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 idea behind permitting only one post is that you have to get it right the first time.

One reason why people's posts tend to be wrong and incomprehensible is that people (yeah, me included) tend to post without really putting much thought into what and how they write.

So while your criticism is valid for a multiple-post environment, where people can just explain themselves post factum (pun intended) and don't really take the time to make sure they're both understood and correct the first time, it's not really valid for a single-post environment.

Something to keep in mind is that people can and do adapt to new systems, despite initial teething problems. A single-post system notably has a nice sharp learning curve for such transitions.

So my reply to your criticism is that I think the reason you can't trust anyone else to come and post a correct and comprehensive reply (to anyone) is that you're used to a multiple-post system where there's no incentive for doing so, and no disincentives for not doing so. You're applying a criticism of people's behaviour under the existing system to people's behaviour under a different system, which makes it somewhat less than valid in its application.

About whether my proposal is the ideal system: The problem with holding out for the ideal is that the ideal is an abstract notion, rather than an actual state of affairs. In states of affairs we just want what'll do the job and do it the most cost-effectively of all available options.

My proposal will make moderation much easier, so it's cost-effective in that fashion. Whether it's the best is an open question, but I offer it and suggest it is because it requires us to think a little harder about getting the rules right and communicating that before we post, and that can't possibly be a bad thing in YMDC.

Perhaps as a compromise a 1 post per page or per 15 posts would be more ideal. It gives us incentive to post a clear and concise argument on the first post, and if it is enough of an issue where it continues on to multiple pages then that poster will be able to reply and give their feedback to what other posters have said after him or her.

Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?

At the same time...Why NOT allow anyone to reply if a majority of responses are insulting or add nothing to the discussion?

Honestly limiting the amount of responses a user can post is probably not the best idea, but this thread was made for a reason. To discuss ideas to improve the quality of the YMDC section.

Yes and part of that discussion is to poke holes in others Ideas is it not?

Yes, and normally if you want to 'poke holes' or discredit an idea it's normally advisable to provide a decent counter point or alternate idea.

Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?

This would defeat the purpose of the forums which is a place for multiple users from around the net to provide feedback to questions that others may have about rules questions. Only allowing mods to respond would not only take up way too much of their time, but it would only be the view points of a few people. A limit to posts would allow anyone to respond to any questions and prevent flame wars.

Point/counter point.

It would not prevent flame wars, it would just result in people making multiple accounts or just much slower flame wars.

Gwar! wrote:Well if you are going to limit the ability to reply why allow anyone to reply except mods and admins?

they said limit, not ban.......

its that all or nothing, Black and white approach to YMDC that starts all the fights.........

Gwar! wrote:It would not prevent flame wars, it would just result in people making multiple accounts or just much slower flame wars.

And that is a very good point.

And +1 for what DJ said. There is rarely ever any middle ground in YMDC.

Trasvi wrote:I also think it is a hard task because there are so many different views that people come from:
1) Games Workshop writers are perfect,... etc...

It generally has nothing to do with the quality of GW's rules writers. However skilled or not they are with the written word, the rulebook is what it is.

We generally have two types of rules discussions going on: 'How does this rule work?' and 'How is this rule played?'

Neither of those are really affected a great deal by whether or not the writers wrote what they originally intended. The first is answered only by looking at the actual rules, because that is the only real reference that we have, however well or badly written it may be. The second is answered only by the players, and is really completely independant of the rulebook. Or rather, it's limited more by how the players want to play the game then by actual rules.

The moment you step away from the actual written rule into the realm of 'Well, it says this, but probably actually means this' you're no longer discussing the actual rule. You're discussing an alternate way of playing it.


That doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it a different discussion. But I think that's where a lot of the misunderstandings come from. People get a little fixated on making their point, without stopping to consider whether they're making it in the right discussion. People talking about how they choose to play the game get understandably cranky when someone insists that they're cheating because the rules say differently or keeps derailing the conversation with RAW arguments. And people discussing the actual rules get cranky when people keep insisting that the writer obviously meant something other than what he wrote, or that the way they choose to play it is the 'right' way regardless of what the rules say.

I've no idea if this post actually adds anything constructive to the discussion. I'm still on my first coffee of the morning.

Gwar!:

Please explain how limiting the number of posts per thread would not prevent flame wars?

You are aware that sock-puppetry, meaning multiple accounts, is against the forum rules right? And doing so is pretty obvious because your IP is logged when you post.

Nurglitch wrote: And doing so is pretty obvious because your IP is logged when you post.

Funny story: Several years back I was banned from Warseer. For a while I went back using a proxy to vent my displeasure, which resulted in all proxies being automatically banned as soon as they were detected. I no longer require proxies to visit Warseer as a member, but if I wanted my current account there banned, I would visit using a proxy. And since Dakka is in all ways better than Warseer, I feel comfortable assuming the Yakface and Legoburner likewise know how to permanently ban people for sock-puppetry.

Nurglitch wrote:You are aware that sock-puppetry, meaning multiple accounts, is against the forum rules right?

Doesn't appear to be.


Unless there are more rules hidden somewhere. Wouldn't surprise me... this site has stuff tucked away in the strangest places.

Ooh, I just noticed the rules page still shows the top Posters. Yay I am #1 This week

insaniak:

Imagine, if you will, that you get into a conversation with the manager at your FLGS. In the middle of that conversation the manager happens to very earnestly say something very strange ("GW miniatures are now 100% organic!"), so you ask for some sort of confirmation ("Are you sure?"). Instead of pulling out a rulebook, or suggesting a source, or backing down ("Well, it's what I heard!"), they instead duck behind the register, put on a fake mustache-spectacles combination, and then using a nasally voice introduces themselves as their own cousin. This cousin, or rather the manager in disguise, confirms that what the manager originally said is true ("Indeed my good fellow, styrene plastic is composed of organic molecules, pip-pip!"). This is sock-puppetry. Amongst other thing it is very rude. Being rude contravenes the first rule of Dakka Dakka.

Well what if you are very polite about it?

And anyway, in your example it should be the Manager makes an Outrageous claim, you ask him to back it up, and he can't now because big men with clubs are stopping him say anything else.

I'm sure if they really wanted to stop sock-puppet accounts they could block different accounts from the same IP. It's not really an issue I see around here enough to warrant something that drastic though.

Honestly, that would end up blocking me as well since I usually log on from my work which shares the same IP as a couple other users on Dakka.

And what happens if two brothers or College room-mates use dakka?

Night Lords wrote:

Gwar! wrote:Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?

At first I thought this to be an insult, but then thinking about it, from your perspective it must mean Im always right and I walk on holy land. Thanks

Man you are paranoid.

G


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Axyl wrote:I'm sure if they really wanted to stop sock-puppet accounts they could block different accounts from the same IP. It's not really an issue I see around here enough to warrant something that drastic though.

Honestly, that would end up blocking me as well since I usually log on from my work which shares the same IP as a couple other users on Dakka.

I would give my left nut to see the demise of the sock puppets.

G

An interesting point about the sock-puppet accounts being a problem is that, if we were limited to one post per YMDC thread, they would be easily detected.

They would not be easily detected however, as there are 9001 ways to mask an IP.

No doubt. It's still not a serious problem.

Gwar! wrote:They would not be easily detected however, as there are 9001 ways to mask an IP.

This is so true.

Also, Nurglitch and Gwar!, look at your current discussion in this topic. With (some of the) new posts, new points are being brought up from both of you. Now, imagine that you could only post once in THIS entire discussion for example, and how much harder it would be to get your point across.

I rather like the idea of a single post per user in YMDC. Might promote a little research and thought and less knee jerk. You want to post your one allocated response calling someone a cheater or regurgitating something someone else just posted? Go right ahead. Your voice is heard but you don't get to shout down anyone else because you have more unengaged time to sit in front of the keyboard.

The way I see it YMDC could almost function like a very verbose poll. A question is posited, and the players weigh in on the answer. Once. Then when new players come along they don't have to sift through pages of crap to get new opinions.

Personally I like the direction the "How would you play this?" polls take things because it's very clearly NOT a question about what exact parsing of words create... but how a given situation is best played. *THAT* in my opinion is the best goal. What makes the game the most fun and offends the imagination the least?

Eight Ball:

Re-reading my exchange with Gwar!, I can't help but notice that no new or interesting points are raised by either of us until a third poster steps in and posts something. I don't know about Gwar!, but I can't honestly say I put much thought or effort into the exchange, and I think it pretty much acts to underscore my point about how such a dialog is pretty much just spam.

The Green Git wrote:Personally I like the direction the "How would you play this?" polls take things because it's very clearly NOT a question about what exact parsing of words create... but how a given situation is best played. *THAT* in my opinion is the best goal. What makes the game the most fun and offends the imagination the least?

Which can be useful in some situations, and completely useless in others.

If all you're after is examples of how different people play the game so you can decide which way to go for your home games, those threads are fine.

But if you're playing anywhere else, while they may be informative, they're ultimately useless. You can have a thread in which 99% of the entire Dakka population says that they play a given rule a certain way... and still walk into a gaming club or store and find that everyone there plays it completely differently.

Yup. It's important to distinguish between what the rulebooks recommend, and how the game is actually played.

@ Insaniak: Well, assuming you are right about them playing it differently at different shops...then wouldn't knowing the official answer even if they play it differently be the same?

Of course it certainly helps to walk in there with proof or a good argument that the way you play is correct, if they play it differently at that specific shop then isn't it a good idea to just go along with the way it is played in that shop? Especially on things that do not have clear cut rules (deff-rolla, etc.).

Knowing the rules inside and out is great, but having a rule set that both you and your opponent agree on is best.

Axyl wrote:@ Insaniak: Well, assuming you are right about them playing it differently at different shops...then wouldn't knowing the official answer even if they play it differently be the same?

Not sure what you mean. What official answer?

Of course it certainly helps to walk in there with proof or a good argument that the way you play is correct, if they play it differently at that specific shop then isn't it a good idea to just go along with the way it is played in that shop?

Absolutely. My point wasn't that you walk in and start telling them to change their ways because they're playing it wrong. It was that knowing the different ways that the rules are interpreted means that it's less of a surprise when you come across someone doing it differently.

From my experience (for what little that anecdotal evidence is worth) most venues (stores or clubs, generally) play by the rules, with very few house rules thrown in. Differences in different venues come from different interpretations of ambiguous rules, rather than deliberate changes. YMDC helps people to understand these different interpretations before the fact, rather than winding up arguing about it at the table.

House rules, which crop up more frequently in the 'how do you play it?' threads, are less important to this process, since they're going to be (or at least should be) explained and agreed to before you start playing anyway.

Knowing the rules inside and out is great, but having a rule set that both you and your opponent agree on is best.

Again, absolutely. but knowing the rules inside and out makes it a lot easier to reach that agreement, since you're more likely to already understand where your opponent is coming from when he suggests that something works differently.