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.

In a recent thread in YMDC about certain Necron wargear (and I've observed this phenomenon in other threads as well) the original poster bowed out of the argument by admitting, albeit with some caveats, that he was wrong.

However, the thread continued with new posters continuing to refute the opinions that the OP had already admitted were wrong.

In my mind, a person on Dakka actually admitting that they were wrong and may have "lost" a rules debate is so vanishingly rare that when a person does it, it really needs to be respected. Most of the time it seems like a poster will simply disappear from the thread if they were "proven" wrong. However, in this case, and many others, I've seen someone actually admit that they were wrong, and then the literary beat-down simply continues.

And then people complain that nobody will admit their errors on YMDC...

So, when people are actually man (or woman!) enough to admit their errors... lets give them some respect and recognition.

Agreed but its too fun for some not to put down others when they have the opportunity. In the future the OP or any forum user can always edit their post since reading an entire thread is something not always practiced and this would help prevent further noise.

Cane wrote:Agreed but its too fun for some not to put down others when they have the opportunity. In the future the OP or any forum user can always edit their post since reading an entire thread is something not always practiced.

Isn't it something that should always be practiced, though? In the last thread, the points that continued to be refuted had already been admitted to be wrong by the OP, and the poster was quoting posts from before the OP posted his admission of error. If the poster had simply read the next page, he would have seen that.

I think part of the problem is that people treat it like a debate where you can either win or lose, rather than as a discussion concerned with identifying just what the rules say.

sn't it something that should always be practiced, though? In the last thread, the points that continued to be refuted had already been admitted to be wrong by the OP, and the poster was quoting posts from before the OP posted his admission of error. If the poster had simply read the next page, he would have seen that.

Agreed but in some cases that can be an unrealistic practice especially in threads with a lot of pages.

Editing is a great tool and the issue discussed can be proactively avoided if the thread is up to date.

There is a group nesting in that area of the forums... It's becoming more evident every day and every day they put more people off going in there, until eventually only said cluster of like-minded personas will be there, answering newcomer's questions with their absolute gospel whilst the rest of Dakka will be going to other forums to have conversation about rules queries we encounter.

It is for the mods and perhaps even the admins to decide what to do. They need to decide what, if anything.

t's not a facility of this otherwise great forum that I care to go to any more. It's become entirely exclusive instead of inclusive.

I read that thread and closed it when it seemed to be carrying on beyond its natural lifespan.

Indeed, I congratulated the OP on his conceding the point.

It did not help that some of his earlier posts were very long and seemed to give the impression he was not continuing the argument.

The idea of winning or losing a thread in YMDC is actually bogus.

The point of YMDC is to pose a rules query and elucidate either the correct (per RAW) answer, or a logical and workable solution for cases where the rules are too ambiguous to provide a clear answer.

The idea of a bunch of rules-squatters in YMDC is one reason why I originally proposed limiting people to one post per thread: so that people with lots of time to carry on a discussion couldn't marginalize those who don't. Think of it as one poster, one vote.

Also a tactical one. If the OP says "hey thanks got it now" on page 2, everyone replying to posts on page 1 will occur after. Thats when I post public warnings and the dread "every post after this with be dealt with" I note posts CAN be edited after posting by the original poster.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:There is a group nesting in that area of the forums... It's becoming more evident every day and every day they put more people off going in there, until eventually only said cluster of like-minded personas will be there, answering newcomer's questions with their absolute gospel whilst the rest of Dakka will be going to other forums to have conversation about rules queries we encounter.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The idea of winning or losing a thread in YMDC is actually bogus.

The point of YMDC is to pose a rules query and elucidate either the correct (per RAW) answer, or a logical and workable solution for cases where the rules are too ambiguous to provide a clear answer.

I think that despite some posters' self-congratulatory signatures that may be taken the wrong way, the people who post the most in YMDC, and who also make the best posts, in general are also the first ones to admit that they were wrong. I've seen Gwar admit that he was wrong, I've seen Yakface do it, and others as well. I don't necessarily think that YMDC is as closed a club as some people seem to think it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nurglitch wrote:The idea of a bunch of rules-squatters in YMDC is one reason why I originally proposed limiting people to one post per thread: so that people with lots of time to carry on a discussion couldn't marginalize those who don't. Think of it as one poster, one vote.

I really dont' like this idea as it makes it so people can't react to new ideas and just as importantly can't admit to changing their mind.

If the point of debate is to convince others to see things your way (hopefully the right way!), then limiting posters to one post will make the debate on YMDC utterly pointless.

willydstyle:

But people can react to new ideas, they just get posted by new people. As for admitting changing one's mind, I thought YMDC was about figuring out the rules and how we might play the game, not public confessions.

If anything what causes the adversarial attitude often on display in YMDC is the fact that people approach it like a debate where position are proposed and defended.

By limiting it to one post per poster per thread, we make it impossible to debate since there's no back and forth of egos. As you say, it will make attempting debate utterly pointless, which is a good thing. The problem with debate is it's a competition between debaters, rather than about the subject being debated.

All that's left is an exercise in co-operative thinking. You think hard about what you want to say, say your piece, and allow the end-user of the thread to draw their own conclusions.

Nurglitch, your argument is roughly "The fighting which married couples do is a problem, and that fighting is facilitated by their ability to talk to each other. Therefore, we should prevent married couples from talking so that we can eliminate arguments and increase happiness in marriages."

willydstyle wrote:

Cane wrote:...since reading an entire thread is something not always practiced.

Isn't it something that should always be practiced, though?

However much it should be, it's not. How often do you see a post started with 'Well, I haven't read the whole thread, but...'

Short of just arbitrarily banning people who do that (no, that's not a serious suggestion) I don't think there's any real way of stopping that, though.

solkan wrote:Nurglitch, your argument is roughly "The fighting which married couples do is a problem, and that fighting is facilitated by their ability to talk to each other. Therefore, we should prevent married couples from talking so that we can eliminate arguments and increase happiness in marriages."

Comparing marriage to posting on Internet forums is not the best analogy. Keep thinking.

I'm all for one post per person on each YMDC thread. Endless circular arguments that restate the same concept OVER and OVER will be refuted by this. There is no ego-massaging, there is no pointless debate between two polar opposite mind sets. There's just each person contributing (or not...) one post to the thread. YMDC might as well be a political debate subforum otherwise. There's at least two people or mindsets who staunchly believe their way is THE way and so very little can get done. Its efficiency is nil.

Nurg, you're on to something.

Rico.

I'm sorry, Rico, I'd respond to your statement and enter into a discussion, but under Nurglitch's proposed system, I've already had my single post and can't say anything further.

1 follow-up post per thread? That could be interesting.

However, back to the OP, why not simply lock the thread, rather than letting it continue?

And better yet, why not have the YMDC OP alert for closure once he's gotten his answer?

I think the problem is that by page 4 or 5 new posters read the first few posts, skip to the end and add their bit, missing most of the thread.

Nurglitch wrote:I think part of the problem is that people treat it like a debate where you can either win or lose, rather than as a discussion concerned with identifying just what the rules say.

That's one of the most intelligent and relevant things that I have ever heard you say Nurglitch, and I would definitely agree with that.

JohnHwangDD wrote:1 follow-up post per thread? That could be interesting.

However, back to the OP, why not simply lock the thread, rather than letting it continue?

And better yet, why not have the YMDC OP alert for closure once he's gotten his answer?

Because all these harsh precaution are meant to be towards Gwar ( there are subtle hints in their paragraphs )
so yes it seems harsh and spiteful.
Thus i agree with you , if mod see it in a stalemate loop that goes for pages = lock
discussion over = lock.

0 problem , other then the bruised ego that says oh "i should have agreed with G"

willydstyle wrote:
I think that despite some posters' self-congratulatory signatures that may be taken the wrong way, the people who post the most in YMDC, and who also make the best posts, in general are also the first ones to admit that they were wrong. I've seen Gwar admit that he was wrong, I've seen Yakface do it, and others as well. I don't necessarily think that YMDC is as closed a club as some people seem to think it is.

It isn't closed so much as hostile, as any forum dedicated to esoteric information or skills tends to be. The term noob isn't an iconic form of derision for no reason.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:
However much it should be, it's not. How often do you see a post started with 'Well, I haven't read the whole thread, but...'

Short of just arbitrarily banning people who do that (no, that's not a serious suggestion) I don't think there's any real way of stopping that, though.

Unless the subject in question is a narrative I would say most people only read the body of a text after taking in its conclusion. You decided whether its interesting, and then go back to see how it came about.

Also, I would say most people filter threads by author; looking for people they commonly agree, or disagree with. The rest, I'll call it the neutral mass, are simply ignored because there is no overt connection in the mind of the poster.

solkan wrote:I'm sorry, Rico, I'd respond to your statement and enter into a discussion, but under Nurglitch's proposed system, I've already had my single post and can't say anything further.

You've posted twice!!! BHAN HIMM!!!@@11!!one!
I can be a smartass too.

That's in YMDC. This isn't a forum wide thing, that's just idiotic. YMDC the one post per thread rule actually makes sense.

Keep thinking.

Anyhoo, with one post per person on a YMDC thread, people don't have to wade through pages of posts, so for people who just join the rules-deciphering-shindig, they can get a sitrep fast and post educated comments.

Rico.

EDIT: decided to contribute to the topic at hand.

The issue, really, comes down to:

When do you lock the thread?

Consider this concept from a similar style of web 'reference', the answer page.

Yahoo! Answers, Experts Exchange, etc. all 'close' a thread when the Answer has been found.

In the case of many "Experts" pages, there is an internal "Currency" used to allow people to ask their own questions, or access other options.

Perhaps a similar system could be implemented, which could then close off the endless response postings.

--

Also:

Anyone who says that they're done with a discussion, and then keeps posting, should be brought to a Mod's attention.

--B.

I say we burn the witch.

Surely part of the problem is that the forum is called 'You Make Da Call' and not 'What Is The RAW'

I had always understood that the idea was for people to post their unsolveable rules queries and for other people to answer based on how they think it should be played.

Now, however, anything remotely contentious becomes a semantic argument based on what the exact letter of the rule says, rather than the forum members submitting their opinions on how to actually PLAY it.

On a completely different note, i quite enjoy answering rules queries. Of course, I rarely visit the YMDC forum now, since every single post is immediately answered by Gwar! What's the point posting your opinion? [not very serious 'sarcasm' smiley, whatever that is]

My suggestions would be..

1. Rename the forum 'What is the RAW' or 'Ask Gwar!'
2. Keep the forum name but actually make sure people say HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PLAY IT rather than what the minutae of the rules say.

I would completely be in favour of a one post limit. Fantastic idea for this forum. There's nothing more annoying than someone who keeps restating the same point, over and over, without developing new arguments....

ArbitorIan wrote:

1. Rename the forum 'What is the RAW'
2. Keep the forum name but actually make sure people say HOW THEY WOULD LIKE TO PLAY IT rather than what the minutae of the rules say.

Or it becomes necessary to post two answers to the raised question:

1. What you are reading in the books, pages, reference etc and how you believe that works in combination.
"I read, cross referencing the codex, page ... against the rulebook, page ... that this is the RAW"
2. What you believe is the best form of resolution for the raised question in terms of actual workability, logic and good form.
"If we take the cross reference as it is being indicated above, we would be making a change due to an omission in the new codex...I believe it's fair to retain..."

But you're right, You Make Da Call, as a name, seems to be asking us to make a judgement, to fashion a solution.

I agree with a lot of what you say ArbitorIan, but I am against having one post per thread simply because if we really want YDMC to become a forum where people can discuss issues and develop ideas then they need to post more than once.

It gets hard trying to develop a discussion when after every time you post you get two or three people reposting the same response as to why you are wrong but sometimes you get a response that adds something to the discussion.

I have decided to read through the lines in the future when posting in YDMC and not being baited into getting in a circular debate with the regulars.

At least get rid of the annoying:

I SAID in my post:

What I SAID in my post

I think the problem with the Mob Rule in YMDC is that if there are more than 11 of them, they're fearless.

willydstyle wrote:In a recent thread in YMDC about certain Necron wargear (and I've observed this phenomenon in other threads as well) the original poster bowed out of the argument by admitting, albeit with some caveats, that he was wrong.

However, the thread continued with new posters continuing to refute the opinions that the OP had already admitted were wrong.

In my mind, a person on Dakka actually admitting that they were wrong and may have "lost" a rules debate is so vanishingly rare that when a person does it, it really needs to be respected. Most of the time it seems like a poster will simply disappear from the thread if they were "proven" wrong. However, in this case, and many others, I've seen someone actually admit that they were wrong, and then the literary beat-down simply continues.

And then people complain that nobody will admit their errors on YMDC...

So, when people are actually man (or woman!) enough to admit their errors... lets give them some respect and recognition.

I agree willyd, but, the OP in the Necron thread in question hardly bowed out gracefully, which probably spurned on the extra comments.

From ajfirecracker:

"So to all of you who made any arguments not based on fluff or comparisons to PF/DCCW, congrats, you won an argument on the internet.

To those of you who solely made arguments based on fluff or comparison: shame on you! You didn't actually contribute anything to the rules discussion! Try harder next time."

Kinda looks like he's pourin' gas on the fire as he's running out the door. Not cool and not worthy of giving credit for "graciously bowing out".

Hey I haven't read this whole thread but I just wanted to chime in and say that I agree.