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.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Also WHFB generates a better breed of player... that is why the WHFB forums rule!

A comparison of WHFB YMDC and 40k YMDC supports this view.

Scott-S6 wrote:You complain that someone says "Those armies are full of fail" - that's horrible and out of line.
Yet now you're saying that people should be allowed to say things like "that idea is friggin stupid"?

Why the sudden about face?

deadshane1 wrote:You know, so we can continue discussing what this thread is really about?

This is entirely relevant. If you've done a complete u-turn on this point, what's your reason for it? Presumably it's a really good one in which case you ought to bring it up.

olympia wrote:

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:

Also WHFB generates a better breed of player... that is why the WHFB forums rule!

A comparison of WHFB YMDC and 40k YMDC supports this view.

Oh yes especially all the whining about balance and all the restrictions these players use...
Very mature and hard boiled players .
Oh and yes my view is most likely as biased as yours i just dont try to sell it as fact.
By the way, you are insulting quite a lot of people...

Cheers

At the risk of offending 40k players as well...

I've noticed that fantasy tends to draw a slightly older crowd (or at least, doesn't tend to draw in the youngest gamers- no space marines).

Also, that section is smaller, so it's easier for good posts to be heard if they want to be.

In some people's opinions it is a more tactical game

And finally, we just got a new set of rules that makes us happy. Iron Angel is right on in that a few short months ago there was a general "the balance is off" mantra about the game, but GW pretty much hit the nail on the head with the new rules, and we are appeased.

So those are my thoughts on why there are few complaints in these threads from WHFB players

Scott-S6 wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:You complain that someone says "Those armies are full of fail" - that's horrible and out of line.
Yet now you're saying that people should be allowed to say things like "that idea is friggin stupid"?

Why the sudden about face?

deadshane1 wrote:You know, so we can continue discussing what this thread is really about?

This is entirely relevant. If you've done a complete u-turn on this point, what's your reason for it? Presumably it's a really good one in which case you ought to bring it up.

Firstly, how is a change of ones opinion from 6 months or so ago relevant to the topic "is dakka going downhill" the fact is, what I posted earlier in this thread was a valid point that several other posters seemed to agree with. If I've changed my mind on a subject 6 months, 6 years, or 6 days ago what does it matter here? Maybe I'm a complete hypocrite, did that make my point any less valid? You're the only one it seemed to affect in that matter. It's not like you're bringing to light some elusive point that damns everything I've said....that thread was rather long if I remember, most people that have an informed opinion in THIS thread have probably seen it.

...but whatever, it seems you're intent on hammering at me on this subject. So be it. In the meantime...

If you go back and get involved in that thread, you'll find that it was primarily about other people bemoaning the free Ard Boyz tournament. Complaining about minutia in a tournament that is run for free and features big prizes for the winners. If you get REALLY interested in it, and track down the source of my complaining about "rude and innappropriate" comments about a players army list, you'll fine the source of all that complaining was basically a total DOG PILE onto a player by MANY DIFFERENT posters in a Blog article. (yes, one of the blogs that I recommend for good reading...I said you have to cut thru the chaff remember, you know be intelligent?)

The reaction to the players army list was MUCH different than the simple little "That idea is friggin stupid!" example that I posted here. One can make that statement, get on with WHY he feels that way, have an informative and helpful post and still get chastised by mods here on dakka.

Even a more stout and insulting post on a forum has less "ganging up" effect than a blog owner, and an entire entourage of 9-13 year old followers that just learned that you can be rude and curse at people on the internet on a blog and not get in trouble for it.

So, just so this is clear to you, on one hand we've got a person on a forum, telling another that an idea he has is "friggin stupid". Thats as far as I went, at SOME point insults need to be moderated, when it gets to the point where "dem's fightin' words" something needs to be done. I just dont think that my example is to the point needing board moderation.

On the other hand we've got 9+ regular posters on a blog including the blog owner, dogpiling a player at a tournament that is probably not reading the blog post in the first place. Dogging him out repeatadly using cursing, insults questioning parantage and suggesting the guy was intoxicated or mentally challenged...over, and over, and over again.


So, since you think that this was so relevant to this thread, yes, my opinion differ's on these two subjects.

I think that the mods are far too heavy handed on the popular public forums. A little bit of vitriol is harmless in posts sometimes. It's up to the moderators to determine when too much is going to far. Here on dakka it's black/white. (or black, GREY, and white if you ask some people about certain Mod's posting habbits) Polite policy. Don't do it EVER, or you will get a warning.

On a blog, you can get away with it...."That list is so fething stupid, you are a complete slow for coming up with that abortion. You're so stupid your Mother should have drowned you and sold the milk." Perfectly acceptable...and the sort of reaction the guy was getting to his armylist (without even his knowledge) over, and over, and over again. This is when it gets too far...you know...when its OBVIOUSLY too far?

So, hopefully I've cleared that little bit up for you. If this makes me a hypocrite, I can live with that. I dont think it makes my points in this thread any less valid however. I'm also quite satisfied in that stance since several others appeared to agree with me on many points I've made.


*Lastly, again I DO recommend blogs. Sometimes you have to read past the sort of drivel that I mentioned above, often, the comments section on posts is enough to discourage one from writing this sort of thing ON a blog, sometimes not. If you can get past the vitriol that WILL appear sometimes in a blog post, there is often some good stuff there. There are also OTHER blogs that DONT feature that sort of discussion at all...and still have free form writing without fear of Mod reprisals. The quality of info on blogs or local forums is INDEED much higher on subjects covering tactics/list building in popular forums such as Dakka, B&C, Warseer, ect. Go to forums for News, Rumours, Tourney info, or Off topic discussion....not tactics or list building advice. For that you go to blogs. Unquestionably.

Dashofpepper wrote:On topic....post counts serve no purpose. I wish they would go away. I think that would ease up on the garbage quite a bit too.

It would certainly get rid of the annoying "+1 Post count" posts...that should account for at least 10% of Dakka's Junk Posts. Those and "NB4Lock" posts annoy me more than trolling.

Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

It might be possible to turn them off except for moderators.

I would point out though, that we have a rule against +1 posts, and a rapid deployment Red Triangle for zapping them. If moderators don't get them all, that is because we don't see them all.

Deadshane1 wrote:So, just so this is clear to you, on one hand we've got a person on a forum, telling another that an idea he has is "friggin stupid". Thats as far as I went, at SOME point insults need to be moderated, when it gets to the point where "dem's fightin' words" something needs to be done. I just dont think that my example is to the point needing board moderation.

On the other hand we've got 9+ regular posters on a blog including the blog owner, dogpiling a player at a tournament that is probably not reading the blog post in the first place. Dogging him out repeatadly using cursing, insults questioning parantage and suggesting the guy was intoxicated or mentally challenged...over, and over, and over again.

Thanks Deadshane for explaining your position. I can understand your point.

I agree completely with Dash-- this forum has been going down the drain for a long time. There used to be a period where my group would link one another to Dakka threads that were cool or inspiring-- these days, if we link each other to a Dakka thread, it's usually something groundbreakingly bad or pathetic. Also, post counts are rubbish, since there's sadly no statistic for "good post counts."

I completely agree with hiding the post count. It eliminates a tendancy towards elitism by number of posts made, it would discourage users from posting simply for the sake of post count, etc.

The Penny Arcade forums used to have post counts listed. Once they got rid of those, there was an immediate rise in the quality of posting.

I am also of the opinion that any posts that meet the following criteria, as determined by a moderator, should warrant the poster getting an immediate one week (or longer for multiple offenses) suspension:

1) Personal Attacks
2) Implying the author of or respondant to a post is lacks intelligence
3) Inference that their idea lacks intelligence
4) Obvious attempts at trolling or inciting negative emotional responses

It seems obvious that many posters in this thread feel that the "lol that's stupid" posts aren't making Dakka a better site. So, do something to discourage this kind of posting.

One other suggestion I would like to make is that in the Swap Shop, when correcting a poster for items such as bumping a post too early, to please send the poster a PM rather than posting in their thread. If you're trying to correct someone for bumping, then giving them a free bump isn't the best way to do so.

fullheadofhair wrote:

carmachu wrote:

fullheadofhair wrote:

So, the choice is either Stelek or what we have. I am definitely in the camp that Stelek produced some good stuff but it was a shame he couldn't moderate himself. when I saw the picture of him I was totally surprised to see he was an adult - just goes to show how difficult it is to picture people from posts. Me? Short, slightly over weight/ stocky, bald Englishman

Given the behavior and posts here on dakka, you could say that about many people, whether their adults or not. I mean the Wolrd Forge post complaint? Are you serious?

Oh god - that one - Ok, you got me, cannot even begin to defend my position if you are going to drag that one up ;-D

That is a good example of poor moderation. How that got past 1 page let alone 2 is beyond me. Got to be one of the crappest threads I have ever seen.

To be honest, I like people that are a bit rough around the edges an call things as they seem them, even if its a bit less then polite. Its needed on occassion, and useful every board needs a 'Stelek". Hell he isnt even the first one here to be like that. Before Stelek, there was ed maule. Before Ed there was a fella I think that ran by the handle of Ronin(or maybe thats another board). And before that there might have been one more. He's not the first of his kind around here. But it seems like that he's the last, as there arent any or they've been removed(or removed themselves) and thats one thing missing around here.

Further, its a new generation on dakka, and one of the things folks have to reconize when they say the place is "going downhill". A new generation that really doesnt know a history of GW like many old timers do. Like when one pulls out an old old beekie model thats a BA and its orange instead of red that we have now, among many things.

Just for the record, I have never seen someone post: "Hey, listen, I have X amount of posts more than you so get back into line, n00b." If there is an elitism problem, post count contributes nothing to next to nothing to that issue.

Kilkrazy wrote:Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

No not really. It tells folks about how much they post, not the contents and strength of the contributions in their posts. A poster that puts up a 100 posts that are the quality of "can spacez marines beat up the Talaiban" or "World Forge is ripping of GW" doesnt contribute the same as a guy who posts 3-4 posts of good tactica or armybuilding for his one army he plays.

carmachu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

No not really. It tells folks about how much they post, not the contents and strength of the contributions in their posts. A poster that puts up a 100 posts that are the quality of "can spacez marines beat up the Talaiban" or "World Forge is ripping of GW" doesnt contribute the same as a guy who posts 3-4 posts of good tactica or armybuilding for his one army he plays.

If the Moderator has been paying attention, they would know who has a higher percentage of quality posts and who has a higher percentage of trolling and cheezburger pics.

Monster Rain wrote:

carmachu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

No not really. It tells folks about how much they post, not the contents and strength of the contributions in their posts. A poster that puts up a 100 posts that are the quality of "can spacez marines beat up the Talaiban" or "World Forge is ripping of GW" doesnt contribute the same as a guy who posts 3-4 posts of good tactica or armybuilding for his one army he plays.

If the Moderator has been paying attention, they would know who has a higher percentage of quality posts and who has a higher percentage of trolling and cheezburger pics.

The problem is however, post counts dont differentiate between good contributions and crap ones.

carmachu wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

carmachu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

No not really. It tells folks about how much they post, not the contents and strength of the contributions in their posts. A poster that puts up a 100 posts that are the quality of "can spacez marines beat up the Talaiban" or "World Forge is ripping of GW" doesnt contribute the same as a guy who posts 3-4 posts of good tactica or armybuilding for his one army he plays.

If the Moderator has been paying attention, they would know who has a higher percentage of quality posts and who has a higher percentage of trolling and cheezburger pics.

The problem is however, post counts dont differentiate between good contributions and crap ones.

In a vacuum, no. You're right.

In a larger context of an online community where people sort of know each other, I think that it could.

Monster Rain wrote:

In a vacuum, no. You're right.

In a larger context of an online community where people sort of know each other, I think that it could.

Really? Great, he's a challenge- rate my 3400 posts. from garbage to useful.

Cant do it can you? And thats just one poster among thousands.

carmachu wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

In a vacuum, no. You're right.

In a larger context of an online community where people sort of know each other, I think that it could.

Really? Great, he's a challenge- rate my 3400 posts. from garbage to useful.

Cant do it can you? And thats just one poster among thousands.

I probably could if I wanted to... What would it prove?

carmachu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Post counts are a useful tool for moderators. They help identify factors about users, such as who is a strong contributor to the site, and other things.

No not really. It tells folks about how much they post, not the contents and strength of the contributions in their posts. A poster that puts up a 100 posts that are the quality of "can spacez marines beat up the Talaiban" or "World Forge is ripping of GW" doesnt contribute the same as a guy who posts 3-4 posts of good tactica or armybuilding for his one army he plays.

As a moderator I use post counts as an indicator of aspects of user behaviour.

For example:
Low post count/long service -- might be a sock puppet, investigate further -- Ah! he is basically a modeller and has posted a lot in the gallery, but he isn't interested in everyday use.
High post count/short service -- could be spending too much time on the board rather than enjoying real life.

I am not the only moderator who spots patterns of this sort. It is not the only way that moderators judge user behaviour.

I think post count is related to the voices on the forum.
Considering I have been a member of Dakka almost as long as it has existed, I have a pitiful amount of posts.

When I agree with someone's point of view in a thread, I am not likely to post, just to +1.
I usually need to have my own take to do so.

In the past there were many vocal long time posters, many who seemed to have a similar mindset to myself, so I posted less.
With the influx of newer members and the fading of some of those voices, I feel the need more often to express my view.

Heffling wrote:

I am also of the opinion that any posts that meet the following criteria, as determined by a moderator, should warrant the poster getting an immediate one week (or longer for multiple offenses) suspension:

1) Personal Attacks
2) Implying the author of or respondant to a post is lacks intelligence
3) Inference that their idea lacks intelligence
4) Obvious attempts at trolling or inciting negative emotional responses

If only. =p

My only real beef with the moderator team is that when you report a personal attack, it doesn't get deleted or modded out, they just add a post that says, "Modquisition now on" or "Cool it with the personal attacks." So that personal attack sits there, libel or slander that it may be. I probably have people jumping on me as often as anyone else here does (or more) and from posting trends, I can see when someone has been suspended or banned (including myself from time to time).

When someone writes, "Dash, everything you write is drivel, go back to your lame life and stop polluting the internet," my instinctive reply is, "Amazing contribution you're making to Dakka yourself there. I would encourage you to stop posting until you have something useful to say. FYI, I'm not holding my breath, I'm not expecting much."

Typically, I report the post. 50% of the time, a moderator posts "Moderation now on, cut the personal attacks" or something, and that's it. 30% of the time, a moderator messages me and says, "It wasn't that bad" and that's it. 15% of the time, nothing happens. 5% of the time, the offending post is edited out and the personal attacks attacks are removed.

Its pretty damn hard to NOT respond to someone calling you out specifically and attacking you. It would be easier if moderators removed offending content instead of simply saying, "Moderation on now." 100% of the posts that I write that people take offense to are in response to a personal attack. If personal attacks were removed and not just noted....posts that I write that are potentially offensive would disappear. Seriously. If someone punches me below the belt, I'm going to stomp on their head until they are dead. Here on Dakka, where the fights are verbal, I'm expected to not retaliate....but the instigation isn't removed, just noted.

I'd be a happy camper if that policy changed. Hell, me being a moderator would *also* make me a very easy to get along with kind of guy. I wouldn't ever have to be acidic with someone, because the personal attacks I'm responding to would just get deleted as inappropriate. Then I could freely go back to bringing content to Dakka without fear of my name getting dragged through the mud, my efforts denigrated, and people calling me names because I could just zap out that crap.

Dashofpepper wrote:Then I could freely go back to bringing content to Dakka without fear of my name getting dragged through the mud, my efforts denigrated, and people calling me names because I could just zap out that crap.

People will form their opinions of you based on your behavior rather than what people say about you. Look at how people have been talking about Mauleed and Stelek in these threads, for example. I'd say the solution to your fear of denigration is to ignore the denigration. What can most people compare to your conrtibutions? Other Dakka users are smart and will take this into account--not only in evaluating your posts but also in evaluating the posts of your detractors. There is no need to simply silence your critics.

Anyone else noting the irony of a thread about dakka going down hill,

On Dakka

Is that all there is left to talk about, 13 pages worth?

I feel I have lent credence to the ironic self fulfilling prophecy and absurd notion by even posting here.

Augustus wrote:Anyone else noting the irony of a thread about dakka going down hill,

On Dakka

Is that all there is left to talk about, 13 pages worth?

I feel I have lent credence to the ironic self fulfilling prophecy and absurd notion by even posting here.

Indeed, almost 10 pages back. . .

kirsanth wrote:Though oddly, this thread is making me re-think my initial position a bit.

yay Augustus posted!

There are many if not hundreds? of top dakka posters with post-counts in the hundreds.

I agree with Dash that offending material should not be left up, but instead should be edited by a Mod. The offending post could be copied into a library file in a moderator-only section of the website for historical reference or disputes.

I know from talking to Moderators at Penny Arcade that what they do is edit/delete the offending post for all users, and post the offensive post in a Mod Only section to act as a history file.

Please note that I'm not trying to turn Dakka into Penny Arcade, but they have an extremely popular forum and are highly successful in both terms of content and general maturity of posters. So I feel there are good parts that could be utilized here.

Dashofpepper wrote:Its pretty damn hard to NOT respond to someone calling you out specifically and attacking you. It would be easier if moderators removed offending content instead of simply saying, "Moderation on now." 100% of the posts that I write that people take offense to are in response to a personal attack. If personal attacks were removed and not just noted....posts that I write that are potentially offensive would disappear. Seriously. If someone punches me below the belt, I'm going to stomp on their head until they are dead. Here on Dakka, where the fights are verbal, I'm expected to not retaliate....but the instigation isn't removed, just noted.

I'd be a happy camper if that policy changed. Hell, me being a moderator would *also* make me a very easy to get along with kind of guy. I wouldn't ever have to be acidic with someone, because the personal attacks I'm responding to would just get deleted as inappropriate. Then I could freely go back to bringing content to Dakka without fear of my name getting dragged through the mud, my efforts denigrated, and people calling me names because I could just zap out that crap.

kind of like on your own blog where you already have authority? where someone criticizes you and both sides devolve into mudslinging and escalation of the rhetoric and you decide to edit the person the other person's posts to make it seem like they're insulting themselves along with posting their real contact info probably taken from their registration info? (see pic below) that is NOT responsible moderation. as the author of that blog, you could have chosen to delete that person's posts but instead you decided to take the immature way out and edit it instead. power does NOT make you a less "acidic" person apparently if your own blog is taken as evidence. i also don't consider it mature mod-like and proper behavior to take what is essentially a local game store and associated forum argument and escalate it to an internet-wide spam trolling thread in battle reports.. and then start a blog about it when it's moderated (and appropriately so) as NOT a battle report and simply trolling... and continue linking it in your sig months later (where i got the info). yes, those people at that store were complete idiots and you were in the right about what happened there... but your behavior AFTER was not simply defending yourself but escalating it. your own comments on your blog say that you believe in a policy of confrontation that involves escalating the situation until it is untenable for your opponent and they back down and your actions (both in real life according to your own blog) and your posting reflect that. that kind of policy may be appropriate for use in the military but isn't in civilian life or online life. your contributions to the battle reports and tactics forums were quite useful and i enjoyed them but frankly i don't think you should make yourself out as an innocent above the fray when talking about how you'd be a great mod. your suggestions for changes to the tactics forum DO however have alot of merit and i second them.

Interesting thread.
I don't think Dakka is that much worse than it used to be- I'm proficient at skimming through the tides of crap to get to the interesting posts. I have a cadre of users who I find make worthwhile contributions, and I sort of follow them around. If that number ever gets too small, I'll stop posting here, pretty much.

What I do find amusing is posters who I would consider needlessly aggressive blowhards getting butthurt over personal attacks. I've seen it a few times when there's a spat, and it's really pretty funny. I've gotten annoyed once or twice on Dakka (especially on OT where things that I actually care about can be discussed sometimes) but the idea of getting THAT het up about a game of warhammer makes me smile. I rarely feel the need to report anything in the wider fora, and have only ever put one user on ignore.
I guess I echo Killkrazy's sentiment- I certainly find his posts on these topics to be well reasoned.
I've seen at least 3 of these threads since I've been on Dakka though, and I don't think there was a downward trend during that time at all. Old folk leave and new folk arrive, and some of the new folk are cool. The site itself is improving all the time technically (kudos Legoburner).

Warboss,

Thank you for providing an example of trolling and personal attacks in a thread about the quality dropping on Dakka. It's nice to see the drop in quality in action.

Heffling wrote:One other suggestion I would like to make is that in the Swap Shop, when correcting a poster for items such as bumping a post too early, to please send the poster a PM rather than posting in their thread. If you're trying to correct someone for bumping, then giving them a free bump isn't the best way to do so.

If the warning is for bumping their thread, it's already at the top of the page, so a mod adding a comment to it isn't actually doing that much...

Dashofpepper wrote:My only real beef with the moderator team is that when you report a personal attack, it doesn't get deleted or modded out, they just add a post that says, "Modquisition now on" or "Cool it with the personal attacks." ...

That depends on which mod deals with it, and just how bad the post is. Some of us prefer to delete offending material, some just issue a warning and leave the post in place unless it's something particularly dire.

The thing is, either approach gets complaints. If we leave it alone, people complain that nothing was done about it. If we delete it, people complain that we're power-hungry maniacs who go around deleting people's posts.