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.

There's a plethora of threads about GW and their policies at the moment. There's also a bunch of threads that pop up about the threads that are about the threads about GW and their policies.

I wonder if the solution to this, to a happier Dakka, is to create a dedicated area for these things; rather like the one that PP had on their forums.

Does this have merit?

I think its a grand idea.

I agree. Just make a separate section titled "Rants"

Honestly, as much as I would like for this, it would not get rid of the snide comments that show up in N&R section anytime anything new comes out, and people would still clutter DD and 40k Discussions with complaining. People have a hard enough time hitting the right forum to post as is. Being consumed with nerd rage such that they must vent their fury online will not make sure they post more accurately.

Isn't that the purpose of Off-Topic?

Frankly, I don't think the Admin here should have to cater to rants and negativity. Most should have been shut down much sooner than they were, if not already. There's a bajillion blogs out there to spout vitriol, if one is so inclined.

Just my 2 cents.

At what point does something become a rant though? Many would say that the recent threads that have popped up recently are the result of legitimate concerns regarding recent events and practises - the fact that they are still rumbling on now without being locked suggests that people still feel a need to discuss the issues at hand.

Its a fine idea in theory but in practise requires someone to make a call as to exactly what constitutes a rant or not, and even then you could be relegating valid concerns to a dingy basement sub forum just because some other people think its whinging or whining. Tricky one...

filbert wrote:Its a fine idea in theory but in practise requires someone to make a call as to exactly what constitutes a rant or not, and even then you could be relegating valid concerns to a dingy basement sub forum just because some other people think its whinging or whining. Tricky one...

We could get the admins to appoint people for such a purpose. We could give them a title that indicated that the admins had appointed them so. We could call them moderators.

Yeah. I know, too novel, too radical. It'll never catch on.

There are a few easy ways to determine whether a thread falls into this category (in my mind). "Why is GW so gosh darned expensive?", and "Online Petition for GW to lower prices!" probably serve no purpose, as they won't actually add any value to things, because the only responses are "Because the market bears it." and "Online petitions never work, especially when you consider response number one." Answers given respectively.

I think it's going to be impossible to remove the rant/whine threads. We can't get rid of people asking for rules, and we can't get rid of people using the 'naughty' words, in spite of both of those things being watched for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

George Spiggott wrote:We could get the admins to appoint people for such a purpose. We could give them a title that indicated that the admins had appointed them so. We could call them moderators.

Yeah. I know, too novel, too radical. It'll never catch on.

I see what you did there. I don't believe that the current moderators have that kind of authority (at least not sole authority). I could be wrong, but just because you CAN appoint people to have that kind of authority doesn't mean that you should. What happens when you anger one of them and they decide that your threads are rants? What happens when one of them decides that 40k General "What 40k weapon would you be?" threads are superfluous, and begins locking those en masse?

EDIT: Clarity

Procedure should be given authority, not people. If you must appoint people, then make sure they execute the procedure, nothing more.

Maybe a debate forum instead of making a rant forum. So if somebody wants to debate, or even blow off some of their rage, they can do that.

I can see the need for a debate forum, though. I like that idea.

But isn't that also a pseudo outcome of the polls forum? At least for the more polar topics?

George Spiggott wrote:

filbert wrote:Its a fine idea in theory but in practise requires someone to make a call as to exactly what constitutes a rant or not, and even then you could be relegating valid concerns to a dingy basement sub forum just because some other people think its whinging or whining. Tricky one...

We could get the admins to appoint people for such a purpose. We could give them a title that indicated that the admins had appointed them so. We could call them moderators.

Yeah. I know, too novel, too radical. It'll never catch on.

And thus make the Mod team even more polarised and vilified by by certain sections of Dakka because they moved a thread? Yeah, great idea - good way to split Dakka even more. Why don't we just make everyone choose whether they are in the Pro or Anti Gw camp when they join up, save a bit of time?

Edit: Was the snark really necessary George? Just because I offered some constructive criticism to your idea? I had thought you more polite than that...

Not sure a negative sub-forum is necessary tbh

The Moderators have already been culling extraneous threads of complaint this week.

A bit of self discipline on the part of members would not go amiss.
Flag up to the mods any thread that is the umpteenth on the price of snuff going up etc
Ignore said threads if they are likely to upset if possible.
Don't post new topics without a search first.
etc
all the usual stuff we forget to do would help.

filbert wrote:And thus make the Mod team even more polarised and vilified by by certain sections of Dakka because they moved a thread? Yeah, great idea - good way to split Dakka even more. Why don't we just make everyone choose whether they are in the Pro or Anti Gw camp when they join up, save a bit of time?

Edit: Was the snark really necessary George? Just because I offered some constructive criticism to your idea? I had thought you more polite than that...

Oh don't be such a stick in the mud Bertie old chap. I like your pro/anti GW selection system, good work. I don't think it'll be popular with the others though.

Pip pip.

daedalus wrote:Honestly, as much as I would like for this, it would not get rid of the snide comments that show up in N&R section anytime anything new comes out, and people would still clutter DD and 40k Discussions with complaining. People have a hard enough time hitting the right forum to post as is. Being consumed with nerd rage such that they must vent their fury online will not make sure they post more accurately.

This pretty much sums up what I think, and saves me typing it out too