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.

Well, all that made me think is that a seperate, invisible DCM forum is a bad idea.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Well, all that made me think is that a seperate, invisible DCM forum is a bad idea.

Which part?
I assume that it is in relation to the small paragraph on the DCM forum in my post...

Is it:
The smaller forum size.
The same problems on dakka being in the DCM forum.
Having to read my inane posts on if I would be able to pull of the wearing of a bowler/derby hat to and from work.
Getting it as part of the package recieved because you choose to donate to the website (although several users who have been quite exceptional contributors have had DCM purchased for them as a 'thank you' from other DCMs)
Trying our best to not discuss in a negative way users who do not have access to the DCM forum.
DCMs being treated in the rest of dakka the same way as regular users. (DCMs have been suspended and perma-banned in the past)

How it has fragmented the posting community. It's bad that you rarely post outside the DCM forum, because you don't know...those people. I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people with more than 1000 posts you aren't familiar with. Also if the same topic is covered in both the DCM forum and the public one a DCM probably wouldn't bother covering the same ground again. Threads dwindle, and posters think others aren't interested even though actually from their perspective it's just that they already have already talked about it.
Also bowler hats.

I'd really like to see recasting become a verboten subject on Dakka, and not in the way it currently is.

More specifically, in a perfect world, I'd like to see any threads that explicitly show you how to recast Games Workshop items being locked, as is now policy. That's to protect Dakka since it's clear that there will be unwanted legal repercussions, and it's a safe harbor requirement.

But the other stuff, when someone is showing off their stuff and there is a recast like headlight or something, and then the next thing you know it's the internet IP lawyer squad rolling hot and the IPquisition and then a locked thread, pow, that sucked? I'd like to see that stop. I see that, and I mean this with the utmost respect, as a policy failure - a moderation failure, technically, but it's proper executed moderation based upon a flawed policy.

In my perfect world, people who raise the issue are engaging in off-topic spam and should be treated as such. It's disrespectful threadcrapping that invariably leads to a thread being locked regardless of the merits of the content.

Recasting for personal use is a complex issue of indeterminate legality, especially when widespread across hundreds of different legal jurisdictions all over the world as it is with Dakka, and generally speaking and most importantly it's virtually never on topic to discuss that stuff here, unless the topic specifically asked about it. Even then the official answer is invariably maybe, maybe not. Take that nonsense to a legal aid forum. In my perfect world, when that stuff started, the only response from Dakka moderation would be a message indicating that Dakka Dakka does not endorse copyright infringement, and to consult their lawyer if they have questions. Games Workshop has a very large and very aggressive legal department who are more then capable of taking care of their own problems and they simply do not need white knights in this venue.

I understand why the moderation has been inconsistent because it's a grey area. On the whole I think the moderators do an outstanding job with good professionalism and are pleasant, helpful, and polite.






Except Filbert. I heard he once killed a man just to watch him bleed. That guy, I don't know about.

I think all the mods are wonderful people with a keen sense of justice and fairness. Songs should be written detailing the sense of awe and wonder they bring whenever they show up in a thread. Their names should be chiseled into stone for future generations to read, and know that once we stood in the shadow of giants that brought order out of chaos.

mattyboy22 wrote:In fact, this attitude on the internet as a whole has grown over the years. IF someone disagrees with you the automatic reaction for many is to attack that person, (just look at the NEWS for plenty of examples), this type of behavior is even more prominent on the internet.

Too true, man... I mean just look at half of the conversations on social networking sites...

Dakka should be all about having different opinions on subjects but these different opinions should not be clashing in heated debates ending with moderators having to interfere, that just doesn't seem right.

Forgot to add that it isn't just people attacking someone for making a point. Even if one follows the earlier rule of asking for clarification or just responding to the point the original person will lash out wildly.

A: Point X
B: I'm not sure that is true.
A: OMG YOUR A TROLL WHY ARE YOU IN MY THREAD GO AWAY

KamikazeCanuck wrote:How it has fragmented the posting community. It's bad that you rarely post outside the DCM forum, because you don't know...those people. I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people with more than 1000 posts you aren't familiar with. Also if the same topic is covered in both the DCM forum and the public one a DCM probably wouldn't bother covering the same ground again. Threads dwindle, and posters think others aren't interested even though actually from their perspective it's just that they already have already talked about it.
Also bowler hats.

The point relating to the loss of content to the 'rest of dakka' is an excellent one. There are a couple of P&M threads going on there that could be out in the wider community, and enough OT to make your eyes bleed. However as an optional forum the users who have access to it can put pretty much anything they want there. If they want it as a limited view amonsgst a smaller 'crowd' then that it their choice.

I post primarily in the DCM forum not because of a clique but because i've been here 11 and a half years and pretty much anything that could be discussed, has, excepting new releases. Althought the wider variety of games up for discussion is much appreciated.
Because I don't post doesn't mean I don't read.

Also 2 kids, final exams for my specialist training as a doctor and moving house has meant limited time to do P&M blogs and really get involved.

I do know you and (some) of your threads. The one last year with the poll on the most powerful high lord of terra was of particular interest.

Also as an option to bowler hat, fedora and a cape was an exciting and unexpected offering from one young wag.

Ahtman wrote:I think all the mods are wonderful people with a keen sense of justice and fairness (snip)

I'm not sure if this is aimed at me in specific or the thread in general, but if me, then that's not really what I said. I don't think the mods are flawless. Case in point, there is a thread in the OT which I think has no place on Dakka. It's inexplicable to me why a thread whole sole stated purpose is to denigrate the physical appearance of people would be tolerated. But, you know, the big picture, I think the site provides significantly more signal then noise, and they play an enormous part in that.

Ouze wrote:
Except Filbert. I heard he once killed a man just to watch him bleed. That guy, I don't know about.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up such rumours. Plus, my social worker said I'm not to tell anyone...

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:I think all the mods are wonderful people with a keen sense of justice and fairness (snip)

I'm not sure if this is aimed at me in specific or the thread in general, but if me, then that's not really what I said.

I don't believe I mentioned you in any way, nor did I even think of you when I wrote that. I can't help but wonder if it isn't that kind of egocentric attitude that occasionally leads to problems. I was being grandiloquent for humor but generally think the mods do a good job considering they almost all have a life outside of Dakka. Almost.

Ouze wrote:It's inexplicable to me why a thread whole sole stated purpose is to denigrate the physical appearance of people would be tolerated.

Because not everyone has the same sense of humor and the whole event was very light-hearted; there was very little, if any, actual cruelty or spite involved.

Marine_With_Heart wrote:
Too true, man... I mean just look at half of the conversations on social networking sites...

That's why I hate social network sites. People are way out of touch on those things.

Friend A: "I think gay marriage is acceptable."
Friend B: "Go yourself."

-----------

Friend A: "I'm so depressed I think I might commit suicide."
Friend B: ""

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:How it has fragmented the posting community. It's bad that you rarely post outside the DCM forum, because you don't know...those people. I'm pretty sure I'm one of those people with more than 1000 posts you aren't familiar with. Also if the same topic is covered in both the DCM forum and the public one a DCM probably wouldn't bother covering the same ground again. Threads dwindle, and posters think others aren't interested even though actually from their perspective it's just that they already have already talked about it.
Also bowler hats.

The point relating to the loss of content to the 'rest of dakka' is an excellent one. There are a couple of P&M threads going on there that could be out in the wider community, and enough OT to make your eyes bleed. However as an optional forum the users who have access to it can put pretty much anything they want there. If they want it as a limited view amonsgst a smaller 'crowd' then that it their choice.

I post primarily in the DCM forum not because of a clique but because i've been here 11 and a half years and pretty much anything that could be discussed, has, excepting new releases. Althought the wider variety of games up for discussion is much appreciated.
Because I don't post doesn't mean I don't read.

Also 2 kids, final exams for my specialist training as a doctor and moving house has meant limited time to do P&M blogs and really get involved.

I do know you and (some) of your threads. The one last year with the poll on the most powerful high lord of terra was of particular interest.

Also as an option to bowler hat, fedora and a cape was an exciting and unexpected offering from one young wag.

I don't doubt that after 11 years seemingly everything has been covered but if nothing at all was of interest you'd never post. Yet your pretty sure your going to hit 40,000 tonite.

If a thread about the high lords is interesting post in it! I know it's in the scary wilderness area with the unwashed masses but still. When someone says " I really only post in the DCM now" you must admit that's a bad sign overall...

Ahtman wrote:Because not everyone has the same sense of humor and the whole event was very light-hearted; there was very little, if any, actual cruelty or spite involved.

When defending a thread whose sole purpose is to ridicule the physical appearance of people by pointing out it's absence of "cruelty", I have to note that you keep using that word, and that I do not think it means what you think it means.

Lt. Coldfire wrote:

Marine_With_Heart wrote:
Too true, man... I mean just look at half of the conversations on social networking sites...

That's why I hate social network sites. People are way out of touch on those things.

Friend A: "I think gay marriage is acceptable."
Friend B: "Go yourself."

-----------

Friend A: "I'm so depressed I think I might commit suicide."
Friend B: ""

That and the combination of people really just being jerks and assuming it automatically becomes more acceptable on the internet for some reason.

ouze - When defending a thread whose sole purpose is to ridicule the physical appearance of people by pointing out it's absence of "cruelty", I have to note that you keep using that word, and that I do not think it means what you think it means.

INCONCIEVABLE!!

Hmm. A little off topic - but I rarely post anywhere but the DCM threads as well. Not for any other reason other than most of the threads therin are good reads for the most part. If I see another "Matt Ward waaaagh" or "Failcost" thread - I'll scrub my brain with bleach.

But yeah - Mauleed - he was a legendary poster *sigh* - miss that dude. Hellfury was also awesome. I think at some stage both of them 'Boxed' my Interwebs activity. I learnt alot. Insaniak and Lorek also had to pull my head in for me a couple of times as well (only in the first few months - I have tried to be a good boy since then) and my posting only got better for it - (I think).

Most people find it virtually impossible to fault themselves, usually they try to find fault in others first.

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Because not everyone has the same sense of humor and the whole event was very light-hearted; there was very little, if any, actual cruelty or spite involved.

When defending a thread whose sole purpose is to ridicule the physical appearance of people by pointing out it's absence of "cruelty", I have to note that you keep using that word, and that I do not think it means what you think it means.

You don't like the thread, we get it. This isn't "Ouze's Forum O'Delight", where only threads Ouze likes get to exist. Again, not everyone is going to have the same sense of humor. Get over it and perhaps try to not break rule No. 1 while complaining about others seemingly being rude. I know precisely what the word cruelty means and I also know you are trying to make a sly insult by insulting my intelligence because you don't like something that others did.

If you think that disagreeing with you over the meaning of a word (cruelty) when discussing a thread devoted to making fun of people, then I also have to wonder if perhaps you know what Rule #1 means.

I think it's geared more towards not calling people, say, "egocentric" for wondering if a sarcastic post appearing directly after one of their posts might be aimed at them.

Manchu wrote:

kitch102 wrote:A genuine question / suggestion Manchu, do you think it would help to defuse some of these feelings that other users are having if the mods had personal accounts without the mod tag? That way it would be clearer that a mod were putting their own view across and not an official dakka ruling...

That is a good point. Some of us try to use colored text. I myself abandoned SCARY RED for friendly orange. Colored text or not, users don't always distinguish. One of the downsides to being a mod is that people treat you pretty differently. Some people seem to think that usually means "with more respect" but it's more often "with constant skepticism and criticism."

I prefer the orange because it contrasts well with the background. The Red isn't so good, I'm not colour blind or anything, it just doesn't show up well.



Ouze is pretty much spot on in all comments on this thread. I'm fed up of the IPquisition jumping on every thread with their non-existent legal know-how and moralistic finger wagging over the slightest thing.

As for the thread about ugly people, I don't see why that is so funny. Maybe some people do find it funny, but I think that says more about them than myself when I complain. I don't accept that it's okay because people have a different sense of humour, you still have to think about what you say. Some people (I believe they exist) find Roy Chubby Brown funny but that doesn't mean his acts are appropriate humour for this site.

Ouze wrote:In my perfect world, people who raise the issue are engaging in off-topic spam and should be treated as such. It's disrespectful threadcrapping that invariably leads to a thread being locked regardless of the merits of the content.

Calling it off-topic is a bit of a stretch. If someone is doing something illegal, pointing out that it is illegal is hardly off-topic. The fact that not everyone agrees that it is illegal is what inevitably leads to the ensuing discussion... but not agreeing with a statement doesn't make it off-topic.

In my perfect world, when that stuff started, the only response from Dakka moderation would be a message indicating that Dakka Dakka does not endorse copyright infringement, and to consult their lawyer if they have questions.

In a perfect world, that sort of disclaimer would be sufficient to prevent legal repercussions.

Games Workshop has a very large and very aggressive legal department who are more then capable of taking care of their own problems and they simply do not need white knights in this venue.

I don't think it's just 'White Knighting' though. In fact, I doubt that the bulk of it is. While there certainly may be some who post to point out that recasting is illegal who do so out of actual concern for GW's (or whoever else's) bottom line, I rather think that more often it's people either posting for the sake of posting, or posting out of a genuine concern for others to not get the wrong idea from what's being shown.

I am relatively new to this place so maybe my views don't count for much, but I want to share them anyway.
What I see on Dakka is an insane amount of polite, friendly people who are just here to have fun together. I don't see a lot of trolling, flaming or baiting going on at all. Sure it does happen from time to time, but nowhere near as often as it does on any other forum I have ever visited. The mods here really seem to know what they are doing, and most of the regular posters seem to want to keep this place nice and happy.
Newcomers are welcomed and treated with respect, my silly threads get silly replies, and I don't even see people care too much about post count numbers either. This place is very friendly compared to any other place on the internet I have ever been to.

Ahtman wrote:

Ouze wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Because not everyone has the same sense of humor and the whole event was very light-hearted; there was very little, if any, actual cruelty or spite involved.

When defending a thread whose sole purpose is to ridicule the physical appearance of people by pointing out it's absence of "cruelty", I have to note that you keep using that word, and that I do not think it means what you think it means.

You don't like the thread, we get it. This isn't "Ouze's Forum O'Delight", where only threads Ouze likes get to exist. Again, not everyone is going to have the same sense of humor. Get over it and perhaps try to not break rule No. 1 while complaining about others seemingly being rude. I know precisely what the word cruelty means and I also know you are trying to make a sly insult by insulting my intelligence because you don't like something that others did.

I am assuming the thread in question was the one about ugly female singers.

I did not like that thread myself, due to the obvious degree of sexism/misogynism in the whole topic.

As a moderator I took a view that it was about public figures who frequently trade on their looks, and did not involve discussion of forum members. Also, from what I read in the first page or two, it was fairly light-hearted and jokey.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Medium of Death wrote:If you dislike a 'moderation' you can PM the moderator and clearly/politely state your point.

That's a waste of time. Trust me.

In my experience moderators are most helpful when you believe in tangible gratitude. Just ask Lorek if he can take off your hand an extra case of sterno. I guarantee you'll see results, or my name isn't Frazzled.

In fact this index may be particularly helpful:
Redy: quality scones and some nice concord jelly
Lorek: Sterno
Alpharius: 40 ouncers are his friend
Malfred: socks
KillKrazy: late 80's Death metal, or alternatively Smurfs. I'm not sure of the connection between the two.
Kid Kyoto: a strange fascination with 18th century haberdashery

I miss the DCM forums. It reminds me somewhat of old Dakka and is all around more fun.

One of these months, I'll pony up the cash again.

filbert wrote:

Ouze wrote:
Except Filbert. I heard he once killed a man just to watch him bleed. That guy, I don't know about.

There's absolutely no evidence to back up such rumours. Plus, my social worker said I'm not to tell anyone...

I knew it! There's always been something fishy about him...

@Ouze: As I already mentioned, if a plog has a few recast parts in it that aren't the focus of the thread I tend to think that piling on about those parts is spammy, if not necessarily off-topic. I'd say that it can get to the point of derailing the thread so that it becomes "off-topic" in that sense. As a lawyer myself (although not in IP), I too am weary of seeing the "IPquisition reaction" again and again.

@KamikazeCanuck: I don't think that W_G spending a lot of time in the DCM forum is bad at all. I'd guess the only thing he really misses out on are getting to know that cadre of posters who only post in OT. Plus, the moderators have diverse style and we tend to cover different things. For example, I spend little to no time in the DCM forum.

Ouze wrote:If you think that disagreeing with you over the meaning of a word (cruelty) when discussing a thread devoted to making fun of people, then I also have to wonder if perhaps you know what Rule #1 means.

I don't for one second believe you weren't trying to be rude and insulting, thus breaking Rule 1. If you were wanting to have a reasonable discussing about it you would have stopped at pointing out that just saying something isn't cruel isn't a very good defense, and that would be understandable, but you then had to throw in a little jibe about not knowing what even a basic word meant at the end. While not a huge insult, it is still an insult and beyond just disagreeing and making a point, which wouldn't even be so except you are in a thread complaining about the lack of (or perceived lack of ) respect between posters. If you want to start flinging around not knowing what words mean at people, try looking up hypocrite. You can't force other people to act how you want, but you can control yourself.

Marine_With_Heart wrote:

mattyboy22 wrote:In fact, this attitude on the internet as a whole has grown over the years. IF someone disagrees with you the automatic reaction for many is to attack that person, (just look at the NEWS for plenty of examples), this type of behavior is even more prominent on the internet.

Too true, man... I mean just look at half of the conversations on social networking sites...

Dakka should be all about having different opinions on subjects but these different opinions should not be clashing in heated debates ending with moderators having to interfere, that just doesn't seem right.

But that would mean having different opinions about hating GW, and that's bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:@Ouze: As I already mentioned, if a plog has a few recast parts in it that aren't the focus of the thread I tend to think that piling on about those parts is spammy, if not necessarily off-topic. I'd say that it can get to the point of derailing the thread so that it becomes "off-topic" in that sense. As a lawyer myself (although not in IP), I too am weary of seeing the "IPquisition reaction" again and again.

So recasting is ok? That's what you're implying. Or at least it's ok when you think it's ok. Why is that? (looking for an honest answer - but expecting some iteration of "because I'm the guy with the button".)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:Worglock, I notice that you like to respond to ongoing conversations with inflammatory but unsubstantial remarks. You're very consistent in that respect, so I understand why you would emphasize consistency at the expense of reality in your approach to logic. Yes, logic can be hard -- but not too hard, after all. Situations are treated similarly to the extent that they are similar and differently to the extent that they are different. In nectarprime's case, his desire for consistency was countermanded by his opposing desires: that OP in one case be let alone and OP in another be sanctioned. The only real trouble, at least until he changed his mind about it in this thread, was that the outcome he desired was opposite that which actually occurred. The concept of consistency is an ex post facto rationalization in this case. I'm not saying his current viewpoint is not legitimate -- I think it's very legitimate in contrast to his original one.

I'm sorry you feel that way, but unless I missed some fine print somewhere, there is nothing in the rules about "disagreeing" being considered "inflammatory". But I have pointed out to the mods several instances of "Rule 1" that little, if anything, was done about. But I'm ok with that, because I have a point to prove and I expect it out of "this part" of the hobby.

@Worglock: Let's take a minute to compare and contrast the Rules and the Rulings. In a common law system, there are laws promulgated by statutes that apply to the population generally and laws promulgated by court rulings, consisting of the interpretation of a judge regarding particular circumstances, that apply to the particular persons involved in said circumstances and which may apply to others similarly situated. Both are examples of law. DakkaDakka is a common law jurisdiction for these purposes. The published rules, few as they are, are not the only rules. Each instance of moderation is a rule with regard to the user or users moderated. Thus, in the example you give: if a moderator determines that you are not merely disagreeing but also being inflammatory, the rule in that case is that you are flamebaiting/trolling and may deserve a warning or even suspension. At the same time, a moderator is not bound to decide this -- it is a matter of discretion, which is a fundamental principle of our capacity and authority (such as it is).

Which leads me to another point: here's an interesting way in which DakkaDakka differs from a common law jurisdiction like the ones with which you might be familiar: you are not allowed to litigate. You can ask about your moderation and a moderator may elect to explain it to you. The moderation team on DakkaDakka is pretty good about taking the time to do that. But you may not "appeal" the moderation and any attempt to argue the letter of the rules is pointless -- for the very reason that this is not the point of the rules themselves. This seems kind of unfair if you forget what the rules themselves do -- they foster an atmosphere in which people address each other with a bare minimum of courtesy on a webforum dedicated to toy soldiers. If the rules (published or otherwise) required any great feats of moral courage or ethical fortitude, we might be open to users arguing about what the rules do or do not entail. (We also might be more picky about the users, and certainly the moderators.) But they don't, so we aren't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

So recasting is ok? That's what you're implying. Or at least it's ok when you think it's ok. Why is that? (looking for an honest answer - but expecting some iteration of "because I'm the guy with the button".)

Well, it depends on what you mean by "recasting is okay." There is actual law about this and the possibility that it could be enforced to the detriment of this website. OTOH, there is also what people actual practice -- which is often the subject of their own moral scrutiny, i.e., conscience. My own conscience is not repulsed by the thought that someone might recast bitz for personal use, especially in the context of conversion. Given any particular example of a thread involving recasting, I have to balance the reaction of my conscience, the demands of the law, and the purpose of the website (which I view as "to foster discussion and fellowship among tabletop wargamers/collectors/modellers/etc") and come up with a solution that would in my view fulfill the expectations of a reasonable person. To be more succinct, I never consider my moderation of any particular thread to be a blanket statement that "recasting is always okay" or "recasting is never okay" and neither should you, whether or not you actually are or are not a reasonable person.

I have returned just to point out that the Squat recasts are still posted.