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.

 d-usa wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

Or people who want to call people idiots can go to a forum where that's allowed, rather than changing the rules here.

Or simply permaban for something of that nature. But a big problem with the US politics threads and the OT in general is how bent out of shape people routinely get and how strict the mods are over nonsense. That and the fact US politics seem excessively religious/anti religious. At least in the past here.

I don't think discussing politics is a worthwhile use of time to begin with, let alone on the internet, but if you're going to do so, do you really have to cry when someone isn't nice to you?

If people can't talk politics without name calling, then the problem isn't with the people complaining about the name calling.

And since people can't follow Forum rules when it comes to certain topics, then those topics just get banned.

 trexmeyer wrote:
do you really have to cry when someone isn't nice to you?

On the flip side, do you really have to cry when the mods tell you to be nice?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
do you really have to cry when someone isn't nice to you?

On the flip side, do you really have to cry when the mods tell you to be nice?

Not sure how I'm crying, but if that's how you want to view it. Cheers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If people can't talk politics without name calling, then the problem isn't with the people complaining about the name calling.

And since people can't follow Forum rules when it comes to certain topics, then those topics just get banned.

Honestly, I've seen you insult people and then complain about being insulted. So you don't really have room to talk.

 trexmeyer wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
do you really have to cry when someone isn't nice to you?

On the flip side, do you really have to cry when the mods tell you to be nice?

Not sure how I'm crying, but if that's how you want to view it. Cheers.

I was talking in the generic "you" the same way you were talking about generic "you" people crying as I underlined (unless you specifically were talking about d-usa crying, in which case my apologies).

But I've not asked the mods to let me insult people, which is the actual argument you are making.

 d-usa wrote:
But I've not asked the mods to let me insult people, which is the actual argument you are making.

No, I'm not. Thanks for assuming. I'm simply pointing out that instead of protecting people's feelings in political threads could mods could ignore the more minor stuff instead of getting involved every time someone gets a bit pissy.

They are not getting involved because someone gets a bit pissy.

They get involved because someone is breaking the rules they agreed to.

Simple stuff.

 d-usa wrote:
They are not getting involved because someone gets a bit pissy.

They get involved because someone is breaking the rules they agreed to.

Simple stuff.

Rules that can be interpreted in various ways. You're going to have a certain degree of rudeness come up in many debates.

But I also didn't stick around the OT long enough to see if got really hairy in the political threads. Maybe it did.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

It's less about individuals crying over being called an idiot and more about how dakka wants to present itself to the world.

At the end of the day, IMO, I think this forum wants to remain a friendly forum.

Less a place for gak slinging and more a place for friends to get together and have a chat, primarily about toy soldiers but occasionally about other stuff.

In my observations when I was living in the US when friends or colleagues who have different political views get together they tend to self-censor on political topics so that they can actually remain friends or colleagues

Since Dakka is a forum full of randoms, if it wants to remain a friendly place it needs rules as people aren't likely to self-censor.

This is an interesting point. What are people's impressions of dakka in the larger sense? To me, it seems to be full of people who really like to rag on the very thing it was set up to discuss and gets its name from (GW). On the other hand, the political discourse has been much more tame than pretty much every other board where I have contributed. What are others' perceptions? I guess that might be getting into off topic to this discussion though.

Yeah, in terms of the perception, I've never once spoken to someone about Dakka, and had the OT forum come up.

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, in terms of the perception, I've never once spoken to someone about Dakka, and had the OT forum come up.

So out of how many times have you spoken to someone about Dakka? Because I've simply never once spoken to someone about Dakka

IMO Dakka does have a bit of a reputation of being anti-GW, but honestly it's less anti-GW than my local gaming store For the most part the anti-GW stuff seems reasonable to me, most of the time it comes up because someone asked specifically for an opinion on something then some people get unhappy when other people express their honest anti-GW opinion about it.

I mostly feel OT brings down the level of Dakka's discourse. While I find OT interesting and sometimes enjoy flipping through it, I think it does make Dakka a less friendly place on a whole.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Yeah, in terms of the perception, I've never once spoken to someone about Dakka, and had the OT forum come up.

So out of how many times have you spoken to someone about Dakka? Because I've simply never once spoken to someone about Dakka

IMO Dakka does have a bit of a reputation of being anti-GW, but honestly it's less anti-GW than my local gaming store For the most part the anti-GW stuff seems reasonable to me, most of the time it comes up because someone asked specifically for an opinion on something then some people get unhappy when other people express their honest anti-GW opinion about it.

I mostly feel OT brings down the level of Dakka's discourse. While I find OT interesting and sometimes enjoy flipping through it, I think it does make Dakka a less friendly place on a whole.

Well, I've been a member here for about 12 years, it's come up a time or two with various folks in gaming stores and the like. Dakka is one of the better known wargaming forums out there.

I was more referring to it in the sense of an online presence. I don't know if my significant other even knows it exits, even though I spend nearly as much time with you as her. For example, I split my time between here and B&C. From the people's perspective over there, just in general, this place seems like a cesspool. I don't agree, and based on the number of people I see in both places, I think most take it with a grain of salt, but the perception is there that dakka is a bit more scumpondish. I really don't think it was the OT boards they refer to. I could give an example from the front page as to how it is different. Look at Subtlediscords thread here vs. there. I won't follow it here. I will there. I'm not sure what the discrepancy is. Maybe they are more into modeling there? There are a lot of posters there that view themselves as hobbiests or artists that post there, and if they have the time, might include a post here. Krautscientist is another one. It's sort of a shame really. Again, I don't think it has anything to do do with OT. They aren't turned off by it, I don't think they even know it exists. It's the whole tone or tenor here. I genuinely love this place, but it sort of seems like a bad relationship at times. I realize that sounds really lame, and I should just stop typing and step away from the computer. I don't really know how else to express it. At times my dakka guys are my support; At times I want to kill them. But they are my family. Welcome to holiday meals.

I haven't spent time at B&C, not in recent years at least, not since I stopped collecting my Space Wolves a long time ago. But B&C is a 40k forum centred on Space Marines. Dakka is much more a general wargaming forum centred on 40k.

So Dakka you have a whole heap of people who don't like or did like but now don't like 40k... but they hang around because Dakka covers a lot more discussion related to things that aren't 40k. B&C you aren't likely to be hanging around the forum in the first place unless you're a a specific passion for 40k and probably even more specifically Space Marines.

Because of that you're naturally going to get a bit less herd mentality on Dakka than you will on B&C.

I know when my interest in Space Marines and 40k waned I stopped going to B&C but I didn't stop visiting Dakka.

They opened it up a bit in the last few months, but that's interesting. I never had an interest in space marines, just chaos. And the two artists I mentioned up above weren't space marines either.

I've signed up to a few other forums in the past. My experience is that Dakka is certainly rougher than what used to be the most popular forum before Dakka (Warseer), but it's infinitely more mature/polite than BOLS ever was, and Heresy online was a literal cesspool of 13 year olds practising swearwords for the first time. Frothers on the flip side is a more mature audience, but is much rougher than Dakka

You tend to find that the smaller forums (B&C, Second Sphere, etc) have a much friendlier easygoing crowd as a rule of thumb, but they also tend to have a much narrower focus, and a much smaller userbase.

I suppose it really comes down to what you're after in a forum. At the end of the day, Dakka has the largest userbase and the widest variety of topics and discussion relating to the hobby, but it does absolutely insist on a veneer of civility. Whilst that gives a lot of room for snark and attitude to operate in (which some people might find offputting), it ensures that the discussion never descends too far into obscenities or downright offensiveness before being grabbed by the collar and slung out into the night. Naturally, some people do the 'Muh freedom of speech' schpiel because they're not allowed to be complete tools to other users, and others still dislike the fact that we don't crack down on every passive-aggressive comment. I personally find that Dakka strikes about the right balance between the two extremes though.

This place is certainly rougher than 40k online. They were my first hobby site and their tolerance of snark and abuse is zero. Maybe it’s spoiled me a little.

Maybe compared to other GW fan sites it is a little rougher, but in comparison to forums in general Dakka is insanely tame. I have heard people discuss Dakka IRL but I believe it was just about the the trade forum. I only ever visit Dakka and Reddit anymore though.

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

Having read through the thread about August Ames in the OT forum I think it gives a harsh reminder why we should do our best to avoid attacking others on the internet and why it's a good thing that we have rules about it.

That was of course an extreme case, but you never know what someone might be going through IRL only to come on a toy soldier forum and then also be called an idiot by some random person they haven't even met.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
I have an idea. Why not lower moderation standards for specifically the OT? Keep things that are blatantly NSFW out, keep the censor on, but people that cry over someone else calling them an idiot across the internet can either get over it, ignore the troll, or not take part.

It's less about individuals crying over being called an idiot and more about how dakka wants to present itself to the world.

At the end of the day, IMO, I think this forum wants to remain a friendly forum.

Less a place for gak slinging and more a place for friends to get together and have a chat, primarily about toy soldiers but occasionally about other stuff.

In my observations when I was living in the US when friends or colleagues who have different political views get together they tend to self-censor on political topics so that they can actually remain friends or colleagues

Since Dakka is a forum full of randoms, if it wants to remain a friendly place it needs rules as people aren't likely to self-censor.

This sums it up nicely - thanks!

And since there doesn't seem to be much more to add to the topic, and this thread itself seems top be having problems with Rule #1...

...I think we're done here.

Until next time!