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.

Hellfury wrote:

TBD wrote:Unfortunately I can't see the first picture at work, and there isn't any argument to win or lose since we are talking about opinions here, but I'll give you an A for effort anyway

Aww... that's so sweet that you think enough of me to leave a condescending remark like that. Truly, an honor.

Be sure to let us all know how your job at a cross dressing night club dressed as "The Queen Of De Nile" works out for you.

I'll admit it, I laughed.

As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You darn kids and that interwebby thingie!!

Get off of my lawn!

Grot 6 wrote:You darn kids and that interwebby thingie!!

Get off of my lawn!

I'll see our curmudgeonly old man, and raise you a curmudgeonly futuristic old man....

Damn n00blets.... get offa mah interwebz! Yer blockin' mah toobz!

TBD wrote:"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

Just to get this straight, you're saying that a government should regulate who is a journalist, and who should benefit from allowances afforded to journalists? This doesn't sound like advocating state enforced censorship to you?

I believe that the ability for the public to express its criticism (whether positive or negative) has been well demonstrated as a key component of a free society. This criticism can be directed at the government itself, public figures, and corporations. In the most fundamental examples, it allows the public to bring attention to wrong-doing. In a less dire example, it allows the public to inform itself on note-worthy topics, such as a small community informing itself about novel miniatures. It is up to the consumer of that journalism to decide its merit for themselves.

Games Workshop is protected from a journalist's malicious actions, in many nations, through laws pertaining to slander and libel. All Games Workshop has to fear from journalists is their ability to convince the public that there are better places to spend their money.

In the end, anyone who is engaged in journalism, is a journalist, just as anyone who plays football is a footballer, or anyone who paints is a painter.

If you'd like to protect yourself from being informed by a free society, or don't believe you possess sufficient faculties to make your own judgements, please continue to advocate your stance. I think you'll find that not many people agree with you.

The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

Seriously, this triteful poking is like a man with a Virginia Ham under his arm, crying about not having a loaf of bread.

These guys are presenting you with information about wargaming and presenting it in a clear and thoughtful manner? Would you just say !@#$ it and let William Bentley or Racheal Maddow do it for you instead?


We're talking about reviews interviews and information about of all things, wargaming. What seems to be the issue here?

I could see if they were telling a bunch of false information,or here say, but I'm really not seeing any with these guys. A few extra fart jokes, and the level of fingerpulling that you would expect, but I am not seeing anything harmful, hurtful, or misleading.

"In the conduct of my newspaper I carefully excluded all libeling and personal abuse, which is of late years become so disgraceful to our country. Whenever I was solicited to insert anything of that kind and the writers pleaded, as they generally did, the liberty of the press — and that a newspaper was like a stage-coach, in which any one who would pay had a right to a place — my answer was that I would print the piece separately if desired, and the author might have as many copies as he pleased to distribute himself, but that I would not take upon me to spread his detraction, and that having contracted with my subscribers to furnish them with what might be either useful or entertaining, I could not fill their papers with private altercation, in which they had no concern, without doing them manifest injustice. Now many of our printers make no scruple of gratifying the malice of individuals by false accusations of the fairest characters among ourselves, augmenting animosity even to the producing of duels; and are, moreover, so indiscreet as to print scurrilous reflections on the government of neighboring States, and even on the conduct of our best national allies, which may be attended with the most pernicious consequences. These things I mention as a caution to young printers, and that they may be encouraged not to pollute their presses and disgrace their profession by such infamous practices, but refuse steadily; as they may see by my example that such a course of conduct will not on the whole be injurious to their interests."- Ben Franklin



Yeah, I'm going to have to pass. BOW did a good job with thier material, now your !@#$ing because they didn't do it the way you wanted them to do it? I'm going to have to agree with Mr Franklin and say that BOW is doing a good job and printing what they have- information about wargaming, and an interview with some guys... about wargaming.

If we were trying to sell you a chicken, and you bought a duck, I could see why you had issue to complain. I'm not seeing anything other then a couple of Jay and Silent Bob types talking to you about wargaming.

Maybe I'm the one missing something about the issue? If I am, please enlighten me.

Imagine a world where only GW is allowed to review GW models. Only Apple gets to tell you about the I-phone..and...

Actually, don't. Its gak.

Delephont wrote:

TBD wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:
Mr. gorilla marine is not amused? I imagined you had a bit of sense of humor... this thing of teasing online goes both way you know? Just enjoy the ride.

I guess there is humor and then there is humor...

The attempt this BoW fella made is the kind of funny that usually ends in one of these awkward silences where nobody laughs. This just wasn't good enough, sorry!

Judging by the look on his face he wasn't entirely sure about himself either.

Maybe if he reads this they can think of something better for next week and I can make Dakka a permanent feature on their show



Automatically Appended Next Post:

loki old fart wrote:Ape face you need to get down of your high horse and chill out.
Now stop monkeying about and let it go

But I am bored at work, and you have to admit this is more entertaining than reading the complaining about bubblecast in the other threads

The question has to be asked of armchair critics like yourself, who can find nothing constructive to say about a group of people who invest their own time and money to bring us entertaining news and features about our hobby....what have YOU done to bring the community anything near what these guys bring us?.....I'll be honest, and I really don't want to clash with rule number one, but your prattling on about qualifications and the such like, makes me sick.....who the hell are you to judge anyway? If you don't like what they do, then don't watch.....but why do you feel the need to dregde up these weak ass justifications aimed purely at persuading others to agree with your assessment of the show or it's legal standing? Why?

I don't have many Dakkites on Ignore, but you sir are probably more deserving of that status than most.

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

Buzzsaw wrote:As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You know Buzzsaw, I am starting to wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose, or if you really are not able to understand.

Just keep attributing nonsense to me like in the first and last part of your post. It's a pretty good way to avoid the actual core point of the discussion isn't it? It is also a very weak way of debating.

- uninformed: we have already established that everybody understands the relevant laws, but that this is not the point discussion. So why mention this yet again?

I have made clear that I know what applies, but that I think it sucks arse and is a lacking piece of crap legislation. It can't be put any more bluntly than that. I don't need people to then repeatedly respond by saying things like "but they are doing nothing wrong because the relevant law applies, you don't understand what you are talking!". It makes me question people's intelligence when they argue like that. If you don't understand what I am saying here it immediately proves my point and there is no further hope.

- un-serious: what "intolerable consequences" exactly are you talking about? Many of you outrage at the thought of downloading a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, so I can hardly imagine it is "intolerable" if rules were adjusted so that a company's hard work would be actually adequately protected from unwanted spoiling by third parties. Otherwise this pretty big double standard I already mentioned pops up it's big double head again.

- unhinged: to step away from the opinionated side of things for a second, it is not an opinion, but fact, that legislation hasn't kept up with the rapid evolution of the internet and all the new problems that came along with it. New internet laws have been and are being developed as we speak to clear up grey areas and deal with entirely new issues. In other words, legislation is catching up with the internet, and we'll only see more of it in the future. It is quite silly to deny this or pretend it is not so.

Now answer this last question if you will:

There is this law which states that everyone is prohibited from publicly peeing in the street unless your name is Bob. At the same time everyone can be Bob whenever they choose to.

Does this sound logical to you? And if yes, why?

Good point

In that case, could the mods please remove anything remotely resembling a review from the Dakka Archives, unless posted by a fully qualified journalist?

redstripe wrote:

TBD wrote:"IP laws have very clear allowances for journalists" ----> in other words, those allowances aren't there for non-journalists, thus creating exceptional circumstances for some.

Just to get this straight, you're saying that a government should regulate who is a journalist, and who should benefit from allowances afforded to journalists? This doesn't sound like advocating state enforced censorship to you?

I believe that the ability for the public to express its criticism (whether positive or negative) has been well demonstrated as a key component of a free society. This criticism can be directed at the government itself, public figures, and corporations. In the most fundamental examples, it allows the public to bring attention to wrong-doing. In a less dire example, it allows the public to inform itself on note-worthy topics, such as a small community informing itself about novel miniatures. It is up to the consumer of that journalism to decide its merit for themselves.

Games Workshop is protected from a journalist's malicious actions, in many nations, through laws pertaining to slander and libel. All Games Workshop has to fear from journalists is their ability to convince the public that there are better places to spend their money.

In the end, anyone who is engaged in journalism, is a journalist, just as anyone who plays football is a footballer, or anyone who paints is a painter.

If you'd like to protect yourself from being informed by a free society, or don't believe you possess sufficient faculties to make your own judgements, please continue to advocate your stance. I think you'll find that not many people agree with you.

I completely agree with all of this except perhaps the part where everyone who paints is a painter, but that depends and isn't important right now.

There is a big difference between censoring criticism expressed by the public (this is clearly NOT what I have been advocating) and increased limitation of the liberties third parties have concerning work created and owned by company/person X. The first is not desirable, the latter very desirable IMO.

I have also never said there is only one way to accomplish this goal, but that a way to possibly accomplish it is by creating stricter guidelines/rules to distinguish posers from professionals.

In this day and age, anyone can be a reviewer. Just set up a blog, get all your friends to share it on facebook and tweet it left and right. Then get an advertiser or 2 and the next thing you know you'll be the guest judge on Iron Chef pretending you actually enjoy the taste of foie gras & octopus soup, or something else equally nasty.

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.







Automatically Appended Next Post:

Delephont wrote:The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

The only one who has been a troll in this thread is you. I have been having a valid discussion related to the topic of the thread while all you have done is attack me without adding anything to the conversation.

If you don't agree with something try taking part in the debate next time. You'll get a serious response then instead of the one you got last time.

Well TBD, not only are you starting to belabor the point, you're also beating a dead horse and defending a rather inane position!

So, what gives already?

Chibi Bodge-Battle wrote:Good point

In that case, could the mods please remove anything remotely resembling a review from the Dakka Archives, unless posted by a fully qualified journalist?

My stance has been that it is perfectly fine to review, but let's call the person doing so a reviewer instead of a journalist.

Apparently that opinion insults a lot of people.

TBD wrote:

Buzzsaw wrote:As for the clash of "opinions", I think TBD is missing the point; we're not claiming he can't have that opinion, we're pointing out that that opinion is;
-Uninformed (it seems to exist wholly in the asbence of understanding of the relevent laws),
-Un-serious (as, well, almost everyone has pointed out, actually trying to implement such a regime would lead to consequences most find intolerable), and
-Unhinged (he's "sure it will [be changed] at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet"; because... gol dang, people are just too free, dangit!).

Seriously, TBD is arguing as if the fair use laws are causing some terrible harm, as if journalists, flush with rights uniquely given to them are trampling down others. It's like having an argument where one side is advancing that purple is a flavor, and that flavor is undermining our youth. It's just so very far from reason and reality.

You know Buzzsaw, I am starting to wonder if you are being obtuse on purpose, or if you really are not able to understand.

Just keep attributing nonsense to me like in the first and last part of your post. It's a pretty good way to avoid the actual core point of the discussion isn't it? It is also a very weak way of debating.

- uninformed: we have already established that everybody understands the relevant laws, but that this is not the point discussion. So why mention this yet again?

I have made clear that I know what applies, but that I think it sucks arse and is a lacking piece of crap legislation. It can't be put any more bluntly than that. I don't need people to then repeatedly respond by saying things like "but they are doing nothing wrong because the relevant law applies, you don't understand what you are talking!". It makes me question people's intelligence when they argue like that. If you don't understand what I am saying here it immediately proves my point and there is no further hope.

- un-serious: what "intolerable consequences" exactly are you talking about? Many of you outrage at the thought of downloading a PDF codex off Pirate Bay, so I can hardly imagine it is "intolerable" if rules were adjusted so that a company's hard work would be actually adequately protected from unwanted spoiling by third parties. Otherwise this pretty big double standard I already mentioned pops up it's big double head again.

- unhinged: to step away from the opinionated side of things for a second, it is not an opinion, but fact, that legislation hasn't kept up with the rapid evolution of the internet and all the new problems that came along with it. New internet laws have been and are being developed as we speak to clear up grey areas and deal with entirely new issues. In other words, legislation is catching up with the internet, and we'll only see more of it in the future. It is quite silly to deny this or pretend it is not so.

Now answer this last question if you will:

There is this law which states that everyone is prohibited from publicly peeing in the street unless your name is Bob. At the same time everyone can be Bob whenever they choose to.

Does this sound logical to you? And if yes, why?

Hold on there, chief.


First things first, YOU are either being intentionally flim-flam, or your just arguing here for arguments sake.

What exactly are you saying with this speal?

They are calling it citizen journalism these days. We're seeing it across the world from China to Timbuctu, and YOU have a problem with it? Seeing people discuss things that they are going through and it isn't polished with a fine wiff of advertising? Are you seriously saying that it is mainstream albeit "Advertising marketed" news spins, and that makes it "Official"?
Hey there chief, Too bad that you don' like it, but it is making the rounds from everywhere from Twitter, to the internet, to the local PBS station. Then your spouting off about some sort of offhanded Leglase B.S. and that your waiting for the law to catch up?

What exactly is that about?

I thinks that you need to step back and reexamine the world in which you live. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't there.

TBD wrote:
Yes, it's clear that the legal situation is clear.

However that doesn't mean this clear situation can't be considered whacky, aka wrong/inadequate/outdated/flawed/lacking/etc, and that it shouldn't be changed, which I am sure it will at some point in the future when legislation catches up to the internet. In the meantime the double standard on/in(?) ethics* can continue because people can justify it by pointing to said whacky law and use that as a way to comfort themselves that they aren't doing anything wrong.

Hence the chaos that is Youtube. The impression I have right now is that Youtube can get into trouble for allowing certain infringements, and therefor remove stuff to prevent trouble, but can't be held accountable if people want to force them to put their removed video back online when they disagree about the validity of the removal. They simply impose their own rules in an unclear situation, to which I say "good for them !".

Interesting discussion nevertheless, Imo.
(* note that these aren't necessarily my standards/ethics)

I get what you're saying but quality has nothing to do with it; if there were a quality bar that everything were required to meet to be labeled something then McDonalds wouldn't be allowed to call itself a restaurant and Spam couldn't be called food nor hot dogs be called meat or most of the black library novels books (most of them tend to be little better than fan spank in my opinion).

Fox news gets to call itself news and the people that work there Journalists; however, they frequently misrepresent facts or only relate parts of news that jive with their particular world views. How is that any different than a few people making a show about an extremely niche market?

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.

To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

You now seem to suggest that journalists should be licensed and prevented from reporting stuff by law, while the general public should be allowed to criticise as they like.

Do you now regard the BoW people as journalists? Earlier you seemed to believe them to be not capable of proper reporting and not worthy to be journalists. This seems to conflict with your new position.

TBD wrote:

Delephont wrote:The "guy" is a troll......there's no point trying to reason with it, as it either lacks the intelligence to consider alternative views or willfully ignores them.....either way it doesn't seem to understand when to stop.

The only one who has been a troll in this thread is you. I have been having a valid discussion related to the topic of the thread while all you have done is attack me without adding anything to the conversation.

If you don't agree with something try taking part in the debate next time. You'll get a serious response then instead of the one you got last time.

I am more than happy to hold a discussion with anyone, that's why I come here (to the forum).....however, I fail to see your "point". You're arguing over whether the BoW guys should be classed as Journalists or Reviewers, and you then go on to attack them for not taking your argument (or others who seem to share your opinion) seriously.....yes you might not have found their joke funny, but the point behind their sketch was simple.....they don't care....he clearly has no journalist qualifications, and he was showing his contempt for the idea that you believe he needs one just to discuss wargaming miniatures, by showing a parody of a journalism degree.

In the grand scheme of things, why is this important? This pedantic itch you seem to be scratching is clouding your view of the woods......why can't you see BoW as a group of gamers discussing gaming issues? Have you seen Reaper T.V.? it's a guy giving us his opinions and reports about Reaper miniatures.....is that any different?

I for one welcome as many reviews of products as I can get....I want to know what's out there, and I'd rather not have to purchase everything that seems nice to me, in order to be make a judgement on whether that investment was worth it or not. The BoW guys and "reviewers" like them sacrifice their time and money so that I don't have to....the least I can do is to show them a little courtesy and respect by 1) giving them my time to watch their efforts, and 2) Not being overly critical of their work, when I am clearly not in the mind to try to do something better.....

A man waving a half empty bottle of beer in front of the camera before the main show needs no other credentials for serious journalism

TBD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

And here we have it again. Please point out to me the piece of text I typed that made you think this is what I believe?

I have never said anything even close to this.

I am perfectly allowed to make a web show, but I wouldn't immediately claim to be a journalist regardless of what any law says.

If you utilize any sort of media to distribute any mix of fact or opinion in a narrative format, you're a journalist, whether you claim to be or not. get off of your high horse and stop pushing for the supression of thoughts and ideas contrary to your own.

Alpharius wrote:Well TBD, not only are you starting to belabor the point, you're also beating a dead horse and defending a rather inane position!

So, what gives already?

Maybe that is because people keep misquoting me? I have to say it is quite annoying to repeatedly read words and intentions attributed to me that I quite clearly never wrote, and even additional people responding to those misquotes thinking that I actually said what I didn't say

But you are right that it has become quite a useless conversation by now.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

You now seem to suggest that journalists should be licensed and prevented from reporting stuff by law, while the general public should be allowed to criticise as they like.

Do you now regard the BoW people as journalists? Earlier you seemed to believe them to be not capable of proper reporting and not worthy to be journalists. This seems to conflict with your new position.

No I don't consider them proper journalists, but that doesn't mean that they can't review stuff or that people can't like what they do.

And nobody should be allowed to take unwanted liberties with another's property unless there are exceptional circumstances. Spoiling of yet unreleased material is cool for us, but not for GW, Mantic, PP, etc. Is that really such an invalid opinion?

Psst tbd just going to let you in on a secret. spoiling gw product launches ( which is what you seem to be refering to now) or any companys for that matter generates iterest in said products.

I would like to pose the question: Why do you all care so much about what TBD thinks? It's not like it matters?

He's one (albeit in my opinion misguided) individual, belaboring a rather tired and thoroughly refuted point.

People ought to leave him to his fantasy and move on. The delusional seldom serve fact or reality. If he wants to toot on his autocratic, totalitarian anti-journalistic-freedom-slanted horn, let him. It's not like people have to care or listen to his tune, yes?

People should leave him to his sunk cost fallacy and focus on what is actually news, I should think.

...just sayin'.

Kroothawk wrote:A man waving a half empty bottle of beer in front of the camera before the main show needs no other credentials for serious journalism

Stay thirsty My Friends....

I honestly think the whole "BoW Journalist" issue was overinflated on Dakka afterlast week's Youtube fiasco.

I have nowhere, to the best of knowledge, heard the chaps on BoW say, "We are (professional) journalists."

As I understand it the designation only gets used by them in reference to what they did while on Youtube, because of some of the terms and conditions. It is that which has labelled the guys as journalists and is not how they refer to themselves.

I stand to be corrected on the above but the issue is frankly an utter waste of time and a distraction as to the real purpose of the thread, ie What The Flip are Youtube doing and for Mat Ward's sake why?

Kilkrazy wrote:You can't blame TBD for not making a web show. He doesn't believe he should be allowed to.

In two sentences, you manged to succinctly state the point it took me three paragraphs to get to. I must applaud.

If you went behind the scenes at every magazine, website, and blog that reviews products put out by companies - you'd find only the top handful of staff in the largest groups have any serious, formal journalistic education. Most staff will be people, while educated, that have extensive experience and interest in the field in which they work.

Yet, we still consider Car and Driver a journalistic endeavor, yes? How about IGN? Gamespot? PC Gamer? Think of them all, those are but a few examples. Your EIC and a few other scrubs like associate editors, will be the only people that worry about the hardcore journalistic aspects of a publication - and that's because they do the editing and in some cases marketing and so forth, so it makes sense that they would. A writer that produces an article needs no vast amount of polish if his EIC is good at his job. The editors will make the rest look like they're pros, even if they're not.

Live shows, like Turn 8, are slightly different, in that the guys have to bring their game to the front and show people a reasonable amount of polish to be taken seriously. In that respect, what BOW is doing actually requires a bit more skill than many other types of journalism in that they have to establish and maintain the overall quality of their craft over the course of many episodes. There is little, I doubt, if any post production editing done by their staff to polish their videos.

That said, nobody, including BOW has claimed they are the pinnacle of hardcore, formal journalism. They probably don't want to be. Who'd watch them if it was all canned anyways? Part of the fun of watching turn 8 is that it's somewhat akin to hanging out and listening to a discussion at a buddy's house. You get the news you want, reviews, some humor (whether your taste for it is applicable, is up to you), and you also get some interesting opinion pieces from time to time that are worth watching.

I think they're doing a fantastic job and I think people need to lighten up on this whole "OMFGZ journalism!?!?" debate. It's ridiculous and a waste of time.

Kilkrazy wrote:To be honest I am completely lost now as to your position and belief.

Exactly.

This thread seems to have slowly morphed so far away from where it started that I have no idea what's going on.

Let me clue you in.

TBD announced his cross.
TBD carried his cross.
TBD nailed himself to his cross.
The crowd rioted.