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.

Tacobake wrote:zoinks!

Wow... that bottle in the upper right is VERY suggestive.

How about we have the next some odd posters do a list of the three things they would like to see happen and perhaps we can see where this will lead as to the things that we may want to change here at DakkaDakka.

1. Tactics Forum clean-up- Stickied threads that help direct people to either tactics threads or articles that are frequently updated and maintained along with a more or less permanent introduction to a current army and a break down of said tactics along with insightful unit analysis and upgrade discussions. In short, a mix of the current Ork and Tyranid tactical articles for 5th edition in the Articles section, which actually do help a newb discover what can and canno be good in an army.

2. Painting and Modeling help- perhaps we get some of the better artists out there and as a community have them provide insightful critiques into artistry and modeling done by others. A panel of sorts rather than moderators that offers better advice than "add more wash" or "that suxxorz."

3. Define other forums- there was discussion over fluff and fiction and where things go. it may sound technical and detailed, but how about adding to the thread a sticky of examples of what belongs in each forum that helps people define what goes there. Not every forum has it and it may not be that intuitive, but it will probably help.

And those are my three ideas.

1. people stop sniping each other in posts.

2. people stop acting entitled because they post a lot on an internet forum. Just because you are here all the time, doesn't make your opinion better than anyone elses.

3. consider a tactics forum for each army. This works great on the Privateer Press Forums, and they are much smaller. Have a main, game-wide tactics forum, but stuff all the army
specific stuff in its own section. Dakka members number enough that I think this can work. This does create more ground for mods to cover though.

skrulnik wrote:1. people stop sniping each other in posts.

2. people stop acting entitled because they post a lot on an internet forum. Just because you are here all the time, doesn't make your opinion better than anyone elses.

3. consider a tactics forum for each army. This works great on the Privateer Press Forums, and they are much smaller. Have a main, game-wide tactics forum, but stuff all the army
specific stuff in its own section. Dakka members number enough that I think this can work. This does create more ground for mods to cover though.

1: Like it

2: Love it (QFT x100)

3: Gotta have it.

WarOne wrote:Hmm...is it possible to get a consensus about what must be done rather than re-re-re-reargue these points?

Agreed.

I would like to see some objective points on the following:

1. What actually is the problem? At the moment it seems still to be vague complaints that there is too much crap. (I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.)

2. What specifically would people do about it? For example, if you propose naming rules for a Tactics thread, what are those rules in detail? If you think it will help to be rude to people, please give some detail about the words and phrases that would be acceptable. You may have a vague idea, but Moderators will have to put it into practice so we need clear guidance.

3. An analysis of why the issues complained of are not addressed by other facilities already in the site, such as alerting Mods by the yellow flag, putting nonsense into General Discussion rather than Background, and writing Articles which collect the best Tactical and List wisdom. For instance, Top Tactics threads should be collected and stickied -- Yes, good idea, why not make an article?

I'm not sure that breaking up Tactics would help much but I'd definitely like to see more discussion.

Would this be sufficient?

Tactics: CSM & CD

Tactics: IG

Tactics: SM of all colors

Tactics: Xenos

Would you need to break it up further? If so, why?

Would a general tactics board still be necessary? If so, why not simply keep it all togthere (as is)?

Example of a reputation system more involved then simply up/down voting) - if anyone is interested. Of course - implementation would probably give Legoburner a heart attack...

stackoverflow.com wrote:What is reputation?

Reputation is completely optional. Normal use of Stack Overflow — that is, asking and answering questions — does not require any reputation whatsoever.

If you'd like to help us run Stack Overflow, you'll need to earn some reputation first. Reputation is a rough measurement of how much the community trusts you. Reputation is never given, it is earned by convincing fellow users that you know what you're talking about.

To gain reputation, post good questions and useful answers. Your peers will vote on your posts, and those votes will cause you to gain (or, in rare cases, lose) reputation:

answer is voted up +10
question is voted up +5
answer is accepted +15 (+2 to acceptor)
post is voted down -2 (-1 to voter)
A maximum of 30 votes can be cast per user per day, and you can earn a maximum of 200 reputation per day (although accepted answers and bounty awards are immune to this limit). Also, please note that votes for any posts marked "community wiki" do not generate reputation.

Amass enough reputation points and Stack Overflow will allow you to go beyond simply asking and answering questions:

15 Vote up
15 Flag offensive
50 Leave comments†
100 Vote down (costs 1 rep)
100 Edit community wiki posts
200 Reduced advertising
250 Vote to close, reopen, or migrate your questions
500 Retag questions
1000 Show total up and down vote counts
1500 Create new tags
2000 Edit other people's posts
3000 Vote to close, reopen, or migrate any questions
10000 Delete closed questions, access to moderation tools
† you can always comment on your questions and answers, and any answers to questions you've asked, even with 1 rep.

At the high end of this reputation spectrum there is little difference between users with high reputation and ♦ moderators. That is very much intentional. We don't run Stack Overflow. The community does.

Kilkrazy wrote:I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.

I think the original complaint, which I have been working to address, is that there is too much crap in the threads (not that there are too many crap threads). I would add that the lack of proper crossreferencing means that these threads are too short (i.e., disappear too fast) and therefore end up overly narrow but at the same time superficial.

Problems:
1. People don't know how to self-moderate.
2. People do not know how to critique. Rather they spout their own opinions and how they feel, based on their own experiences.
3. People want others to do the hard work, instead of putting in a little effort to make things better.
4. People blame the rules are too harsh and limit them from writing effectively, instead of working withing the rules and changing their writing style.

That is my take on the "problems" after reading 14 pages.

Is there some way the more eloquent, experienced players could mentor younger/newer posters.
Purely voluntary of couse

Get rid of the post counter its lame and promotes people posting rubbish to get their count up.

Fix the search function.

1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce. I realize this sounds like I'm sippin' on a big bottle of grape-flavored Haterade, but it will come a long way in allowing the community to demonstrate what is and is not acceptable within the community, both on a social and intellectual basis. It may only make the slightest dent in the median maturity of the of-age users in here, but it will allow for a slowdown in the creation of garbage threads and posts. Allowing them to create accounts that are "Lurk only" until they've reached the proper age will help weed out the fly-by-nighters.

2. Fix the search function, and institute both a user and thread rating system, as well as some sort of way for users to filter the content based on these criteria, that way the "garbage" threads very quickly evaporate from the up-front and visible parts of the site. If the users are calling for a content refinement, let them do the filter work themselves, that way you're automating the process and keeping it from putting a larger workload on the backs of the Moderator staff.

3. Perhaps this hasn't been mentioned previously, but given some of the influencial cliques that seem to form here, why not allow for the creation of user-moderated, invite-only groups that can have their own little private, unseeable by outside members and non-mods corner of dakka to agree with eachother? Give the fanbois a place to congregate and maybe they'll expend more of their vitriol and vinegar behind closed doors, as opposed to on the public sections of the forum. The theory here is that the groups will, eventually, be self-moderating to a degree, and allow for a sigher S:N ratio within the main site by (hopefully) reducing the number of flame wars that break out. This is certainly the one most likely to backfire, but if it's successfull, it's implications could be quite positive.

Of course, I could be completely off base with all of this, but I figured I'd chime in with my own $.02 on the matter.

Manchu wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.

I think the original complaint, which I have been working to address, is that there is too much crap in the threads (not that there are too many crap threads). I would add that the lack of proper crossreferencing means that these threads are too short (i.e., disappear too fast) and therefore end up overly narrow but at the same time superficial.

Have to agree with this.

I know myself, and several others at that, are just tired of the following:

OP: Hey guys, Here is my idea on a CSM list.
#1: Looks good, but why do you use Chosen?
#2: Yeah Chosen suck
OP: Well, I use em cause of this.
#3: That sucks.
#1: You suck.
#3: You suck.
#5: (Insert Demotivational Pic that has nothing to do with the thread topic here)
#7: Eldar like Lance weapons
OP: What the hell does that have to do with my thread?
*Insert multi page flamefest here*

Ect ect ect.

Manchu wrote:I'm not sure that breaking up Tactics would help much but I'd definitely like to see more discussion.

Would this be sufficient?

Tactics: CSM & CD

Tactics: IG

Tactics: SM of all colors

Tactics: Xenos

Would you need to break it up further? If so, why?

Would a general tactics board still be necessary? If so, why not simply keep it all togthere (as is)?

That could work. My thought behind breaking them up is, there are what 15 armies?
If there is one thread from each, that is most of the first page taken up already. At least most of what is seen before scrolling down.
With a breakdown, you will funnel new players into the appropriate area easier. If they think they want to play orks, they will check the ork tactics section.
Also it can allow for more stickies, and can lead to someone stepping up and collating the good info into articles easier.

Diving into the entire tactics section would be overwhelming. But someone may choose to take responsibility for "their" army and get it rolling.

1. Search Function could be improved, and that is apparently already in the works.

2. ...

Okay, I can only think of one thing. Everything else seems like it stems from that one issue.

Everything else is dependent upon the users.

I will say that Manchu's outline for streamlining the Tactics Forum is a very good idea. I just don't want this to get too much like other boards that shall remain nameless. The main reason I like Dakka is how dissimilar it is to most other GW Fansites.

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

I'm all for it.

Dakka for President!

insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

Anything from the honor system to doing what pr0n sites do and requiring CC verification to sign up. Ban or convert the account of anyone who openly admits to being under the minimum age for posting. There are plenty of options, though the devil, as always, is in the details.

Although I see the point of the criticism, I don't think it's at all bad to have kids posting. The site is about a game that they play, after all. One of the aims of the site should be to cultivate and perpetuate the hobby--that involves helping the younger people. There must be better ways to curb the crap.

I think discouraging younger membership is rather shortsighted. They are, if you'll forgive the cliche, the good posters of tomorrow.

There's also people of the age of majority that make complete asses of themselves on this board with startling regularity.

ohoh, me!

mini-mods! If you're trustable, you have the ability to ban users for a couple hours for getting severely OT, or arguing too much. Basically, you get to tell people to 'take a chill pill'

But then if you don't like someone, the privilege could easily be abused...

insaniak wrote:

Dronze wrote:1. Institute a minimum age that you can actually enforce.

Enforce how?

I suppose we could stage a military coup of the US, Canada, Australia, the UK and Europe, and checks all new user registrations against Voter registration? Encourages responsible citizenship, as well... Want to post on Dakka? Enroll to vote!

By vote, anyone who's been chased by, er chased a Mastadon raise their hand (Frazzled raises hand). Ok. Everyone else to lurker status. Its the Frazzled Weiner dog variety show all day! every day!

Dronze wrote:Anything from the honor system to doing what pr0n sites do and requiring CC verification to sign up.

CC validation also excludes anyone without a credit card (I can't speak for overseas, but that's a lot of people here in Oz) and anyone who doesn't want to go signing over their credit card info for the sake of joining a wargaming forum. Not an option.

Besides, banning the young'uns isn't the answer. We've had younger posters in the past display more maturity and contribute more worthwhile content than many of the more 'mature' posters on the site.

That said, the idea is appreciated. I am sure the Administration will consider it.

If I may be so bold, I think I'll give this a shot.

Kilkrazy wrote:
1. What actually is the problem? At the moment it seems still to be vague complaints that there is too much crap. (I totted up the Tactics and Lists threads on the front page of each forum, and only about 10% were not apparently pukka, which seems to belie the statement.)

The big issue here is that there a lot of repetitive and misplaced threads on dakka. I'll stick to the particular forums I'm familiar with, so I'll bring up YMDC (both 40K and WHFB), 40K Tactics, and 40K Army Lists. Though in Army Lists, seeing 4 or 5 "1500 Points Mech IG" threads is understandable, seeing 4 or 5 "Can my Space Marines regroup within 6 inches of an enemy?" within a few days in YMDC is silly. This is worse in Tactics, where we see several "How can I beat Y with X army?" almost daily, and though each thread is for a different "X", it's the same advice over and over. Sometimes it's just poorly placed threads, where the thread is borderline appropiate (but not really) for that forum. For instance, "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" probably doesn't belong in tactics. Though it involves the tactical thinking behind how you run it, but it's been less of a "debate and disscuss" and more of a "show off" kind of thread.

And while only about 10% of the threads in tactics are (were, as more recent posting has changed this slightly) repetitive or "silly", it's also some of the posts in the other threads that affect their quality. Most of the time, it's the posts in the threads rather thread themselves actually that make it hard. Going through and reading a Tactics or YMDC thread looking for good advice or rulings can take easily 30 minutes or more. Most of the posts are petty off topic squables and blatant flaming attempts.

Kilkrazy wrote:
2. What specifically would people do about it? For example, if you propose naming rules for a Tactics thread, what are those rules in detail? If you think it will help to be rude to people, please give some detail about the words and phrases that would be acceptable. You may have a vague idea, but Moderators will have to put it into practice so we need clear guidance.

In relation to what I answered for 1, there have already been steps to improve. In YMDC, insaniak has posted a sticky to help remind people of the rules. In Tactics, there have already been several different threads with different topics started by competant players offering up suggestions and disscussions of tactics. I also noticed that the duplicate thread to "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" was locked. These are perfect steps in the right direction.

However, there needs to be more:
1) Promote more self moderation. Make it a suggestion in the rules. Peers helping peers may not be as helpful as mods cracking down, but improves not only the individual posters, but the community as a whole, whereas the mods cracking down will only cause the gap between users and staff to grow. All the mods would have to do is keep doing what they're doing and mainly enforcing rule #1. This should cut back on the "crap" posts and threads they create.

2) Add another mod. I really appreciate what you guys are doing, but the mod team has their hands full. If there was a mod specifically devoted to one or more of the problem forums, it would east up the work load of the whole team. I think it needs to be a Tactics mod. They would have the following duties within the Tactics forums only:
>Collecting and organizing commonly asked about tactical queries into an sort of index, presented to users as a sticky.
>Lock repetitive threads in Tactics and redirect the locked thread either to the index (if the question has been asked) or to the appropiate thread.
>Move threads that don't belong in Tactics to the appropiate forum. This includes threads that may be intially about tactics or strategy, but are not a disscussion or debate. A good example is the "How do you field your favorite Daemon Prince?" thread. It should be moved.
>Enforce the rules. I think this one's a no brainer.

3) Fix the search function (I'm aware it is being worked on, and I'm sure we all appreciate that legoburner is working so hard on it, but I figure it couldn't hurt to mention it again).

4) Reward good user rated material. Particularly in articles. I've been on forums that give out awards or metals that show up under a users name. Why not institute something similar? A user gets a "medal" on their profile for all to see when they create an article that reaches so many hits from unique IP or user views? Also, maybe allow mods to award "medals" as well, for contributing members (not DCMs, those who post exceptional tutorials). This would help establish who can be trusted as a source for tactics, modeling, llist bulding, etc advice. There could be a setting to hide your "medals" and an option to hide those of other users. Also, mods giveth, and should be able to taketh away. If a "like" function for threads is established, "medals" could give a user more "pull".

Kilkrazy wrote:
3. An analysis of why the issues complained of are not addressed by other facilities already in the site, such as alerting Mods by the yellow flag, putting nonsense into General Discussion rather than Background, and writing Articles which collect the best Tactical and List wisdom. For instance, Top Tactics threads should be collected and stickied -- Yes, good idea, why not make an article?

This is the really big issue. No one feels that that flagging a post works. It could be for several reasons. Most of the time, it's because no one is neccesarily breaking the rules. Someone posting "Yeah, why would you ever use Z unit, it sucks hard" doesn't break the rules, but is a terrible post. If that post were to get flagged, there'd be no reason to edit or delete the post, so it would appear as though no action has been taken. So, the person who flagged the post feels cheated, even though they think they flagged a post legitimately. So, when "lawlz dat unit sux cus ur stoopid" comes up, they won't flag it.

The to be honest, I can't tell you why people haven't stepped up in the past to address the issues presented here. I'll try to speak for most users though, and say that we feel undeserving or scared to do anything ourselves. Making an article that shows top tactics or commonly disscussed tactics and doing it well is rather intimidating for a new user or inexperienced player.

Self Moderation could be a bit of a trick though.

Someone role-play with me here for a moment. I'll post something that might be considered objectionable and pose as it's 15 year old, anti-social author.

"lol i jsut had awsum idea!!!!11! wht if their wuz female space marines?"

What would you say to the little scamp?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Here on dakka, we value many things. Among these things, we include little things such as spelling, grammar, and the search for past threads. In the future, please take a few moments from your very busy life, and browse the forum to see if your idea has or has not already been posted. If it has, we ask that you do not post duplicate threads. Also, please refrain from using text speech and spell out your words. If you need help in spelling, then you can go online and visit one of the many free spellchecks.

Have a nice day.

"lol feth you dildo likker"

And off we go.

Now, in my mind, it would have been more prudent to simply report that OP to a moderator. YMMV

I was sort of joking around a bit there, but it seems like users attempting to police other users is just an invitation to more silly posts, not less. Not that your post was silly, but attempting to reason with some ballbag on the internet can be a seriously fruitless effort.

Oh yes.

Though I have to admit, I don't really have a huge problem with "flags" not getting results.

Mainly cause I go through lengths to make sure I am in the right before I flag it.

(As in I like to cite the rules they are breaking )

jp400 wrote:Oh yes.

Though I have to admit, I don't really have a huge problem with "flags" not getting results.

Mainly cause I go through lengths to make sure I am in the right before I flag it.

(As in I like to cite the rules they are breaking )

I agree, I don't have an issue with it either.

Monster Rain wrote:Self Moderation could be a bit of a trick though.

Someone role-play with me here for a moment. I'll post something that might be considered objectionable and pose as it's 15 year old, anti-social author.

"lol i jsut had awsum idea!!!!11! wht if their wuz female space marines?"

What would you say to the little scamp?

Unless you're a mod, you either ignore it, or hit the mod alert button.

Posters correcting other posters on their spelling and grammar rarely ends well, regardless of how politely it's done.

'Self moderation' means policing your own posts, not other people's...