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.

I don't think OP was saying not to discuss background. I think he was saying (maybe too subtlety) if you have a disagreement about the background, don't get all in other peoples' faces about it ALL DAY ALL THE TIME.

So +1 cause I can imagine to whom this thread was directed to.

rabidaskal wrote:I don't think OP was saying not to discuss background. I think he was saying (maybe too subtlety) if you have a disagreement about the background, don't get all in other peoples' faces about it ALL DAY ALL THE TIME.

So +1 cause I can imagine to whom this thread was directed to.

i agree so , +2

I too agree OP was just asking it to be discussed in a more civilized way instead of " **** what you guys think because i know im right and im god "
What can i say , i too find it hilarious a yahoo speaking as if he is some sort of self proclaimed GW god.
I mean sure its funny , but it gets old when he uses the same condescending tone he use on others and not mentioning always breaking #1 forum rule.

Can we make this thread a sticky?

Is "getting on my tits" a common phrase over there? It makes me laugh. Out loud even.

MGS is, of course, correct on this. Now quick! Do one in YMDC!

These sort of threads wouldn't be necessary if
A: people wouldn't be dicks, and
B: people would report or ignore people that are being dicks.

I'm quite surprised. We've got to page 2 and the presumed target of this hasn't responded. And s/he is usually so vocal....

Anyway, yes, all points correct. Good to have an occasional reminder. And, of course, everything from the olden days is always better. Rogue Trader rulez...





Automatically Appended Next Post:

MeanGreenStompa wrote:
2. The lore/canon/background of the fiction has shifted direction and in some cases completely changed direction on many occasions.

And importanty, both before and after versions are just as 'right' as each other. There is no solid canon, ever.

Were All prophets and apostates to the canon...And of course 40k is just a product about the far future of humanity squaring off against aliens&daemons..but to others its much more then a product...i hope i made sense

Whatwhat, I'm fairly certain you've missed the point in my post, which I thought was unsubtle enough but I'll state.

I was asking that certain posters stop assuming they are the wellspring of the truth on issues of lore that have either; changed, never been covered, been totally retconned, be removed or would never in the realms of possibility been considered by someone writing the fluff.

You got the wrong end of the stick with the thread, I post in background myself, I find it interesting to postulate about fictional science, tech, sociology etc in a fictional universe but I recognise that this one is full of gaps and any going beyond very basic stuff from the army books or so on is doomed to being made up and therefore only sovereign to the person constructing it.

Smackcakes, go swimming with a concrete wetsuit son.

I Hope im not one of the pushy ones your talking about i always try to approach any background thread unbiased until i read all of the pages and then i apply my thoughts and concern and try to help people with finding certain sources To help them but as to people who rush in and Say''THATS FETHING HERSEY A COMMISSAR WOULD NEVER BE GIVIN HIS OWN REGIMENT TO COMMAND AND IF I WAS A COMMISSAR I WOULD SUMMARY EXECUTE YOU ON THE SPOT'' yeah those people need to stop....

Hello unknown person who this is supposedly all about! Don't be discouraged. Being passionate about the fluff and background isn't wrong. You get what you put into most things, or so they say.

To me, it's not my crappily painted bit of metal, it's a Battle Sister, fighting on the gods forsaken battlefields of the 40K universe! She rapid fires her Holy Bolt Gun as the hordes of darkness descend...so many...too many...! Oh Emperor, most Holy One, into Your Hands I commit my spirit...

Passion can have a dark side. But we're only human. It's not only the fluff fans who get loud or very aggressive pursuing a point. But we do sometimes, and when we stray, if we stray to an insult or brow beating, then I would hope we are called on it. And I hope if approached politely we be humble enough to consider our actions. But I think a PM or appealing to the Moderators would be more constructive than the sort of public circus this thread has become, don't you?

Dear anonymous one, no one has mentioned your name, presumably because they wish to observe the letter of the play nice board rules while violating it's spirit. If I were you, I wouldn't dignify any of this with a reply.

But there were some good points made. Me, I get cranky about the fluff because there are too many sources I can't afford, it's disorganized to an extreme, and mutates constantly. Getting cranky makes me rude sometimes. I have to work on that. I found MeanGreenStompa's points about the nature of fluff relieved me of the conceited impression I had that I needed to be a total fluff master to play the game or be a contributing part of this community. Very liberating and a relief it was, at least to me.

Anyways, if you are who I think you are, I wish you well. If you aren't who I think you are, I wish you well too.

--- Frankie

P.S. I was just reading the thread about the interview with Black Library. Apparently they plan some earth or cosmos shaking revelation in the Heresy books that will 'change the way everyone looks at 40K'. I'd rather they didn't and all go get jobs writing for phone books. I don't need them purposely redefining the 40K universe just to sell books, I didn't get into the fluff just to be told it's wrong arbitrarily... See? I do get cranky...must do penance and pray....

Without trying to sound like a jerk, this is very obviously aimed at one person (whose idendity I believe I know), so the reason this had to be posted in the main forum instead of keeping it to PM's is...what, exactly?

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:Without trying to sound like a jerk, this is very obviously aimed at one person (whose idendity I believe I know), so the reason this had to be posted in the main forum instead of keeping it to PM's is...what, exactly.

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

"To prove that DCMs can ignore the Dakka rules while non DCMs who don't break any rules get banned" is all I can think off.

But apparently I have a persecution complex and am Paranoid, so -shrug-.

Are you saying that you don't break forum rules, Gwar?

Because that would be... silly.

Gwar! wrote:

Little lord Fauntleroy wrote:Without trying to sound like a jerk, this is very obviously aimed at one person (whose idendity I believe I know), so the reason this had to be posted in the main forum instead of keeping it to PM's is...what, exactly.

Not trying to insult anyone, just curious.

"To prove that DCMs can ignore the Dakka rules while non DCMs who don't break any rules get banned" is all I can think off.

But apparently I have a persecution complex and am Paranoid, so -shrug-.

If you were to ask others on the forum, it's not the DCM status that does it, but it's the Mods shielding individuals because they like them or any number of theories.

Either way, I do wonder why this was posted as a public message rather than a PM though.

OP's ego needs feeding...

Considering this forum is a private enterprise, the moderators are perfectly entitled to play favourites. They don't have to let you come to their place and annoy them. I like the fact that they're open about this.

Given that, I obviously don't spend enough time in the Background Forum. Who's the person that MeanGreenStompa is attacking?

Nurglitch wrote:If your response to any question or attempt to flesh out the background as if it was a real world is "Meh, who knows", then maybe discussing the background just isn't your cup of tea.

This is a complete response to OP's useless sermon.

Manchu wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:If your response to any question or attempt to flesh out the background as if it was a real world is "Meh, who knows", then maybe discussing the background just isn't your cup of tea.

This is a complete response to OP's useless sermon.

I didn't find it a useless sermon. It's good to say. iIve been equally annoyed by certain posters on the Background forum.

There's no problem with discussing what could happen, what scenario is more true to the fluff, etc. But I've seen a few threads recently where posters have been decried and, while not directly insulted, spoken to in a very condescending manner for even DARING to stretch the fluff beyond what one poster believes is 'canon'. While there's been plenty of drama over this sort of thing in YMDC, this is the first time I've seen a similar thing over in Background.

Perfectly valid post, IMO.

In the future it helps to report when people are violating Dakka #1 or close to it guys.

Nurglitch wrote:Given that, I obviously don't spend enough time in the Background Forum. Who's the person that MeanGreenStompa is attacking?

i guess its dakkas most angry troll, melissa

chaos sisters,chaos sisters,chaos sisters,chaos sisters.........

@Ian: I like MGS. I enjoy most of his content but don't always agree with it, of course. But this thread is indeed useless, as Frazzled just pointed out. It basically can be interpreted in two ways:

(1) "Don't take the fluff discussion seriously." Seems reasonable--if you don't like discussing fluff. So Nurglitch's post is a complete response to a rather useless comment.

-OR-

(2) "Don't be douches, you bunch of douches!" This, too, is useless because I don't need a thread by a fellow user to remind me of Rule #1. It is also a bit presumptuous and basically violates its own spirit (not to mention Rule #1). It's the kind of thread I'd be embarrassed to have posted.

But I gave MGS the benefit of the doubt and read him as saying Option 1.

I recognize that people will say the thread is actually a variation on Option 1--"Don't take the background TOO seriously." But that doesn't need to be said, either.

As others have commented (and MGS should remember from past incidents with dragging personal business into threads), this should have been taken care of in PM if it's aimed at one person.

If it's not aimed at one person, it's Mod rather than user business.

My vote, should it matter, is that this be locked soon.

Speaking of:
Modquisition on. I think this topic has been discussed and rather civilly despite the flaming lead in. Going to close now to avoid it flaming up and I think a good range of views have been stated. PM if needed, but I have a headache so do it at your own risk.