Switch Theme:

How to combat hobby gatekeeping in the age of social media?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






I'm pretty sure I know what group Yhodrin's talking about; it's got a few GW staff lurking on it, and presumably the group admins are trying to ingratiate themselves. Mind you, another very similar group seems to be more tolerant of 3rd party models, and just makes do with the odd snide comment from the GW staffers there about a lack of imagination.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




 Llamahead wrote:
Frankly if I post images of Heresy Trench Coat gangers in an official GW Necromunda Facebook thread or the new Delaque Gangers on Heresy Miniatures Facebook thread then yes I do feel they have a right to censor it. It's an advertising space for that company and a marketing tool for them. I would however be mildly miffed if I was banned from posting them on an independent Necromunda facebook group as that is not an official marketing tool but instead an unofficial place to discuss stuff.


This raises the interesting point, if it's some place 'official' or even sponsored by the company I'd also expect them to come down on things like this.

If folks are being uptight about bits and kits on an unofficial group, I'll happily go find one more modeling focused because they almost certainly won't be.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Captain Wracked with Visions






Simple solution; start your own group with blackjack and hookers.

 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

I have noticed discussion moving on to Facebook, but I am a bit of an outlier. I hate Facebook and other social media because I have a problem with what I guess I would term "unread message anxiety" where if I see I have messages unread I get very stressed out and avoidant. I manage this in my personal life by rigorously clearling my email inboxes, though when work is stressful I really struggle due to the volume. Facebook is just the worst for having a million notifications and things for me to check, and I find it really hard to ignore. So I have mostly stayed on Fora where this psychological aspect is not present, but I have seen more and more conversation move onto facebook.

I think these issues exist on fora as well, and always have. I think it comes from people defining their identities partially around their corporation brand loyalty, and therefore feeling the need to defend the corporation as part of their identity. That is diluted on Dakka because of the number of companies represented here, but still present to a degree. The other aspect is that a persons RL identity is much more part of who they are on Facebook than on fora like Dakka where people utilize pseudonyms.

For me, this just means I do not at all engage with what is happening on Facebook, which probably means I miss out on some cool stuff, but I can live with that for a less stressful time.

   
Made in us
Awesome Autarch






I have found a good way to use Facebook (though I'm likely their worst user). I was not a fan for a long time till I finally took the effort to go in and turn off...everything. Every game invitation, every notification from anything other than groups I subscribe to. I actuall "unfollow" everyone on my friends list (and keep my friends list tiny). I've blocked people adding me, linking me, tagging me etc.

Basically I'm Facebook's worst customer - coupled with some quality adblock on my computer I've reduced my Facebook feed to solely hobby related stuff. I don't see what my friend gave their 2 year old for breakfast or what garbage inspirational poster my friends have posted. I just have a feed of hobby groups and notifications when I have responses to posts. I have a few hobby chats going on, etc.

It's become a valuable asset but you just have to turn off all of the bs.

 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





Stop doing FB correctly

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity





East Coast, USA

 Elbows wrote:
I have found a good way to use Facebook (though I'm likely their worst user). I was not a fan for a long time till I finally took the effort to go in and turn off...everything. Every game invitation, every notification from anything other than groups I subscribe to. I actuall "unfollow" everyone on my friends list (and keep my friends list tiny). I've blocked people adding me, linking me, tagging me etc.

Basically I'm Facebook's worst customer - coupled with some quality adblock on my computer I've reduced my Facebook feed to solely hobby related stuff. I don't see what my friend gave their 2 year old for breakfast or what garbage inspirational poster my friends have posted. I just have a feed of hobby groups and notifications when I have responses to posts. I have a few hobby chats going on, etc.

It's become a valuable asset but you just have to turn off all of the bs.


I do the same thing. For me, Facebook is an event scheduling app that also shows me pictures of well painted models and articles about 3D printers.

Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com


https://www.thingiverse.com/KrisWall/about


Completed Trades With: ultraatma 
   
Made in us
Powerful Pegasus Knight






Instagram has been great for the painting side of the hobby

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/11/30 14:07:20


   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero





Rampton, UK

Welcome to the internet, this is why I hardly say anything to anyone, even here on dakka there are tossers waiting to jump in and have a go, people just suck balls thats about the long and short of it.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/12/02 16:39:29


 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




"Someone on the internet is wrong...it will be dealt with immediately."

I gave up on internet forums for a few years due to my favourite forum being taken over by toxic moderators. Maybe I was just young at the time, but I felt the whole thing had become too personal - like they would be ready to leap on you if your view or facts didnt match theirs.

Some forums are better than others. Dakka, for example, where the topic is a hobby, is very nice and pleasant. The worst we might disagree with is the expense of our hobby or what game should be released. But if you take part in a forum that includes a more professional aspect - photography or body building etc - then people will feel threatened if your opinion goes against their "professional facts". I've actually caught a few professionals out in my time, but I never made them feel small. On the other hand, they have done so to me when I have been wrong( see, it does happen to even the best of us! ).

Also, you are talking to complete strangers 99% of the time. If we all met in person we would not say half the things we do online! In my experience the ones who seem tough are most likely not, but the quiet and polite probably are.

Anyway, Dakka and Oldhammer are great sites and I have been made to feel welcome since joining.

Casual gamer, casual fun! 
   
Made in nl
Moustache-twirling Princeps




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
 Yodhrin wrote:


I'll lay out a fictional scenario to illustrate the kinds of things I'm talking about:

One day the DakkaDakka admin & mod team wake up and decide, collectively(and, they stress, after a thorough and fair - internal only - debate) that in their view, the Tau don't fit the lore and tone and themes of 40K. Discussion of Tau is prohibited as off-topic, threads that mention Tau are locked, anyone who questions this new policy or urges they reconsider it is rebuffed with platitudes and, eventually, threats of banning.

The next day, the team wake up and decide - again collectively and after a spirited internal debate - that poor Company X is being taken advantage of by the meanie-weenie community, and they are no longer going to limit themselves to prohibiting outright and demonstrable copyright infringement as they are legally required to do to indemnify themselves: Third party miniatures that too closely approach the aesthetic popularised by Company X are banned(what, exactly, constitutes "too close" is of course ill-defined, nebulous, and seemingly down to how bad of a mood a given mod is in when they see it). Drawn, sculpted, or digitally sculpted fanart relating to Company X's IPs are banned. Scratchbuilds of models that Company X sells are banned. Anyone posting them will be given one warning/threadlock, and then banned.

Now - would Dakka be within its rights to do those things? Yes, the people who run it are, ultimately, the only ones who get to decide what it's used for. They may well find a portion of the userbase firmly agree with their own personal interpretations of 40K lore and of what constitutes an unfair usage of an IP you don't yourself own. But frankly I think it's unquestionable that exercising their rights in such an arbitrary and petty way is a detriment to the community and should be opposed - via reasonable and polite means only - if possible.


On the IP issue it could be that the group organiser has had a 'legal' letter from the company in question (or even a warning from the social media site). If they're not a lawyer, and don't know any lawyers who can objectively look at the letter and say it's safe to ignore it they may well feel it's safer to follow whatever it says they need to do (and quite possibly go further just in case), after all this is meant to be fun for them, they're not making any money from the group (probably) so why take any risk?

now I'm not saying this is what's happened, they may indeed just be following their own biases, but it wouldn't surprise me if the process started with some sort of warning or legal threat


It's definitely not that, the group in question's admin team seem to consider it a moral issue, ie any use of Company X's IP by anyone other than Company X, for any reason, in any context, is tantamount to recasting in their eyes, even things that most normal and reasonable people would consider fair use, fanart, or utterly harmless.

Similarly, the group that bars things they don't consider "appropriate" for their vision of the setting are not acting to any rational or objective standard, they just don't like the thing they've barred. Frankly this latter one is more of an issue, in the other case there's a wider community that predates the new group even though it is the largest, in this there is only this one group and no reasonable prospect of founding an alternative.

And since people keep circling back to this: I'm not arguing for "anything goes". I'm not arguing for people to make themselves legally vulnerable. I'm arguing that - and this is a hypothetical example - if a 40k group that purports to be about the system and setting entire decides to ban discussion of or even reference to, say, Orks on the basis that the admins don't care for them, that is ludicrous. And that, if such a group is the primary or only group on a platform for that system and setting, such behaviour is damaging to the community. EDIT: And I don't know where people talking about GW's official FB group has come from.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/02 16:08:10


I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

 Yodhrin wrote:


It's definitely not that, the group in question's admin team seem to consider it a moral issue, ie any use of Company X's IP by anyone other than Company X, for any reason, in any context, is tantamount to recasting in their eyes, even things that most normal and reasonable people would consider fair use, fanart, or utterly harmless.

Similarly, the group that bars things they don't consider "appropriate" for their vision of the setting are not acting to any rational or objective standard, they just don't like the thing they've barred. Frankly this latter one is more of an issue, in the other case there's a wider community that predates the new group even though it is the largest, in this there is only this one group and no reasonable prospect of founding an alternative.


Really, until you stop being coy and just lay out the actual facts, it's going to be hard to have any sympathy. All you keep doing is restating these very vague transgressions, like "they just don't like the thing they've barred." Well, that presumes that we trust you implicitly to understand their thought process, as well as the appropriateness of whatever the barred.

In short, your complaint boils down to "some people are doing something I don't like. I won't say what, but you don't you all agree that it's terrible?"


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Council of 13 Runner Up






I’d just call them a self absorbed dill weed.

Fed up for Scalpers? Why not join us? 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

 Yodhrin wrote:


And since people keep circling back to this: I'm not arguing for "anything goes". I'm not arguing for people to make themselves legally vulnerable. I'm arguing that - and this is a hypothetical example - if a 40k group that purports to be about the system and setting entire decides to ban discussion of or even reference to, say, Orks on the basis that the admins don't care for them, that is ludicrous. And that, if such a group is the primary or only group on a platform for that system and setting, such behaviour is damaging to the community. EDIT: And I don't know where people talking about GW's official FB group has come from.


The GW official FB page came from evolution of the topic as a result of discussion, partly because you've not given a named situation so people are more likely to branch off away from the area that specifically interests you.


As for the first part I don't see anyone disagree that shutting down conversation on a core element is a bad thing. What many have said is that sometimes shutting down conversations can help avoid fights within the community on certain "hot topic" subjects (eg I recall AoS VS Fantasy being banned on a few forums when AoS was launched because it only ever led to a fight). Others agree that some topics are best outright banned, such as politics and religion.

Meanwhile others don't get riled up as easily (or enjoy it) and don't care.

In the end unless there's a specific example you want to discuss its going to be generic replies which will either agree with you on principle; or aim to potentially agree or disagree based on context, whilst citing examples of other contextual situations where a single behaviour (eg topic banning) can have multiple reasonings.

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






I'm pretty sure he's referring to the Adeptus Titanicus 2018 Facebook group, and its stance on 3rd-party and 3D-printed weapons and models. I can't say I noticed much on there, except for when someone posted some "forumware" Lucius-pattern Warlord knockoff, but maybe all the drama happens on US time and I'm asleep.


Personally, I find all the posts about "forumware" Epic minis to be very annoying, but only in the same way that I find people showing off their limited-edition minis annoying, because I can't get them myself.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/03 12:12:12


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I’d just call them a self absorbed dill weed.
Do that here and you'll be banned for being "impolite". Dakka cracks down on even pre-school level insults.

   
Made in us
Aspirant Tech-Adept






Um, I know this is a radical idea, but couldn't we just ignore the gatekeepers and not feed their efforts?

I know in today's world whenever anu8ken says anything someone doesn't like the immediate reaction is to get the person banned, harass them, see if you can find out where the work and get them fired, etc.

Couldn't we just, you know, not pay attention to them instead of trying to crush them into silence?

"I learned the hard way that if you take a stand on any issue, no matter how insignificant, people will line up around the block to kick your ass over it." Jesse "the mind" Ventura. 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Warp Spider





but that would be doing the internet wrong, remember there is no middle ground (or least no clicks and/or profit in it) and everything is a fight all the time

"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED." 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




Seriously, my suggestion sits on starting "Adeptus Titanicus 2018 Modeling" group if that is the issue. If it's a big enough thing you'll get people.

What you can't do is just storm off and start an otherwise identical community that's totally better, watched it happen three times, it never worked, and what you probably shouldn't do is stick around the other community and sulk or push the mods whenever you get the chance. They're people, they'll notice, and they'll start getting testy and it'll just make the entire community worse off. A focused community serving the section you're concerned about though, that can grow. It's the only offshoot communities I've ever seen work well.
   
Made in ca
Ancient Venerable Black Templar Dreadnought





Canada

The good thing about "the age of social media" is it levels the playing field immensely.

The biggest difficulty is usually when a favored communication point gets taken over by the self-serving.
Usually though, many people who are sufficiently motivated to involve themselves ARE in it for the "glory".

Those who are initially involved as idealists tend to get dissatisfied when in-fighting and rude behavior crops up.

Clearly laid-down rules, somewhat consistent moderators and a few of them make for a better experience.
Dakka for instance I find to be the "least offensive" and a somewhat civil environment that I keep posting at and look for information.
Not near "the hive of scum and villainy" I hear occasionally claimed.

I feel it is harder for those to corner the market when it comes to communication.
Warning signs for me is when a location tries to prevent / make difficult direct communication between it's members.
Facebook allows largely unfettered communication so I do not see gatekeeping as much of an issue as in the past.

A revolution is an idea which has found its bayonets.
Napoleon Bonaparte 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Fargo, ND USA

 Polonius wrote:
 Yodhrin wrote:


It's definitely not that, the group in question's admin team seem to consider it a moral issue, ie any use of Company X's IP by anyone other than Company X, for any reason, in any context, is tantamount to recasting in their eyes, even things that most normal and reasonable people would consider fair use, fanart, or utterly harmless.

Similarly, the group that bars things they don't consider "appropriate" for their vision of the setting are not acting to any rational or objective standard, they just don't like the thing they've barred. Frankly this latter one is more of an issue, in the other case there's a wider community that predates the new group even though it is the largest, in this there is only this one group and no reasonable prospect of founding an alternative.


Really, until you stop being coy and just lay out the actual facts, it's going to be hard to have any sympathy. All you keep doing is restating these very vague transgressions, like "they just don't like the thing they've barred." Well, that presumes that we trust you implicitly to understand their thought process, as well as the appropriateness of whatever the barred.

In short, your complaint boils down to "some people are doing something I don't like. I won't say what, but you don't you all agree that it's terrible?"



How dare the owner of a group run the group how they want!

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/03 15:02:25


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Platuan4th wrote:
How dare the owner of a group run the group how they want!
Common misconception and likely the source of all the issues here. As someone with some experience running a rather large forum (300,000 registered users), I can say with absolute certainty that the owner of the forums is not the owner of the community, and any attempt by them to force their will upon that community will create disastrous drama.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

 Sqorgar wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
How dare the owner of a group run the group how they want!
Common misconception and likely the source of all the issues here. As someone with some experience running a rather large forum (300,000 registered users), I can say with absolute certainty that the owner of the forums is not the owner of the community, and any attempt by them to force their will upon that community will create disastrous drama.


But as groups expand, you eventually have to make decisions that will upset some members. Some things are really zero sum. So, a decision might alienate a few people, like the OP, but be very welcome by a majority of members.

Even a decision that is made to benefit a small handful of influential members can be for the benefit of the group. Say, banning discussion that a small elite finds distasteful might benefit the community, if the admin figures that allowing the discussion to continue will fracture the group anyway. In short, piss off the malcontents that can't really hurt the community by leaving, not the influencers that could cause a genuine split.

Outright abuse of power will generally grind a group to a halt. Which is why that doesn't seem to be what's happening here.


My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

Spoiler:



It's like herding cats. You guide them toward change, and sometimes you have to put your foot down which will cause a few to cry out loud and you'll lose a few here and there. Often the only ones you lose over a normal change are those who were on the out anyway and likely butting heads with mods the whole time or causing issues.

Ergo those you lose tend to be those you were going to lose anyway.

Of course this assumes normal change, sometimes mods/admin make what appear to be daft changes for no reasons (eg the PP idea to strip their entire forums back to the bare bones). Then you can get push back and hostile reactions.


This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/03 16:47:23


A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Polonius wrote:
But as groups expand, you eventually have to make decisions that will upset some members. Some things are really zero sum. So, a decision might alienate a few people, like the OP, but be very welcome by a majority of members.
Generally speaking, you want to avoid those as much as possible, as each disgruntled member that leaves has the potential to become a major pain in the ass. They'll sign up under different names and cause trouble, get other communities to start posting horrific images in the wee hours of the morning when your mod team is closed, or generally go off and create/join an anti-community - a place that exists purely out of contempt for your community. This is never helpful.

A better approach is to create a sort of forum philosophy that this is a forum for discussions, and as long as the discussions don't become mean, exhausting, or off topic, they are allowed and anyone who has a problem with a particular discussion should just not join it. This has the effect of making discussions possible, and the people who have a problem with those discussions understand that it is not their responsibility to police what other people say or do. It's not the moderator's job to interpret people's internal thoughts or assume their intent, only to intervene when a rule has been clearly broken - which is why it is important for the rules to be free and clear of judgment or explicit ideology.

For instance, Dakka banning general politics discussions is fine because Dakka is not a political forum, but it should allow discussion where politics overlaps with Dakka's subject matter (like censorship, Brexit's effect on GW, or ideological denunciations of boob armor or Slaanesh). Where those discussions happen, they should be in the appropriate location, conducted with dignity and respect. When the discussion starts to go astray, the moderators should attempt to steer the discussion back on course with appropriate warnings, and then if the posters don't heed the warnings, enact punitive measures. There are some forums where you are banned without warning, sometimes permanently, for an on-topic post that the moderators have deemed too "alt-right" based on a very unfavorable interpretation of your words.

Even a decision that is made to benefit a small handful of influential members can be for the benefit of the group. Say, banning discussion that a small elite finds distasteful might benefit the community, if the admin figures that allowing the discussion to continue will fracture the group anyway. In short, piss off the malcontents that can't really hurt the community by leaving, not the influencers that could cause a genuine split.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give me an example of a discussion that should be banned purely because of the discussion itself (and not because it is off topic)?

In my opinion, far too many communities try to dictate the opinions of the people who post in them, and when those bastards refuse to be enlightened, they get excommunicated and unpersoned - and I think this has an overwhelmingly negative effect on the community, individually, and society, as a whole.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Overread wrote:
It's like herding cats. You guide them toward change, and sometimes you have to put your foot down which will cause a few to cry out loud and you'll lose a few here and there. Often the only ones you lose over a normal change are those who were on the out anyway and likely butting heads with mods the whole time or causing issues.
There's a management book called, I think "herding cats", and the lead programmer at a studio I worked at had it, and my wife had a boss with that book on her shelf too. And these two people are, without exception, the absolute worst bosses either of us have ever worked for in our entire life. Like, I now understand why "going postal" is a thing bad.

Now, I don't know what's in that book, but I've always been really wary of people who say management is like herding cats.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/12/03 17:01:54


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

eh a lot of managers can become what they are because they are promoted up from other positions that had nothing to do with management and then find themselves with no training or experience or, sometimes worse sometimes better, one weekend of paid-company training on how to manage


But management of employees shouldn't be like herding cats; its management of forum people that is. Partly because there's far less hierarchy structure; almost no criteria to become a member; no annual performance reviews; no monitoring; no required standard or output -- its the wild west of management!

(fact: if your forum is the "wildwest" something has probably gone wrong unless your forum IS about the wildwest

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






Baltimore, MD

 Sqorgar wrote:

A better approach is to create a sort of forum philosophy that this is a forum for discussions, and as long as the discussions don't become mean, exhausting, or off topic, they are allowed and anyone who has a problem with a particular discussion should just not join it.


I think we're broadly in agreement on the theory of the manner. The question is, when do things get mean or exhausting? That's a question up to the community, but really means the most influential members, starting with the admins/owners.

For instance, Dakka banning general politics discussions is fine because Dakka is not a political forum, but it should allow discussion where politics overlaps with Dakka's subject matter (like censorship, Brexit's effect on GW, or ideological denunciations of boob armor or Slaanesh). Where those discussions happen, they should be in the appropriate location, conducted with dignity and respect. When the discussion starts to go astray, the moderators should attempt to steer the discussion back on course with appropriate warnings, and then if the posters don't heed the warnings, enact punitive measures. There are some forums where you are banned without warning, sometimes permanently, for an on-topic post that the moderators have deemed too "alt-right" based on a very unfavorable interpretation of your words.


I think that there are some conversations with so little value, with such passionate views, that simply "banning" them, either explicitly or implicitly, is for the best. The classic conversation in a 40k forum are female space marines, although the ethics of recasting is a more modern twist. (BTW, this is documented in the flame warrior taxonomy of record: http://www.flamewarriorsguide.com/warriorshtm/howlers.htm)

]I'm not sure what you mean by this. Can you give me an example of a discussion that should be banned purely because of the discussion itself (and not because it is off topic)?


Absolutely. A topic such as the fluff/lore behind female space marines. While there is some new hints in BL sources about this, for years this would reignite, with the same tired arguments. Of course, the parties aligned themselves mostly (although not fully) on political partisan lines, and it just got nasty for a discussion that always, always ended with the same conclusion: there is no evidence for them in the official canon, but it's a big universe and anything is possible.

Another example might be an banning "joke" or non-narrative army models. things like the Hello Kitty army, or MLP space marines. Enough people get upset, and after the first chuckle there's not much merit to it.

Basically, what makes people mad out of proportion to the valuable discourse it creates.

Keep in mind, I'm not advocating for banning topics. I just think it could be good for the health of a community in certain cases.

In my opinion, far too many communities try to dictate the opinions of the people who post in them, and when those bastards refuse to be enlightened, they get excommunicated and unpersoned - and I think this has an overwhelmingly negative effect on the community, individually, and society, as a whole.


So this all sounds great. I mean, we all want to be inclusive, and open, and all that. But being told that you can't discuss third party components in a forum about Titanicus Adepticus is not, by any stretch of the imagination, being "unpersoned." Let's keep some perspective here.

Now, I don't know what's in that book, but I've always been really wary of people who say management is like herding cats.


As a rule, the more educated and professional your workforce is, the more it becomes like herding cats. When you're supervising relatively low skill employees, you can tell them the correct way to do things. Even high skill workers can have strict protocols for huge chunks of their work. But when you have employees that have to use their judgment and experience, you have to allow them to use those skills. Even if I know how to do their work (and know how to do it better than they do), they need to work their own way. Computer developers certainly fall into that.

My Painted Armies
: Co. B, 37th Praetorian IG: 11,000pts
Cygnar: 350pts
KOW Ogres: 4500 points
Loyalist Emperor's Children: 2500 points 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Polonius wrote:
I think we're broadly in agreement on the theory of the manner. The question is, when do things get mean or exhausting? That's a question up to the community, but really means the most influential members, starting with the admins/owners.
Generally speaking, it is obvious when something gets mean (overt insults) or exhausted (arguments start repeating, people talking past another). In places where it is not obvious (is this person repeating out-tribe talking points? Is this person perpetuating sexist attitudes? Is this person JAQing off?), I'd prefer for the conversation to continue unimpeded - it hurts nothing to let a polite discussion continue and it can have long lasting disastrous effects to shut it down without clear justification.

I think that there are some conversations with so little value, with such passionate views, that simply "banning" them, either explicitly or implicitly, is for the best. The classic conversation in a 40k forum are female space marines, although the ethics of recasting is a more modern twist.
The female space marine debate is a good example of a discussion that should be allowed to continue, as long as it remains polite. For my money, the debate has never been about actual space marines, but about the concern that an outside ideology is trying to force ideological change upon 40k (and the games industry as a whole). I think it would be a simple enough thing to introduce female space marines into 40k such that everyone complaining about the possibility would not only welcome the change, but champion it - but it would be easy to get it wrong too. Only by listening to the discussion can you figure out how exactly to address the worry that is behind the debate.

The problem is that the debate gets too bogged down in minutiae as each counter point is countered itself with increasingly specific, and esoteric knowledge. What is basically a debate about right and wrong ends up becoming a debate about whether or not 2nd century Celtic warriors wiped their ass back to front and which hand they used to do it. And that's when the discuss has run its course and exhausted the spirits and morale of everyone involved.

Another example might be an banning "joke" or non-narrative army models. things like the Hello Kitty army, or MLP space marines. Enough people get upset, and after the first chuckle there's not much merit to it.
Not sure why this would need to be banned, in all but the most extreme cases. Everybody needs a chuckle now and again, and it's important not to start taking your hobby so seriously that you lose sight of its true value.

Basically, what makes people mad out of proportion to the valuable discourse it creates.
Mad people can often produce the most valuable insights, and as long as they are polite about it and willing to enter an actual discussion about it, I see no harm in letting them vent. As exhausting as the conversation surrounding Age of Sigmar was at launch, I was part of a lot of really insightful, enjoyable, and entertaining debates that I very much appreciated.

So this all sounds great. I mean, we all want to be inclusive, and open, and all that. But being told that you can't discuss third party components in a forum about Titanicus Adepticus is not, by any stretch of the imagination, being "unpersoned." Let's keep some perspective here.
If you are banned from the group, you are being unpersoned. If you are being told that a particular topic of yours can not be discussed or shared, you are just being marginalized. Punitive measures against community members for things which are not immoral or bad for the community can have a chilling effect on discussion and result in segments of the population feeling that they (or their views) are being unfairly oppressed.

In the case of third party components, the only place where that discussion should be expressly forbidden is on a GW-run community. It is not in their best financial interests to promote the competition. Their own communities will naturally be more constrictive in nature. But if you are not on a GW forum, or a forum which is directly supported by GW, forbidding that kind of discussion feels a bit like sucking up, and forcing a community to adopt a stance in order for the mods to gain favor with GW.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




UK

 Sqorgar wrote:

The female space marine debate is a good example of a discussion that should be allowed to continue, as long as it remains polite. .


The reason its banned is because in the past it has been allowed to continue and in most cases it did not remain polite. It turned personal, insulting, toxic and generally led no where good. Repeated situations like this are what gets topics banned on sites. The mods/admin don't just wake up and go "Female marines, lets ban it." There's typically a legacy of contention around the topic or around the people on the site who discuss the topic. It thus makes it far easier to just say NO to the topic rather than allow yet another fight between, otherwise, friendly people who get on with the entire rest of the site and subject material.

 Sqorgar wrote:
If you are being told that a particular topic of yours can not be discussed or shared, you are just being marginalized. Punitive measures against community members for things which are not immoral or bad for the community can have a chilling effect on discussion and result in segments of the population feeling that they (or their views) are being unfairly oppressed.


It's not your discussion though, its just a topic for discussion. You might start the thread that gets closed, but otherwise its not "yours". The issue here is that you are clearly taking things way too personally and directly and putting them on your own shoulders. You need to step back from all that.
Also you need to respect that any online community has someone who owns and manages it and that it is their choice what topics and subjects can and cannot be discussed. Yes if they shut down too many then the group is likely to die, that's on their shoulders. However the closure of something like 3D printing of parts or talking about politics in a forum about toy soliders etc...These are not stifling to the whole community; they are either small parts of the hobby and there is a whole lot that can be talked about outside of them.

Yes you might want to talk about them, but that is your issue not the sites. You can put in a logical well thought out discussion for consideration of revision of the rules or to ask for more detail on the rules ,but otherwise its the owners choice

A Blog in Miniature - now featuring reviews of many new Black Library books (latest Novellas) 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Overread wrote:
 Sqorgar wrote:

The female space marine debate is a good example of a discussion that should be allowed to continue, as long as it remains polite. .


The reason its banned is because in the past it has been allowed to continue and in most cases it did not remain polite. It turned personal, insulting, toxic and generally led no where good. Repeated situations like this are what gets topics banned on sites. The mods/admin don't just wake up and go "Female marines, lets ban it." There's typically a legacy of contention around the topic or around the people on the site who discuss the topic. It thus makes it far easier to just say NO to the topic rather than allow yet another fight between, otherwise, friendly people who get on with the entire rest of the site and subject material.
So, you're saying that not only is banning this discussion understandable, it is reasonable? If I were to start a subject about why female space marines should (and could) be allowed, it should be shut down before any actual discussion takes place... just because a bunch of other people couldn't handle having a discussion about it previously? Shouldn't the discussion at least get a few pages before such a judgment is reached?

Look, there are certain points of contention in this hobby (female space marines, boob armor, Slaanesh's child friendliness) that are definitely ideological, if not outright morality-based, and I think that flat out disallowing these discussions really does lead people to believe that their viewpoints and opinions are being oppressed by an authoritarian group trying to force their morality/ideology on others. Allowing those discussions, even if consensus is never reached, at least allows those people to feel like their viewpoints are allowed and being heard.

The problem with these threads is that they become about winning rather than having a discussion, and you end up with a WAAC-style attitude towards debate. Anything goes as long as you win, often justified by believing one is on the right side of morality.

It's not your discussion though, its just a topic for discussion. You might start the thread that gets closed, but otherwise its not "yours". The issue here is that you are clearly taking things way too personally and directly and putting them on your own shoulders. You need to step back from all that.

I rarely take things personally, which is why I'm able to have conversations with people I vehemently disagree with and walk away feeling like it was a good discussion. Hell, frequently, I argue against my interests and beliefs, just to make a discussion more interesting.

However, speaking as an ex-forum administrator, most people don't see it that way. Even the most justifiable ban will just cause the banned person to believe it was your fault and fill them with resentment. Nobody ever goes, "gee, thanks for banning me. I was way out of line and for the good of the community, it was smart to remove me." The correct course of action, in my experience, is to avoid outright punitive measures and instead try to coerce a community to moderate itself.

You can talk down a person from a ledge because they've decided to step down on their own, but if you grab them off the ledge, they'll just wait until you aren't looking and jump anyway.

However the closure of something like 3D printing of parts or talking about politics in a forum about toy soliders etc...These are not stifling to the whole community; they are either small parts of the hobby and there is a whole lot that can be talked about outside of them.
I think 3D printing is the single biggest seismic shift in physical games (it is basically behind all the miniatures on kickstarter, and once people start having those high quality printers at a decent price - look out), and I think discussing it is absolutely necessary to the future of this hobby. We can't ignore it and hope it goes away. We ignore it and one day, the entire industry will wake up in an alleyway missing a kidney wondering what the hell just happened. But if we discuss it, we can create community guidelines and best practices before it sneaks up on us.

As for politics, some politics is absolutely necessary. I mean, you can't tell me that Brexit won't impact a major part of the hobby miniatures market. Like 3D printing, politics is something that seem peripheral until it doesn't. But I agree that complaining about Trump and Russian collusion in the election is a little off topic and should be treated as such.
   
 
Forum Index » Dakka Discussions
Go to: