Skinnattittar wrote:Square roots I know, but 1/9 is 0.1r where 'r' means recurring/repeating, not 'to infinity' which implies it is a 'solid' number, or one that you can dismiss as not being 1/9. This may just be an argument of semantics, but it really does matter.

0.1i where 'i' means 'to infinity'

0.1i * 9 = 0.9i

0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:0.9i is NOT equal to 1 unless you are rounding.

Read the Wiki link, you will find 0.9i = 1

I did, and it essentially said that in many more technical words. Show me an example where 9/9 = 0.9i

Kitzz wrote:I think there should be a list of all of the most nasty questions stickied (wbb, eldar jetbikes, anything having to do with certain winged elements of norse mythology, etc.) and their best arguments for/against.

(Not to derail the thread or anything)

Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....

Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....

Frazzled wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Yet another argument on here that means absolutely nothing, adding to 9 pages with 95% of it consisting of garbage. Funny that it's always the same few people involved in them every time....

You're not helping the situation here Nightlords.

Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.

Skinnattittar wrote:

Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.

And this is an example of another problem in YMDC, passive aggressive comments. There is nothing 'half truth' about the mathematical proofs I presented, however since it is opposed to another ideology of something they consider 'true' but difficult to refute, it is easier to leave a passive aggressive comment rather than not say anything at all. Another phrase for this is 'I want the last word.' For my part, this is my last word, if someone else wants to trump it, they are more than welcome to take it, but I would appreciate not being goded into making another comment, and either welcome open discussion, or PM me. I am more than happy to take this elsewhere.

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.

Gwar! wrote:

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.

H.B.M.C. wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

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.

No need to be paranoid. I'm not talking about you Gwar!.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again:

Dakka Dakka is a place where it's ok to be a spade, but you can't ever point someone out as being a spade, or you'll get banned.

In this example replace "space" with "idiot".

Kitzz wrote:

Skinnattittar wrote:

Without going back into the mathematics debate (which I'm more then happy to continue else where), what Skinnattittar has done is a common tact of saying some thing is wrong and then backing it up with half the truth. Parallels can be seen in the having more then 2 different weapons debate.

And this is an example of another problem in YMDC, passive aggressive comments. There is nothing 'half truth' about the mathematical proofs I presented, however since it is opposed to another ideology of something they consider 'true' but difficult to refute, it is easier to leave a passive aggressive comment rather than not say anything at all. Another phrase for this is 'I want the last word.' For my part, this is my last word, if someone else wants to trump it, they are more than welcome to take it, but I would appreciate not being goded into making another comment, and either welcome open discussion, or PM me. I am more than happy to take this elsewhere.

He was talking about your point back when this was an actual discussion, about a page ago. He might have done it in a poorly thought-out manner, but he was trying to focus back on the main point of the thread.

1hadhq wrote:- the elitist approach should be cut down. Not everyone has the time to stick his nose the whole day into BRB and codices.

Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.

I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.

1hadhq wrote:
- ignoring the dakka rules should be sentenced asap

1hadhq wrote:
- threads longer than 3 pages should be reviewed automatically.
- the elitist approach should be cut down. Not everyone has the time to stick his nose the whole day into BRB and codices.
- the purpose of the YMDC shouldnt be ignored. Its there to ask, not to glorify yourself. Either help your fellow gamers or keep silent.

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.

I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.

No, I agree. I myself try and avoid that, unless its a question like "Where are the rules for Power Fists" which can be found by looking at the contents or index.

Elessar wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Part of the function of YMTC is actually asking how something works. many people read the rules but forget where a rule is, or how it actually works.

I'm pretty hostile towards post replies with just "read the rules." This is a forum, site the section.

No, I agree. I myself try and avoid that, unless its a question like "Where are the rules for Power Fists" which can be found by looking at the contents or index.

Hmmm. A lot of the time, answering with things like "Page 44" (an actual answer to a rules query I answered on Lounge yesterday) is sufficient, ostracising this type of answer seems counter-intuitive. A nudge is often enough for the person to figure it out, and it prevents arguments when people misquote rules and generally talk through their arse with fluff-based answers/previous edition based answers/answers with no discernable source.

Frazzled wrote:
***************************************************************
These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure constructive rules discussions. If you find someone ignoring these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

1. Justify Your Opinion
Don't make claims about rules without justification. You have to give a reason for any statement you make about the rules; without this, there can be no debate. In making this justification, you should put it together so that others can follow it step by step, with each step justified by previous steps. Remember to note any assumptions you might make to avoid an eternal regress of justification.

2. Criticize Other Opinions, Not People
Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person. Give reasons for your criticism, and try to suggest a way of fixing you whatever you have identified as a mistake, to make your criticism constructive.

3. Stay On Topic
Stick to discussing the rules, not other posters. Phrases like "Rules Lawyer", "Cheater" and "TFG" have no place in rules discussions. Don't depart from rules discussions by attaching value judgments to different interpretations, wondering about another posters motivation for posting different interpretations, criticizing their writing style, or speculating on their opinion about other topics.

FRAZZLED'S NOTE ON MODERATION: YOU CAN DISCUSS THE IMPACT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF PLAY ON SPORTSMANSHIP, BUT PLEASE SEPARATE THE DISCUSSION SPECIFICALLY IN A NEW PARAGRAPH IN YOUR POST AND IDENTIFY AS SUCH.

4. Cite Your Sources
The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs and Erratas. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on. Be sure to verify these claims independently. Otherwise cite your sources giving the document name, section, sub-section or label, and page number. E.g.; Codex: Space Marines, Wargear, Armour: Terminator Armour, p.1.02 ("pp." for multiple page references with a dash between beginning and ending pages).

5. Avoid Analogies.
The 40k rules, while about a fantasy universe resembling the real world, are a game with their own logic. Analogies to the real world, and real world examples, have no bearing on how the rules actually work as a system. Stick to how the rules behave as their own system, rather than what they represent, or what you think they should represent.

6. Distinguish Between Rules and Play
What the rules say, and how you would play are not the same thing. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a discussion.

7. Communicate Carefully
Many arguments can be avoided if we can make ourselves better understood. Don't assume you know which one that your opponent is arguing about, and give them the benefit of the doubt if they are making what appears to be some unreasonable or outrageous claim. Likewise, don't assume that you are always clear, or that the clarity of your position is obvious. In fact, avoid terms like "obviously", "clearly", and "real" if at all possible. To quote Grissom from CSI: "The problem with the obvious is that it can make you overlook the evidence."

8. Be Careful With Words
Be careful with words, and do not make substitutions carelessly. Like any system of rules, GW uses words in 40k to refer to specific parts of the game. Although GW does not do this perfectly (see: 'Chaos Space Marines', 'bonuses', etc), there's not point in confusing things further by carelessly swapping synonyms for the sake of style. In particular be careful with applying dictionary definitions of words, and substitutions recommended by thesauruses, as the English used by GW is a special semi-formalized language, rather than the various day-to-day English dialects we commonly use.

Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.

Rules As Written (RAW) - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations. Some people use it to refer to the rules only as they are written down, or the rules as they are stated in an applicable section of the rules, or sometimes the rules as a whole and their implications.

How You Would Play It (HYWP)- This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above, make things seem fairer to the players, or simply to satisfy the preferences of the players involved.