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.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

In what way is your religion not an ongoing action and decision by you?

WTF does his religion have to do with this?
okay... logical breakdown:

everyone wants to play
some want a certain standard
standard is either met or not met (aka proxies/paintblobs/grey n metal/etc)

If there are lots of beautiful terrain boards then everyone is happy
If there are only so many tables, and so much space, set up ad-hoc boards for the people who didn't meet the entrance standards

so everyone can play!

the non-aesthetics don't care, and the aesthetics can have their pretty boards.

I still want to emphasize that the ad-hoc tables would be great also for temporary arts n crafts stations for people with unfinished armies to finish, or build some terrain, in between rounds.

I can't see how it is an embarrassment to play on gak terrain if you bring a gak collection of miniatures. You dont have to paint it all awesome, just an effort (my stuff sucks by GW standards BTW and I have a busy life and limited resources too but I still manage to get my stuff legit by the hobbyists standard). If you don't care at all about the aesthetic appeal that so many players enjoy (why they dick around with little toys like this in the first place) then maybe chess is a better tournament for you.

The idea here is to encourage people to get their stuff done, while at the same time letting them play in the tournament.

It is not discriminatory if I require someone trying out for my band to know how to play bass, or to meet a certain standard of sociability (aka can he 'hang') it is just making for a better band. Requiring a painting standard does the same discretionary filtering.
Neither do I go to get a job at Mens Warehouse wearing a T-shirt and jeans.

What the was proposed, is to set up a side table for those who DONT (for whatever excuse here) meet the basic requirements, so that they can at least participate, albeit on an ad-hoc table. Pair off the painters and the unpainters in the first round and see where it goes from there. Maybe you'll get the 1st place win as a duel between the lead painter player and the lead non-painter proxy player... I dunno like the AFC vs the NFC.

At any rate, at least everyone is given the option to compete even if they cannot meet the standards established.
I don't see how this is a bad thing.

Lesson of the day: Analogies suck because they have the word anal in them.

and abstractions are awesome because they have abs of awe?

Guitardian wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Refusing/unable to paint your minis is not a class, not a race, not a gender, not a religion... It is an action and a decision, unless you had both your thumbs blowwn off by a firework accident or something.

In what way is your religion not an ongoing action and decision by you?

WTF does his religion have to do with this?

He brought it up as something that it's wrong to discriminate against because it's not an action that you take or a decision that you make, and I said that both of those premises are wrong.

I can't see how it is an embarrassment to play on gak terrain if you bring a gak collection of miniatures. You dont have to paint it all awesome, just an effort (my stuff sucks by GW standards BTW and I have a busy life and limited resources too but I still manage to get my stuff legit by the hobbyists standard).

So you'd be fine with me painting in combinations that make your eyes bleed and have so much paint slathered on that you can barely make out wysiwig?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
WTF does his religion have to do with this?

He brought it up as something that it's wrong to discriminate against because it's not an action that you take or a decision that you make, and I said that both of those premises are wrong.

Basically... RELIGION is a protected class which is unlawful to discriminate against, just like the other examples. Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit, you would be making a discrimination based upon a class of people which I am a part of.

Painting your minis is a merit based classification 100% directly based upon your actions or in-actions. It is not a protected class or even a non protected class (like people who wear blue shirts or something).

I don't like the idea of good tables for good players or vice versa. OTOH, I do think incentives should be built in with advanced knowledge that a painted army should be a wanna-have for any player rather than a grey "super-list" army.

The old RTT is good. I had a system that came out to about 45% game result and 55% sportsmanship, army balance and painting. You could play and compete with a grey hoard but your margin for error was close to nil so you better plan on winning all 3-4 rounds of the tourney and being a good sport to balance out not having a fully painted army.

Don't turn people away or shame them for not being painted but provide a built-in bonus for those who are putting in the time and effort to paint theirs.

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

DAaddict wrote:

Don't turn people away or shame them for not being painted but provide a built-in bonus for those who are putting in the time and effort to paint theirs.

This.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

And legally, you cannot discriminate based upon what I believe or associate with when it comes to religion, only by my actions. So if I *DO* something, you can discriminate. Otherwise, you cannot. Not liking religion doesn't allow you to legally discriminate.

But way to take this down that path by being ignorant of the basic concept of civil rights and how 'not painting your figures' could in nay way be legitimately compared to actual discrimination... because it can't regardless of your stance on religion.

All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

nkelsch wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:

nkelsch wrote:Instead of basing your treatment of me by my actions and discriminating on my personal actions and merit...

Ah, but I am discriminating based on your personal actions and merit. You personally chose to continue your association with and belief in the dogma of X religious group. Religion is not inherent and (relatively) unchangeable. Gender, sexuality, ethnicity, on the other hand, are.

And legally, you cannot discriminate based upon what I believe or associate with when it comes to religion, only by my actions. So if I *DO* something, you can discriminate. Otherwise, you cannot. Not liking religion doesn't allow you to legally discriminate.

But way to take this down that path by being ignorant of the basic concept of civil rights and how 'not painting your figures' could in nay way be legitimately compared to actual discrimination... because it can't regardless of your stance on religion.

All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

I'm pretty sure it's Obama's fault at this point.

Guitardian wrote:I'm pretty sure it's Obama's fault at this point.

It's always the Dark Lord's fault.

nkelsch wrote:
All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

That is not strictly speaking true. In France, for example, the traditional Muslim burkahs are forbidden in some places. While they may not be telling someone that they cannot attend school because of their religion, they are telling them that they cannot attend school while wearing clothing that their religion requires. The effect is the same.

For the most part, laws against religious discrimination are only enforced when it comes to protecting the Judeo-Christian faiths. Members of the American Armed Services have been discriminated against when they have wanted to display pagan symbols (pentagrams) on their military tombstones, by way of example.

This has very little to do with painting at a tournament though. On-topic, really, it seems like Augustus is looking for a way to discourage unpainted armies without actually banning them (as the venue operator does not want to exclude them), and he wants to do so in a way that still retains a more traditional scoring structure (rather that just boosting the painting scores). I think, really, what needs to happen is that Augustus and the venue owner need to work out this difference of opinion. If it's the TO's call, the Venue Owner should allow the TO to set the conditions for entry. If it's the Venue Operator's call, then Augustus should either honor the Venue Operator's wishes without trying to work around it, or should step down and allow the Venue Operator to run the event.

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

Having a belief is not an action. Doing something based on that belief is an action. You may take actions based upon what they do, not what is going on up inside their head.

And the point has gone over your head... It *IS* a protected class in 99% of the countries that people who play this game an talk on these boards... Which means saying 'I dun paint mah figurez, dizcriminatuhnZ!' is laughable as it is not a protected class... or a class at all. It is merit based.

This is just silly. Next you'll suggest we build a special enclosure for the non-painted armies and their generals. The generals will be provided paint and brushes, then forced to paint their armies prior to being let out. Any models not finished by the end of the tournament will be showered with gasoline and incinerated in a small BBQ. It will be termed the final solution. I do nazi what the problem is with this approach. It will be a hit luring players in and forcing them to paint it. To keep track of how many paintless folks you corral, you should probably stamp their hands, or write a number on their forearm or something.

Not to be inhumane, make sure you provide them with a lot of juice, which you can also keep within the corral. It will help them concentrate in their camp.

In short, I invoke Godwin's Law. We're in a toilet bowl of circular arguments.

Redbeard wrote:

nkelsch wrote:
All US, UK and all of europe prevent discriminating against people based on religion. Good luck telling someone they can't shop at your store or board a plane because of their religion.

That is not strictly speaking true. In France, for example, the traditional Muslim burkahs are forbidden in some places. While they may not be telling someone that they cannot attend school because of their religion, they are telling them that they cannot attend school while wearing clothing that their religion requires. The effect is the same.

Effect is the same, and the country still legally doesn't discriminate based upon protected class, they simply ruled clothing and dress codes is not free speech. while the effect is the same, different laws.

Oh good lord with the melodrama...
It's not like freeing the slaves or something! sheeessh!

Extra tables means people can be in it despite 'standards' (making host and unpainted players happy) and still have place to play (making people in general happy) while still not annoying elitists (making elitists happy) while also saving work for the TO (making TO happy)...

everyone's happy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This isn't exactly gassing jews here

anooci wrote:Is there a difference between playing a painted army and playing an unpainted army? Sorry, I just don't get it. o-o;

That is like asking if there is a difference between a blank canvass and a painting

I started a similar thread to this not too long ago and the same debates appeared ... to me this is not just a game ... it is also a HOBBY, a hobby that requires PAINTING ... i am all for this idea.

Unpainted armies still get to play ... but if you want to play with nice looking armies ... on nice looking tables ... then paint your damn army.

I've been following this for quite some time, and this what I'm seeing:

People with fully painted armies whining about how elitest and discrimantory they think the idea of having players with unpainted armies play on an "unfinished" table is.

I play an unpainted army; it's the only one I have. It's been a work in prgoress for painting for 6 months, but I still have not been able to sit down and get all of the models in my army up to a three color standard. I played in 'Ard Boyz, and was happy to do so because they allowed me to play below the three color standard.

As much as playing on a paper table may be "shameful", "elitest", "discrimenating", "stupid", or just "down-right-wrong", I don't see it that way. Because the event will be open to people like me, and I'll be glad to attend. I'll finally be able to start getting some experience uner my belt that I desperately need right now as a new player.

On top of that, it looks like no one is reading Augustus' propistion. The idea is that the players with the unpainted armies play one round on the paper table, not the whole tourney. And it's going to be posted in advance so that people like me can try to rush paint the rest of their army if they're not comfortable with the consequences.

I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

nkelsch wrote:

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Quick question, because the point seems to have gone over your head:

Is belonging to a religion a decision or an action?

Having a belief is not an action.

But it is a decision, yes?

Doing something based on that belief is an action. You may take actions based upon what they do, not what is going on up inside their head.

And the point has gone over your head

Not if the point is still the one that you haven't seen it hasn't. You stated that object X does not belong to category Y because it has attributes A, B, and C. You then listed, as belonging to category Y, an object which has attributes A, B, and C. I objected to your definition on the basis that two objects have the same relavent attributes and yet one belongs to category Y and one does not. You did not argue against this, you simply refered to the law in place of an argument, and then you continued to argue against an argument about what should be with what is.

In short, you don't understand what's going on here.

.. It *IS* a protected class in 99% of the countries that people who play this game an talk on these boards... Which means saying 'I dun paint mah figurez, dizcriminatuhnZ!' is laughable as it is not a protected class... or a class at all.

It is a class. If I have an unpainted army, I belong to the class of people who own unpainted armies.

It is discrimination. It's legal discrimination, but it is still discrimination. The existence of classes of people that you cannot discriminate against outright implies that there are classes of people against whom it is completely legal to discriminate. Nobody here has so much as hinted that such action as the OP has suggested would be illegal, and it's outright lunacy to argue against that in place of what people have actually posted.

Cheers WARBOSS TZOO!

Thanks for not loosing focus on the OP ... far too often does this happen!

And also props for being able to recognize the difference between discrimination and LEGAL discrimination


I put in a DAMN lot of time making sure that my armies look good ... and I NEVER field a unit until I consider it D O N E!

So yeah ... am i going to turn down a game against someone with a different philosophy? OF COURSE NOT! .... but ... would i prefer to play a game against someone with a similar philosophy ... um ... yeh.

Bear LaMorte wrote:I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

That list took nearly 2 years for me to build, and it's still not all built, and 80% of my 1500 point list is up to barely 3 colors. But you aslo don't understand my personal curcumstances (let alone everyone you don't know who has an un-under painted army), so who are you to say I'm not giving it my all?

I like to game more than model/paint, so it'd make more sense for me to do that. But now that I'm coming out of my noob shell, yes, I am working more on the painting.

The idea is if I'm ok with playing on that table because of my army, why isn't it ok to have that table?

darkdm wrote:

Bear LaMorte wrote:I also don't accept the whole "i play an unpainted army because i dont have time to paint" ...

Well you had time to build your 2000 point army ... maybe next time you should only build 1000 and paint it ... then when that is done ... build the other 1000 and then paint that. (holds especially true when i see a heavily converted, yet under/unpainted army!)

So unless you are playing with your models in blisters and boxes ... this reasoning just doesn't hold up.

That list took nearly 2 years for me to build, and it's still not all built, and 80% of my 1500 point list is up to barely 3 colors. But you aslo don't understand my personal curcumstances (let alone everyone you don't know who has an un-under painted army), so who are you to say I'm not giving it my all?

I like to game more than model/paint, so it'd make more sense for me to do that. But now that I'm coming out of my noob shell, yes, I am working more on the painting.

The idea is if I'm ok with playing on that table because of my army, why isn't it ok to have that table?

I never said anything about giving your all ... nor did i mention your personal circumstances ... nor did I mention you specifically ... nor did I say that I am against the separate table idea. In fact, if you read my prior post you'll find the exact opposite.

All i am saying is, paint your army ... I am not saying have it done by tomorrow, or on so-and-so date ... I am saying just get it done ... don't settle for adequate ... push your abilities and efficiencies ... at a pace that you are comfortable with.

Its not like I was painting at the level I currently am when I first started. FAR FROM IT!!! But if you don't invest the time to advance your technique and efficiency then what is the point? Again ... this is a hobby, not just a game ... Play a game that isn't a hobby if you don't want to paint. And to all those who are WIP painters, good for you , honestly, I appreciate EFFORT.

And just to be clear, i LIKE the separate table idea.

Meh. I have 4 armies now and not a one is fully painted. I have a bad habit of building the army, painting a fig or two, and then moving on to the next thing while playing the occasional game with the older armies. To attempt to remedy this I've decided not a single unpainted daemon of mine will hit the table; however; my Tau are my favorite tournament army (its half painted :3)and if the tournament had a requirement of painting or you have to spend a game on a joke table (thats what it is ) I would be fine with it as long as it wasn't every game. Slackers need love too.

Here are some closing thoughts I have had after seeing how this thread went.

More people do not like the idea than those who do.

The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Generally the community supports this view, with a few exceptions.

All things considered, this being the predominate view, not only do I intend to abandon the paper tables, but I also think the painting standards entirely.

After having refined and proposed 4 different concepts and solicited input and been called:

elitist
prejudiced
segregationist
troll
etc.

I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

Thanks for your input everyone, having seen how people would react to a compromise of standard I no longer think it is worth my time to even make paper tables, much less go to the effort for good terrain and run an event. You have saved me the effort.

With religion in the discussion now, I suggest this thread be locked, there isn't anymore purpose here. Have fun with legions of metal and plastic.

Augustus wrote:Here are some closing thoughts I have had after seeing how this thread went.

More people do not like the idea than those who do.

The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Generally the community supports this view, with a few exceptions.

All things considered, this being the predominate view, not only do I intend to abandon the paper tables, but I also think the painting standards entirely.

After having refined and proposed 4 different concepts and solicited input and been called:

elitist
prejudiced
segregationist
troll
etc.

I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

Thanks for your input everyone, having seen how people would react to a compromise of standard I no longer think it is worth my time to even make paper tables, much less go to the effort for good terrain and run an event. You have saved me the effort.

With religion in the discussion now, I suggest this thread be locked, there isn't anymore purpose here. Have fun with legions of metal and plastic.

If this is what you got out of this thread, you entirely missed the point, and I'm sorry for you.

Having standards is not a problem.
Not having standards, but then demeaning a group of people who don't fit your personal standards if fethed up.

That is all. That is all the objection that has been raised in this thread - asking that you treat everyone equally shouldn't be a hard task to accomodate. I'm not sure why you're not getting the picture, but 6 pages later you've made it clear that you don't.

Augustus wrote:
The camp against paints the issue as one of social equality with an entitlement mentality. Despite the concept originally being a more inclusive compromise with a lower standard.

Are you sure you don't have an entitlement mentality to play against only painted armies?

Augustus wrote:
I feel my desire to run an event at all disappearing.

WAAC - 1, HAAC - 0, apparently. Because we needed sides to begin with


Also, no one with an unpainted army gives a crap if someone else thinks their reason for it not being painted is good enough or not. I could be into racing and say that because your car doesn't have a supercharger it's not good enough and you shouldn't even drive. You really wouldn't care.

My closing thoughts... I REALLY want to invest in a godzilla suit and a camcorder right now.

Guitardian wrote:My closing thoughts... I REALLY want to invest in a godzilla suit and a camcorder right now.

http://godzillabukkake.com/