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.

As I am sure most people have noticed, our YMTC forum is a joke. We have 3-4 militant RAW posters that will argue until blue in the face literal terms and semantics, then belittle anyone that gives their opinion on how they play (even though openly admitting to not following RAW on other threads).

The solution:

Make two forums, one called "How do you play this rule?", and the other "RAW and nothing but the RAW".



That way if people want to know how a specific ruling is actually played they can check the appropriate forum without having to wade through pages of bickering.

And on the off chance people actually want to read hyper literal ruling they can go to the other forum.

No,definitely not,I declare status quo.

Why what are the benefits of the current system?

or

The disadvantages of the new one?

Clthomps wrote:Why what are the benefits of the current system?

or

The disadvantages of the new one?

I just like watching them fight over the rules.
That is a disadvantage.
Advantage is,they get the job done.

Clthomps wrote:As I am sure most people have noticed, our YMTC forum is a joke. We have 3-4 militant RAW posters that will argue until blue in the face literal terms and semantics, then belittle anyone that gives their opinion on how they play (even though openly admitting to not following RAW on other threads).

If that is happening, the answer is to hit the Mod Alert button, and/or put that poster on your ignore list.

We've discussed splitting the forum in the past, and decided it would serve no useful purpose and would simply fragment discussion beyond any practical usefulness.

For the vast majority of the questions raised, the issue is resolved quickly and painlessly. The contentious issues get more attention, and attract the less flexible posters... but they're not solely representative of the forum. If you find that your opinion of the forum is being coloured solely by these threads, I would recommend utilising the aforementioned Ignore feature, or simply staying out of any thread that's longer than 3 or 4 pages.

Could always hit the ignore button .. heck, most of you proberly can't even read this post ... Insaniak? ... Ivan? ... Cltho..... ah forget it! no ones listening.

@OP: If, by "split", you mean "burn with fire", I'd support your request.

Clthomps wrote:As I am sure most people have noticed, our YMTC forum is a joke. We have 3-4 militant RAW posters that will argue until blue in the face literal terms and semantics, then belittle anyone that gives their opinion on how they play (even though openly admitting to not following RAW on other threads).

The solution:

Make two forums, one called "How do you play this rule?", and the other "RAW and nothing but the RAW".



That way if people want to know how a specific ruling is actually played they can check the appropriate forum without having to wade through pages of bickering.

And on the off chance people actually want to read hyper literal ruling they can go to the other forum.

QFT

+1

The solution is for the people who do not agree with the militant RAW posters to go into the forum and argue their case sensibly and politely.

If they argue RAW and play RAI, then pointing out the logical inconsistency of their position will be a good argument.

Kilkrazy wrote:The solution is for the people who do not agree with the militant RAW posters to go into the forum and argue their case sensibly and politely.

If they argue RAW and play RAI, then pointing out the logical inconsistency of their position will be a good argument.

The issue with this is, it doesn't matter how the RaW posters play the game, the RAW is the RAW. How one plays it doesn't change this.

I personally do not play all RaW all the Time, but I do argue RaW all the time because that is the only thing we can be 100% on.

That sounds inconsistent, at best...

Instead of splitting the forum, what about revising the rules of the forum? Have forum users make clear, are they:
1) Looking for the RaW and nothing but the RaW
2) Looking for RaI
3) Looking for RaPlayed

or some combination thereof.

dietrich wrote:Instead of splitting the forum, what about revising the rules of the forum? Have forum users make clear, are they:
1) Looking for the RaW and nothing but the RaW
2) Looking for RaI
3) Looking for RaPlayed

or some combination thereof.

Except the First 2 are the same and the last is pointless as how someone plays it changes from place to place and is impossible to give.

Gwar! wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:The solution is for the people who do not agree with the militant RAW posters to go into the forum and argue their case sensibly and politely.

If they argue RAW and play RAI, then pointing out the logical inconsistency of their position will be a good argument.

The issue with this is, it doesn't matter how the RaW posters play the game, the RAW is the RAW. How one plays it doesn't change this.

I personally do not play all RaW all the Time, but I do argue RaW all the time because that is the only thing we can be 100% on.

This is a sad revelation indeed.

You have essentially admitted to the OP main point:

Clthomps wrote:As I am sure most people have noticed, our YMTC forum is a joke. We have 3-4 militant RAW posters that will argue until blue in the face literal terms and semantics, then belittle anyone that gives their opinion on how they play (even though openly admitting to not following RAW on other threads).

Are you saying that you choke the life out of the YMDC forum, even though it isn't how you play, just so you can...what?

Help me out here...!

I need to know just what are you doing?!?

Clthomps wrote:As I am sure most people have noticed, our YMTC forum is a joke. We have 3-4 militant RAW posters that will argue until blue in the face literal terms and semantics, then belittle anyone that gives their opinion on how they play (even though openly admitting to not following RAW on other threads).

The solution:
Make two forums, one called "How do you play this rule?", and the other "RAW and nothing but the RAW".

That way if people want to know how a specific ruling is actually played they can check the appropriate forum without having to wade through pages of bickering.

And on the off chance people actually want to read hyper literal ruling they can go to the other forum.

dietrich wrote:Instead of splitting the forum, what about revising the rules of the forum? Have forum users make clear, are they:
1) Looking for the RaW and nothing but the RaW
2) Looking for RaI
3) Looking for RaPlayed
or some combination thereof.

Gwar! wrote:Except the First 2 are the same and the last is pointless as how someone plays it changes from place to place and is impossible to give.

Thanks for proving the OP. 1) and 2) aren't the same, as the ad nauseum debates have proven. 2) and 3) are much closer. And while 3) may vary from group to group, there is usually a majority (or at least a plurality) of how it is played that covers multiple groups.

Is there a way to just ignore people on specific forums?


Some people I would put on ignore for rules bickering might have something worth while to say on P&M blogs or Off-topic forums.

Clthomps wrote:Is there a way to just ignore people on specific forums?


Some people I would put on ignore for rules bickering might have something worth while to say on P&M blogs or Off-topic forums.

I don't think there is.

And really, I'm not sure that the people you're referring to actually post much anywhere else on the forum.

I mean, if I know who you're talking about, of course.

Alpharius wrote:

Are you saying that you choke the life out of the YMDC forum, even though it isn't how you play, just so you can...what?

Help me out here...!

I need to know just what are you doing?!?

I think Gwar! plays the way most of us do, but perhaps a little stricter to RaW. Most of his posts seem to be pointing out the logical inconsistencies of RaW rather than enforcing their use. Has no no else caught some of the sarcasm? However, by playing RaW you are playing by a universally accepted standard that GW has provided, which is extremely important in tournament play and non-friendly games (why would anyone play a non-friendly game?).

Also, it is important that by pointing out the RaW all the time, you are dealing entirely with the facts. It is the facts, not your personal worthless beliefs that govern inferences and decisions. Beliefs are only valuable when backed up with factual information, intellect, and reasoning, which most of the time, Gwar! manages to do effectively. Just because he isn't always nice when he does it doesn't mean he's wrong.

EDIT: On topic, splitting the forum would be a bit useless, because these posters who argue RaW at the intensity all of you have described might troll the other threads too. However, a more regularized format of thread topic like seen in the Swap Shop might prove useful.

I disagree, if they did Troll the other threads they would be subject to disciplinary action.

Clthomps wrote:I disagree, if they did Troll the other threads they would be subject to disciplinary action.

I suppose so.
However, you'd get a lot of snide remarks about "the other YMDC threads" and their uselessness.
For example, who REALLY wants to know how other people play a certain rule? The question is really just to invoke a rules debate, and if RaW-ers were disallowed from that part of the forum, you'd get all sorts of shenanigans.

I think the point of You Make The Call is for hard line rules answers, not RAP-ping. If you want RAP then you can ask for that in the original post.
So I guess I would be against splitting the forum.

Nightwatch wrote:
I think Gwar! plays the way most of us do, but perhaps a little stricter to RaW. Most of his posts seem to be pointing out the logical inconsistencies of RaW rather than enforcing their use. Has no no else caught some of the sarcasm? However, by playing RaW you are playing by a universally accepted standard that GW has provided, which is extremely important in tournament play and non-friendly games (why would anyone play a non-friendly game?).

By using phrases along the lines of 'well you can do that if you want to cheat...' or 'common sense is irrelevant'? Alittle stricter to RaW? Are you kidding me...
There is no universal standard provided by GW, if there were you'd have all the codices released within a relatively short time along with the ruleset all written by a small team who were operating along the same ethos, we don't have that, that's why we have 15 page rules arguments on forums and FAQs provided by the company that some people choose to ignore or deride.

Nightwatch wrote:
Also, it is important that by pointing out the RaW all the time, you are dealing entirely with the facts. It is the facts, not your personal worthless beliefs that govern inferences and decisions. Beliefs are only valuable when backed up with factual information, intellect, and reasoning, which most of the time, Gwar! manages to do effectively. Just because he isn't always nice when he does it doesn't mean he's wrong.

Worthless beliefs? What the hell? Anyone who used RAW is still employing their 'beliefs' in any case other than a clearly written rule. In cases where they are taking what is written down and applying it to a scenario, people are extrapolating that written information and applying it to the case. As we've seen in cases of 'all the weapons may fire' or (yes remember this?) 'may take 0-1 Leman Russ Battle Tank' and other ambiguous wordings or perceived alterations to different codices or updated rulesets , it then becomes a clash over what the written word means, due to multiple interpretations.

Nightwatch wrote:
EDIT: On topic, splitting the forum would be a bit useless, because these posters who argue RaW at the intensity all of you have described might troll the other threads too. However, a more regularized format of thread topic like seen in the Swap Shop might prove useful.

And I'd like to see a de-regularised of the current format, wherein someone raises a question, some debate occurs about what is practical and then the 'RAW' cult shows up, voices 'Teh Truff!' (or how they have read a certain sentence and interpreted the meaning of it) and start lambasting any other opinion. Frankly I want to see debate and choices not be squealed at by 'The Demagogue' about how I am cheating at toy soldiers if I don't adhere to a totally unplayable version of the rule he or she has conjured up by crossing three separate sentences together from a 10 year old codex, the rulebook on a totally unrelated subject and something written on the rosetta stone when by employing (dare I say it, feth yes I do) common sense and inferring another meaning to the original sentence we can come to an eminently sensible rule that most will agree to.

I want sensible and polite debate. This cult of 'RAW' is a relatively new thing, whilst the rules have always been quoted and cited (as you would expect), the deriding, snide and bullying attitudes of some in YMDC is recent and directly attributable to a very very small minority.


And here's the bottom line.
In the FAQs used by Games Workshop and the INAT FAQs produced for the international tourney circuit, there is NO adherence to the 'RAW' cult. None. In certain answers it's 'this is clearly written in the rulebook/codex' in others it's 'this is our clarifying on what's practical to play in this circumstance'. There is, at all times, simply the resolution of the query to result in a playable outcome.

You only have to read comments from the YMDC demagogues about 'well, then the FAQ is wrong' or 'it isn't official!! What I've interpreted from the rulebook must be!' to see how flawed the RAW mindset is and how divorced from the way games are being played not only across the world, but in the studios of the creating company.

People are reading YMDC answers from the most prodigious posters and taking it as gospel when nothing is further from the truth, the RAW answers are not in keeping with the rest of the world and therefore turning YMDC into a pocket of isolationist ideals, entirely the reverse of what it's supposed to be doing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

H3ct0r wrote:I think the point of You Make The Call is for hard line rules answers, not RAP-ping. If you want RAP then you can ask for that in the original post.
So I guess I would be against splitting the forum.

The point of YMDC is not 'hard line' answers but finding a playable outcome to a problem or scenario. Construing what you wish from the written word is all well and good, but that's not you Making the call, it's you citing text and claiming it as law.

As I've said, FAQs, both Games Workshop and internationally played tourney do not use a strict written word adherence.

You know, no-one is forcing you to go to YMTC...

Are you telling me to stay out of your sandpit gwar?

You really are hilarious...

*gentle reminder about Dakka posting guidelines, especially those to do with politeness to other users.*

..toy soldiers people !

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The point of YMDC is not 'hard line' answers but finding a playable outcome to a problem or scenario. Construing what you wish from the written word is all well and good, but that's not you Making the call, it's you citing text and claiming it as law.

Actually, in the time that I've been on Dakka (which is around 10 years now) YMDC has always been primarily focussed on RAW. And some posters have always adhered more or less rigidly to it than others.

What's happening in YMDC at the moment isn't anything new. It's just a particular conflict of personalities. It happens. Eventually, the more abrasive posters either settle down, get bored and wander off or tread over the line that one time too many and are shown the door.


Quite frankly, the vitriol aimed at posters who adopt a more RAW-based stance is no different to that aimed by RAW-fans at those who argue a more loose interpretation of the rules. Neither one does anything positive for the community.

If you disagree with a point of view, that's fine. But don't make it personal. It's just a game of toy soldiers... ultimately, does it really matter that much if someone thinks that their way of reading the rules is superior to your own?

Start treating it personally, and all that happens is that the arguments get more heated, more threads get locked, and the mods find themselves dealing with complaints of favouritism from both sides (who forget surprisingly quickly that most moderation is done privately) ad nauseum until they get sick of the whole business and suspend everybody involved.

A better YMDC forum isn't just a matter of tighter moderation and splitting off forums. It's simply down to you (that's a generic 'you' aimed at everybody) behaving in a civil and polite manner, regardless of how the 'other guy' is behaving... and remembering that it's all just about toy soldiers.

Maybe posters should accept that their questions will have multiple perspectives on the
matter rather than ghetto-izing themselves into separate forums. Someone will post with
RaW when you want RaI, and some will post with RaI when you want RaW. Instead of
dismissing a position (via personal attack and denigration) simply engage the types of
arguments you want to engage.

If someone pisses on you for not using RaW, hit the modalert.

If someone pisses on you for not using RaI, hit the modalert.

Gwar! wrote:You know, no-one is forcing you to go to YMTC...

no one is forcing you to go to the YMDC either Gwar.

Frazzled wrote:

Gwar! wrote:You know, no-one is forcing you to go to YMTC...

no one is forcing you to go to the YMDC either Gwar.

Indeed. But I don't see any problems with YMTC as it is, as Insaniak Pointed out.

Insaniak pointed out that there are constructive and appropriate ways to respond to problems, not that there are no problems.