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:

Harkainos wrote:@ past 8 posts - (save the BOTopic post)

That is EXACTLY what Nurglitch is talking about, thanks for proving his point.

/game on


--EDIT--

add to # of posts

And where was I assassinating the character of anyone but other mods?

You were spot on (in reference to the 8 posts) I tried to make that message short and sweet.

I agree with Nurglitch (at least what is on page 6) in part. I find that there are a lot of personal slanders made. If one needs evidence, please refer to EVERY thread with a page count of 4 or more. See my sig when utilizing the word every...

That is all my post was about.

I, however, have no contribution to the OP other than:

I don't think there is a way to make YMDC better, without including/adding a *fix it* part of rules that are obviously not easily understood, or at least understood different to RaW.... but wait... proposed rules anyone.

Murky.

G

olympia wrote:I got this system from a political blog--trust me things get very heated and this system works quite well. Users have the option of checking a "+" sign next to a post. This is "mojo."

Trusted Users

If a user gathers enough comment mojo, they become a Trusted User. To prevent people from gaming the system, the exact amount of mojo required is not publicly revealed. Trusted Users have a few additional privileges compared to regular users. A regular user can recommend comments; a TU can also hide comments. If a comment gets enough hide ratings, it becomes hidden to regular users (also see the trolls section below). TUs can, if they wish, see the hidden comments. TUs thus have the responsibility of deciding whether comments should be hidden or not. In addition, TUs can edit and remove tags from diaries; regular users can only add new tags. There are two easy ways to tell if you are a TU. First is to look at the Tools sidebar; if there is an entry reading 'Hidden Comments', you are a TU. The other way is to try to rate a comment; if there is a 'Hide' button next to the 'Recommend' button, you are a TU.

One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community.

An interesting idea, but I think this will lead to 'The Warriors' style (posting) gangs, hunting posts by others and hiding them for lols.

I wanna be in Gwar!'s gang.

It seems to me that we do get a lot of repeat questions asked in here, which normally gets a couple of "learn 2 use search noob" type answers, a pissed off retort from the OP saying " all I wanted was help and then you guys had to.. etc etc " before an argument that has either been resolved or argued to a standstill multiple times continues as various new posters chime in.

Would it be possible to sticky certain questions up at the top of the board to try and prevent this more ?

Perhaps even to avoid the entire front page of the board being one long sticky something like :

MOVEMENT QUESTIONS

SHOOTING QUESTIONS

MORALE QUESTIONS

and so on. I appreciate there are a fair few issues that simply are not agreed on.. but all these do is cause massive arguments which won't end as neither side will budge, but maybe we could stick those in a GREY AREAS sticky or something.

Don't forget

DAEMONHUNTER QUESTIONS


We've been getting a lot of those lately, it seems

I'm sure "we" could have sections or stickies for each and every army/book/edition etc if so agreed.

it's just, when the 2,354th post about NEcron WBB and sweeping advance starts up, with no new or unused argument in it.. it's a waste of everyone's time. Okay this won't stop that 100%, but it means a poster can read the question either direct them to the area, or if there's nothing new in there alert one of our drunken overlords from their modpit and they can lock it.

Or, and it has to happen one day, if someone comes up with a new argument or thought then we're good, with a handy ready made summary of the usual argument to hand for people to refer to.

I'll just point out seeing as this is the HURT FEELINGS BOARD : this isn't a dig at Mr. legoburner or the search engine, honest. Just the way that people use the board.

If an argument is especially contentious, then perhaps get a proponent from either side to write a summary along the lines of what Mr. Nurglitch has been suggesting, get it reviewed like the other articles on the site and then whack both/all POV in the sticky.

Or open a poll in that board.

How many times do we have to wade through the onehanded/pistol/ccweapon/whereisitdefined argument and explanation before someone has mercy on us ?

Reds8n, this thought has crossed my mind before. I think making use of the Dakka Articles System would be much better than a bunch of stickies; just have one sticky at the top linking to the articles section about rules debates.

I may take this bull by the horns, but it'll have to wait until this weekend (and we'd need lots of volunteer help).

Actually it was your Dark Eldar sticky in the news/rumours board that made me think it would work.. so

..kudos to us I guess.

I would say that if you the article route then make sure the ATTENTION READ THE "£$^&^^&* articles first sign will have to be big and bold to make sure that people do, and.... it strikes me as odd, almost counter intuitive to takes the rules discussions to an entirely separate board/are.

I guess you guys have the figures for viewing etc but me and, AFAIK, from pms etc, a lot of other people don't go to the articles or read them at all. Truth be told I often don't think about them at all. It might be worth showcasing them more perhaps but that's a whole other thread.

@ress8n: I had proposed to the mods a sticky article on LoS a while back because so many people were asking questions like such: "Can I shoot x at y with z in the way?"

Where the only answers are: "can x see z?" or "use TLoS."

The mod that I was talking to said they'd discuss it in the moderators' forum.

The sticky post never happened, and I can kind of see why, because if you create that kind of post, you might as well make a post that just says "read the rulebook."

In fact, I think that's a better idea: a sticky post at the top that says "must read" that explains how your answers to posts should generally contain information from the rulebook, and in best cases should contain page numbers and quotations.

What about a tier like system of posting, where people write major opinions to a topic and are on the same tier of that thread, then people would be allowed to comment on those original thoughts? By doing this I think you could limit threads to a single major post per person with as many comments on any major post as you would like. If you wanted to get extra ambitious you could have it so that when first entering a thread you would only see the major posts in the thread and then the number of comments on each "major" post.

This would allow people who want to give those obligatory "I agree with blahblahblah" while being out of the way, or allowing those with unoriginal arguments to comment under an already established view rather than cluttering a thread to 8+ pages.

I guess this somewhat boils down to nested threads. Someone would pose a question and people would get to post their single position and then under those positions the typical arguments and examples or just affirmations can continue. This would allow people to get the gist of a topic while cutting out most of the BS, and if people want to get into the nitty gritty then they are still allowed to.

Frazzled wrote:If you disagree, find me a real one that permits me to tell my opponent to off.

You seem to indicate that being impolite = not swearing at your opponent.

This is a narrow view to be taking.

You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.

H.B.M.C. wrote:You also seem to be fine with insulting peopel as long as you're polite about it - passive agressive putdowns, belittling, baiting - all the hallmarks of a certain user - all as long as it's polite.

Please be direct good sir.

Iorek wrote:

sourclams wrote:Agreed. I'd say that Mods need to do more to enforce logical coherency in this forum than sitting room politeness.

We're not here to do people's debating for them.

Not my intention, and I think you knew this. I'm in favor of less mod regulation, not more. My point is that someone who knows the rules and posts the rules, and gets short with somebody who's not reading what the rules actually say (and there's dozens of these posts, on cut and dry issues) is often times more useful to the community than the person who doesn't know the rules and gets hissy when they're called on it by others.

Yet, it often seems that when mod-Law comes down, Rules-Knowing-Guy gets slammed at least equally with Hissy Guy. I say that Rules Guy is more useful in a Rules Forum and from what I've seen, the impoliteness really spawns from incoherently Hissy guy getting upset.

::shrug:: YMMV.

Honestly, I misread your post (honestly, I was reading quickly at that point). I apologize. And thank you for the clarification.

If a person repeatedly ignores the way the rules are written, and throw a fit when called on their bad logic, treat it as trolling. Don't respond to their immaturity.

I'm going to be taking a more active part in moderating YMDC now (I've kind of avoided it for the past year or so), and I'll do my best to keep a lid on this sort of thing. The biggest problem about this is the time involved. I've run into situations where a Mod Alert goes up about someone disrupting a thread with illogical arguments, and the alert hits on something like page 9 of the thread. I ended up having to spend 20 minutes just reading from the beginning to follow the trail, then another 10 untangling everything, sending out warnings, documenting the incident, etc. So just be aware that can be one reason things aren't moderated quite as closely in this forum.

I will start PMing people who put up Mod Alerts for more details as well.

Iorek wrote: I've run into situations where a Mod Alert goes up about someone disrupting a thread with illogical arguments, and the alert hits on something like page 9 of the thread. I ended up having to spend 20 minutes just reading from the beginning to follow the trail, then another 10 untangling everything, sending out warnings, documenting the incident, etc.

I can completely understand how that sucks. I guess ideally a Mod is someone who reads through every-damn-thread so that they're able to stay current, but I don't have such unrealistic expectations. I think that again ties back to why I think politeness applies less to Rules Guy saying 'You're Wrong' if in fact the target is wrong.

I think it'd be worth saying that lOS questions shouldn't even be attempted to be answered unless the OP provides a pictorial example. They don't have to take a photo, I've used Vassal to great effect to illustrate LOS in the past.

/modesty.

Anytime someone takes time to better illustrate their position they should be lauded. Clarity is the key factor in resolving rule disput3s.

G

Yes and no. I agree in principle, but I also think a degree of clarity should be a given, a minimum requirement for even posting.

Iorek, maybe you could quote a bunch of worthless posts in a thread where they exist, and delete them, leaving them only as quotes on your post, saying "I deleted these pieces of crap posts - explain yourselves, or say nothing at all!"

Or similar fire-breathing goodness.

The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.

Iorek wrote:The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.

I do have that much time. I think we all know what to do

Gwar! wrote:

Iorek wrote:The thought has crossed my mind. Problem is, I'd need to maintain that level of vigilance, and I simply don't have THAT much time.

I do have that much time. I think we all know what to do

In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie

In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie

In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.

I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie

In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.

I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem

There are other problems....and fluff is only a minor one.

GWAR! as MOD = " den bock zum gärtner machen"

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Tri wrote:In all due respects gwar you don't want some one in charge that thinks they are always right (but some times miss informed). Far better to put some one in charge that will give an unbiased judgement.

I am perfectly Unbiased and fair! You're just being a big meanie

In all due respect to Gwar!, he does fervently believe himself to be unbiased and fair, completely logical and astute in his deductions.... problem is, so does everyone else.... Sorry, Gwar!, you make yourself a good example of the many problems in YMDC.

I'm not an example of "Fluff says I can do this" problem

Yes you are, if anyone on YMDC is guilty of that, it is you, Gwar! I constantly see you saying things like "But in the fluff he never died! So he MUST have Eternal Warrior!"

Obviously I'm joking. That was slowed, similarly your comment, Gwar!, as I never said you do that, it was unfair and biased to say I did.

@ hadhq : Something about a ram in the gardener?

Fluff is my main problem.

That, and people with preconceptions about how rules work. Usually, based on fluff, but not always.

There are also a lot of people posting in YMDC that have never played with an experienced gamer. These are the sorts that bought the Battle for Black Reach with some of their friends, popped open the rule book and started playing it how they understood it. Obviously complications will arise, and some way or another they find their way here and need guidance from the experienced players that frequent the site.

Skinnattittar wrote:There are also a lot of people posting in YMDC that have never played with an experienced gamer. These are the sorts that bought the Battle for Black Reach with some of their friends, popped open the rule book and started playing it how they understood it. Obviously complications will arise, and some way or another they find their way here and need guidance from the experienced players that frequent the site.

I find it's the "experienced" gamer who learned the rules incorrectly in the first place that cause the most problems. Not only do they have poor rules knowledge, but they've been playing it the same way for so long that the poor rules knowledge is ingrained and they are less likely to see their errors. Seriously, I see people try to use 3rd ed rules still. Another big problem is people trying to use 4th ed LoS rules (that they were actually playing incorrectly in the first place) as a basis for their answers for 5th ed LoS queries

I am not saying that us old farts (relatively speaking) do not have problems of our own. I was just trying to point out that a lot of these "stupid" questions that get repeated and are easily answered, that seem to annoy some of the YMDC regular participants are from people who have no experience with the game.

I will admit myself, that while playing I often catch myself using older edition rules or summations. Is this a bad thing? Not really, I usually catch myself or the other player points it out and I say "dang, I that's 2nd/3rd Edition" and do it over correctly.

True line of sight makes a lot of problems because it has not been done in 40k in a long time, but the old ways also caused a lot more trouble. With all the old work-arounds still in place and the rules not really geared for true line of sight, and older gamers still thinking the old ways, their are bound to be growing pains. I don't worry about it too much. I more worry about the big problems, such as the Valkyrie issues.