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

The thread in discussions got me thinking on this topic. Ideas for improving YMTC, especially ones not requiring a lot of oversight?

This should go in nuts and bolts but since this is where these posting are made putting here.

Just a sounding board for ideas you may have.

Often a post will be ether very wrong or very right. Could we get a thumbs up and thumbs down on each post? This way people don't need to +1 a post (or other pointless I agree with X)

edit ... possibly also a drop down, or appended to the original post, to show those that agree/disagree

Yeah I've also really been wanting a "like this/agree with this" button lately.

In fact, if there were a thumbs-up button to show agreement with a post, I'd click in now for Tri's post instead of posting this.

Flavius Infernus wrote:Yeah I've also really been wanting a "like this/agree with this" button lately.

In fact, if there were a thumbs-up button to show agreement with a post, I'd click in now for Tri's post instead of posting this.

That's a really good idea, I like that. It also turns every thread into an impromptu poll as well.

The side-effect is things will become a popularity contest. If a post is good, then people will recognize it as such. I find "I agree with [x]" or "QFT (Quoted For Truth)" posts to be entirely unnecessary. Many times I see people just getting behind someone else's interpretation just because they like that person for numerous reasons, or flaming someone because they dislike them.

I feel a device such as a 'thumbs up/down' will just create or encourage elitism and ostracize the less experienced. So far as I have seen things have been working themselves plenty well, and in my opinion Dakka Dakka doesn't need to encourage fan followings for their users and a method to break down others.

You Make Da Call isn't for people to agree or disagree so much as it is to use logic to help others understand better or work with the rules.

I am not saying such a device is 'wrong' just that it could, and most probably will be, used improperly, as we are people, and this is the internet. Things are already 'anonymous' enough for people to flame or degrade the ideas of others.

I concur. We need to ask Lego about this (but be aware that it will probably be in every forum, and I think we should keep it out of the Painting and Modelling forums).

Oh, and a Thumbs Down for Skinnattittar's post.

Yeah, well that's just it. Say there's a rule discussion where it's a couple guys (who may be new or something) VS some of the regulars (you know who you are). On the few occasions where the people less liked/"popular" are correct, using a thumbs up/down thing will get people thinking the people who are actually right, are wrong, because of the popularity contest between the arguers...

Also, the thing is, even doing this will not stop the 5+ page threads where 1/2 people per "side" keep reposting the same two sentences along with insults, which is a HUGE problem in some of the more popular rules "discussions"...

Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.

It would help...

That, and people should not take things so personally here, and on the Internet in general.

The problem with a rating system is that it lets people 'vote' for whichever way they would like a rule to be interpreted, without actually having to provide any arguments or backups to support the side - I think overall it would detract from YMDC's ability to thrash out all aspects of a rule.

I'd like to see a different 'quote' that separates rules quotations from user quotes. I think that would help visually clear up some postings and let people quickly scan a thread for the relevant rules.

unistoo wrote:I'd like to see a different 'quote' that separates rules quotations from user quotes. I think that would help visually clear up some postings and let people quickly scan a thread for the relevant rules.

Thumbs up ... sorry couldn't resist ^_^ good idea!

I think there should be a batphone to me.

But I agree with the agreements on the agreements system.

No, not the dreaded road to meta-moderation! Next you'll be moderating the thumbs ups and thumbs down and then meta-moderating the moderation, and who knows where it will all end?!? Do we really want to turn YMDC into something which looks like the Slashdot comment system?

Alpharius wrote:Mostly people probably need to remember Rule #1, and use that as the foundation for their posts.

It would help...

That, and people should not take things so personally here, and on the Internet in general.

I respect this and I very much so agree with this statement. However, reminding people about rule #1 is not enforcing rule #1 and I see that as a huge problem here. I understand that Dakka has a reputation for having more liberal moderation and that does work to a point. Allow people to police themselves somewhat, and don't enforce things swiftly and with a blunt instrument. This even works for many people. Someone gets out of line, you say hey don't be a jerk, they realize they went a bit over the top and all's good. Some posters abuse that liberal moderation however and repeatedly offend, and when the rest of us see someone repeatedly act like an ass and all that happens is they're told to stop being an ass but that does nothing, how do you think that makes us feel? Why aren't we all being donkey-caves then if there are no real repercussions? Or at best it takes a great deal of time for true disciplinary action to take place and then they come back and start it up all over again and the cycle repeats itself. Of course there are a few where even that never happens. They dance on the line of being utterly offensive and are allowed to stay and do as they please without question simply because we've come to expect it of them? Respectfully, but no, that's just wrong. Of course that leads into a debate of double standards and that's a different, albeit related topic.

The main point of this is honestly what's in my second sentence. Reminding people of rule #1 is not enforcing rule #1. So please do. I mean when the MODs say they no longer visit a section of the forum because it is full of vitriol and rampant hostility, doesn't that strike you as just wrong? Please do your jobs and help clean up this section, and any other sections that have similar problems and users honestly.

When the MODs say we don't want to go there, and they have the power to route the offenders out, what are the rest of us supposed to do? Really.

I'm sorry if this is offensive, but I don't know a better way to say it and in my mind it needs to be said.

Eight Ball wrote:Yeah, well that's just it. Say there's a rule discussion where it's a couple guys (who may be new or something) VS some of the regulars (you know who you are).

I don't like most of the people that post regularly in the YMDC section, so much so that if there were a button I could push that would pour scalding water on the writer of a post in the YMDC forum, my mouse would be broken from overuse. A thumbs down button is a nice compromise, here.

I don't like them, because of this:

Eight Ball wrote:Also, the thing is, even doing this will not stop the 5+ page threads where 1/2 people per "side" keep reposting the same two sentences along with insults,

I realize this post is ironic because I'm doing the exact thing I hate by insulting the insulters.

redstripe wrote:I don't like most of the people that post regularly in the YMDC section, so much so that if there were a button I could push that would pour scalding water on the writer of a post in the YMDC forum, my mouse would be broken from overuse. A thumbs down button is a nice compromise, here.

Water? You clearly do not know your folklore

I do like the idea of a separate tag for rules quotes that would make them distinguishable from other quotes in some way.

I do not like the idea of a thumbs up/thumbs down rating system for largely the same reasons already posted in other objections: It doesn't require the opinion to be backed up with facts, rules, or argument. When you think about it from the point of view that it's not other people on YMDC we have to convince that our arguments are correct, it's the people we play with and the TO's/Judges we play under, every (non-flame) viewpoint and counter-argument in a thread is helpful to the cause, even if it is mostly restating a prior argument. A thumbs up or down is no more or less helpful than a generic "I agree with Gwar!" post with no supporting material.

-GK

GiantKiller wrote: A thumbs up or down is no more or less helpful than a generic "I agree with Gwar!" post with no supporting material.

I would like to think "I agree with Gwar!" is much more helpful

Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs

The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.

Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.

This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.

Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.

This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.

G

I can get behind this idea as well.

I think that topics should be allowed to be hashed out as long as it may take for some people to come to a conclusion.

The, thumbs up thumbs down system, however, is a bad idea. It might help certain people think that they are actually more important than they really are. Instead of having I agree with ____ , and ____ is right a thousand times on our sigs, we will have a thumbs up war. Well, some of us.

Edit: More seriously, YMDC should have the conclusions of long-running and involved controversies written up as articles detailing the positions that are in disputation, the arguments made in support of each position, the arguments made against each position, and some conclusions about how people might go about avoiding the controversy surrounding the rules in actual play. That way people could look up their questions in a Dakka Dakka "FAQ" before asking them, see the arguments made, and use the collected wisdom to inform their own play. Now and then someone could find a fresh perspective, or come up with an idea that isn't featured in an article, it could be discussed in its own thread, and then logged as an edit to the article in question.

For example, the Deff Rolla Question as an article:

Opinions
Opinion #1. Deff Rollas do not allow a Battlewagon to cause D6 S10 hits when ramming a vehicle.
Opinion #2. Deff Rollas do allow a Battlewagon to cause D6 S10 hits when ramming a vehicle.

Arguments for and against Opinion #1
Yadda Yadda

Arguments for and against Opinion #2
Yadda Yadda

When in Question
Pros and Cons for whether playing as opinion #1 might be better than opinion #2, perhaps advice to avoid the Deff Rolla controversy altogether, mention of discussing this with one's opponent, checking with judges beforehand, applying the principle of least-dickery, etc.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.

Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.

This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.

G

If a thread is clearly based on a misconception (like in the case of the Bezerker thread you're referencing), as always, hitting the 'notify moderator' button and telling us that you think the thread has served its purpose and is now wandering OT will usually result in the thread being locked (unless the moderator disagrees with your assessment). So the more people who take a second to alert us to such (fairly rare) threads the sooner those threads can be closed so they don't clog up the forum and/or degenerate into senseless rants.

Beyond that, the idea that the forum is only for "the discussion of rules" is an easier concept to say than it is to define. This forum is designed for the discussion of the rules that make up the game we play. The thing is, many people tend to interpret the rules in a variety of fashions for a variety of different reasons. Having those people voice their opinion about their interpretation shouldn't turn into an issue of 'I'm right and you're wrong' if everyone would simply understand that people are free to share their opinions.

Of course, you can rebut by pointing out that you disagree with their assessment based on rules you quote. But ultimately if everyone would just stick to the basic rules of politeness that you'd tend to use in real life if you were talking to a stranger.

In a written medium, just a few words go a long way towards diffusing a situation (or stopping it from starting in the first place).

"In my opinion. . ." -- instead of just stating something as fact, including this sentiment (even though it is technically redundant) goes a long way towards making you seem less arrogant.

"I disagree with your assessment/argument because (in my opinion). . ." -- Again, this statement is technically redundant, but adding it creates a polite tone to your counter-proposal which helps to diffuse most negative sentiments.

"I choose to play the situation this way because. . ." -- If you want to express the way you play a certain situation simply because you feel some people might appreciate to hear it (for whatever reason) then prefacing it this way lets everyone know that you recognize that you may not be playing it as you think 'it is written'. And on the flip-side, when someone posts this type of comment there is no reason to jump all over them. . .if someone wants to express this type of sentiment there's no reason you can't politely accept it for what it is and (if you feel its necessary) politely rebut with why you don't think playing that way is a good idea.


Beyond that, there are situations where people will quote ancillary information, like how a rule was played in a White Dwarf battle report, what a piece of fluff says, etc. When something like this is posted, again there is no reason you can't politely accept this information for what it is and then respectfully disagree by stating that you feel, in your opinion that the rules are clear in this situation and should be followed verbatim regardless of what was presented in a White Dwarf, etc.

The thing to remember is that some people, for a variety of reasons, if they think a rule is nebulous may choose to utilize this type of ancillary information to come up with a faux house rule to play with. Allowing that type of information to be included in a discussion certainly doesn't hurt anybody. Again, if you politely accept it for what it is and then respectfully disagree with it because it is not actually rules, then everyone wins.

In YMDC, there are basically two types of threads:

A) Simple questions that are easily and quickly answered.
B) Difficult questions with no easy answer that turn into long arguments about semantics.

In the case of 'B', the people actually arguing in the thread are rarely (if ever) ultimately convinced that they are wrong and everyone needs to accept that fact ahead of time. The only thing you can hope to achieve is to present your argument to the best of your ability and perhaps you may convince all those people lurking and reading the thread that your argument is the strongest.

If you keep that fact in mind you'll find that the need to respond to each and every post in a thread really isn't necessary if someone isn't actually bringing any new information or angles against your argument.

Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.

Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.

I'd be on board with that as well. There's been plenty of threads where the same tired arguments on both sides just get regurgitated ad nauseum. One idea is posted, it is countered with another, and for five pages there is back and forth about how the other is wrong and they are right. That's counterproductive. Once it's been pretty firmly established there are two (or more) opposing interpretations and no cut and dried interpretation is to be had, take it to polls or "How would you play this" threads.

No it isnt is not a argument.

I don't like the idea of a "like/dislike? function. From the little bit of time I have spent here, I've learned alot more than what I could ever learn at a GW or local store. If the thread does get a little rediclious, a MOD can shut it down.

I'm not a fan of the thumbs up/thumbs down option per say, but I think it could be incorporated in a way that wouldn't unnecessarily boost egos that are in need no such boosting.

In addition to the regular 'discussion' section of the ruling, there could be a 'best answer' (a la Wikianswers, for instance) that could be accessed from the main thread screen, or perhaps it would be locked immediately below the OP's question.

The actually 'voting' would be hidden from view (possibly even the poster's name as well) so that people couldn't see that their buddy was losing by a few votes and 'boost' their score. This way you could enjoy the discussion if you wanted to, or just read the current majority answer if you were pressed for time and just interested in the Dakka-generated result. The 'best answer' could, of course, be fairly dynamic depending on how debatable the rules happen to be for a particular question.

Might need some tweaking but I think that way you'd get the best of both worlds.

DoW

I like that idea DOW, but i think it should also include the a list of the people voting; that way we know who thinks what.

I think the up/downvoting option will be detrimental to arguments and will probably result in the spread of misinformation.

Take the average YMDC thread. Even with the easy questions, frequently the first reseponse (or first several responses) are completely and utterly wrong. These arguments are easily debunked by those who actually know where to find the appropriate rules. However, this phenomenon is testament to the large volume of posters who read and participate in discussions without having knowledge of the rules in question or even the courtesy to look them up.

Now consider how much easier it is to click on a little up/down arrow than it is to read through several pages of complicated argument. In the end, the vast majority of votes will be cast with little consideration for what is actually being voted on.

Is the purpose of the voting system to identify quality arguments? If so, do you really want people who are completely ignorant to the rules and the arguments having sway over which arguments about those rules are better than others?

Furthermore, while politeness is important, there are many users here who frequently focus more on the tone of posts instead of their content. And then there's the popularity factor which others have mentioned.

Overall, it seems like an idea destined to fail unless there is some way to verify not only that the rules are understood, but that the discussion has actually been read.

Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs

This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.