Define "attacked". I've had a bunch of death threats in my time on the internet and I'm a nobody. I literally got one today because I said my first playthrough of Elden Ring was a Bleed build right up until the final boss which I had to respec for. They're nothing but comments from edgibois trying to act hard on the internet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Sorry, but I remain totally unconvinced that "Matt Ward got death threats!" is the reason why GW stopped crediting their rules writers (or that it is even a valid reason to stop crediting writers).
And to be clear, it may not be. I don't think anyone is arguing that we know for sure that was the reason, only that death threats are a serious problem and not something to just be brushed off like nothing. Even assuming this WAS the reason, no one is saying that GWs response was the best approach (I certainly don't think so).
1. They're still front and centre in White Dwarf, making no bones their identities. They put their pictures in White Dwarf, and tell you exactly who they are and what they do.
2. Somehow the Black Library is immune to this phenomena, so they get credited as normal?
There is a huge difference between 'this person writes for army books' and 'this person wrote the rules for THIS army book'. The former is unspecific so people freaking out over a certain thing can't pin their hate to a certain person.
I mean, Matt Ward just announced that he's on the writing team for Dark Tide. If he was endlessly afraid of the "totally serious" death threats, wouldn't he be forever in hiding, operating under a pseudonym? No. Of course not. Because death threats are like saying 'hello' on the Internet - a hollow meaningless gesture of impotent rage expressed in an idiotic manner (sound and fury, signifying nothing, if you will).
Maybe it is like that in Australia, but in other parts of the world that is very much not the case. Yes, the overwhelming majority of threats aren't followed through on, but some are and the people receiving them don't know if they got a 'hollow' one or a credible one. Except they aren't hollow, because the very fact that they might not be creates entirely legitimate fear, and quite often the people making the threats know that.
You should credit writers/artists for their work.
Not one person anywhere in the thread has contested that. Further, you just said above that they are credited in White Dwarf, so either this sentiment is invalid or that one is, because they are mutually exclusive.
And really, to those who feel death threats aren't a big deal, that they can just be brushed off, I call bs. Send me the screenshots of the threats you've received, then I'll buy it.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Send me the screenshots of the threats you've received, then I'll buy it.
You want screenshots of my Warthunder chat logs or what?
Sorry, I haven't saved any. I laughed and moved on, didn't even bother blocking them because they weren't worth the effort.
kirotheavenger wrote: You want screenshots of my Warthunder chat logs or what?
Sorry, I haven't saved any. I laughed and moved on, didn't even bother blocking them because they weren't worth the effort.
The Warthunder randos didn't know your full name or place of work though, did they? That's something people keep glossing over. I would argue that makes it a pretty big deal.
And you are still missing the point.
How about you stop and actually read some of the replies people have posted in this thread instead of assuming you know more about the subject because you go to a rough school.
I litterally got banned in that thread for racism in that thread, because I said that there are two mob organisations in my country, who are involved in betting, and who we are warned by our school to be warry of, if they contact you in any way. So I do know more or less know that people were writing in the last thread. What I am saying is that if you are Salman Rushdie and you get told you will be killed for your book, it has a bit different weight then someone saying the GWHQ should go up in flames for not giving Lumineth Lords cavalery bows. One is related to real danger and real threat, the other one isn't. And acting if it was, and on top of that saying that all criticism can be debunked, by saying , I got death threats, is just stupid. I would get it, if there were historically designers killed or beaten up for writing books fans didn't like . As someone before said it, this did happen to people in other industries, and as I said it is a horrible thing. But what can not act, if the impossible was possible. Specially as it seems to be used for deluding responsibility of specific game choices.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
NinthMusketeer wrote: I have seen this attitude before, even among people receiving such threats. But never among those who have actually been attacked. Funny, that.
Okey, but if no table top game designers was ever attacked, then it is a bit like being worried that an orca or sperm whale is going to get you, while you swim in the Baltic, because at some point in the past there were reported sightings of those, and in the past both of those animals did attack humans.
I disagree. If I get a bunch of death threats and people know my full name and where I work, then I would be well within my rights to feel in danger. Which again is the point. It really doesn't matter if the death threats were acted on in this specific instance because we know what happened, Matt Ward stopped writing for GW and disappeared for years to the point where he popped back up again in like 2018/19 and people were surprised that he came back to GW. The people that sent those threats got rid of the person they hated for a good amount of time so the threats worked.
what exactly is the point you're trying to make? That death threats to writers arent "real enough"? A threat is a threat, they should never be dismissed.
You don't know if the person making the threat is unhinged and will act on it or now. Add Doxxing to this and then it means the author needs to always keep an eye behind them.
Karol wrote: I litterally got banned in that thread for racism in that thread, because I said that there are two mob organisations in my country, who are involved in betting, and who we are warned by our school to be warry of, if they contact you in any way. So I do know more or less know that people were writing in the last thread. What I am saying is that if you are Salman Rushdie and you get told you will be killed for your book, it has a bit different weight then someone saying the GWHQ should go up in flames for not giving Lumineth Lords cavalery bows. One is related to real danger and real threat, the other one isn't. And acting if it was, and on top of that saying that all criticism can be debunked, by saying , I got death threats, is just stupid. I would get it, if there were historically designers killed or beaten up for writing books fans didn't like . As someone before said it, this did happen to people in other industries, and as I said it is a horrible thing. But what can not act, if the impossible was possible. Specially as it seems to be used for deluding responsibility of specific game choices.
And yet you still aren't understanding what is being said. A death threat does not have to be acted upon to be considered a problem because it is a criminal offence to send a death threat in the first place. Death threats are used to coerce the recipient into committing acts that the sender wants and all the sender needs to do to make that threat feel real is put the slightest amount of pressure, say for example waiting for the recipient outside their publicly known place of work and take a photo of them leaving. Matt Ward got death threats and disappeared from GW and public life altogether, the threats worked. That he came back to GW after the fact shows that he has more spine than the scum who tried to get rid of him.
Okey, but if no table top game designers was ever attacked, then it is a bit like being worried that an orca or sperm whale is going to get you, while you swim in the Baltic, because at some point in the past there were reported sightings of those, and in the past both of those animals did attack humans.
There's this magical thing that people do called "fear" and it tends to not give two figs what facts or logic do.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And to be clear, it may not be. I don't think anyone is arguing that we know for sure that was the reason, only that death threats are a serious problem and not something to just be brushed off like nothing. Even assuming this WAS the reason, no one is saying that GWs response was the best approach (I certainly don't think so).
And I think it's a certain someone using this entire tangent as a distraction to get away from the main topic and tar the community as a whole with one hell of a brush. And not for the first time, I might add.
NinthMusketeer wrote: There is a huge difference between 'this person writes for army books' and 'this person wrote the rules for THIS army book'. The former is unspecific so people freaking out over a certain thing can't pin their hate to a certain person.
And, what, throw their hate out indiscriminately instead?
NinthMusketeer wrote: Maybe it is like that in Australia, but in other parts of the world that is very much not the case. Yes, the overwhelming majority of threats aren't followed through on, but some are and the people receiving them don't know if they got a 'hollow' one or a credible one. Except they aren't hollow, because the very fact that they might not be creates entirely legitimate fear, and quite often the people making the threats know that.
Death threats are death threats wherever they are. It's not different in Australia, but we seem to be forgetting that this is The Internet, and the Internet makes people do dumb things and say dumb things that they'd never actually say in real life. The signal-to-noise ratio is astronomical, and, I'm sorry, not a good enough reason to not credit writers for their work.
These aren't people getting fatwas declared against them by government bodies. These are anonymous nobodies screaming in chat rooms, and trolls who do it specifically for the reaction. This gak was solved years ago.
Not in as many words, no, but no one's supporting it either.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Further, you just said above that they are credited in White Dwarf, so either this sentiment is invalid or that one is, because they are mutually exclusive.
My point about WD was that they're fine to do it there, but somehow not fine to do it in Codices/Army Books, meaning I doubt it has anything to do with "death threats" and more an internal policy to do with not creating personalities within the company.
NinthMusketeer wrote: And really, to those who feel death threats aren't a big deal, that they can just be brushed off, I call bs. Send me the screenshots of the threats you've received, then I'll buy it.
Gert wrote: Matt Ward stopped writing for GW and disappeared for years to the point where he popped back up again in like 2018/19 and people were surprised that he came back to GW. The people that sent those threats got rid of the person they hated for a good amount of time so the threats worked.
How do you know he left because of death threats explicitly instead of leaving because people really disliked what he was writing. While related, these are still two different things.
Gert wrote: Matt Ward stopped writing for GW and disappeared for years to the point where he popped back up again in like 2018/19 and people were surprised that he came back to GW. The people that sent those threats got rid of the person they hated for a good amount of time so the threats worked.
How do you know he left because of death threats explicitly instead of leaving because people really disliked what he was writing. While related, these are still two different things.
They had him write The End Times and an amount of Dark Imperium/8th soft reboot fluff so I doubt he's scared of fan reactions.
The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.
Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
ArcaneHorror wrote: For a while, it's been a trend to not give the specific names of people in Warhammer rulebooks of various kinds. Personally, I think that this is quite unfair. Do you all think we would go back to crediting specific people in these publications instead of just 'The Warhammer Studio'?
Aside from what others have said. I wouldn't want my name attached to the half-assed works and botched rules filled with spelling mistakes.
Purifying Tempest wrote: The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.
Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.
beast_gts wrote: No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.
I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.
Purifying Tempest wrote: The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.
Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.
Absolutely does! Reputation is the currency in which creative folks live and die by. I am not going to speculate as to why GW does or does not want to hang onto contributors with pretty bad reputations in their industry. I'm not even going to speculate on if they use a core group of writers or large pods of freelancers, even though freelancers definitely makes sense with how hit-and-miss the cohesiveness of the game is at times. Hiding an author's bad work also allows them to get gigs at other places, no negative equity to affect their outcomes, and thus the problem spreads. I find it pretty poor that for whatever reason, people are not getting credited with the good (and bad) work they do. Like I doubt many people would gripe about the Custodes, Tau, or Craftworld books outside of toning them down a little. I think a lot of the play experience delivers, just a few things deliver a bit more than expected. But overall, they're more on the level of "well written" than something like the lifeless husk that was GK 8th edition. But, if we take everything at face value and the internet is the primary cause of those authors no longer getting credit for their work... then I think it is an opportunity for self-reflection over our contributions to that and say "yeah, maybe I did go a little too far this one time". Besides, if it is all truly a sham, but people started maybe guarding their vitriol a little before spewing it out towards whatever target they've acquired most recently... the worst case is the internet may be a bit better of a place, even if it is just a little.
And yet you still aren't understanding what is being said. A death threat does not have to be acted upon to be considered a problem because it is a criminal offence to send a death threat in the first place. Death threats are used to coerce the recipient into committing acts that the sender wants and all the sender needs to do to make that threat feel real is put the slightest amount of pressure, say for example waiting for the recipient outside their publicly known place of work and take a photo of them leaving. Matt Ward got death threats and disappeared from GW and public life altogether, the threats worked. That he came back to GW after the fact shows that he has more spine than the scum who tried to get rid of him.
In professional sports people say different things to each other, specialy when the ref can not hear it, and I don't think many people were jailed for making death or physical harm threats to each other. The things that happen to people playing water ball, for example, make me think only crazy people want to do it. And sports people engaging in real physical contact, can actually hurt each other. There are plenty of examples of boxers or MMA guys getting angry at the other guy, and not KOing their opponent just to work them over for full number of rounds and really destroy them. When, I hope this isn't racism again,Khabib told McGregor he is going to punish him and his people for what he did insulting his father, he did 100% that. Writers of table top games have almost no interaction with that play their game. Probably well know tournament players and playtesters have more to worry about.
There's this magical thing that people do called "fear" and it tends to not give two figs what facts or logic do.
Being afraid and building policies on stuff that doesn't happen is a wierd thing to do. Specially when those policies are real and enforced. Plus how about real fears of players. Spend two years saving up and a designer writes a codex that wrecks your army and makes it unplayable, and make you feel like someone stupid who wasted time and money? That fear is not just something people can have, but it is based on things that did happen in the past and were done by the design studio. In fact they are still being done today. it seems wierd to "protect" the fears of a few designers, who historically do a bad job at writing the game, and at the same time ignoring the problems thousands of players have.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Purifying Tempest 804494 11343700 wrote: Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
Have you seen or played a faction that was bad in the past? you know how good someone feels, if they spend 2-3 years of money on an army, only for it to be very bad and unfun to play with, and you thinking each night about, why didn't I just buy a tablet or a bike, or something that would have been fun? You think that doesn't impact life. That impacts life for real. If a designer gets told to get cancer, then unless he believes in shamanistic powers among some of twitter posters, the actual impact on his life is zero. Specially when the person doesn't move on, but rather works for the same GW company for a few decades.
All the actors and film makers, that make horrible movies and TV series, and then claim persecution somehow alway do find work, often in the same frenchise they just wrecked. This sounds more like trying to make some people feel good and make any critique non existant, then actually protect someones lives.
Purifying Tempest wrote: The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.
Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.
Absolutely does! Reputation is the currency in which creative folks live and die by. I am not going to speculate as to why GW does or does not want to hang onto contributors with pretty bad reputations in their industry. I'm not even going to speculate on if they use a core group of writers or large pods of freelancers, even though freelancers definitely makes sense with how hit-and-miss the cohesiveness of the game is at times. Hiding an author's bad work also allows them to get gigs at other places, no negative equity to affect their outcomes, and thus the problem spreads. I find it pretty poor that for whatever reason, people are not getting credited with the good (and bad) work they do. Like I doubt many people would gripe about the Custodes, Tau, or Craftworld books outside of toning them down a little. I think a lot of the play experience delivers, just a few things deliver a bit more than expected. But overall, they're more on the level of "well written" than something like the lifeless husk that was GK 8th edition. But, if we take everything at face value and the internet is the primary cause of those authors no longer getting credit for their work... then I think it is an opportunity for self-reflection over our contributions to that and say "yeah, maybe I did go a little too far this one time". Besides, if it is all truly a sham, but people started maybe guarding their vitriol a little before spewing it out towards whatever target they've acquired most recently... the worst case is the internet may be a bit better of a place, even if it is just a little.
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc...
Don't let me misunderstood: online harassment (through death threats or not) is atrocious and deals proven damages to people. But that's not what's its about. What it's about is labour. Especially when you work on intangibles ownership of your work is paramount to your ability to live off your work, improve your pay and working conditions or to change jobs. What GW's company policy does is about power over it's employees. If it was, they'd simply allow for their employee to sign as Alan Smithee (better yet, they'd be forced to be able to do so if they chose).
Sorry if I'm a bit more heated then usual. But the matter is close to my heart.
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Eldarsif wrote: This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Because the source of the threats is "trust me, bro" as soon as said writer is called out for their gakky writing. You'd think there would either be investigation or them showing off these supposed threats.
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
Wouldn't want creators to actually have intellectual properties now do we ?
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed
So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed
Eldarsif wrote: However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/
I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.
Eldarsif wrote: However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/
I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.
Roman legionaries were writing things like "Vegetius was here" and drawing dicks on buildings. None of this is new, it's been around since we started walking upright
Eldarsif wrote: However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/
I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.
At the same time you mandate safety standards for cars; impose restrictions on driving; have approved tests and police to enforce safety; using remote cameras and such. Heck we are also getting black-boxes in cars which monitor your driving performance and report back and dash cams are getting more and more common.
Any level of technology or action comes with inherent risk attached. However as time passes society generally seeks to find ways to reduce the risk factors as much as possible. OF course over time there are ups and downs and waves of understanding. Social organisation, attitude and structure also come into play as to resources and such. So some things will get safer and safer and then will go back several steps. Or a new technology comes along and suddenly you have to start all over again .
The internet is one of those new things and society is still grappling with how to reduce the risk and make it safer
Toofast wrote: But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...
Toofast wrote: But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...
Wow, everything you said here is wrong!
Sure, you can have knives...if the blade is under 3", doesn't open automatically or have an assist, and doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism (which would ban nearly evey pocket knife sold/carried in the US). Sure you can have a gun, as long as it isn't a pistol, or semi-automatic (which is 90% of the firearms sold and carried in the US). There have been multiple organizations campaigning for a ban on pointy kitchen knives. It isn't law...yet.
Gert wrote: Lincoln... The one that got shot in the head... great example.
Yeah, that was quite possibly the worst example.
1. It's arguably a great example. The actual assassin JWB didn't send hate mail to Lincoln, while those who sent hate mail are largely unremembered.
2. Would you rather know people hold harsh sentiments about you, so you can any appropriate measures? Or would you rather remain ignorant to the zeitgeist?
3. What do you think Lincoln's response to hate mail was? I'd reckon it probably wasn't "Ban them from using the mail!" Lol.
Eldarsif wrote: However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.
Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/
I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.
At the same time you mandate safety standards for cars; impose restrictions on driving; have approved tests and police to enforce safety; using remote cameras and such. Heck we are also getting black-boxes in cars which monitor your driving performance and report back and dash cams are getting more and more common.
Any level of technology or action comes with inherent risk attached. However as time passes society generally seeks to find ways to reduce the risk factors as much as possible. OF course over time there are ups and downs and waves of understanding. Social organisation, attitude and structure also come into play as to resources and such. So some things will get safer and safer and then will go back several steps. Or a new technology comes along and suddenly you have to start all over again .
The internet is one of those new things and society is still grappling with how to reduce the risk and make it safer
Insectum7 wrote: 3. What do you think Lincoln's response to hate mail was? I'd reckon it probably wasn't "Ban them from using the mail!" Lol.
Didn't he become President Anonymous and never go outside again (but still put articles into Ye Olde White Dwarfe under his name and with his picture, naturally)?
Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?
Just because you're credited in a work doesn't mean you have rights to it.
And lets not forget that many works GW produces won't be just one person but a team effort with varying levels of input. So whilst a codex could have 1 name on the cover as the author, a lot of chunks within might be done by different staff. Whilst customers on the outside won't know that, staff on the inside of the firm will (or at least should and have access to that information)
Purifying Tempest wrote: The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.
Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.
Not to minimize the problem of threats and toxic, fans, this was a GW decision. GW also does not credit sculptors and artists these days (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't think they are getting many death threats.
It might be the result of a change towards collaborative work, but it seems to me part of it is GW wanting fans to focus on the brand rather than the talent behind it, lest we follow them to other projects.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarsif wrote: This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.
Seriously?
OK this is definitely a company policy, and one that is totally out of line with the norms in any creative industry.
Eldarsif wrote: This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.
Seriously?
They're credited to Warhammer Storyforge on-screen. IMDB, etc. have complete credits.
Kid_Kyoto wrote: OK this is definitely a company policy, and one that is totally out of line with the norms in any creative industry.
But they don't seem to ban it - they've identified individuals in White Dwarf, and people mention what they've done on social media (Ray Dranfield, for example).
Toofast wrote: But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...
Wow, everything you said here is wrong!
Sure, you can have knives...if the blade is under 3", doesn't open automatically or have an assist, and doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism (which would ban nearly evey pocket knife sold/carried in the US). Sure you can have a gun, as long as it isn't a pistol, or semi-automatic (which is 90% of the firearms sold and carried in the US). There have been multiple organizations campaigning for a ban on pointy kitchen knives. It isn't law...yet.
They're not going to ban kitchen knives. To be honest all of that sounds like a positive, given you're 18 times more likely to get murdered in the US?
The laws are basically you're not allowed to carry a knife without a good reason, and "potential self-defence" isn't considered a good reason.
I used to have a full blown Khukri mounted on my wall.
Gun laws are similar - I have friends that own guns and attend shooting ranges. But buying a pistol for self defence won't fly.
Anyway, I agree that the primary reason behind removing author credits is most likely because they want people to focus on the brand. Rather than any particular individuals.
It's also possible that they've been writing codexes through more collaborative efforts than before and don't feel that any one name deserves the vast majority of the credit.
I certainly don't think it was done simply for fear of death threats.
Eldarsif wrote: This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.
Seriously?
They're credited to Warhammer Storyforge on-screen. IMDB, etc. have complete credits.
But only crediting people on 3rd party sites is not the norm. We joke about how long the credits for films are, but that's because it takes an army to make a movie. And they're entitled to credit for their work.
Even works are collaborative it is normal to recognize the entire team and the team leader or editor who had the final say.
Older GW books would credit the artist for each picture, whether a 1/8 page sketch or a two page spread. Catalogue pages would credit the sculptor and Reaper credits each one on their site. Does GW still do that?
Honestly a LOT of model companies never credit the creator. At least not openly like on the product page; they might get a mention in a blog article now and then.
Even in the world of STLs where teams are very much often just a sculptor and someone organising the sculptors rarely get a mention to the point where some are shocked that some patreons aren't just the creator themselves sculpting each month.
In fact I think one of the few that actually does make overt mention is The Makers Cult who made it a thing to have guest sculptors every month.
But only crediting people on 3rd party sites is not the norm. We joke about how long the credits for films are, but that's because it takes an army to make a movie. And they're entitled to credit for their work.
Even works are collaborative it is normal to recognize the entire team and the team leader or editor who had the final say.
Older GW books would credit the artist for each picture, whether a 1/8 page sketch or a two page spread. Catalogue pages would credit the sculptor and Reaper credits each one on their site. Does GW still do that?
Aren't the credits so long because unions in hollywood riot each time, someone tries to cut the 4th grip guy? I remember watching a hollywood history show on a french channel with my mom, and they had an interesting episode about how hard it was for the studios to move some of the credits to the end of the movie
Insectum7 wrote: 3. What do you think Lincoln's response to hate mail was? I'd reckon it probably wasn't "Ban them from using the mail!" Lol.
Didn't he become President Anonymous and never go outside again (but still put articles into Ye Olde White Dwarfe under his name and with his picture, naturally)?
Dammit guys, now I want an Abe Lincoln Rogue Trader mini!
Hecaton 804494 11344814 wrote:Just because you're credited in a work doesn't mean you have rights to it.
In some countries this means exactly that. In some countries you can't even be made to get rid of them, even if you sell them, the company that buys it still has to cite you as the creator. I assume GW would rather run on british law, because it is much better for companies and the state, then the inventor or art creator.
3. What do you think Lincoln's response to hate mail was? I'd reckon it probably wasn't "Ban them from using the mail!" Lol.
Well if it was durning or post civil war, then he would put them in jail, unless they had the backing of important wealthy families from the northern states. In the last case the families of such young men, were expected to send them to europe. For regular protesters the fact tha Lincoln suspended the habeas corpus act ment harsh imprisonment without trial.And it affected thousands of suspected traitors and war protesters. And to be branded a traitor and send to war prison all you needed to do, is to make local military angry.
Aren't the credits so long because unions in hollywood riot each time, someone tries to cut the 4th grip guy? I remember watching a hollywood history show on a french channel with my mom, and they had an interesting episode about how hard it was for the studios to move some of the credits to the end of the movie
You are correct, it is because organized labor fights to make sure their members are recognized and get credit to show when they try for their next job.
Credits on the poster and the front of the film are usually decided by contracts with the lead actors and behind the camera folks.
I think some of the credits are also affected by contract, "my company will give you a discount on catering but we want our name in the credits".
I don't really struggle with believing GW have done this for the reasons stated. You might say its only a few idiots, but the amount of frothing at the mouth directed at say Ward, Cruddace, Kelly sometimes etc a decade or so ago was fairly extreme.
This sort of nonsense aimed at celebrities, directors etc is bad - but they do at least make bags of money in the process.
Overread wrote: Honestly a LOT of model companies never credit the creator. At least not openly like on the product page; they might get a mention in a blog article now and then.
GW doesn't even have credits for their animations. The voice cast doesn't get recognised. The animators. Sound people. Anyone.
arma football match 23+ years ago, says he will kill you. You know he means it and you will not be suprised that he is also the head of the Sharks hooligan clan, which was so succeful from its dealing that it bought the club they were fans of.
ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety 
" bull 
