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.

Polonius wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:Because they were written by the developers

Apart from the ones that were written by Yakface and co. because the Devs are too lazy yaddda yadda yadda

C'mon Gwar, they're approved and signed off by the developers, which is the same for our purposes as writing them.

The only reason I can think of that someone would not want to use GW FAQs is so they are less restricted in their own interpretations.

G

OT people this thread is for comments on the list originally posted and items that might be added as true guidelines for posting and potentially moderating.

RxGhost wrote:
By that token, why should anything written or discussed in an online forum have any meaning at all? At what point is our word worth more than anyone elses, or less?

Look, I can understand what you guys are trying to do here...but I think it's a bad idea. These restrictions are only going to limit discussion and participation and allow for a few choice members to simply brow-beat other posters. So it'll be pretty much like it is now, only worse, and now we'll have even fewer people bothering to post questions and have meaningful (or sometimes not) discussions about the function of the game.

The discussions that we are having here are not official, "this is be the anonymous internets" none of this matters.

the restrictions are not to stifle participation and discussion, they are to limit flaming and spam.
the moderators have a ton of work keeping up with just THIS section of this forum.

If you have something to add to a conversation, do it, but mindless "I agree with X." or flame-wars between people argueing the same two points ad nauseum is just annoying to sort through.

I admit excessive "I agree with Gwar! Person XYZ" can be annoying, but it is needed to some extent. 1 Person can be wrong, 2 or 3 people together are less likely to be.

How about something like this:

"If you read something that you feel is insulting, rude, or derogatory. Do not respond to it and simply report the post to a moderator."

Alot of these flame wars start from something small that someone sees as 'rude' and then all hell breaks loose. If someone really takes offense to a post then don't use our public forums to show your disgust about it. Just PM the guy or a mod.

If you have something to add to a conversation, do it, but mindless "I agree with X." or flame-wars between people argueing the same two points ad nauseum is just annoying to sort through.

Although I think far too restrictive, this is where Nurglitch's One Post Rule would come in handy.

"If you read something that you feel is insulting, rude, or derogatory. Do not respond to it and simply report the post to a moderator."

I'd take that as a rule for all of Dakka actually, except OT where all your butts belong to me. Sounds conspicuously like a rule that could almost be in existence now...

A very wise man I once knew told me: "Majority rules? What if the majority is wrong!?"

I'm sure the intent of these new proposals is not to limit discussion or participation, but that is what is going to happen.

Thank you Axyl, that's what we need here, a call to more personal responsibility.

We do not need more rules or enforcements, because if what Demogerg says, and this is where the mods are enforcing hardest, the what enforment we have now ISN'T WORKING ANYWAY. I still see the same complaints about the thread in general and the same people causing the same problems, and it seems to be getting worse by everyone's own admission; especially the mods.

But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Didn't say I recoemmended it.

RXGhost thats why we're sounding items here, to not limit participation. This is a sounding board.

Possible 5th rule( but someone may need to reword it for me ^_^,)

5. Rules change as new codex, rule books, errata and FAQs are published. It used to this way means nothing.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

rule #1!
I do share the opinion that not being able to edit ones post is a bad idea.
However, a single post per thread sounds possibly workable... especially if it also includes a thumbs up/thumbs down vote on each post, so public opinion is also available.

I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Polonius wrote:I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Exactly. I'm baffled as to how one is supposed to debate anything if you're only allowed a single post?

unistoo wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think the One Post Rule helps make YMDC better for the people who don't post there now, while stifling those people that like/need that sort of thing.

Exactly. I'm baffled as to how one is supposed to debate anything if you're only allowed a single post?

easy you lurk and jump out and post rubbish when all the people who can counter it have posted ... yay you win! yay

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Validating an email means you yourself send an email to the address listed on the website asking the question. When you get the answer back, you have validation.

No Offence, but you ask 3 times you get 4 different answers back. They are not reliable, and too easily forged. They should not be admissible.

Actually the whole point is that since the Rules Boyz went away and the new system went in place, you get consistent answers.

And please stop with the forgery nonsense. I don't think anyone is pushing an email printout from some random guy be accepted as an answer the same as a FAQ answer. It would only be acceptable once the TO or player themselves email directly and get a response. Or are you trying to suggest that the entire system is invalid because somehow someone is going to hijack Games Workshops email server, and it won't be the correct person responding at the GW side of the email address? Ridiculous nonsense, and if you truly are concerned about that, pick up the phone and ask to speak to the person who's name is in the signature. Look up the main number from information if you are taking it so far as to say it would be a fake phone number going to this mythical hacker hijacking the system instead of the real person.

This system is supported by the same people who provide the answers for the FAQ's. The only people I typically see that bad mouth it (for reasons other than old system prejudice) are the ones that don't agree with a certain answer, and refuse to consider the possibility that they themselves might be in the wrong rather than GW. GW gave us an official system to get all our rules questions answered. Ignoring it because you think you know better than them is just idiotic, in my opinion.

Have you used the new system? I have and I still do not get consistent answers.

If this new system is supposed to be 'official' - why don't they make a freely-available knowledge-base out of all their questions and answers? They would earn huge community kudos and increase their own efficiency in one stroke.

unistoo wrote:If this new system is supposed to be 'official' - why don't they make a knowledge-base out of all their answers? They would earn huge community kudos and increase their own efficiency in one stroke.

Well apparently they do, but somehow have slowed tech guys who can't make a Wiki read only -Shrug-

Kaaihn wrote:
Actually the whole point is that since the Rules Boyz went away and the new system went in place, you get consistent answers.

And please stop with the forgery nonsense. I don't think anyone is pushing an email printout from some random guy be accepted as an answer the same as a FAQ answer. It would only be acceptable once the TO or player themselves email directly and get a response. Or are you trying to suggest that the entire system is invalid because somehow someone is going to hijack Games Workshops email server, and it won't be the correct person responding at the GW side of the email address? Ridiculous nonsense, and if you truly are concerned about that, pick up the phone and ask to speak to the person who's name is in the signature. Look up the main number from information if you are taking it so far as to say it would be a fake phone number going to this mythical hacker hijacking the system instead of the real person.

And right now I am forging your quote to look like you said some random gibberish right here
Asaasjkdh uecnuei cluaenld laiheahnl auyhlajys.
This system is supported by the same people who provide the answers for the FAQ's. The only people I typically see that bad mouth it (for reasons other than old system prejudice) are the ones that don't agree with a certain answer, and refuse to consider the possibility that they themselves might be in the wrong rather than GW. GW gave us an official system to get all our rules questions answered. Ignoring it because you think you know better than them is just idiotic, in my opinion.

See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

So, If I showed you my ligitimate copy of my codex that says I can get Meltabombs for less than 1 point per model on my Space Wolf Scouts, then showed you the email that I got from GW that confirms its true, would you bother to look it up? even if it was far from Rules as intended, but perfectly clear from Rules as Written?

then what if you contacted GW afterwards and found out that they say no, its supposed to be 4 points per model, what do you do? the game is long over and done, tournament over, event finalized, etc.

Again we're going OT. I may startdeleting posts. There is another thread for other suggestions besides commentary on the above lists.

I'm still for my idea of splitting YMTC into two.

I don't like the one post per thread thing, I don't care about lurking until the end and winning the internets, but telling people how the rule says it should be played.

Frankly, I have little interest in how other people play most rules as well, as I have an intellect of my own.

Demogerg wrote:See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

Edit: Sorry Frazzled, I hit reply to Demogerg before seeing your post.

Kaaihn wrote:Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

And as I have said, that means nothing on an Internet forum, because your Validation can just as easily be typed out and forged. Or you can just type the opposite of what someone else said.

Gwar! wrote:

Kaaihn wrote:Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

And as I have said, that means nothing on an Internet forum, because your Validation can just as easily be typed out and forged. Or you can just type the opposite of what someone else said.

He's talking about emailing them yourself and getting an answer directly from them for your own validation. Not for posting on public forums.

Gwar! wrote:But the One post thing is stupid, FAR too restrictive. Hell, he wants to prevent people EDITING their posts. That is just insane.

Although... that will teach us to read, reread, and read again our post. It will also help enforce the 3 fact, conclusion, and proposition that is very helpful in these debates.

Currently we have people restating their view (beit RaW or not) over and over and over and over and over for 6 pages.

Ok, you all are getting way too hung up on this one post thing. It was simply an idea in the other thread thrown out there and Frazzled has already stated that this is something that he does not recommend for YMDC anyway.

Key word: other thread - post about it there.

We can throw out as many tenets we want for YMDC, but ultimately the main problem I see here is getting everyone to adhere to those tenets. The mods can do whatever they want, but ultimately it comes down to us to change things for the better. If we really stuck to the first three rules of Dakka then I don't think this thread would even exist in the first place.

Kaaihn wrote:

Demogerg wrote:See what I did there?
I forged your quote, just like anyone could forge an email respone from GW by simply changing the text and printing it out.

Please actually read what I said about the forgery nonsense. You don't accept someones printout. You email them yourself to validate the answer someone is telling you.

If someone makes a claim based on one of the FAQ's or the rulebook, anyone who is interested can easily and quickly locate a copy of the document to verify the quote and the context. In order to do the same for an e-mail from GW, each poster would have to e-mail GW and wait for a response. Even if we ignore the questionable reliability of the answers, the delay in responses and the need for everyone to verify their accuracy individually makes those responses unusable.

Unless there's a mechanism to prove that the message from GW hasn't been forged or edited, the messages have to be treated just as non-authoritative as answers from GW store employees.

I've perused the suggestions, and come up with an update. There will be no sweeping changes to anything here; these are just tenets that posters need to adhere to when posting in YMDC. It will allow other posters to point to these when someone violates them, and helps the mod team by giving us a quick reference as well.

=========
1. Don't make a statement without backing it up.
- You have to give a basis for a statement; without this, there can be no debate.
1a. Don't say that someone is wrong, instead you explain why you think their opinion is wrong. Criticize the opinion, not the person.

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

4. 4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
- Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

5. Stick to discussing the rules, not the poster. 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.
=========

I'll let this ruminate for a while longer before making a sticky.

So for the point of rule discussions, we ignore the Rules Support, not because it is faulty, but because it requires each person to validate it. If GW were to release a knowledge base of questions asked, I would accept it.

Iorek wrote:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

The specific wording of this tenet could lead to some arguements.
FAQS are "official house rules" and I think that needs to be specified, the Rulebook, Codices, and GW employees are all official sources, but responses from GW employees are not official rules