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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?

For reals? That's interesting to know.

Edit: How recently were those published?

Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.

That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.

The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).

The veto was from upper management because any discussion about female Custodes would of messed up model release deep into their first development run and that person wasn't going to let the product release get jeopardised by any such discussion.

 insaniak wrote:
In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.

Lol, yeah. That was always my feeling about it, especially since they were introduced before SOBs got their revamp, so for a little while the only Imperial female support seemed to be women who weren't allowed to speak. Not the greatest.

 insaniak wrote:

In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.

To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.

I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.

 insaniak wrote:
In terms of positive representation, I'm not sure that 'Women forced into a vow of silence and kept hidden away on the moon because 'normal' people find their presence disgusting' are tipping the scales in the right direction, honestly.


In terms of gameplay, Sisters of Silence are by their very nature too limited to exist as a viable faction in their own right. They should always have been an auxiliary unit added to Custodes or Inquisition forces, or a 'colour' unit added to specific scenarios for campaign gaming, rather than a separate force.

I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.

I can agree with your second point (and subsequent comment on the subject), however.

Edit: added the word "point". Damned phone.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.

I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.

To that, Grey Knights were specifically intended to be a counter to daemons. . . and look what we wound up with.

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.

Being appropriate to the setting doesn't make it positive representation.

Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?

 Insectum7 wrote:
To that, Grey Knights were specifically intended to be a counter to daemons. . . and look what we wound up with.

Indeed... and I was never a fan of Grey Knights as a stand-alone army for the exact same reason. And it was an issue to begin with, where you had an army with specific rules that applied solely against daemons that were useless against other armies, which throws out any semblance of balance. No idea if that's still the case with GK, as I stopped buying codexes in 6th edition.

 insaniak wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:
To be fair . . . one could make the same argument for the Custodes themselves.

I think there's a lot more room for development with Custodes, since they can ultimately be anything at all at the whims of the designers. Whereas SoS exist specifically to be a counter for Psykers. Which, from a game design perspective, is a terrible idea unless they're only ever intended to be used in games against psyker-heavy armies. Otherwise it's impossible to make them a balanced force without bulking out the majority of the army with units that aren't actually Sisters. Keeping them as an auxiliary unit for other Imperial armies makes much more sense.

you mean like Grey Knights were ever only there to fight Daemons and should not be more than a support group for in Inquisitor or not more than a single team of 5-10 on the table in presence of an opposing daemonic army

Every reason there is for SoS not being a full army fighting everyone is meaningless as if GW decide to make them one the background will be changed to fit the new theme
in addition, by countering psykers and disrupting the connection to the warp, they would be perfect to fight Tyranids by removing the connection to the hivemind

No problem there to change SoS in the by big E himself created anti-Tyranid invasion task force as he has foreseen their coming and placed a hidden force of billions thru out the galaxy to be ready when the invasion comes

If GW really wants more representation of woman in 40k, would have been a good chance to get SoS as core box army against Tyranids



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?

because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles

Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines

though technically, Space Marines would undergo a conversion therapy and the chosen children end up as genderless murder machines
but someone decided that it sales are better if SM are male heroes

 insaniak wrote:

 Gadzilla666 wrote:

I disagree with the first statement, as we're dealing with a dystopiain future where child soldiers are the greatest hope for humanity (and generally aren't even good at that). It's an ugly setting, by design.

Being appropriate to the setting doesn't make it positive representation.

Why are they even 'Sisters' of Silence? What narrative purpose does it serve for them to all be women? It's established in the setting that both men and women can be psychic blanks. So why is it only the women chosen for this role?

To be honest I have wondered the same.

 kodos wrote:
because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles

Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines

I mean, the reason he wanted male marines is never actually stated anywhere, as far as I'm aware, so I'm not sure how you can say it's the 'same' reason.

And yes, we can say it's the Emperor's preference, and that's fine... except that this segregation of genders doesn't show up elsewhere in the Imperium, so makes no real sense. Particularly since psychic blanks are supposed to be incredibly rare, excluding half of them arbitrarily seems more than a little peculiar.

 insaniak wrote:

 kodos wrote:
because the Imperium is a fascist regime with a certain rolemodel and the Emperor himself decided that the man and woman of his Guard fill different roles

Instead of having male and female Custodes and male and female Silencers, he wanted male Custodes and female Silencer
for the same reason he wanted male Marines

I mean, the reason he wanted male marines is never actually stated anywhere, as far as I'm aware, so I'm not sure how you can say it's the 'same' reason.

And yes, we can say it's the Emperor's preference, and that's fine... except that this segregation of genders doesn't show up elsewhere in the Imperium, so makes no real sense. Particularly since psychic blanks are supposed to be incredibly rare, excluding half of them arbitrarily seems more than a little peculiar.

The guys were whisked off by rogue Mechanicus elements to be turned into Necron Pariahs. . . or something.

Honestly this whole situation would have been avoided if GW hadn't set the restriction themselves in the first place. Nobody made them say all custodes are the sons of noble houses, nobody made them say that all Space Marines are male because of weird made up fantasy science, nobody forced GW to make the sisters of battle or sisters of silence all female (although I do like that the SoB came about as a response to what was effectively bureaucratic rules lawyering). These spats only occur because GW chooses to write itself into these strangely proscriptive corners and then decides to change its mind without doing the work to write some decent background for it. For that matter nobody made them expand their mono-purpose marine auxiliaries like Grey Knights and Deathwatch into full blown armies either.

Saying "There are both male and female custodes" is fine

Saying "There are male and female custodes" after saying "All custodes are male" is still fine, retcons happen, this is the form most GW retcons take

Saying "There have always been female custodes" after saying "All custodes" are the sons of nobles with no other explanation is effectively saying "Ha, you didn't actually believe what we wrote before, did you? What a waste of time, loser". It takes 5 minutes to come up with some reasoning. "They used to exclusively recruit from males but needed to broaden the criteria following their expanded role in the galaxy" would have been perfectly reasonable - acknowledge what came before, but provide reasoning why it is no longer the case.

There's no good reason for any organisation for any race in the setting to be gender-locked. There are bad reasons (Space Marines) and there are funny reasons (Sisters of Battle) and there are "Well we all assumed because the models are/were all mono-gender" (Howling Banshees/Wyches are the ones that come to mind) and there are "well they just are because we said so" (Custodes before last week), but given that GW have chosen to make them that way they could at least be bothered to write a reason why one of them isn't anymore.

It's not even a gender thing (OK, for some people it's a gender thing), for me it's just making a change to something that was previously explicitly stated to be the opposite way without any accompanying reasoning, like if they just declared that Baal was, and had always been, the homeworld of the Space Wolves with no further context. Yes, they can do that, it's their IP, yes, 40k canon is fluid, but you can't expect people to not have some kind of reaction.

But hey if the statement "All Custodes are recruited from the sons of nobles" is false because lol fluid canon then it's equally likely that the statement "there have always been female custodes" is false because lol fluid canon. GW have never ever said the more recent iteration of the background is any more or less "correct" than any other version, pick whatever version you like best, it's not like any except the truly deranged are going to have it affect their tabletop experience. have your Misters of battle and Misters of Silence and female Custodes and female Space Marines and whatever, your internalised lore is your business, we'll all be talking about something else in a couple of weeks anyway

Charax wrote:
Honestly this whole situation would have been avoided if GW hadn't set the restriction themselves in the first place. Nobody made them say all custodes are the sons of noble houses, nobody made them say that all Space Marines are male because of weird made up fantasy science, nobody forced GW to make the sisters of battle or sisters of silence all female (although I do like that the SoB came about as a response to what was effectively bureaucratic rules lawyering). These spats only occur because GW chooses to write itself into these strangely proscriptive corners and then decides to change its mind without doing the work to write some decent background for it. For that matter nobody made them expand their mono-purpose marine auxiliaries like Grey Knights and Deathwatch into full blown armies either.

Saying "There are both male and female custodes" is fine

Saying "There are male and female custodes" after saying "All custodes are male" is still fine, retcons happen, this is the form most GW retcons take

Saying "There have always been female custodes" after saying "All custodes" are the sons of nobles with no other explanation is effectively saying "Ha, you didn't actually believe what we wrote before, did you? What a waste of time, loser". It takes 5 minutes to come up with some reasoning. "They used to exclusively recruit from males but needed to broaden the criteria following their expanded role in the galaxy" would have been perfectly reasonable - acknowledge what came before, but provide reasoning why it is no longer the case.

There's no good reason for any organisation for any race in the setting to be gender-locked. There are bad reasons (Space Marines) and there are funny reasons (Sisters of Battle) and there are "Well we all assumed because the models are/were all mono-gender" (Howling Banshees/Wyches are the ones that come to mind) and there are "well they just are because we said so" (Custodes before last week), but given that GW have chosen to make them that way they could at least be bothered to write a reason why one of them isn't anymore.

It's not even a gender thing (OK, for some people it's a gender thing), for me it's just making a change to something that was previously explicitly stated to be the opposite way without any accompanying reasoning, like if they just declared that Baal was, and had always been, the homeworld of the Space Wolves with no further context. Yes, they can do that, it's their IP, yes, 40k canon is fluid, but you can't expect people to not have some kind of reaction.

But hey if the statement "All Custodes are recruited from the sons of nobles" is false because lol fluid canon then it's equally likely that the statement "there have always been female custodes" is false because lol fluid canon. GW have never ever said the more recent iteration of the background is any more or less "correct" than any other version, pick whatever version you like best, it's not like any except the truly deranged are going to have it affect their tabletop experience. have your Misters of battle and Misters of Silence and female Custodes and female Space Marines and whatever, your internalised lore is your business, we'll all be talking about something else in a couple of weeks anyway

No 'reason' makes sense without raising more questions.

Easier to 'Son's' is used in a non-gender specific way. Especially as there's no commitment to it.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 StudentOfEtherium wrote:
once again, that's not what gaslighting means

Fun fact one could argue that yourself via the constant stipulation of "it's not gaslighting" are preciscly doing it.

If one did that, one would be mistaken or lying.

this is not gaslighting, it is a retcon

and I don't know why people act like GW never retcons anything or the background books being valid for years

if GW changes Custodes in the next Codex to be the original Man of Iron and adds that it has always been that way, it is a retcon again and the only one to blame is GW for bad writing

 kodos wrote:
this is not gaslighting, it is a retcon

and I don't know why people act like GW never retcons anything or the background books being valid for years

if GW changes Custodes in the next Codex to be the original Man of Iron and adds that it has always been that way, it is a retcon again and the only one to blame is GW for bad writing

Noooo it isn't oh wait.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting

Behaupten bzw. leugnen, selbst etwas Bestimmtes getan oder gesagt zu haben
Bestreiten, dass ein bestimmtes Ereignis stattgefunden habe
Dem Opfer unzutreffende Realitätswahrnehmung oder falsche Realitätsbeurteilung vorwerfen

GW states cannon X.
GW now states Cannon allways was Y.
GW bans people activly that point that out

Yes it is .

cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now

there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done

 kodos wrote:
cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now

there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done

Miss the point more artificially will you.
The problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is.

I've been playing since the end of 2nd. Gw has always hamfistedly "gaslighted" stuff into existence, so much so that it became a running joke in my gaming group. New flyers? "Yeah they always had those". New tank? "Yeah those were always there, nobody bothered to write about them.". New primaris and tech in a supposedly stagnant imperium? "Yeah they've actually been in the making for 10k years, only nobody noticed".

Mod edit - removed

Not Online!!! wrote:

 kodos wrote:
cool, so GW is gaslighting people for 30 years now but somehow it was never a problem until now

there must have been something else I missed because the change of the usual retcons being now gaslighting is for sure not cause because GW is doing what they have always done

Miss the point more artificially will you.
The problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is.

GW has always done it that way
the exact conversational tone of how GW acts when telling people that this is not something new but it has always been that way in 40k is happening since 3rd Edition
and now it is a problem?
either it has always a problem or it is none

and if it is a problem, stop buying GW products and don't play their games as this is their normal behaviour

i'd buy that mini...

Captain Cosmo wrote:
I've spent a few day's thinking about this now.

My Initial reaction was no. however, after some level headed responses from the other side of the debate, I concluded that actually, I can see a place for female custodes, even female space marines, were it handled well. Warcoms response disheartened me on that, and area's of the community who only seemed to like it for the political point scoring also put me off.

I'm put in mind of the bene gesserit in Dune, and them being all female. I would not like it if somebody decided to change that. The same is true for the sisters, both of battle and silence. In stories, an all female group would very likely behave differently then a group of mixed genders. This being the case, I think the same can be said for all male groups, as with the space marines. I can't remember which horus heresy book it was, but there were a group of scouts who after experiencing some form of loss, came across as lost boys, and it changed how I viewed the Space Marines.

I instinctively would like to say the same of the Custodes, but objectively can't. In lore, it seem's only tradition kept them male. I'd prefer that it be handled that yes, they were always male, but now, things have changed. Instead of just telling us that it's always been that way and we missed it.

As for the reasons behind it, I don't know what caused the change. I would like somebody to explain why representation is a good thing. Personally I think it's morally neutral, and it's implentation can be positive or negative. I worry that throwing this lore into the custodes may come across as tokenism.

I also worry from the political points scoring crowd, that there reason for praising this is that they have a system of thinking that is all about breaking people down by their immutable characteristics, and seeking to engineer society, and in turn, societies entertainment, by those same immutable characteristics.I don't like where this goes.Outside of 40k. I love 40k, but it's not that important to worry about it here alone.

As for bringing more people into the hobby. (Ignoring excluding those who you would describe as mysogistic bigots). My admittedly anecdotal experience is that women who have sisters armies tend to be the beleaguered Wives and Girlfriends of well meaning, but naive hobbiests who though that "This is a girl faction, you'll like them". It's slightly sexist. When Women are left to their own devices in the hobby, I tend to see them migrate to Eldar, becuase they're aesthetically beautiful, Tyranids, Because they're cute, and Orks, because they're funny. None of these are because they're women, and I don't think adding female custodes will change that.

I hope that wasn't too rambling, I just wanted to get my thoughts out.

Edited for clarity.

Anyone who has read dune know that Herbert had some extremely wierd gender politics. And, like, a real big dommy mommy fetish.

If you read dune today and go "Yes, Herbert's take on gender seems quite good", you aren't even an old school misogynist. Herbert's take on gender is almost unique to himself. It's inculcated directly from a reaction to gender politics of his time. He was distinctly against the prevailing patriarchal opinions of his day, but also unable to cross the gap from "Women are not inferior to men" to "Men and women are equal" and gets to this weird place where he inverts some gender tropes (eg, for example, women being the rational logical gender verse the irrational men of the setting). Also he wanted a women in bondage gear to step on him

He did also develop his beliefs that you can see through the books.

But Dune is a told story, set from its time. And as much as I enjoyed Villeneuve's movies, I distinctly don't want dune to become a franchise. Tell the stories in new mediums. Don't invent a setting around them

Warhammer is not a narrative. It's an aesthetic first, and a setting second and a narrative almost never (Even HH has chopped its narrative's gets out for game reasons). All of which exists to sell models.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Lammia wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Lammia wrote:
What if I told you there are Horus Heresy books with male and female Custodes in them?

For reals? That's interesting to know.

Edit: How recently were those published?

Echoes of Eternity has some very Legio Custodes coded reference to 'men and women' that protect the Emperor. Though as someone has pointed out, there are those assuming it's just SoS.

That very much comes across as ' ah yes, we'll increase female representation by wholey denying existing female representation'.

The fact that female Custodes were supposedly vetoed elsewhere would indicate that the female protectors of the Emperor were supposed to be understood as the existing and well known female protectors of the Emperor (ie the Sisters of Silence) and not unknown non existent female protectors of the Emperor (ie femstodes).

Look man, if the only women force the emperor created is the one that isn't allowed to talk, that isn't great representation.

Mod edit - removed

Mod edit - removed

Oh, and just to repeat my question, because more people here are claiming that they oppose HOW GW addressed the retcon:

An honest question, to both yourself and anyone else who feels strongly on the "they've always been there" comment: what would you have rather had GW do?

Let's say that they did fully want to retcon Custodes, instead of it being a development within universe, which is pretty clearly what they intend for. How should GW handle retcons?

Public announcement that they *are* retconning something (which I've never known them to explicitly do)?
Retcon and not elaborate (Necrons, Votaan)
Retcon, and explain WHY they're retconning it (again, never really known to happen)

I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon (and before anyone suggests, I'm not going to accept "advance the narrative" - it's very clear that GW weren't going to do this approach).

As I've had to emphasise - THIS IS NOT TALKING ABOUT SHOULD GW HAVE RETCONNED.

@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?

Yeah this image is awesome, and I don't even like custodes. At least, until now I didn't. I'm not even joking.

Re: the rest: I think it's more likely gw thought "inclusion is hip now, let's make a token effort so we don't get negative press for being a boys-only club: that could harm our sales :O".

Gw is a corporate now, they don't care about anything other than their bottom line.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?

If at all. And it shouldn't because logic still applies to this universe and we are talking about a state that is in permanent total war and got carved a new backside to which ressources it has only minimally access:

"increased strain and attrition forced even the mighty Adeptus custodes to increase recruitment. Conscripting any firstborn child that passes through the trials and modifications of any House of the nobility on Terra. Longterm the ministorium has projected this increased conscription will lead to a bleeding white of the noble houses but at the current state of the indomitus crusade and the increased necessity to fight on ever more fronts the hands of the Custodes are just as much tied as are the noses around the necks of the Ministorium officials that projected simulations of the attrition rate amongst the nobility of terra. Though the simulations themselves on the attrition rate have also become ever more obsolete as with the absence of the god emperor the techniques and knowledge to create Custodes has fallen ever more into disrepair" (until Cawl inevitably shows up and pulls a Cawl because Cawl is a well written charachter /s)

It still would spit in the face of logic because reproductive bottleneck but yeah.

However since we got nothing and since shareholders with more than 3 % of the shares need to be disclosed we know why it is happening and why GW seems incapable of basic discussion or reason.

Mod edit - removed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

@Not Online, you say that "the problem isn't a retcon, they may or may not work. The problem is the conversational tone of GW and it's behaviour during it that make it clear what it is." - so please, answer the above question. If the problem wasn't that they retconned it, how should they have handled the retcon?

If at all. And it shouldn't
...
However since we got nothing and since shareholders with more than 3 % of the shares need to be disclosed we know why it is happening and why GW seems incapable of basic discussion or reason.

You said the problem wasn't that it was a retcon. You claimed it was the tone of GW, so I've cut out the stuff which had nothing to do with the question.

How could GW have improved *the retcon*, and more specifically, "the conversational tone of GW"?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon

Out of interest (I'm onboard with femstodes): they'd need some plot excuse as to why they were never seen before. Maybe they were guarding Cawl in his cave for 10k years? That still wouldn't explain why only all female custodes were hidden though, it's a weird split to make
in the first place

shortymcnostrill wrote:
Yeah this image is awesome, and I don't even like custodes. At least, until now I didn't. I'm not even joking.

Re: the rest: I think it's more likely gw thought "inclusion is hip now, let's make a token effort so we don't get negative press for being a boys-only club: that could harm our sales :O".

Gw is a corporate now, they don't care about anything other than their bottom line.

This is more likely the designers and writers, who are generally a progressive lot (crabel, flee!), pushing for things and the suits finally throwing them a bone

shortymcnostrill wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

I'm genuinely curious as to what GW "should" have done about this retcon

Out of interest (I'm onboard with femstodes): they'd need some plot excuse as to why they were never seen before. Maybe they were guarding Cawl in his cave for 10k years? That still wouldn't explain why only all female custodes were hidden though, it's a weird split to make
in the first place

If I may ask, why do they *need* a plot excuse? Is it not okay for GW to say "hey, so, we made an oopsie?"

Okay, as before, I have rather aggressively removed posts belonging to a certain poster, as well as quotes or posts replying to said poster. If I in my zeal removed other stuff as well, my apologies, but I would rather not risk having that fething bs remain in this thread any longer and reignite that melon-fething 💩storm again.



One other request for future discussion: report and do not engage. I repeat: report and do NOT fething engage. Don't make things worse by gaking all over the place more, okay?

Now kindly carry on with discussion, kudos to those who have kept a cool head, love you~ 😘

i think women are cool