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.

Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
but haven't got their finger on the pulse of the players

Not ours around here anyhow. This is a good a time as any to reiterate that while I don't think the rules are sexist, exclusionary, malicious, or intended to leverage humiliation and degradation as a marketing ploy ... I also don't think this is top quality game design. As has been pointed out, Stormcast require no jigs, reels, fox trots, waltzes, polkas, polonaises, mazurkas, ballets, or any other form of dance so far as I can tell.

The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

 streamdragon wrote:
The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

The Masque is a Stormcast model?

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
I think you'll find most women (especially those in hyper male dominated cultures like gaming) have had plenty of time to think these things over.

And so if they have not by now, you're suggesting they never will? I prefer to live in hope.

I'm saying that you shouldn't be so dismissive toward people with infinitely more experience on a subject simply because they don't agree with you. And frankly, the manner with which you chose to do so was insulting. You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

 Manchu wrote:
It should be gold. And 28 USD.

Get with the program.

Getting a little Eyes Wide Shut now, isn't it?

 Las wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this libel.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Getting a little Eyes Wide Shut now, isn't it?

Now we can worry about socialy awkward gamers.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Up next, "The Endless Dance" discriminates against paraplegics and middle-aged dads.

Discuss...

There have indeed been posts from Dakka members with anxiety disorders and/or lack of confidence who cannot dance and who feel excluded.

You can have a laugh. Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
You should be ashamed of yourself for reinforcing the idea that women in gaming shouldn't voice their criticisms of the culture.

You should be ashamed of yourself for this libel.

A woman told you they feel the rule to be discomforting, your response was "it's not, now go think your opinion through until you agree with me."

I'd say I'm pretty on the button.

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

Are you speaking for yourself here? -- I mean in addition to speaking for a bunch of others, including KK.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

Are you offended? Maybe you just need to think it over some more.

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I had mentally attributed the Special Snowflake post to you

So you made a mistake, no worries. I forgive you but I am not going to entertain your false equivalency argument.

You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Frankly, I think you are either trolling the thread or unable to understand other people.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

I've read the thread, guy. Your entire argument about this boils down to "no it isn't, some men can't grow beards, you're too sensitive and/or unintelligent."

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Just realize that there are people reading your texts who know you are laughing at them.

Are you speaking for yourself here? -- I mean in addition to speaking for a bunch of others, including KK.

Not in this specific case, but I am a part of a certain minority and I do understand how it feels to be excluded, including the tremendous frustration it creates when you explain how someone is making you feel uncomfortable and the more mainstream people tell you to suck it up and explain to you how there isn't even a problem.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
your response was

More libel ... Fortunately my actual response, which amounts to dozens of posts, is recorded here and you can read them at your convenience.

Are you offended? Maybe you just need to think it over some more.

He'll just say it's a false equivalency. Anything that would require him to expand his mental horizons is somehow wrong.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

 Las wrote:
I've read the thread, guy.

That may be so, pal. But you failed to understand it. Your summary of my argument is completely inaccurate. What I have actually argued is that interpreting the rule as a means to hurt people is contrary to the obvious purpose of the rule, which is to get people more involved in the game they are playing.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Anything that would require him to expand his mental horizons is somehow wrong.

This is nothing more than an insult. It reflects nothing about any argument I have made. I think it is time for you to reconsider how you're approaching this.

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

So you're not even owning up to being offended, yet you'll respond with insults. You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening. Have you even CONSIDERED, that you are the one with the comprehension problem? Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

 Manchu wrote:

 streamdragon wrote:
The Masque requires you to dance I believe? For its bonuses?

The Masque is a Stormcast model?

oof, my mistake. "Stormcast" read in my brain as "Sigmar".

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening.

Repeating this doesn't make it true. You just admonished KK for also not "getting" your point. And yet you have now twice told me I'm the only one who doesn't. I mean, I am not even assuming you have seen any other posts scoffing at the idea that this is a matter of prejudice.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

Sure, I considered the pages of posts before joining in and discussing the matter. But that was a rhetorical question right, rather than a sincere one I mean?

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Not the only one...

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

Consider that it is. People can tell jokes about ethnic minorities and still be prejudiced. A joke based on the assumption that "we're all guys here" is discriminatory. Many people have told you why they feel the "joke" is, in fact, a problem, and you just brush them off instead of listening.

Reminds me of my coworker who used to tell racist jokes and never understood why people were upset since "it's just a joke".

It's not like the joke is even funny.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Las wrote:
Are you offended?

Nah, I have gotten used to posters saddling up the high horse and galloping off on the basis of failure to read, misattribution, and bad faith.

So you're not even owning up to being offended, yet you'll respond with insults. You are the only one who doesn't seem to get what is happening. Have you even CONSIDERED, that you are the one with the comprehension problem? Has it even crossed your mind to wonder if maybe you aren't completely in the right?

Emperor help me, but I'm on Manchu's side for this one. He's not the only one.

 Manchu wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory

Yep, I think a joke rule about dwarf beards is not a matter of prejudice. I guess that means I am trolling you?

 Las wrote:
I've read the thread, guy.

That may be so, pal. But you failed to understand it. Your summary of my argument is completely inaccurate. What I have actually argued is that interpreting the rule as a means to hurt people is contrary to the obvious purpose of the rule, which is to get people more involved in the game they are playing.

Boom. There we go. So you don't understand that intent can have an undesired effect. The intent of the rule definitely was "lol isn't this goofy and fun?" But the effect was that it happens to make some people feel excluded from the game. Your response to this has been a resounding dismissal of people's concerns because why exactly? Really, ask yourself that question. Why do the opinions of others within the community matter nothing to you simply because they are a minority?

 pretre wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
You keep saying that, yet you are the only person who seems to think a product with a written statement giving advantages to a specific subset of the population can't be seen as discriminatory.

Not the only one...

Alright, I admit I was wrong. On this site, especially in OT, there are plenty of people who refuse to find anything discriminatory and will tell anyone to suck it up no matter how offensive the situation is.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
A joke based on the assumption that "we're all guys here" is discriminatory.

The joke is not based on assuming we're all guys, it's based on the unit in question being a dwarf.

 Las wrote:
So you don't understand that intent can have an undesired effect.

This is no more the actual issue than, as you also incorrectly claim, disregarding people because they are minorities. If what you are worried about is people abusing the rules (totally valid concern), then your problem is with abusive players rather than "sexist" rules.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
On this site, especially in OT, there are plenty of people who refuse to find anything discriminatory and will tell anyone to suck it up no matter how offensive the situation is.

Sure, now a vast swath of the user base is to blame because your rhetorical argument fell flat. I am actually on record on the subjects of racism and sexism in the OT by the way.

Okay, I think we've given this thread enough rope... the arguments have become circular and there are too many personal comments.

There are plenty of other threads open in this very section to discuss the rules which are full of much less personal comments, so please take discussion of the rules in general to those threads.

Discussion of racism, sexism, etc should remain in the OT forum, so this section can focus on Age of Sigmar and Warhammer Fantasy... thanks.