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.

The "hater" and "fanboi" phenomenons are meaningless because they are thrown about so casually and often, and often as a retort when the person using them to label others has nothing valid/intelligent to add to rhe discussion at hand.

As soon as you dissent from the common viewpoint or offer a negative review/opinion of something a bunch of internet cool guys fall all over themselves ot be the first to yell "hater" or post a clever meme, etc.

Same goes for those that spew "fanboi/fanboy" a anyone who defends something that they do not.

We are all guilty of it at times, but I think it has gotten out of hand for the most part, is an abvious form of trolling and should be dealt with by the mods.

Regardless, it is sort of equally sad/amusing that nerd culture is so eager to subdivde itself and argue within it's own ranks...

Polonius wrote:I say that people post positively for attention just like people post negatively, and that's an overgeneralization.

No, you conflated flame baiting and discussion by claiming they're both just attempts to get attention. This is glossing over the contrast of particular differences that are most meaningful to the analysis for the sake of comparing obvious, unhelpful, general similarities -- i.e., overgeneralization.

I say that people post negatively for interaction and acknowldgement just like people post positivley, and apparently it's not an inviation to dialogue.

If by negative posting you still mean, as you said originally, flame baiting, hyperbole and rants then negative posting is indeed not an invitation to dialog. This is exactly the sense that I mean about your overgeneralization: when you post something to elicit a reaction it is not the same thing as posting in response. Could it really be that you don't acknowledge a difference between reaction and response in this sense? I don't think so. Reading through the rest of your post, you basically concede the point -- and then, puzzlingly insist that using a term to refer to something particularly is arbitrary. I'll agree as long as you aren't saying that "arbitrary" is somehow the opposite of "useful." The distinction that needs to be captured is between the one-sideness or insincerity of flamebaiting/trolling on the one hand (the product of which you claim is the currency of Dakka) and the actual exchange of ideas and fellowship (which I claim is its raison d'etre).

And to everyone who keeps saying "On topic ..." this little exchange has been entirely on-topic. The point of it, as far as I am concerned, is to show that this community is not fringe for the very reason that people don't use Dakka simply to seek attention in the way that Polonius is describing but rather to interact with people who have similar interests. The result of that interaction includes complaints about the subject of the interaction -- no surprise! And, as I also posted before, this is not different from what you encounter in-store with other gamers whether or not they participate in online fora.

Also, Chowder, pay attention to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:The "hater" and "fanboi" phenomenons are meaningless because they are thrown about so casually and often, and often as a retort when the person using them to label others has nothing valid/intelligent to add to rhe discussion at hand.

I agree: those terms are meant to summarize (and therefore conclude) conversations before they can even happen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

CT GAMER wrote:Regardless, it is sort of equally sad/amusing that nerd culture is so eager to subdivde itself and argue within it's own ranks...

But that is itself a fundamental characteristic of nerd culture. Nerd is a negative term and rightly so. We shouldn't take pleasure in oneupmanship but we do -- about trivial things, like who knows more about the fluff or who can beat who in a game with vague, inconsistent rules. When you note that divisions in nerd culture are sad, I think you are simultaneously noting that nerd culture itself is sad. Look up the TV Tropes entry for "WRONG," for example. This is related to my discussion with Polonius here. Nerds delight inshouting WRONG at each other -- without even listening. It's very much like your analysis of the fanboi/haters terms: cutting people off before you ever even begin to hear them out. That's a nerdy thing to do.

In the end, it's wargamers and other nerds who are the fringe rather than the wargamers who post online. And a lot of people have said that GW aren't making their real money off of wargamers.

Well, i'm glad I wasted time trying to explain my point only to have you cherry pick two sentences to rebut.

Of course there's a difference between positive and negative posting. They're, you know, positive and negative. Just like eating a healthy meal is notably different from eating junk food. That doesn't mean they don't share a common root desire, meaning hunger.

Nearly all negative behaviors stem from a healthy desire that gets warped. Why would posting be any different?

Well, I did reply to the rest of your post (not quoting it doesn't mean I didn't reply ...) but I wanted to correct your mischaracterization of my arguments and therefore wanted them in the post for reference. :/

Moving on: you're still at the same problem -- to use your own analogy, if the discussion is about eating healthy then it does not profit us to treat big macs the same way as salads just because we all get hungry. The issue isn't "attention" in its broadest sense. And when you use "attention" in reference to trolling you are talking about something different from the "attention" you give and receive in a conversation. Of course, this only applies if you want the word "attention" to be a meaningful term.

MeanGreenStompa wrote:The arguments go back and forth, here and elsewhere on the web.

Apologists v Haters, price hikes, GW's latest direction or PP's newest idea, the discussions often include this or something similar...

'But the opinions of a few forum users' or 'the small minority of gamers who frequent forums', etc etc.

Given the fairly small amount of players of wargames in the greater population, given the international communities that forums provide for people to be in communication with likeminded folks, given word of mouth, given the vast lurker vs poster ratio, given the leaks and the attraction of obtaining news and rumour before the employees do...

Can this argument be valid? I'd suggest that given the small number of people that play the games and the likelihood of the player/consumer type also being fairly computer and internet literate, far more are using the forums, if only for browsing and getting their news, than that oft touted defence allows for.

The old saying goes...

If you like something, you'll tell your friend, If you hate something, you'll tell 5.

This is no different. And aside from Wargakk telling us to the contrary, we are talking about some players of thier games.

Once a long time ago, I loved this game, then to find out as the time continued... the corperate BS continued. As a consumer, I spent more money on it then some small countries domestic production, yet now at the point where I am now? After the crap that they have pulled over the past 2 + years? I could care less about them.

I'm still mad that I was treated like a shill and contiue to be treated so, but now I'm going to a whole new level of P.O. when I see them still continue and act like everything they do is happy happy joy joy.
Had they came outright and said- hey, we didn't intend for finecrap to suck as bad as it did, heres what were going to do about it.... I could understand that. They made themself appeal to me as a gamer, and a valued customer. There are other examples as to how they piss themselves, yet at every turn it is the same. "GW can do no wrong...." to be followed by the likes of people claiming that if you don't agree that being shafted is a good thing, your whining. That they even have the corperate shill attitude that they have? Pure arrogence.

As a gamer, believe it or not, I paid for my games. Mommy and Daddy don't wipe my behind, or buy anything for me. THIS stuff supposedly "Costs" to the tune of 100.00's of dollars, pounds, or whatever your using for money.
I buy it, and if I don't like it- I'll say something about it. THATS called the free market. Seeing as I bought it- I can have any opinion i want to about it, no matter if someone elsehas a different one or not.

Thats too bad if you don't like it. If people have an issue, the best thing they can do is to say something about it to whoever they want to. One friend or five,

These days? Everyone has a computer.

Gamers arn't stupid, they talk about thier experiences, and collectivly, we can see how other people in other parts of our city, states, countries, or the world think about the same discussion.
Just because GW doesn't like the opinions, doesn't make them any less valued, because at the end of the day- not everything is alright in the Cidital or on the Forgeworlds.

As to fringe? A few years ago, I would have said yes- people on the internet are more likely cavemen grognards that are pining for the days of yesteryear, when gaming meant rolling dice and pushing tin...

NOW? No. everyone has a computer, and if your a like minded gamer, your going to talk about your experiences and post how your doing in your area. Good or Bad.
Is there a bit of hyperbole, crying over stuff, and some relentless trolling now and again? Of course,It is the internet, you have to be able to seperate the chaff and the wheat.

Does it mean that people across the world who play games don't tell how they are doing, how thier gaming is going and thier opinions are about this or that?
No. Everyone who can put some words into a sentence has the option.....

If they want to "Whine", thats tough. They can whine till their hearts content. It doesn't make thier views any less valid.

Thats just how communication works.

Manchu, I wasn't referencing that the thread was off topic, but that the first part of my post was.

Manchu wrote:Well, I did reply to the rest of your post (not quoting it doesn't mean I didn't reply ...) but I wanted to correct your mischaracterization of my arguments and therefore wanted them in the post for reference. :/

Moving on: you're still at the same problem -- to use your own analogy, if the discussion is about eating healthy then it does not profit us to treat big macs the same way as salads just because we all get hungry. The issue isn't "attention" in its broadest sense. And when you use "attention" in reference to trolling you are talking about something different from the "attention" you give and receive in a conversation. Of course, this only applies if you want the word "attention" to be a meaningful term.

Well, what term would you want to use then? I'll admit, I'm not being horribly precise in my language. I also feel that while I'm trying to explain something to you, you are far more interesting in taking down what you think I'm saying than trying to understand what it is that I am.

How does attention stop being a meaningful term if it can be used for a broad range of actions? To go back to food, if we're talking about healthy eating than yes, you seperate the good from the bad. In a discussion about quality posting, you seperate the good from the bad, which I have never objected to.

If, however, you are trying to ask why people eat junk food, or post negatively... than isn't exploring the relationship between that and why they post positively useful? People eat because they're hungry, they post because they want interaction. People eat junk because they make bad choices, demand instant gratification, can't afford to buy or know how to select healthy food, or simply want the easiest and quickest food possible. I think the analogy to posting makes sense: just like making a healthy meal takes time, effort, skill, and resources, so does writing a quality post. Posting negatively is quick, provides instant gratification, requires little skill or effort, and provides responses or reactions quickly and easily.

The reason this is important is because it holds, at it's heart, the way communities filter out negative behavior: we reward quality posts with what they want (attention), and deny negative posts what they want (same thing).

... you are far more interesting in taking down what you think I'm saying than trying to understand what it is that I am.

Maybe so, but not for a lack of sincerity!

So I'm glad you caught that bit about the discussion being about "quality" posting. I'm not talking about Dashofpepper's infamous diatribes against noise-to-signal ratio here but rather just posts that aren't what you mentioned -- flame baiting, hyperbole, and rants. This tangent began because I was objecting to that explanation of Dakka. If that's the case, then I would say that Dakka is fringe and repeat Worglock's point that if all the moaning was truly representative (in the sense that Worglock was characterizing Dakka as the "dregs of the hobby") then why hasn't GW already gone out of business? It's a rather good point, really, if you believe that people only post on Dakka to get attention in the sense of flame baiting, hyperbole, and rants.

I am much more amenable to the phrase you just used "people post because the want interaction" rather than your earlier statement "when a person wants a reaction, they know they can get one by making over the top ciriticisms." I'm not saying we don't see the latter; merely that it does not characterize this community and, therefore, the community is not really a fringe of wargamers (or even nerds) more generally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chowderhead wrote:Manchu, I wasn't referencing that the thread was off topic, but that the first part of my post was.

I was referring to the Shakespeare quip.

I wouldnt say that forum posters are a "small sample"

But thanks to (more) anonymity, there is much less restraint compared to real life encounters

It would be funny to take a post blatantly bashing GW, and then screaming it line for line in front of a GW employee

I wasn't also really discussing Dakka posters as a group, but people in general. Just saying that there's a reason people do the stuff they do, regardless of where they are.

I tend to concur with Polonius. Good posts and bad posts are ways to interact and to garner reactions from others. Good posts tend to require more work, time and effort. Flames and other negative posts are often easy, lazy and fast. Therefore there's a behavioral incentive towards junk posting, which we as a community want to counteract if we can.

That's not what I disagree with: I disagree that the junk posting is what characterizes DakkaDakka -- and, furthermore (i.e., not a response to Polonius particularly), that this is evidence that Dakka is not fringe.

I am onboard with that. I do think that there's a lot more positive interaction and good fun content than gets credited. Outside the modeling forums, really long threads tend to be ones with a lot of arguing and drama, so I think that junk gets a bit more attention than it really warrants.

What if the positive interactions is what makes Dakka fringe?

No, I see this same "positive" (remember, as I pointe dout, this is low threshold positive) in-store. The point is about motivation, like you were saying: people don't go to the stores to flame bait, exaggerate, and rant in these sense I've been talking about and I don't see (the overwhelming majority of) people coming to Dakka for that reason, either. Did you have something other than that in mind?

That was just a throw away joke. Meaning, we're not on the fringe because everybody here is a negative nelly, but we're actually on the fringe of gamers because we have productive conversations...

I'll use a real world example:

All the people in my group have Dakka accounts. One of those people posts frequently (me), one of those people posts infrequently (eh steve), and the rest maybe have a look every now and again. So that's really only two of us doing any posting. We're all aware of Dakka and all look to it occasionally, but only two of us post.

So I'd say it's wrong to categorise us as a 'minor' or small group - I'd say a hell of a lot of wargame players are online, but I'd say that most of them are lurkers online rather than active participants.

Worglock wrote:Considering that most of the whining is done on this site by 2 - 3 dozen people are most. You're not a "minority" you're an "endangered species".

There are a few people at my local gW that regularly grumble about prices, while they're being rung up for another $200 in models.

I need to make some sort of Worglock Post Generator. It would save you from having to type out the same trollish nonsense in every thread you frequent, and give you more time to completely miss the point on the OP's post.

Jesus... and people say I'm repetitive.

I think if the 1-3% figure for a 'sample' is even remotely accurate, then GW really should take notice and I don't think we 'dakkalites' are a 'fringe, whacked out community'.

Polls done here in the US have a MUCH smaller sample base with a typical margin of error of 4%.

If the 25% 'lurker' figure is even hyper inflated by a factor of 4, GW should be playing very close attention to what is said on forums like dakka.

Entire political schemes and major portions of advertising economies are based on a sample way far smaller than the numbers being thrown out here. Way, way far smaller.

Dakkalites are a niche 'fringe'? Hardly.

Pretty much everyone I've met in the hobby over the past five years has been online, either posting or lurking. That included all of my opponents at the past two 40K Doubles at Warhammer World I attended, several other folks I met those weekends, five people I know in the village who play, and two GW store staff.

I'd say Forums have many more eyes at the very least looking toward them, than folks give credit for.

I mean, very few folks I know now, including, my shop staff (some of them ladies into the fifties) and customers I chat to, aren't on the Net. So odds are if you play GW and have net access you'll do some looking around at some point.

So aye, posting net users, I'd agree limited numbers over all the forums maybe 5-10%, those watching the many forums out there, Dakka, Warseer, Heresy, B&C etc, I'd put it at around 50% myself.

GW are bat gak crazy to be ignoring that avenue of potential income, and the good/badwill it can cause.

I'm sure that Lego could produce the relevant usage stats to back it up, but I would think it is fair to say that usage of Dakka has jumped exponentially in the last few years, both in terms of active users who post and in terms of people who just lurk as guests to read.

From my own point of view, I found Dakka after doing a Google search for an old Epic model I was curious about. If you type anything GW/Wargaming related into Google, chances are a Dakka hit will pop up first. So people don't really have to have knowledge about Dakka, or even prior knowledge of internet fora; all they need to have is access to a computer and a rudimentary understanding of a search engine. Of course, this has to coincide with a desire to search online for something wargaming related - that is where the bottleneck is, I believe. I think it may not have occurred to a lot of people that they could search for a rules query or a painting guide or whatever. When they do and Dakka pops up, it really is the proverbial lightbulb moment.

Of course, internet usage is rising rapidly too; I would suggest that the majority of households either have or have access to a PC and the internet, which would explain some of the reasons why Dakka usage is growing so quickly.

So as a roundabout answer, yes, we are a fringe of a wider community but a fringe that is rapidly growing and does exert an influence. As mentioned earlier, for every reader here, Dakka could potentially be reaching many more through simple word of mouth and influencing people's opinions.

GW's main issue IMO is that they think the community exists in a vacuum - while this may have been true 10 or 20 years ago when wide ranging communication was much more restrictive, these days the flow of information makes the wargaming community much more global than it hitherto has been. And it's an audience that GW ignore at their peril - it's a n audience that will only continue to grow. Whether you like GW or not and whether you agree with their business practices or not, it simply cannot be healthy for any company to play the ostrich, stick their head in the sand and ignore a large tranche of their consumer base. Arguably, we are already seeing the outriders with the trend in GW sales figures; it remains to be seen if they heed the warning.

The big question: Are space marines for casuals?

Your avatar is the Scatman. Obscure...


Anyway, as to what Filbert said, I'd like to add something to one of his points because it's something I've brought up before:

GW's main issue IMO is that they think the community exists in a vacuum...

And this is because GW likes to pretend that their 'Hobby' exists in a vacuum (and I stress 'pretend', because even I don't think they're stupid enough to really believe it). They want their to be GW and no one else, and they treat their business as if it were the only one around. This is why they don't go to trade shows, see no reason to preview things, and so on - all stuff I've been over at length in other threads.

Therefore their reaction to their community, especially the online community, follows suit, as you just said Filbert. Heads in the sand, it is isolated and in a vacuum.

H.B.M.C. wrote:And this is because GW likes to pretend that their 'Hobby' exists in a vacuum (and I stress 'pretend', because even I don't think they're stupid enough to really believe it). They want their to be GW and no one else, and they treat their business as if it were the only one around. This is why they don't go to trade shows, see no reason to preview things, and so on - all stuff I've been over at length in other threads.

Therefore their reaction to their community, especially the online community, follows suit, as you just said Filbert. Heads in the sand, it is isolated and in a vacuum.

Trust me, and I'm not trying to offend stupid people, but gw really is that stupid.

I believe that most wargamers are tech savvy (the high proportion of wargamers with "added-value" girth points to that ) and as such at the very least peruse forums. The whole phrase 'netlist' being part of the wargaming vernacular would point to this being true.

Anyway if you regard your market as a niche and then a segment of your small market as fringe , and fringe somehow means they should be ignored, and a large amount of your 'fringe' seem to be vets, and you seem to be treating repeat customers with contempt, well then you seem to be doing things the wrong way.

I occasionally look at PP and Infinity forums and strangely don't see much bile spouted on them. Perhaps the symptoms have something to do with the disease?

Bullockist wrote:I occasionally look at PP and Infinity forums and strangely don't see much bile spouted on them. Perhaps the symptoms have something to do with the disease?

As far as PP goes, their issues are far different than from gw issues.

Tighter rules to begin with. PP does have production issues (More on the supply side than quality, though their are some quality issues). They are also more draconian on their own boards.

However, taken as a whole, you are correct on the symptom/disease analogy.

I play both. I was going to drop 40k and concentrate more on warmahordes. I have decided I am pretty content with my collection in both games, atm.

Yeah, if anybody remembers the old "Eye of Terror" that was the GW boards... you couldn't say anything less than mildly enthusiastic about GW products.

It makes sense... why allow people to whine and moan on the forums you're paying for?

Polonius wrote:Yeah, if anybody remembers the old "Eye of Terror" that was the GW boards... you couldn't say anything less than mildly enthusiastic about GW products.

It makes sense... why allow people to whine and moan on the forums you're paying for?

True. GW can simply bury their heads for free on dakka.

What are people thinking?

The Dwarf Wolf wrote:I know a bunch of players in person. Im from a non Europe /United States of (North) America /Oceania country. All people i know that play the game, frequent foruns and blogs.

Not all of them post their oppinions.

Due to the small scale of the hobby, i find it pretty hard to believe that there is hoobists who dont make casual use of foruns.

GW have 30.000 likes in face book... how much members the "big" foruns have?

I am not a hoobist!

While MGS's question is a valid one, I really just don't care if I represent the majority of other gamers or not.

I buy, paint, and play for my personal enjoyment. I don't do these things to be part of a popular crowd (If I did, I'd need my head examined I think).

So every argument I make regarding "what GW should do" should be understood to be "what GW should do (to keep me as a customer)".

But given how FLGSs I know which used to be staunchly GW-only are now suddenly selling a variety of miniatures from a variety of companies, I'm fairly confident that I'm not a demographic of one.

JOHIRA wrote:While MGS's question is a valid one, I really just don't care if I represent the majority of other gamers or not.

I buy, paint, and play for my personal enjoyment. I don't do these things to be part of a popular crowd (If I did, I'd need my head examined I think).

So every argument I make regarding "what GW should do" should be understood to be "what GW should do (to keep me as a customer)".

But given how FLGSs I know which used to be staunchly GW-only are now suddenly selling a variety of miniatures from a variety of companies, I'm fairly confident that I'm not a demographic of one.

This is the point though. GW can't control the message, and it is all there in stark raving technicolor for them to read. You as a consumer, ( not customer) are open to say whatever you want. And GW can do nothing but either, A. Ignore it, or B. indirectly do something about it to the positive or negative.

Then they get to see in a broad stroke brush that the effects are either positive or negative. They can do what they want with the results, because when the players come together, they come to a generalized discussion with no holds barred feedback that can't be controled in the vaccum that is GW's propaganda machine.

Most organizations HATE that sort of a thing.

Because...

So then by that effect, you as... the "Customer" hold sway over them. What is it going to say when you pick up "Weapon X", which was made to the tune of 1-30,000 pounds, denare, jellybabies, or whatever GW is using to pay thier designers, YOU as a player says simply- "IT SUCKS, use two of Weapon Y to get the same result for a cheaper price". Then has a discussion about the "Weapons X, and Weapon Y in stark raving clearity for all to get in on.

A few new players see this on line, and then you start seeing this become a general opinion. The resulting lower sales of "Weapon X" then effect the bottom line when they paid more to make a crap unit then it was worth.

They can ignore that sort of feedback if they want to. They will do it at thier own peril.

Indirectly- it then boils back to "What should GW do, for me as a customer." the "Me" in this case then becomes the general audience of players who are actually taking the time to play with, discuss, and inevitably buy "Weapons X, Y, and Z..."

therby making you a demographic.