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.

Night Lords wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs

This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.

Pot, meet Kettle. Your arguments in the "Shooting Passengers from Blown Up Transports" thread show you are guilty as the rest of us of doing this.

Gwar! wrote:

Night Lords wrote:

Kirasu wrote:Less grammar nazing (in terms of very minor ways words come together in the rules).. More actual rule discussion would be great too. Id love it if people argued rules that they would ACTUALLY bring to a judge.. instead of inane things that are only argued on the interwebs

This. The arguments on here are absolutely ridiculous and would never take place. Unfortunately there are people on here who pretend to be arrogant lawyers, and to me it diminishes the point of this board.

Pot, meet Kettle. Your arguments in the "Shooting Passengers from Blown Up Transports" thread show you are guilty as the rest of us of doing this.

Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I? Im not the one who made the topic, i responded to the poll, gave a map to clarify what the TC was talking about, and gave my opinion. Seeing as how clearly most people play it the other way, Ive made a mental note to not get into that situation because it seems if I do try to pull that, Im going to get kicked in the nuts and deemed TFG.

So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.

Make me a mod.

Problem solved.

Deadshane1 wrote:Make me a mod.

Problem solved.

Only if I get to be one too!

Develop an "unwritten assumptions" list for use of interpreting a piece of RAW in YMDC and sticky it.

Obvious common examples that I see people getting frequently wrong (in my opinion):

-The mention of a term that matches the name of a unit does not automatically mean only that unit is what is referred to. Context of the sentence and passage determines whether it is a descriptive term, or a formal unit name.

-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.

-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.

There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.

I'd like to see something like that Kaaihn. Perhaps not what you said exactly, but the theory is certainly sound.

A commonly asked questions sticky would be nice too, so we don't have to see the same questions again and again. WBB is a 'wonderful' example of this.

I see the Gallery Ratings as a good example of what the whole "thumbs up" or "thumbs down" situation might degenerate into... basically a lot of downing on new or less experienced players/painters and over-inflating the egos of some of the more venerated players/painters. I mean seriously, I spend 8 hours painting a miniature and it gets rated at a 4, just because somebody doesn't like Imperial Guard Commissars? I expect to see situations like this if such a feature is implemented in the forums.

Of course, this is all strictly in my own opinion

A sticky post list such as Kaaihn suggested would be a very good idea.

Also, would it be possible to create a new archive section of YMDC threads? A few of the threads do deeply explore some uncertain rules questions and develop a clear understanding of some of the more foggy rules. And a few rules questions are repeated many times in YMDC (necron's WBB comes to mind) with the same lines of reasoning being followed each time.
A collection of important, clear threads in a reference section would very handy and would also serve as a useful learning tool. Some of the debates might become a little less vitriolic if they didnt keep recurring every few weeks as well.

While it is possible to use search to look up topics, many YMDC threads wind through several topics and may well discuss and clarify important points in threads that stray far from what the OP origianally asked.


Sliggoth

Kaaihn wrote:
-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.

-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.

There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.

Not stuff like this. If these were actual forum rules, YMDC would become a big discussion of people's arbitrary opinions, just like every other 40K rules forum that ever existed, and nothing would ever get settled.

Strict adherence to language and YMDC's own use of RAW readings are what brought me to this forum (back in its EZBoard days) and drove me away from other rules forums where every question devolves into a lot of pointless talk about "context" and bald assertion.

Flavius Infernus wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:
-Sentences don't exist in a vacuum. All surrounding relevant sentences must be considered, as well as written structure (such as the heading the sentence is listed under). It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.

-Codex does NOT automatically trump rulebook. It is specific over general. That will frequently mean codex over rulebook, but not always. And definitely not automatically.

There are lots of others. Those are just the three most common and obvious ones I see here. The majority of multi-page arguments I see in this forum wouldn't exist if people were actually arguing using the same baseline assumptions.

Not stuff like this. If these were actual forum rules, YMDC would become a big discussion of people's arbitrary opinions, just like every other 40K rules forum that ever existed, and nothing would ever get settled.

Strict adherence to language and YMDC's own use of RAW readings are what brought me to this forum (back in its EZBoard days) and drove me away from other rules forums where every question devolves into a lot of pointless talk about "context" and bald assertion.

What I am suggesting IS strict adherence to RAW. That's the whole point. There are so many different opinions of what RAW actually is though that the majority of the arguments here are pointless, since they are not equal ground arguments.

It's a "how to obtain a RAW answer" guide since so many people seem to need it. It's not like we don't have a source to validate any concepts used. Write it up, send it to GW for validation. There was a bunch of interest at one point of GW explaining their method behind how they determine answers to questions. This would be us documenting the method and getting their stamp of approval on it.

I don't understand why anyone would resist the idea of recognizing that they have a different core concept of the rules than someone else. If you work these issues out the questions themselves will work out on their own most of the time. 16 pages of arguing that librarians in terminator armour can't sweeping advance is all the proof of that needed.

To be clear, I'm not proposing they become forum rules that everyone must adhere to. I'm proposing getting the standards worked out and posted so when an argument is going nowhere because of a difference in standards, there is something to reference and get the core problem resolved instead of going in endless circles with a question.

It seems the norm to lift one sentence out of context, maul it with a dictionary, and claim that what comes of it is the RAW answer.

QFT.

I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC. I'm certainly not advocating threatening people with the banstick for ignoring context, but a gentle reminder, in the form of a sticky post, of concepts that everyone can agree on such as "specific > general," "rules don't exist in a vacuum," and "ignoring context does not equal RAW" would be nice.

-GK

I think we should adopt an elitist appoach. Everyone can post initially but for stupid remarks you are deducted points and when you bottom out you have to wait two months to post again.

G

The problem with that elitist approach is that unpopular people get marked down regardless (Gwar! comes to mind).

GiantKiller wrote:I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC.

Agreed. We need more "Let's discuss our opinions and exchange ideas" and less "OMGWTF Ur an idiot cheater because you don't agree with me and think it plays the way I do!" If the approach is less "I'm right and you're wrong" and more "Here's what I think and here's why I think it" that would go a long way.

Mods I would suggest the words "Cheat" and "Cheater" and "Cheating" be dirty words in YMDC.

Here is one method to institute a ranking system whereby members lose their privilege to post in this forum for a set period if they incur enough penalty points...

Player X asks a simple question that almost everyone knows the answer. It's black and white. Player X does not accept the answer and continues trying to find a way to get around the rules so he can play as he wishes.

Here's another... Player Y does not bother to read the rules and asks a question. Player Y receives a well explained answer completely supported by the rules with page numbers and still refuses to read the rules while ignoring what had been stated in response to the question.

In fact I would go so far as to say everyone here should always read all relevant rules before asking a question. Let's not use this forum as a substitute for the rulebook and codices. There are players who simply won't buy any of the codices or rulebook simply to save some money.

G

Sounds like a wonderful way to shout down opposing views and opinions.

I don't know why you say that. I would like to see YMDC return to thr days of it's past glory.

G

I say that because it will be used to silence unpopular opinions. YMDC has always been a snake-pit where appeal to popularity and the employment of personal attacks are preferred to scholarship and reason. Instituting such a ranking system would simply enable participants to shout down opposing views and opinions more effectively than they already do.

Not at all... Posters here should read all if the relevant rules before asking a question here or postulating some new found discovery. There are plenty of threads that center around the OP not bothering to even make a precursory check of the rules before posting. No one could run a successful business that way.

G

Night Lords wrote:Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I?

Is that a trick question? Because it kind of looks like you are...

So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.

4 so far.



So far as the 'Grammar Nazing' comment goes... Grammar is rather an important part of the written language. Explaining the grammar behind the rule, or pointing out that the way the rule is worded causes it to read a certain way, is often the easiest way of resolving issues with rules that are perceived to be unclear.

Yes, you still sometimes wind up with rules that have multiple possible meanings. But quite a lot of the time extra meanings come from people misinterpreting the given text due to a faulty understanding of the grammar involved. Pointing out that misunderstanding doesn't involve any sort of German political movement. It's simply a way of attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.

Obviously the solution is for GW to simply write more clear, concise rules and come out with frequent FAQs which answer common problems in language that clearly defines the rule and doesn't simply 'leave it up to you.'



... ... ...

After all, that solution has worked so well thus far.

insaniak, dont forget you also have to take area into account when talking about grammar.
English isnt allways the 1st language of most dakka members, and ive seen a few people grilled for it without that being taken into account.
Also, there is using correct grammar, and then theres being an ass
some people tend to jump on someone for making a simple typo (missing a letter, that kinda thing)

insaniak wrote:So far as the 'Grammar Nazing' comment goes... Grammar is rather an important part of the written language. Explaining the grammar behind the rule, or pointing out that the way the rule is worded causes it to read a certain way, is often the easiest way of resolving issues with rules that are perceived to be unclear.

Yes, you still sometimes wind up with rules that have multiple possible meanings. But quite a lot of the time extra meanings come from people misinterpreting the given text due to a faulty understanding of the grammar involved. Pointing out that misunderstanding doesn't involve any sort of German political movement. It's simply a way of attempting to resolve the misunderstanding.

Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.

I agree entirely, and would like to add my own observation that the people who seem to have the most trouble with grammar tend to sport the flags of supposedly English-speaking countries. The nice thing about allophones is that they learn English grammar when they learn English.

Aye. We didn't get taught grammar in school, which actually makes learning other languages difficult, as the terminology is alien.
It's definitely something that needs to be fixed with the english curriculum. Of course, there is the other viewpoint that sees language as being very fluid. I think that's all well and good, but you still have to be able to understand and make yourself understood.

JD21290 wrote:insaniak, dont forget you also have to take area into account when talking about grammar.
English isnt allways the 1st language of most dakka members, and ive seen a few people grilled for it without that being taken into account.

I'm not likely to forget that... It's been a source of frustration over the years, in multiple forums. The number of people who will happily admit that their English isn't really fantastic (whether due to being a second language or simply because theydidn't pay attention in school) but will then refuse to accept that a given statement doesn't actually mean what they think it means is rather astounding.

Also, there is using correct grammar, and then theres being an ass

There's a very fine line between them sometimes, though... and it seems that which side of the line you're on often just comes down to whether or not you're disagreeing with someone who doesn't want to re-examine the way they've always assumed a given rule to work.

insaniak wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Im not sitting in there and arguing it am I?

Is that a trick question? Because it kind of looks like you are...

So bad example. I can admit when that my interpretation of it may be wrong. I dont sit there and argue for 8 pages because one interpretation of the rules says I may do so.

4 so far.

Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.

I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...

Night Lords wrote:I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...

No-one is forcing you to stay.

Night Lords wrote:Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.

I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...

Touchy, much?

You jumped into that thread with an antagonisitc attitude, and are continuing to argue the point despite saying in this thread that you weren't doing so and were happy to admit that you were wrong. I found that slightly amusing, hence the post... which was intended to be light-hearted (hence the smileys) and not a serious dig.

(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)

insaniak wrote:(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)

Same here. it's one of the little things that annoyed me at first here, having 30 posts per page (I usually had it set to 10, as I was a boring git) but now I'm used to it