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.

You guys are now arguing about who was arguing.

In serious answer to the question first posed in the thread: there is nothing that can be done to make this forum "better." The fact of the matter is that people, or at least a good portion of people, just enjoy arguing, fighting, antagonizing, and what have you. It's human nature. And those people tend to find each other and duke it out. In most forums you have the political wing nuts, the alt hunts, the e-drama about which married user is cyber sexing who. Here we have rules arguments and YMDC. Honestly, we have it pretty good, and no amount of change or moderation or clarification is going to stop human nature. Particularly on the internet.

insaniak wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Actually, youre completely wrong. I believe I have 6 posts in that entire 7 page topic (less than one a page). I believe only 1 or 2 were my take on the issue, while the rest were clarification and general opinion on the wrecked rule.

I swear, I seriously wonder about the sense of reality on here sometimes...

Touchy, much?

You jumped into that thread with an antagonisitc attitude, and are continuing to argue the point despite saying in this thread that you weren't doing so and were happy to admit that you were wrong. I found that slightly amusing, hence the post... which was intended to be light-hearted (hence the smileys) and not a serious dig.

(Incidentally, (and not particularly importantly), I'm assuming there's a setting somewhere for changing the number of posts displayed on a page that I have yet to come across, since it only shows as 4 pages in my browser)

No offense, but maybe you dont understand that there's no way to tell cheeky activity on here, especially when this board is in such a hostile state. On top of that, I read the rest of this post and it seems you're still saying things that arn't true and are making my posts to be something they were not, and I can't say I appreciate it.

Seeing as how I was one of the first posts, and the TC agreed with my view and how Ive played it the few times it's come up, I dont see how I could tell I was being an antagonist. When I saw the lopsided results of the poll, I felt I was wrong, and I havnt argued it since (like page 2/7).

Night Lords wrote:No offense, but maybe you dont understand that there's no way to tell cheeky activity on here, especially when this board is in such a hostile state.

As with pretty much any forum, the smileys are intended as a clue.

Seeing as how I was one of the first posts, and the TC agreed with my view and how Ive played it the few times it's come up, I dont see how I could tell I was being an antagonist. When I saw the lopsided results of the poll, I felt I was wrong, and I havnt argued it since (like page 2/7).

It appears that you're actually talking about a completely different thread. The thread in question (Shooting at a transport and assaulting the squad inside) you didn't post until page 3, and your first post was to state how you play it, and to declare that those who do it differently are 'TFG'

I'd certainly rate that as an antagonistic response.

insaniak wrote:Unfortunately, arguments over grammar most frequently come down to 'It just is!' style arguments, since few people are equipped (or disposed) to conduct a full lecture on why the grammar works the way they say it does, and fewer people would actually read it if they did.

I knew I should have read this thread before now.

As far as "improving" YMDC, if you're going off the concerns expressed in the 'Personalities' thread over in General Discussion I suspect the only solution is more aggressive/pervasive modding as, really, that's the only way to control internet flames that I've ever noticed working. Maybe just try to train some of the locals to be a bit smarter about flagging posts for attention?

Other then that I support our need for Dark Elf dancing women. We need more dancing women in this forum. (besides, with that mug on Gwar as competition/alternative I like my chances)

insaniak wrote:

I'd certainly rate that as an antagonistic response.

So it's antagonistic even though it's split, and Ive never seen it played where the unit cannot assault? Or is it antagonistic because I disagree with your opinion?

No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.

I propose a muzzle on people having a personal argument in this thread separate to the improvement discussion. That would improve the forum immensely

Night Lords, Insaniak, take it to PM's please good sirs!

I have a few ideas on the matter, but it will probably be swept away in the tsunami of "who argues with who" posts......

and thus is my first suggestion. Put a time limits between posts on a thread to allow other people to voice their opinion so we do not have to filter past 4 pages of a "yes I can, no you cant" arguement that took place in the span of 30 min. Many good opinions are lost in the flood of stupid retorts.......

Perhaps a Mod should be nominated to sheriff the YMDC, while I agree with the need for RAW I also understand that RAI is what makes the game fun. I would say that anyone that proclaims a fanatical view of RAW should be viewed as being contrary for the sake of being antagonistic and violating Rule 1.....Both sides should be allowed to explore the possibility of the RAI without someone shouting "You are wrong because you dont agree with me"

I will give an example.......

In the FRFSRF thread and the discussion as to if Hotshot Lasguns count as Lasguns, I feel that both sides had valid points, and the rule could go either way. Everyone played fair.

In the "do WH get Leman Russes" thread it was made very clear that even though it was a rule that used to work without conflict, and even though all reasonable needs to determine what a Leman Russ is were met, and even though common logic would say that the WH/DH codex should work the way it was ORIGINALY intended.........certain people still refused to budge from a RAW view that was based on nothing more than a minor name change. Such an uncompromising stance with little reasoning other than GW failing to hire lawyers to write thier Codexs like a contract, are little more than a schoolyard bully in my opinion, and should be dealt with by the Mods......

I have already started rewriting my Eldar codex to submit to GW for reprinting as a true RAW document......... here is a snippet.....

.........the the party of the first part (Farseer) if purchased(with points) before the games start (first turn) with said psychic power (Fortune), shall find the range (with an unmodified and correct form of measuring device) up and including but not exceding 6" from the first party (farseer) to the target unit. If the target unit is within range of the first party, and is Eldar, and is not a unit owned by the opposing player (exception given to units that are owned by opposing player by purchase, trade, or theft, and loaned to the first player for use or proxy) then Fortune may be used.........

I figure when I have all the wording and spelling continuity proof-read by my team of writers, it should be 7 years from now and only 320 pages........ only then can we ever be free of the fanatical RAW arguements.

insaniak wrote:No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.

No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.

Night Lords wrote:

insaniak wrote:No, it's antagonistic because you claimed that anyone who plays it differently is being unreasonable.

No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.

And that's not antagonistic...how?

Night Lords wrote:No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.

Oh, my mistake. That's not antagonistic at all.


Seriously, I think this post is a good indication that the 'RAW crowd' are certainly not solely to blame for the nature of YMDC as it currently stands.

The way to improve the forum, short of tighter moderation, is really for everyone involved to just take a step back and remember that it's just a game. Whether you're arguing for RAW, for what you think is RAI, or for your own brand of house ruels, there's really no need for this sort of attitude. No matter how right you think you are, there's someone out there who plays it differently.

YMDC is for discussing the rules, not the player.

I would have to say that more modding in general is what is needed to passify the forum. With the majority of participants in YMDC who will point out certain people are just being asses, or pro-longing a disruptive argument, none have any ability to actually influence the concerned parties. Not 'thumbs up/down,' which is a good idea in theory (sort of like socialized/government run health care), but as the internet has shown, does not work in execution, as it degrades into popularity votes and just exacerbates the issue.

Generally I have found that only certain users make YMDC an unpleasant place due to their attitude towards others, not necessarily their understanding of rules to able deduction. Stupid threads run themselves out and attendants are only punished by their own attendance. The OP is either answered in the first page, or never, pretty much every time. Then the thread degrades into bickering, masturbation, or giving popular/controversial members a 'glad girl special,' if you will.

So in conclusion, more/better moderation, but nothing is actually 'needed.'

insaniak wrote:

Night Lords wrote:No, I said it wouldn't be played that way and you'll get kicked in the nuts if you try to play it.

Oh, my mistake. That's not antagonistic at all.


Seriously, I think this post is a good indication that the 'RAW crowd' are certainly not solely to blame for the nature of YMDC as it currently stands.

The way to improve the forum, short of tighter moderation, is really for everyone involved to just take a step back and remember that it's just a game. Whether you're arguing for RAW, for what you think is RAI, or for your own brand of house ruels, there's really no need for this sort of attitude. No matter how right you think you are, there's someone out there who plays it differently.

YMDC is for discussing the rules, not the player.

Do you even know what that word means? From my point of view youre an antagonist because you oppose me. We're all antagonists to someone unless we all agree.
t
People should know that if you play a certain way, youre going to be looked down upon, period. My post, unlike the posts in this topic flaming me (sure enough, its by all the "RAW" people), was not insulting anyone here. However, you and your buddies have done nothing but put me on the defensive here because thats how you all are. You shout and insult and then claim youre right.

Thats EXACTLY what the problem is on here. This topic and your flames prove it.

Night Lords wrote:Do you even know what that word means?

Do you?

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861585837

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=3109&dict=CALD

http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/antagonistic

You can disagree with somebody without being antagonistic (i.e. hostile) towards them.

Ghaz wrote:

Night Lords wrote:Do you even know what that word means?

Do you?

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861585837



http://thesaurus.reference.com/browse/antagonistic

You can disagree with somebody without being antagonistic (i.e. hostile) towards them.

If you notice in your own links there is the word "or" (ie. opposing OR hostile). Considering that very quote is not directed at anyone here nor is it hostile to anyone here, my antagonistic approach must simply be an opposing view.

Thanks for trying though.

So? Disagreeing with somebody doesn't necessarily mean the you're 'opposing' them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disagree

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppose

Ghaz wrote:So? Disagreeing with somebody doesn't necessarily mean the you're 'opposing' them.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disagree

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oppose

Seeing as how people in this topic are bringing other posts of mine up, obviously they feel strongly against me enough to feel theyre opposing me. If it were a simple disagreement the other posts wouldnt have been brought up here would they have? Infact, I would argue that the RAWers on here are so threatened by each opposing post that it actually is antagonizing them, or else they wouldnt insult/flame people the way they do.

Anyways, way to divert attention away from the point of my post and actually, funny enough, continue to prove me right. Like wtf is this arguement? What does this have to do with anything? What, youre trying (that's a key word) to prove me wrong? For what?

Skinnattittar wrote:The OP is either answered in the first page, or never, pretty much every time. Then the thread degrades into bickering, masturbation, or giving popular/controversial members a 'glad girl special,' if you will.

This is 100% correct. If, after the first page of an argument, nothing is solved, it is incredibly unlikely that their will be anything other that useless arguing going on after that.

As others have said, we really need like 2 more mods to constantly check any threads that are more than one page long, and see if their is any actual discussion going on at that point.

Also, all the back and forth between Night Lords in this very thread proves some of the points people are making...

I love the irony in this thread.

Also, Skinnattittar, this is not the place for your political views.

Neconilis wrote:I love the irony in this thread.

Also, Skinnattittar, this is not the place for your political views.

I truly think it's great too. By trying to prove someone wrong and flaming them on something so insignificant, they've just proven the other side right on the issue at hand. Couldn't have asked for anything better.

Night Lords, all you've done is proven that you're paranoid and lack an understanding of the English language. FYI, that qualifies as my first 'antagonistic' post in this thread, as well as my last reply in this thread as I have better things to do than waste my time with you.

Ghaz wrote:Night Lords, all you've done is proven that you're paranoid and lack an understanding of the English language. FYI, that qualifies as my first 'antagonistic' post in this thread, as well as my last reply in this thread as I have better things to do than waste my time with you.

More insults. This is what this board needs to get rid of. Attacks on a personal level. Ive explained the definition, and all I get back is "you dont get it, Im right youre wrong, youre an idiot".

^^This is my answer to this topic, as well as every other flame headed my way

Night Lords wrote:Do you even know what that word means? From my point of view youre an antagonist because you oppose me. We're all antagonists to someone unless we all agree.

That's one of the meanings of the word. It's not the one that was suggested by the context of my post.

People should know that if you play a certain way, youre going to be looked down upon, period.

While I was going to just leave this thread to die a natural death on its own, I feel that this point is a bit too important to the actual topic to leave it alone.

Unfortunately, the idea that your own way of playing with your toy soldiers is the 'right' one, and anyone who does it differently is a cheater/TFG/insert-epithet-of-choice is far too common, not just in YMDC but in pretty much every forum I've visited over the years.

Correcting that attitude would be the biggest boon to the board... while it wouldn't cut down the rambling arguments, it would at least cut down the amount of flaming because someone, somewhere, plays differently.

But, of course, I have no reasonable suggestions as to how to correct that attitude, beyond perhaps making people aware of it when they post some such remark and hoping that they're mature enough to take it as constructive criticism and learn from it.




For the rest, Night Lords, if you post something hostile you can't really be surprised when you get a hostile response. That's not people picking on you, it's people reacting to your attitude.

Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?

I don't thinks it adding much to the OP. let's get it back on topic.

G

I'm not sure that the atmosphere can be improved except by more moderation.

Some judicious use of Ye Mighty Ban-Hammer (more the Time-Out Mallet, but that doesn't sound as good) would help.

Neconilis wrote:

Green Blow Fly wrote:The forum needs to be closely moderated. Threads about rules queries we all know are just flat out wrong such can Berserkers fleet should be locked as soon as it's noted the query is wrong. The thread about Berzerkers fleeting ran on for around five pages.

Once it's clear that no conclusion can be reached and both sides are constantly posting that "I'm right, you're wrong" starts lock the thread.

This forum should only be for the discussion of rules.

G

I can get behind this idea as well.

The problem is if we moderated it intesively half of you people would be banned (its ironic I posted this before reading all the posts-at least three could be suspended for personal attacks on this thread alone-the irony is ironical). Plus we don't have the manpower. Plus we don't have the inclination. Plus this would interferre with our drinking, and we can't have that! Dakka mods, the slacker mods of the intranets...

Can I be a mod? I'm always on

Gwar! wrote:Can I be a mod? I'm always on

No man, then I'd have to take away your Irish beer, and I know that it's the source of your unholy powers.

The Green Git wrote:

GiantKiller wrote:I couldn't agree more that this sort of "there is only one possible interpretation of these words - mine!" attitude is a serious epidemic affecting YMDC.

Agreed. We need more "Let's discuss our opinions and exchange ideas" and less "OMGWTF Ur an idiot cheater because you don't agree with me and think it plays the way I do!" If the approach is less "I'm right and you're wrong" and more "Here's what I think and here's why I think it" that would go a long way.

Mods I would suggest the words "Cheat" and "Cheater" and "Cheating" be dirty words in YMDC.

I am down with these suggestions actually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If anyone gets the Irish beer it should be me. Thats like the only beer I can stand at this point afterhaving moved on to cheap wine and rum.