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.

Frazzled wrote:Funny I've not seen formal debates where insulting or insulting the points of the other debater were permitted. But what do I know.

Didn't you watch McCain vs. Obama?

McCain: I think that we should lower taxes.
Obama: zomg ur so gay!!!!1!one srsly ur slowed lol

@Nurglitch: Really it just comes down to needing some expertise to create the sticky. I would think that sort of work would be the trickiest part. There will be a ton of work thereafter, too, but volunteers could help. The modding thereafter is simple enough for someone who visits Dakka every day. On the other hand, I wouldn't want the "Tactics Mod" to stop posting his/her thoughts on tactics.

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny I've not seen formal debates where insulting or insulting the points of the other debater were permitted. But what do I know.

Didn't you watch McCain vs. Obama?

McCain: I think that we should lower taxes.
Obama: zomg ur so gay!!!!1!one srsly ur slowed lol

er...no I didn't actually...

Frazzled wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny I've not seen formal debates where insulting or insulting the points of the other debater were permitted. But what do I know.

Didn't you watch McCain vs. Obama?

McCain: I think that we should lower taxes.
Obama: zomg ur so gay!!!!1!one srsly ur slowed lol

er...no I didn't actually...

2008 election, Frazzled. You need to pay more attention to politics. It's your civic duty!

I just vote party line Crabpeople Overlords. Saves a lot of time.

Well, it appears Frazzled has managed to troll another thread into the ground.

Come on Nurgly, if you're going to be a mod you have to sift through this stuff. Answer the scenario in the other thread. I want to see how this would work.

Deadshane1 wrote:Ok then Frazz, do you DISPUTE that you can find better tactics and list advice at the other sources I've mentioned? (cause part of me would like to hear you actually claim that the tactics/list section here is JUST as informative as the blogs and solid club forum tactics out there....why?...laughter is healthy for the soul.)

If not, why would you say that is?

It's a bit of a nonsensical leap to think that any of 'those' blogs give better tactical information because they are unmoderated. Being rude doesn't make your point better. It just means you presented your point in a rude manner.

Belittling the person you are trying to teach is not conducive to having them actually absorb what you're trying to teach them.



And, as I asked in the other thread, is your toy soldier hobby really such serious business that people need to be stomped into the ground because they have a different opinion to your own? If you post what you think is a piece of tactical brilliance, and the person on the other side of the discussion doesn't immediately recognise said brilliance, does the world shift on its axis?

If you can't make your point in a polite fashion, maybe it's time to stop and think about just how badly the point actually needs to be made.

Frazzled wrote:Funny I've not seen formal debates where insulting or insulting the points of the other debater were permitted. But what do I know.

Perhaps it should be?

Nurglitch wrote:What's that saying about those who want power being uniquely unqualified to exercise it?

There is that...

I'm pretty sure that no one who has asked to be a Moderator has actually become one.

And, it might be that all the Moderators have had the workload of being a Moderator, in some small way, diminish their enjoyment of Dakka Dakka.

It truly is a thankless task, but, I think we agreed to sign up because we love the place...

While tactics are not my strong point, alot of basic computer work is fine, and i spend alot of time on here.
Im more than happy to put my name forward for basic jobs, or anything that needs doing on here.

So, count me in if there are jobs that need to be done.

I appreciate you Alpharius.

You should get a Nobel Prize for your contributions to a certain thread on the DCM forum.

Deadshane1 wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Funny I've not seen formal debates where insulting or insulting the points of the other debater were permitted. But what do I know.

Perhaps it should be?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:I appreciate you Alpharius.

You should get a Nobel Prize for your contributions to a certain thread on the DCM forum.

Yep. He the Herr Doktor are truly commendable beings, apparently daily...

I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

insaniak wrote:

Deadshane1 wrote:Ok then Frazz, do you DISPUTE that you can find better tactics and list advice at the other sources I've mentioned? (cause part of me would like to hear you actually claim that the tactics/list section here is JUST as informative as the blogs and solid club forum tactics out there....why?...laughter is healthy for the soul.)

If not, why would you say that is?

It's a bit of a nonsensical leap to think that any of 'those' blogs give better tactical information because they are unmoderated. Being rude doesn't make your point better. It just means you presented your point in a rude manner.

Belittling the person you are trying to teach is not conducive to having them actually absorb what you're trying to teach them.



And, as I asked in the other thread, is your toy soldier hobby really such serious business that people need to be stomped into the ground because they have a different opinion to your own? If you post what you think is a piece of tactical brilliance, and the person on the other side of the discussion doesn't immediately recognise said brilliance, does the world shift on its axis?

If you can't make your point in a polite fashion, maybe it's time to stop and think about just how badly the point actually needs to be made.

I'm not talking about being rude to get your point across.

I'm talking about being able to get your point across in a manner suitable to your personality. Being able to post freely and insert some emotion into your post without being chastised for it.

In the end, I will look/post in the tactics section to get/give tactics, not to get a lesson in etiquette. Like I said, I'm smart enough to look past someone's rudeness and get their point. I dont need a moderator to protect me.

Furthermore, perhaps its true that you dont need to be rude to get your point across. I'll respond to that with another tired cliche'.

It takes two to argue. Rarely have I seen discussions where out of two people, one is continuously rude and the other is continuously civil. If you dont like a way an arguement is going, its not hard to say something on the order of..."Look, I'm trying to understand your point of veiw but I really cant. Perhaps you could explain it again another way without belittleing my position. Right now I tend to disagree...but some of what you're saying makes sense."

I personally would rather have the option of saying something like that rather than having a mod step in as a 3rd party to protect me. I'm old and adult enough to handle my own arguements thank you.

whatwhat wrote:I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

+1 for thought

loki old fart wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

+1 for thought

I'd be into this if it was Moderator based.

If it was up to random users to vote on this it could get very silly very quickly.

Deadshane1 wrote:I personally would rather have the option of saying something like that rather than having a mod step in as a 3rd party to protect me. I'm old and adult enough to handle my own arguements thank you.

It's not to protect you. It's to protect everyone else from having to read another flame war.

The problem with the way politeness is being enforced is that anytime there is disagreement the whole thread gets locked and a lot of good content can be lost at the same time.

It would be far far better if just the offending content was removed and the thread allowed to continue.

The way it is now is "Fair and balanced" in the same way the news in the US is... every kook gets equal airtime with no regard to what the actual facts of the situation are. If you offend one of these kooks and he goes off on a rampage, the whole discussion gets shut down. This results in a board where no meaningful exchange of ideas can occur and only the bland threads are allowed to stand.

You should be able to post in a thread with a reasonable expectation of the whole thread not being closed for someone else's infraction, oftentimes I am thinking why bother because this thread is going to be closed anyway.

Basically you are catering to the lowest common denominator.

Monster Rain wrote:

loki old fart wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

+1 for thought

I'd be into this if it was Moderator based.

If it was up to random users to vote on this it could get very silly very quickly.

That did cross my mind. Perhaps if you made it so the more rep you have the more points you can give per week, it might go someway to solve that.

whatwhat wrote:I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

Surely the post count is necessary for any "rep" system to be effective though? Otherwise someone could have 100 thanks, and someone else could have 3, but both have the same number of posts, but without the post count it would be impossible to determine who is more reliable.

Well I for one am not going to pay $25 a year to post on Warseer. For one thing... well gosh this is where all the COOL people are.

Goliath wrote:

whatwhat wrote:I would suggest a rep system without any dislike options. Where users can reward good posts with points. Limit the amount of points a user can give per week to make people put a bit of thought into who they reward. Then get rid of the post count, totally or at the least stop it being displayed under a users avatar in threads, display their rep instead.

With any luck you may then get a forum with users focused on making good posts, rather than topping up their post count. Less spam, more substance. Win win.

Any good?

Surely the post count is necessary for any "rep" system to be effective though? Otherwise someone could have 100 thanks, and someone else could have 3, but both have the same number of posts, but without the post count it would be impossible to determine who is more reliable.

Well for one, a post count doesn't go any way towards determining who is more reliable. I suppose their could be a limit to the amount of points you can receive per post though.

But really I wasn't presenting that as a way of determining who is more reliable, but a system to get people trying to post more good posts, with a view to get a higher rep.

Deadshane1 wrote:I'm talking about being able to get your point across in a manner suitable to your personality. Being able to post freely and insert some emotion into your post without being chastised for it.

So long as 'suited to your personality' fits into acceptable standards of behaviour, you don't have a problem.

'Acceptable' is, as in real life, defined by the venue. We moderate dakka in a fashion we feel is appropriate for the cross-section of posters who frequent the boards. We expect posters to abide by those standards, just as your local gaming store, or your pub, or your sports club, or shopping centre all have their standards that they feel are appropriate, that they expect patrons to abide by.

If you dont like a way an arguement is going, its not hard to say something on the order of..."Look, I'm trying to understand your point of veiw but I really cant. Perhaps you could explain it again another way without belittleing my position. Right now I tend to disagree...but some of what you're saying makes sense."

And if you do that, chances are the mods will leave the thread alone, with possibly a private warning if the other poster was out of line. If you're not being rude, you don't have a problem.

that's not accurate, if you are not being rude chances are someone else is and the thread will be shut down instead of being edited.

Shadowbrand wrote:Honestly dakka is growing and with growth comes trouble. At least their are SOME rules here.

These are all what comes with success.

Except that the "rules" only apply to certain people and when the whim strikes the people "enforcing" the "rules".

Also: Moderator Trolling for the Fail.

I'm finding less threads that I'm interested in lately. I typically click 'recent threads', scan those subjects, and click the ones that seem interesting.


"All very successful commanders are prima donnas and must be so treated." - George S. Patton


I think what Deadshane is saying is true. People with interesting things to say have moved on to blogs, because they can be prima donnas (read as donkey-caves) on their own blog and no one can call them on it.

I find that to be a sad state of affairs, really. On one hand, you get a more polite site by removing those elements, but maybe there's something to what Patton said. If I want to push my theory of gaming and put down anyone who disagrees with it, why do that on a site where I get slapped for doing so, when I can just set up a blog and get followers.

Forums seem to me more like the local bar. You can show up, be social, and trade viewpoints. If someone gets out of hand, the bouncer or barkeep might toss them. Blogs are more like the guy who puts down a soapbox on the corner and stands on it yelling his thoughts as loudly as possible. You might get a discussion there once in a while, but it's more being preached at. Useful, I guess, if you want to see what other people are doing, but not a community. It's kind of sad that so many people with worthwhile things to say have taken up the soapbox instead of the bar. A triumph of the ego over the community, as it were.


I don't know if there's anything to be done about it though. It's a social issue (or, perhaps, an anti-social issue), not a technical one.

I voted "the same".

I think the mods here are even handed. I got a short banning once because I can't keep my mouth shut. Totally my fault. This is a forum for the discussion of Man-Dollies. So long as I remember that, I'll do just fine.

If people are being dicks to each other, there should be some hand-slapping. The slaps should be progressively harsher after successive infractions. Don't be a dick. If you be a dick, you'll get punished. The MODs and ADMINs of these boards have established the level of freedom that they're going to give people. If you don't like it or can't accept it, go elsewhere.

I've noticed more "silly posts" (re: Which Primarch is Better in the Sack) here than at Bolter and Chainsword, but there appears to be much higher traffic here. The more popular anyting is, the more diverse your users will be. In the other thread, there was a suggestion for a "Water Cooler" lounge for such sillyness. Talking about Primarch's spankers isn't really background so much as it is off-topic (not to mention juivenille). I wouldn't want to flood the Background forum and annoy the people that are (1) trying to write fluff for their chapter/army that is close to the established cannon (if any) OR (2) Want to go outside the established cannon (if any).

Well, part of the problem is we've also got a much bigger population(and supposedly a large portion of that is the preteens/adolescents who're just hitting puberty...make of that what you will).

You've also got people who just like posting those topics to be obnoxious.

well to be honest i've only been back on the site a short whilr( although i used to cain the hell out of it about 5 yrs ago)

and i like it in the last yr or so i've noticed that the army lists and tactis sections are usually posted in by the spazmatics of the community and every time i post my lists i get some of the worst advice i've ever know.

but saying that theres some great gak on here. I love the rules section and the articals are some of the best on the web. I am however getting very annoyed with the amount of posts that are being opened just so someone can post a link to their blog.

and finaly yak and lb should tell the mods to ease of a bit you get too many PM's for silly things and then when you check you find out your post hasn't even been modified or removed

Athera wrote:

Shadowbrand wrote:Honestly dakka is growing and with growth comes trouble. At least their are SOME rules here.

These are all what comes with success.

Except that the "rules" only apply to certain people and when the whim strikes the people "enforcing" the "rules".

Also: Moderator Trolling for the Fail.

So if you're right on a whim we should ban you?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:I voted "the same".

I think the mods here are even handed. I got a short banning once because I can't keep my mouth shut. Totally my fault. This is a forum for the discussion of Man-Dollies. So long as I remember that, I'll do just fine.

If people are being dicks to each other, there should be some hand-slapping. The slaps should be progressively harsher after successive infractions. Don't be a dick. If you be a dick, you'll get punished. The MODs and ADMINs of these boards have established the level of freedom that they're going to give people. If you don't like it or can't accept it, go elsewhere.

I've noticed more "silly posts" (re: Which Primarch is Better in the Sack) here than at Bolter and Chainsword, but there appears to be much higher traffic here. The more popular anyting is, the more diverse your users will be. In the other thread, there was a suggestion for a "Water Cooler" lounge for such sillyness. Talking about Primarch's spankers isn't really background so much as it is off-topic (not to mention juivenille). I wouldn't want to flood the Background forum and annoy the people that are (1) trying to write fluff for their chapter/army that is close to the established cannon (if any) OR (2) Want to go outside the established cannon (if any).

thats an issue. There is some disagreement/discussion on where best to put those. Just wacking them goes against old Dakka laissez faire though.