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.

I'm at the beginning of a technical communications program at the moment, so I'm on a bit of an organization kick. I've noticed that most of the YMDC threads I get involved in these days tend to be locked because the topic has been discussed in another thread. So it strikes me that there are three kinds of thread in that forum:

1. Requests for rules, confirmation of the rules, basically stuff that would be resolved if someone had access to a rulebook or codex.

2. Open questions that continually come up until they're either added to the official FAQ or a new edition of the rules comes along.

3. New and interesting questions about the rules that haven't come up yet.

The first tend to be useless since asking for published material is against the rules, the second tend to be locked, and the third are rare (though less rare when a new codex comes out). So what I suggest is a change in how YMDC topics are moderated. Firstly there needs to be a list of open questions posted at the top of the forum, either pinned as their own threads or collated as posted in a single thread. Each open question should be accompanied by a list of proposed answers. This isn't so much to answer people's questions as to make them aware that there is no 'right answer' and that they should take it up with their opponent or tournament organizer. If people want to open a new topic to discussion, then moderators should review and either green-light or red-light a posted topic before it shows up in the forum. That should disappear all the posts of the first type, duplicates of the second type, and leave us with questions of the third type. Plus I believe it should cut down on the amount of moderator work in tidying up the duplicate posts, animosity, and requests for copy-right infringement that makes the forum a morass.

So, Stickies no-one will read, quadrupled Mod workload and no real benefit.

BRILLIANT!

Gwar:

The reason no one reads the current stickies is because it's easier just to post a question. If new threads require moderator approval, then people will have the motivation to check if their question has already been discussed. I've already addressed the ways in which this will improve moderator workload and other benefits. So, as usual, your input is worthless.

Or they will just post, post again when they don't see it, and make 3 more new posts because they never bothered to read the sticky that says that new posts need mod approval, thereby needlessly increasing mod load and killing off the whole point of a Forum.

Not only that, but what is going to stop mods simply disapproving posts from people they don't like?

Furthermore, your Jibe at the end is not needed or warranted. Were it not for the fact that mod alerts are useless anyway, I would report it, but that's getting off the point.

So, in conclusion, your idea is terrible, not thought out and pointless. Happy?

Here is a better idea: Have mods sanction people who ask for rules outright and those who also (needlessly) post rules outright? This can be done with no change to how the forum works, all it needs is for them to do it as they read the threads themselves or respond to mod alerts.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar:

The reason no one reads the current stickies is because it's easier just to post a question. If new threads require moderator approval, then people will have the motivation to check if their question has already been discussed. I've already addressed the ways in which this will improve moderator workload and other benefits. So, as usual, your input is worthless.

He's right. Its easy to not increase mod behavior, just decline everything.

Does anybody go to YMDC other than newer players with simple questions or people that just like the bloodsport? And if that's the case, what's the problem with simply pointing noobs to the proper thread? Instead of having mods do more work, let the people who love that stuff carry the load.

also, with all due respect to lego burner, it's not like the Dakka Search is a finely tuned machine. You can spend a long time searching for anything.

Can we get a search option going that can answer the questions of a person looking for an answer to commonly needed information and then resort to threads for those complicated questions that cause 600+ replies?

I say we block common used rule names as topic titles
With a little pop-up that suggests they use the search function instead.

۞ Jack ۞ wrote:I say we block common used rule names as topic titles
With a little pop-up that suggests they use the search function instead.

Explain?

The filters can be set to function in a seperate manner on the site i guess.
so they can stay as they are when used as a reply on a thread, but when used as part of a title for a new thread, the filter kicks in and blocks it.
This can then trigger a pop-up stating they must use the search function instead.

Just an idea anyway
Im no lego when it comes to computer knowledge.

If this is possible, it can easily be updated as more rules fit the criteria of "questioned to death"

Nurglitch wrote:IFirstly there needs to be a list of open questions posted at the top of the forum, either pinned as their own threads or collated as posted in a single thread. Each open question should be accompanied by a list of proposed answers. This isn't so much to answer people's questions as to make them aware that there is no 'right answer' and that they should take it up with their opponent or tournament organizer.

This sort of idea has been proposed periodically for a few years now. The main problem with it is the sheer amount of work in setting it up.

I started building a 'Rules Hot Spots' thread some time ago, intended to cover all the frequently debated topics... but simply didn't have time to keep working on it. It requires rather careful writing in order to remain unbiased.


The other problem with it, of course, being that nobody reads stickies. They'll be even less inclined to read a sticky that's a dozen pages long. It will be potentially more do-able when Lego gets the search sorted out, but even then it requires new posters to actually understand how it's set up and think of trying to search for what they want.

If people want to open a new topic to discussion, then moderators should review and either green-light or red-light a posted topic before it shows up in the forum.

This would kill traffic almost completely. We're no online all the time, and people aren't going to wait around for their post to appear. A certain number of the rules questions posted are from people in the middle of a game. Others are just impatient. But either way, they're going to go find a forum that actually lets them post and get answers coming in straight away rather than wait around for however long it takes for a mod to see the post in whatever queue system Lego has to build to make this work, check whether it's something that has already been covered in the sticky, and approve the post.

This sort of set up would certainly cut-down moderator workload... but only because nobody would be posting. On a post-for-post basis, it's hardly less work for mods to be approving every new post rather than just moderating those that require it.

Gwar! wrote:Not only that, but what is going to stop mods simply disapproving posts from people they don't like?

The fact that a certain level of maturity is assumed before they're offered the position, for starters. In other words, nothing more than is stopping them from deleting posts from people they don't like now...

Gwar! wrote:
Not only that, but what is going to stop mods simply disapproving posts from people they don't like?
Furthermore, your Jibe at the end is not needed or warranted. Were it not for the fact that mod alerts are useless anyway, I would report it, but that's getting off the point.

"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they ain't after you..."

Polonius wrote:Does anybody go to YMDC other than newer players with simple questions or people that just like the bloodsport? And if that's the case, what's the problem with simply pointing noobs to the proper thread? Instead of having mods do more work, let the people who love that stuff carry the load.
also, with all due respect to lego burner, it's not like the Dakka Search is a finely tuned machine. You can spend a long time searching for anything.

Herein lies the truth. YMDC does not work currently because it's become polluted and the healthy (albeit sometimes heated) debate that led me to join this site is no longer in effect. It's infested now with a freakish little cult of self for one poster and one mentality... and I do mean mental.
It is the culture of that board that is at fault, not the mechanic of it.

Sorting the Search function and having that to simply refer people to would be excellent, it would cut down on so much time to be able to refer posters to previous discussions quickly and accurately.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:It is the culture of that board that is at fault, not the mechanic of it.

This pretty much sums it up.

And ill leave it at that. No sense beating a dead horse.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Herein lies the truth. YMDC does not work currently because it's become polluted and the healthy (albeit sometimes heated) debate that led me to join this site is no longer in effect. It's infested now with a freakish little cult of self for one poster and one mentality... and I do mean mental.
It is the culture of that board that is at fault, not the mechanic of it.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

The vast majority of threads in YMDC are simple rules queries, asked and answered quickly and painlessly. For that, YMDC does its job just fine.

The threads that blow out into multi-page debates can often get a bit silly... but I suspect you're allowing your opinion of certain posters to colour your perception of the entire forum.

insaniak wrote:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Herein lies the truth. YMDC does not work currently because it's become polluted and the healthy (albeit sometimes heated) debate that led me to join this site is no longer in effect. It's infested now with a freakish little cult of self for one poster and one mentality... and I do mean mental.
It is the culture of that board that is at fault, not the mechanic of it.

Sorry, but this is nonsense.

Thanks for the blasé dismissal of my opinion. Very Moderator of you.
Perhaps you could ask legoburner to produce the figures for number of posts by individual on that board for the year, then correlate number of posts by individual to locked posts and moderator warning posts, then correlate it again to number of individual suspensions based on unacceptable behaviour in that board. I wonder what we'd find eh?

When we have those figures, I'd be delighted to discuss whether my thoughts are nonsense. In the meanwhile, let me adjust something for you and perhaps that will abate you somewhat...

YMDC is no longer a place where debate takes place, by that I mean if something is not entirely clear cut with a solidly explained rule, where grey areas can be said to exist and the answer is not simply **that rule is on page ##**. It is now a place where a certain few tout a 'gospel' and scream and spam down anyone or anything that does not hold with that jaundiced view of the rules and how to play. When I lurked for 8 months or so and then joined up, matters would be discussed, often in a heated manner but usually to a good conclusion which included logic and playability. Then the wind changed and a few folks sprung up who took the argument that the written word should be followed (which I had myself always felt most appropriate) and warped it into some utterly insane system wherein any weird and wonderful (or frankly trivial) oddity in the writing should, no, MUST be the truth and MUST be adhered to or 'you are a dirty cheat!' So, most threads over 1 page end up in vitriolic exchanges usually started by the 'Written Word as Law, no matter the Sense of them' group (as they have moved past RAW, I agree with RAW for the most part.

I again remind you of the bullcrap touted by a few following the new Imperial Guard codex that due to the word squadron, WH and DH armies could no longer take Leman Russ tanks. When any argument to the contrary was offered, those people were labelled as 'cheats' or 'clearly stupid' for seeking to evade or trying to ignore 'THE TRUTH*tm'.

Then the Imperial Guard FAQ was released by GW and they very clearly stated that OF COURSE the inquisition armies could still take those tanks.
This was immediately followed by those 'certain few posters' then starting some utterly boggling crusade about FAQs not being the rules, despite the rest of the world and it's aunty using them, despite the YMDC board clearly including them in decision making and rules answers and despite certain of that crowd writing their own FAQs at the same bloody time!!

Now that was some nonsense.

MGS, if you are going to insult me, at least do it properly and don't hide behind a paper thin veneer.

Actually we'd much prefer it if people wouldn't insult each other at all on the forum actually, Ta.

Especially over long past incidents.

Gwar! wrote:MGS, if you are going to insult me, at least do it properly and don't hide behind a paper thin veneer.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Perhaps you could ask legoburner to produce the figures for number of posts by individual on that board for the year, then correlate number of posts by individual to locked posts and moderator warning posts, then correlate it again to number of individual suspensions based on unacceptable behaviour in that board. I wonder what we'd find eh?

We'd find that despite all of that, the vast majority of threads in YMDC are simple rules queries that are asked and answered, and everyone moves on. Which goes against your claim that YMDC currently 'doesn't work'...

YMDC is no longer a place where debate takes place, by that I mean if something is not entirely clear cut with a solidly explained rule, where grey areas can be said to exist and the answer is not simply **that rule is on page ##**. It is now a place where a certain few tout a 'gospel' and scream and spam down anyone or anything that does not hold with that jaundiced view of the rules and how to play. When I lurked for 8 months or so and then joined up, matters would be discussed, often in a heated manner but usually to a good conclusion which included logic and playability. Then the wind changed and a few folks sprung up who took the argument that the written word should be followed (which I had myself always felt most appropriate) and warped it into some utterly insane system wherein any weird and wonderful (or frankly trivial) oddity in the writing should, no, MUST be the truth and MUST be adhered to or 'you are a dirty cheat!' So, most threads over 1 page end up in vitriolic exchanges usually started by the 'Written Word as Law, no matter the Sense of them' group (as they have moved past RAW, I agree with RAW for the most part.

The 10-page thread that I locked yesterday (as it had run its course) discussing Grey Knight units would seem to disagree with this claim.

One person having an opinion doesn't kill debate... Regardless of how frequently someone posts, readers are still free to make up their own minds as to which side of an argument is the 'right' one.

YMDC has always been skewed towards strict RAW. And the issue with people being called cheats for not following RAW was dealt with months ago.

I again remind you of the bullcrap touted by a few following the new Imperial Guard codex that due to the word squadron, WH and DH armies could no longer take Leman Russ tanks. When any argument to the contrary was offered, those people were labelled as 'cheats' or 'clearly stupid' for seeking to evade or trying to ignore 'THE TRUTH*tm'.

Then the Imperial Guard FAQ was released by GW and they very clearly stated that OF COURSE the inquisition armies could still take those tanks.
This was immediately followed by those 'certain few posters' then starting some utterly boggling crusade about FAQs not being the rules, despite the rest of the world and it's aunty using them, despite the YMDC board clearly including them in decision making and rules answers and despite certain of that crowd writing their own FAQs at the same bloody time!!

Now that was some nonsense.

And it was dealt with at the time.

So, in your opinion, there is nothing wrong with YMDC.

In mine, there is nothing wrong with it that one permanent ban couldn't considerably alleviate.

Meanwhile, back at the board in question:


If I visit a town and get mugged, then talk to the police who assure me that there isn't any mugging in their town, then I will avoid revisiting that town. If you, as the principal mod active in YMDC don't see an issue, then I am left with a choice to make about usage of that area of the forums I guess.

Edited by moderator. Gak-stirring isn't helpful


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:If I visit a town and get mugged, then talk to the police who assure me that there isn't any mugging in their town, then I will avoid revisiting that town. If you, as the principal mod active in YMDC don't see an issue, then I am left with a choice to make about usage of that area of the forums I guess.

Yes, because being mugged is exactly the same as crying over an internet argument?

What if each thread had a description field. Similar to the over-abused and failed meta-tags for html pages.
Or a tag implementation system similar to the miniatures gallery so that the tags could develop with user input as the thread developed.
Allowing the participants of the thread to help shape the level of the search function could acquire.
Maybe with a caveat that only participants may [tag] a thread.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:So, in your opinion, there is nothing wrong with YMDC.

In mine, there is nothing wrong with it that one permanent ban couldn't considerably alleviate.

I never said there was nothing wrong with YMDC. I merely disputed your claim that the board doesn't 'work'...

Perhaps a part of the problem is that you're expecting it to be something it's not. Rules discussions aren't something to be 'won'... The poster who gets the last word doesn't win the thread. Nor does the poster with the most posts. If it's a simple rules query, so long as it gets the right answer posted by someone, the thread has served its purpose. For the more 'debated' topics, the purpose of YMDC isn't really to come up with a single, 'correct' answer... that's never (or almost never) going to happen. The best we can hope for is that the various interpretations of the rule are laid out so that people can read the thread and make up their own minds.

If someone doesn't want to accept that one or more of those interpretations are a valid way of reading the rules, so be it. It doesn't force anyone else to accept that that poster's opinion is the correct one.

Nor does one person's refusal to back down kill a thread. It takes two to have an argument. If someone gets in the last word, it doesn't mean that they've 'won'... or that everyone reading the thread has to accept that their take is the correct one. It simply means that nobody is continuing the discussion.

And if someone is getting a little carried away, we deal with it. When we see it, or when someone reports it and we agree it's something that needs addressing.



Frankly, having spent more than 10 years now on rules discussion forums on multiple forums, YMDC is by far the best of them in my opinion. And is tame compared to the behaviour found on some. Rules discussion forums tend to be either over-moderated to the point of uselessness, or shark pits, simply because people can very easily get a little too attached to the need to be right, and get a little carried away.

If I visit a town and get mugged, then talk to the police who assure me that there isn't any mugging in their town, then I will avoid revisiting that town.

If that's what had actually happened, then yes, that would be an appropriate action.

I like it as its *YOU* make the call.

Not you decide the rules. Or we as the collective necrontyr/hive mind/will of the Imperium/WAAAAAAAAGHHGHHGGH! make the rules. It's very name and essence is about disagreement, debate, discussion and essentially philosophy. I like it.

I also like Gwar's encyclopedic rules knowledge and where appropriate the 'the answer is on page 7, paragraph 4, line 8, word 3' type answers.

What may reduce those is if like whineseer we have a search function near the 'new topic' or while creating a new topic a search bar stating 'ensure this hasn't been discussed before' type thing.

Just ignore the threads about questions you aren't interested in.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:Perhaps you could ask legoburner to produce the figures for number of posts by individual on that board for the year, then correlate number of posts by individual to locked posts and moderator warning posts, then correlate it again to number of individual suspensions based on unacceptable behaviour in that board. I wonder what we'd find eh?

I was curious so I thought I'd bite:

All within the last 12 months:
gwar posts in YMDC: 6151
non gwar total posts in YMDC: 86054
total threads with gwar posting in them in YMDC: 1593
total threads in YMDC without gwar: 6084
total threads with gwar that were locked: 83
total threads in YMDC that were locked (non gwar): 262
percentage of gwar threads locked: 5.21
percentage of non-gwar threads locked: 4.3

The difference in locking rate is just 0.9% between gwar and everyone who is not gwar. Considering the longer a thread goes on for, the more likely it is to get locked, and the longer a thread is present, the more likely it is for the most prolific poster on that board to join the discussion, I think that it is safe to say that there is a good reason why the gwar rate is even above the base rate. We can even test that a bit by looking at lock rates for threads under 2 pages long:
threads less than 2 pages where gwar posted but were locked: 29
threads less than 2 pages where gwar did not post and were locked: 125
gwar locked short threads: 1.8%
non-gwar locked short threads: 2.0%

which supports the hypothesis that in an average thread in YMDC (one which would not be heading for locking regardless), gwar does not cause a significant increase in thread locking.

Mod alerts is a very loaded statistic as we get people follow users around and alert on them. The database cannot distinguish between real alerts and junk alerts either so we dont use that figure for anything. Likewise, suspensions is tracked in the mod forum, not the database so I cannot do a comparison based on that, and even if it were possible, it would be heavily loaded as most people get banned for long periods and then cant or dont come back, skewing the mean.

Lego made me smile

Anyone else think that when you start to compare one person to everyone else combined for getting stuff locked.... that that alone should be a red flag on said user?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also while you are at it... lets see a comparison between Gwar! being suspended total and the number of suspensions total for Stelek.

Or we could, you know, stick to not discussing disciplinary action taken against a poster with anyone other than that poster.

Here's the thing: The mods are well aware that some posters don't like certain other posters. We're also aware that this results in people seeing posts that would be considered relatively inane if posted by someone else, and putting the worst possible spin on them as a natural side-effect of that dislike. That's not a dig at anyone... it's human nature to do so.

We have a responsibility to try to remain impartial. We also have an established disciplinary procedure that tries to give people the opportunity to adapt to the rules of the board, rather than just giving them the boot for not immediately toeing the line. As a result, there have been posters over the years who have been given 'extra' chances because their behaviour has (in the mod team's opinion) improved after disciplinary action has been taken, and/or because despite having a history of breaking the rules, their current behaviour (when examined impartially, and without being shaded by whether or not you happen to dislike that person) doesn't include anything that would warrant a full suspension.

So by all means report posts that you see as breaking the rules. And by all means stay away from threads or areas of the forum frequented by someone you dislike if you find yourself completely unable to remain civil in their presence. But we would ask that, instead of simply assuming that the mods are ignoring the problem, you assume that we have reasons for what we do, and are trying to perform a pretty thankless job to the best of our abilities, in a way that keeps things fair for everyone...

I think the mods are doing okay >.>