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.

To clarify,I'm not attempting to posture for anyone's benefit,nor am I saying what I would or wouldn't do is a proper response to a given situation.
I do however take issue with it being implied that somehow protecting ones property through physical confrontation somehow equates to being "Incompetent"
The fact that I wouldn't tolerate such disrespect of something I've laboured over is my affair...not a flag I'm waving for the community to follow.

Monster Rain wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:It's Lorek talking seriously for a minute and reminding all the impressionable kids on Dakka that violence over toy soldiers is absurd. It's always a dumb idea. As Asimov so well reminded us: "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

I'm sure that would be a great comfort to someone looking at a lovingly painted Valkyrie with a boot-print on its crushed hull. Either way, I doubt this is anything that the vast majority of gamers will have to deal with. I've only seen one model broken in anger, and that was by that particular model's owner.

As you say, the issue is practically nonexistent. I'd be very upset if one of my lovingly-painted models was destroyed, but to be honest, most damage one's likely to see from an accidental or even deliberate breakage is not impossible to repair.

OTOH, one friend of mine threw his baseball cap like a frisbee at another friend of mine once, caught him in the eye with the bill, and inadvertently did permanent damage to the guy's retina. Now, I don't conclude from this that baseball caps are deadly weapons, but I do conclude that doing violence unto people can have unexpectedly severe consequences regardless of how upset someone was over their toy model, or of whether they inteded to do any permanent injury. So it's utterly stupid to start violence over toys.

Monster Rain wrote:So is the number of people who would physically attempt to stop someone from destroying their property (toy soldiers or otherwise) actually a minority? I can't imagine that it is... I'm pretty sure if you asked the average person on the street they'd probably not let someone break something of theirs if they could help it.

Well, if you notice, I didn't call out the guys who were nonspecific about how they'd prevent said destruction and didn't talk about starting a fight. If you want to grab your stuff or try to interpose yourself without hitting someone, that's a different matter from assault.

Monster Rain wrote:Are we going to argue the semantics as to whether or not "physically preventing someone from destroying your property" is a "fight?"

I wouldn't have thought there would be any need to do so, no.

I don't think anyone suggested it.

You might want to have another look back up the thread, then

insaniak wrote:So now the person who is having their theoretical property damaged is now a macho brute beating up on someone who theoretically has behavioral issues. Maybe they're homeless, too? Lost their job in the Enron collapse and caught their wife banging their brother. This imaginary model-breaker has had a pretty rough few years.

If anyone past the age of about 10 thinks that breaking your models is an appropriate thing to do, whatever the motivation, then yes, they have behavioural issues. And the person who chooses to respond to that with violence is not exactly proving themselves to be the pinnacle of social adjustment, either.

No one is saying it makes them the bigger man or not. Half of the people aren't serious and the other half are just saying they'd stop someone from breaking their stuff. It's you who's making it into a bigger deal than it is.

Threatening someone with violence is always a big deal.

FITZZ wrote: To clarify,I'm not attempting to posture for anyone's benefit,nor am I saying what I would or wouldn't do is a proper response to a given situation.

Okay, maybe so in your case, but it's still a bad example to set for the kids. I think Lorek's point was that folks make this comments off hand a lot, and they aren't challenged, and maybe it's worth for once pointing out "BTW, it's not actually a good idea".

FITZZ wrote: I do however take issue with it being implied that somehow protecting ones property through physical confrontation somehow equates to being "Incompetent".

It is my considered opinion that choosing to do violence to another human being over toy soldiers specifically would be a bad life choice and a demonstration of poor judgment. I can totally sympathize with it, and I'd have to say I'd try to grab my stuff out of nutjob or idiot kid's hands and/or interpose my body. But I wouldn't take a swing at him.

FITZZ wrote: To clarify,I'm not attempting to posture for anyone's benefit,nor am I saying what I would or wouldn't do is a proper response to a given situation.
I do however take issue with it being implied that somehow protecting ones property through physical confrontation somehow equates to being "Incompetent"

I think you're just being more honest. I don't think even the most cynical among us would just stand there feeling superior as someone destroyed an expensive and time-consuming article of their property.

Mannahnin wrote:Well, if you notice, I didn't call out the guys who were nonspecific about how they'd prevent said destruction and didn't talk about starting a fight. If you want to grab your stuff or try to interpose yourself without hitting someone, that's a different matter from assault.

I'm pretty sure that other than a bit of hyperbole for entertainment's sake that's all anyone was really saying. Though once that started it would be a short trip to punches if it didn't end right away...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:If anyone past the age of about 10 thinks that breaking your models is an appropriate thing to do, whatever the motivation, then yes, they have behavioural issues.

Gee whiz, I thought that some people are just donkey-caves.

insaniak wrote:Threatening someone with violence is always a big deal.

Who was threatened, exactly?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

I don't think anyone suggested it.

You might want to have another look back up the thread, then

Someone suggested "taking it outside?"

I must have missed it.

Mannahnin wrote:

FITZZ wrote: To clarify,I'm not attempting to posture for anyone's benefit,nor am I saying what I would or wouldn't do is a proper response to a given situation.

Okay, maybe so in your case, but it's still a bad example to set for the kids. I think Lorek's point was that folks make this comments off hand a lot, and they aren't challenged, and maybe it's worth for once pointing out "BTW, it's not actually a good idea".

FITZZ wrote: I do however take issue with it being implied that somehow protecting ones property through physical confrontation somehow equates to being "Incompetent".

It is my considered opinion that choosing to do violence to another human being over toy soldiers specifically would be a bad life choice and a demonstration of poor judgment. I can totally sympathize with it, and I'd have to say I'd try to grab my stuff out of nutjob or idiot kid's hands and/or interpose my body. But I wouldn't take a swing at him.

Fair enough...and I do agree that seeking a "non confrontational" solution to ANY situation is always preferable.

If someone was in your house, looked you right in the eyes, then drove a baseball bat through your flat screen on purpose- you'd calmly and diplomatically discuss the matter with them?

If a grown man looked me in the eyes and destroyed any thing else that was valuable to me (or hurt anybody I cared for) just out of spite- yeah, chances are there might be some physical retribution unless they made some real efforts to make things right. It might not be right there in the store, but if there wasn't clear resolution- there are always dark alleys.

Just because it is 2011 and we are all enlightened humans at the pinnacle of our civility doesn't mean that some people don't just need a good old fashioned butt kicking.

Monster Rain wrote:Who was threatened, exactly?

I would recommend going back and reading the first post again.

The point of this thread, as Mannahnin also just explained, was that people choose to make threats of violence over people manhandling their miniatures, and that maybe those people should take a step back and reconsider whether that's really appropriate behaviour.

NobleSeven wrote:If someone was in your house, looked you right in the eyes, then drove a baseball bat through your flat screen on purpose- you'd calmly and diplomatically discuss the matter with them?

I think in this instance the Police would be a reasonable option.

NobleSeven wrote:If a grown man looked me in the eyes and destroyed any thing else that was valuable to me (or hurt anybody I cared for) just out of spite- yeah, chances are there might be some physical retribution. It might not be right there in the store, but if there wasn't clear resolution- there are always dark alleys.

See now, this is where it gets hard to defend.

NobleSeven wrote:Just because it is 2011 and we are all enlightened humans at the pinnacle of our civility doesn't mean that some people don't just need a good old fashioned butt kicking.

I think that part of the problem is automatically assuming that someone is developmentally disabled if they're behaving this way. I don't subscribe to that particular belief.

insaniak wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Who was threatened, exactly?

I would recommend going back and reading the first post again.

Yeah, I did.

I still don't know who the affronted party is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FITZZ wrote: Fair enough...and I do agree that seeking a "non confrontational" solution to ANY situation is always preferable.

Definitely this.

Getting punched hurts!

Someone entering your home and destroying your property in a threatening manner is a different proposition all together than some one maliciously destroying one of your minis in a shop.
The end results are likely to be very different.

Yeah, you could actually kill that person without any sort of legal repercussions in many states if something like that was happening.

What if my minis were ON TOP of my TV and they were aiming for them but hit the flat screen instead?

Results combined. Mind blown.

An accident is an accident, but when hundreds of dollars of damage is willfully and deliberately done to your property, then you take action.

In my area of the US you call the local law enforcement, file a police report even going as far as Citizen's Arrest if you have too.

Willful Destruction of one's personal property is something that is not to be downplayed or tolerated.

I do not care if it is a kid/teen or not. If the parent does not teach that child the proper ways of respecting others and their property then the parents are as fault as they are responsible for that teen/child. They will be dealt with in a professional and legal manner.

To put it bluntly, I'm going to get my metaphorically "Pound of Flesh" for the destruction of my personal property.

And I have every legal right to do so.

Monster Rain wrote:I think that part of the problem is automatically assuming that someone is developmentally disabled if they're behaving this way. I don't subscribe to that particular belief.

I wasn't automatically assuming that anyone who behaves inappropriately is 'developmentally disabled'... I just said that they clearly have behavioural issues. The society we live in has rules. In what I would suspect is the vast majority of cases for Dakka users, that society includes rules against inflicting violence on those around us. If someone knows about those rules and chooses to break them anyway, that's a behavioural issue.

Whether that behavioural issue is caused by Aspergers, Alien Brain Control, or just being a little messed up about right and wrong makes little difference. Responding with violence just reinforces that person's belief that violence is the answer to a given problem.

I think the punishment for the other guy (socially and so on) will be worse if you don't get physical, and you'll look better, and as the guys say, you'll be more likely to get a decent resolution.

When I was younger, I might have been so angry I'd have done something, but more likely, I'd have seethed, wanted to, not, and felt impotent and frustrated. Nowadays, I don't think I'd even want to- I'd be disgusted by the behaviour, but I think the end punishment for the person who did it would be worse overall if I was a complete gent about it, to highlight what a complete ass he was.
I've had more than one model broken by mistake, and I'm always fairly jovial about it, so I'm reasonably confident I could take a calm approach with an intentional breakage. My real strategy though would be to completely avoid playing with or associating with the sort of idiot who would do something like that.

insaniak wrote:Whether that behavioural issue is caused by Aspergers, Alien Brain Control, or just being a little messed up about right and wrong makes little difference. Responding with violence just reinforces that person's belief that violence is the answer to a given problem.

Right. Well, I suppose we can all agree that breaking the law is a stupid thing to do and violence generally isn't a healthy thing to participate in or advocate.

Sometimes violence IS the answer to a given problem. Not saying it is in the case of a broken mini but not everyone who defends themselves, their homes or their propety has developmental or behavioral issues.

This Citizens Arrest....intrigues me.

Clearly, it isn't the best choice to get in a fight over -stuff- Going through the law or using diplomacy generally wins the day. Still, sometimes you just want to uppercut the arrogant, cruel little jerks of this world.

So OP- yes. Fighting is bad.

We should trade our Models in for NERF- then they wouldn't be able to break them if they tried. =)

Da Boss wrote:My real strategy though would be to completely avoid playing with or associating with the sort of idiot who would do something like that.

This is brilliance.

NobleSeven wrote:If someone broke my models on purpose- my lovingly hand-painted, custom converted, insanely expensive little model- I would wreck their world. Right there in the middle of the store. I would curb stomp them into a box of Pokemon cards and then pile drive them into a discount shelf of old Pirates of the Crimson Coast ships.

Lets apply some logic to this. You've stated what you'd do to someone that breaks your models.

Now think about what I'm going to do to you if you break my store! I care about my store the way you care about your models. Plus my store supports my wife and kids.

Don't start a fight in anyones game store. You go from having the sympathy and support of the store, to being the problem, same as the other guy. You'd just end up getting banned along with the other guy, instead of him getting banned and me replacing your models.

Plus, the Pokemon kids would beat you up pretty bad for messing up the card rack.)

NobleSeven wrote:Sometimes violence IS the answer to a given problem. Not saying it is in the case of a broken mini but not everyone who defends themselves, their homes or their propety has developmental or behavioral issues.

Of course. But this thread isn't about that.

This thread is just a brief time out from our regularly-scheduled-programming of expressing our love for our toys to say "Hey, even though we love our toy soldiers, don't forget that they're still toy soldiers and that assaulting someone over them, as satisfying as it might be to contemplate, is almost guaranteed to turn out badly, and not be worth it in the end."

If some kid or some adult idiot breaks your stuff, they clearly have behavioral problems, and assaulting them isn't going to fix anything.

You want to apply logic to my comment about pile driving someone into a discount bin of Crimson Coast ships?

Yep. Sorry to offend. I knew MonsterRain was joking, because I know him, but this is also the thread of "seriously guys, I know it's fun to joke about, but let's pause for a second and recognize that it's a dumb idea."

Even joking about it is kind of inappropriate if you read Lorek's OP, unless maybe you plaster on a couple of dozen smiley's and add a disclaimer like "I would never do this!"

Mikhaila raised an excellent point too, that jumping the guy may have other serious repercussions too- what if you break a store display? Or knock him into a table and break someone else's models? How dumb would you feel then?

I think there was a bit of a miscommunication here, but obviously, this thread was trying to address the issue seriously. I like the nerd-rage comments as much as the next guy, but it can cross a line where it seeps into becoming a bit of reality. I've never seen this kind of situation, but I have seen people make these kinds of comments about what they'd do if someone touched their models (not even to the extreme above).

That's the problem... doing violence over our game of pretend violence is just plain off base.

mikhaila wrote:Don't start a fight in anyones game store. You go from having the sympathy and support of the store, to being the problem, same as the other guy. You'd just end up getting banned along with the other guy, instead of him getting banned and me replacing your models.

This is the important point that I thought, from a practical standpoint, people are missing. If you escalate things to a physical altercation between people, you are no longer in the right from the store's point of view, you're part of the problem.

Also to Monster Rain, I see where you're coming from, but I think if you step back and think about it, you'll see that this actually is an issue worth addressing in a serious way, and that assault (not just trying to stop the destruction of your models, but beating the person in response) is not even in the ballpark of an appropriate response in this circumstance.

I did not always have this view, and went along with the "Yeah, I'd totally wreck that guy!" viewpoint (peer pressure, even) but when you look at it in a serious way, that's just wrong. And people don't just say this about miniatures- I've even heard it (in person) about someone's dice being touched... again, this is just off base, and it's worth having a discussion about it in a serious way, I think.

Agreed. I understand.

Personally, I was having a bit of fun with the notion of people having an all out wrestling event in a gaming store over their models. The idea IS pretty comical.

But in all serious, I've never seen anyone fight in a gaming store, threaten to fight in a gaming store or even do something that remotely warrants a throw down in a gaming store- but if this is really a relevant issue then I concur with the wisdom of the OP.

Fighting is not the answer.
There is no need to assault them.
Chances are they have Counter Attack anyhow. =)

Monster Rain wrote:

Yeah, I did.

I still don't know who the affronted party is.

There's a post about breaking a model I break a bone and at least one other one
about taking the discussion outside.

Hello,
I have had someone drop my lovingly painted "Huggsy" before and it was accident that came about from a neglectful parent not paying attenion to thier 7 year old who worked rather hard to get to the middle of a table to pick him up. The child dropped him about 3 feet when the mother looked for him, and the mother disregarded it as as not her concern. I was not pleased with this and upon picking him him up he was broken. I informed her of his cost, and stated that she needed to watch her child and until she could keep a eye on her kid, they were not allowed into the store (read permaban). Should this be done purposefully, it is simple, the person is removed from the store and the cops called about destruction of personal property, that said I am good friends with most of the officers here. Simply put let the cops take care of it, if someone has the kind of behavioral issues that would cause them to react in this manner, they need help. I personally am not qualified to give that help, however I will not allow for them to search for a doctor in the store, they need to leave.

Regards,
Carl

RiTides wrote:Also to Monster Rain, I see where you're coming from, but I think if you step back and think about it, you'll see that this actually is an issue worth addressing in a serious way, and that assault (not just trying to stop the destruction of your models, but beating the person in response) is not even in the ballpark of an appropriate response in this circumstance.

I guess I just thought that the point was well addressed in the OP and people were just having a little fun with the subject matter.

I certainly didn't want to undermine Lorek.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

malfred wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Yeah, I did.

I still don't know who the affronted party is.

There's a post about breaking a model I break a bone and at least one other one
about taking the discussion outside.

Right. That's actually my point. This is all hypothetical.

I just re-read the thread and found the bit about going outside. I apologize, insaniak!

This is just my own story, but I think it has relevance even if it isnt directly tied to miniatures

During school I participated in a Woodworks class, had some douchebag always ruin my work by either chipping it or ruining it in some way
Doing nothing didn't stop him, it only reinforced to him that he could get away with it
Going to the teachers doesn't help because they can't really do anything

You could argue that I could just redo it again, that the wood was replaceable and not worth much, but see the thing is I shouldn't have to.
If I had punched him and beat the crap out of him, he would have stopped, no questions about it
By thinking that violence was bad and doesn't produce good effects SOMETIMES( this is a point I highly stress)I gave this guy permission essentially to keep doing this crap to me over and over
He never stopped, he never learned
Some people have to have their asses handed to them on a platter, they don't learn otherwise

Now you could argue this isn't true and is entirely theoretical , but I was told that he and his friends tried to graffitti my house
Neighbours caught them, chased them down and beat the crap out of them
They never tried it again

If I had known what I do now, I wouldnt have turned the other cheek
It doesn't matter whats being harmed, sometimes violence is the best answer to solve a problem
Even if it is over a plastic toy

Asuron, what if you assaulted him to try to stop the bullying and wound up permanently injuring him or being permanently injured yourself? Would it be worth fighting if one of you was blinded in an eye, say? Or hit their head on a stair or a desk and cracked their skull?

Bearing in mind also that this thread is about someone breaking a person's toys, not about bullying. Bullying in school or another place where you can't simply walk away from the person is a difficult issue.

Saying that "some people have to have their asses handed to them on a platter, they don't learn otherwise" is just rationalizing violence, and admitting your own powerlessness. People who resort to violence in relation to day to day problems (not talking about war or crime here) are disturbed people, who are lacking essential skills at dealing with people. If you beat them, you are just teaching them that their broken and damaged worldview is CORRECT. You may prevent them from bullying you again, but you are encouraging them to do the same to others.

The truth is that you MIGHT put a stop to the bullying with physical violence. But you don't know that. You might make it worse. Or you might cause permanent damage to them or yourself.

What you definitely WON'T accomplish with violence is fixing the broken model. Or making your story or your criminal claim look at all credible to the police.

Asuron wrote:During school I participated in a Woodworks class, had some douchebag always ruin my work by either chipping it or ruining it in some way
Doing nothing didn't stop him, it only reinforced to him that he could get away with it
Going to the teachers doesn't help because they can't really do anything

Well of course doing nothing didn't help. There are a world of options between 'doing nothing' and 'beating the crap out of him' though.

If I had punched him and beat the crap out of him, he would have stopped, no questions about it

Not really. If you had started a fight over it, he might have stopped. Or he might have simply felt even more vindicated about whatever grudge it is that he has against you, and escalated things even further.

Or he might have won, in which case all you get out of it is a beating and possibly some time off school for the both of you.

It doesn't matter whats being harmed, sometimes violence is the best answer to solve a problem

It's sometimes an answer. It's sometimes the easiest answer. But the best answer? Not by a long shot. The 'best' answer is one that doesn't involve anyone getting hurt, and that results in whatever is causing the situation to actually be resolved, rather than just trying to impress on someone that he should stop what he's doing because you can hit harder than he can.