Poor Shaming, "Poorhammer" Image Tags

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.

**Cleatus**

I recently discovered that some pictures of my scratch builds had been tagged "poorhammer". For what it's worth, the images in question had voting disabled and were marked as WIP. I also found some images belonging to other users that had been tagged with "poorhammer" and "cheaphammer". That's pretty insulting. It's one thing if you don't happen to like something that someone else creates, but to go out of your way to poor shame someone and mock something they have created because it's not an official model, that's pretty low. The Dakka Dakka community has been extremely supportive of scratch builders. It saddens me to see this kind of behavior here.

I have removed the offending tags from my images.

**Cleatus**

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I realize that by posting anything on the internet, it's open for the world to see. It's my choice to post images here. I understand that some people just want to watch the world burn, however I think it is important to call out bad behavior. As I mentioned in my previous post, my images were not the only ones which were tagged with these labels. I could link the images in question, but honestly I think it's a moot point. It's true we cannot know the intent behind the person's actions, but yes I do believe the intent was to offend.

Kid_Kyoto, I do think that "poorhammer" is pejorative and insulting. An easy generic substitution would be 'scratch build'. That conveys the message that the user has created this model, without connotation on the quality of the work, materials used, or income status.

**Cleatus**

Exactly, even if well intentioned, the term carries a lot of negative connotations. If I was describing myself that way in my own blog or posts, that would be one thing. For someone else to tag my images in that way, that's another. It does not seem to be a commonly used term; as I mentioned, there were/are other users images that were tagged with "poorhammer" and/or "cheaphammer", but it was fewer than 2 dozen when I looked. "Scratch build" and "WIP" are much, much more common and do not carry the same negative connotations.

I appreciate the discussion everyone. In the grand scheme of things, it's a small annoyance. It won't drive me away from the site, or stop me from posting. DakkaDakka is a great community and has been very supportive of my rather modest efforts.

**Cleatus**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
ArbitorIan wrote:
Is there any way of finding out who added the tags?

none that I know of, Lego might be able to find it with some deep depp database diving but I don't think it's warranted at this point.

One of the things we can do is 'auto correct' tags into something else. That's why tagging Orc, always becomes Orcs, or Tallarn becomes Tallarn Desert Raiders.

I know at one point someone was using 'gay' as a pejorative tag and we considered changing it to Fabulous. Can't remember if we actually did it.

At this point (I did the same search as KillKrazy) there's only like 4 each of poorhammer and cheaphammer and since I don't know who added those or when I think I'll let them stand.

But if this, or any other tag, becomes a major problem and is irking people let me know I can do the alteration.

Much appreciated, Kid_Kyoto!

**Cleatus**

Thank you for the YouTube video links. I had never heard of this guy before. Yes, he describes his scratch building as "PoorHammer"; that's his choice, good for him. It looks like he has made some interesting stuff out of common household materials. If this is one of you guys, well done!

As long as we are sharing, one of my favorite scratch building blogs is "In The Grim Cheapness of the Future", which is about having fun in 40K on a budget. That guy is inspirational.

It's impossible to know if the image tag was innocent or not, but it's hard not to read the negative connotations that go along with "poorhammer" (poor financially, poor quality, etc.). I agree that when you use a term to describe yourself and what you do, that's different than when you are describing someone else.

I've deleted the tag, and I'm moving on. So many projects, so little time.

**Cleatus**

Smacks wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Perhaps Budgethammer or Thrifthammer would be better?
Why stop there? Given the current price of actual Warhammer stuff, still-have-both-kidneys hammer might work, or saving-for-a-second-yacht hammer. You don't need to be poor to find Warhammer expensive. It's gotten so bad, there are executives on 100k a year building necrons out of pasta.

I lol'd. Thanks! Haha...

**Cleatus**

Kilkrazy wrote:I'm guessing from the comments by US members that American English does not recognise the common meaning in British English of poor = not good.

As in the unofficial SAS motto: Proper Planning and Preperation Prevents Piss Poor Performance.

Bring British, I took poorhammer to mean badhammer rather than cheaphammer, which makes the tag a derogatory comment on the modelling capability of the owner. That is why I thought it might be an insult. However, I now recognise that "poorhammer" is a punning term a few guys have used for scratchbuilding stuff. I don't think it should be a tag in the DakkaDakka gallery, though, because almost no-one uses it or understands it.

On the plus side, it has given me the idea to coin the term Phwoarhammer for describing stuff like this:

Some people look down on things like Hello Kitty Marines, or using cheap toys for Ork Trukks, and so on, because they are very emotionally invested in GW as the ultimate source of wargame wisdom and magnificent models. Everything must come from GW because that is the pinnacle.

When someone comes along and makes a comedy version, or does it just as well on the cheap, and has a great time, it undermines the emotional investment the 'true fan' has made. Naturally this is very irksome.

It pales into insignificance compared to what happens in a Napoleonics forum if you ask about "prolonges". (I once had someone criticise my 6mm Russian army because they have got the 1809 pattern company colours on their pompoms, and are supposed to be in 1812 uniform.)

Kid_Kyoto wrote:Nope poor=bad in America too, but when I see poorhammer my first thought is still economic not quality.

American English carries both meanings. Neither is a compliment. Poor quality is insulting, yes. The implication is that the model is of low quality, inferior, not good enough, etc. Some people do indeed look down upon anything that is not an official model -- even in cases where official models don't exist. It doesn't matter how well the model was made, to them the rule of cool is irrelevant. Some of this is likely a holdover from when GW ran tournaments I think, and there were requirements of having official models or conversions that were a made with a certain percentage of official bitz. The other meaning as it relates to economic status means different things to different people. There are some people who proclaim that if you can't afford the official models, you are not welcome, this is not the hobby for you. And from that perspective, yes, the term is insulting.

Also, wow, I am never going to get into historical wargaming.

I agree that scratch builders should take pride in their work. I much prefer the term scratch build to "poorhammer". It conveys the sense that a person is creating something without the connotations on either quality or status. That's my take.

**Cleatus**

I was curious, so I did a few quick Google searches for the following terms:
scratch building = About 9,800,000 results
scratch building models = About 2,550,000 results
"scratch build" = About 573,000 results
"scratch building" = About 447,000 results
"poorhammer" = About 6,120 results

More common than I thought, but not very.

I agree with Kilkrazy that those terms are more descriptive.

I find it interesting that the number of images tagged with "poorhammer" and "cheaphammer" has decreased since my initial post (fewer than two dozen when I found my images tagged, but more than the 4 Kid mentioned). Did the person who tagged these images delete the tags? Did users review their own images and delete tags they felt were not appropriate? Impossible to tell, but interesting nonetheless.

I think this discussion has run its course. Thank you for the discussion, everyone.

Mods, feel free to close/lock the thread.

**Cleatus**

MeanGreenStompa wrote:I think we should consider the background to this, or at least the background that springs to my mind when I read the term 'poorhammer'.

I hear all those lofty gakkers who, on GW cranking up the prices each year (and the resultant grumbling and, for some, pricing out of the hobby) leap up to post that 'if you're too poor, you should get out of the hobby...

I imagine these people are a) children with no actual income or expenses or b) forever alone singles with no kids/mortgage/taxes/presents for significant other to pay out for or c) the simultaneously wealthy and obtuse.

When I read that someone had applied the term 'poorhammer' to this guy's scratchbuilt stuff, that's the first thing I heard from it. 'Poor'. I took it as an implied insult and the owner of the image did too. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption.

That was how I read it, yes, that it was intended as an implied insult. It might not have been, but based on the replies in the thread I wasn't the only one that read it that way.

AegisGrimm wrote:Exalted, Stompa. It's my feeling, too.

Us "old guys" who have been with 40k for longer than some of the elitist jerks have been alive remember when a good scratchbuild was seen as cooler than the actual model. Used to be to have a Wave Serpent, you had to use spare Shuriken Cannons from a (newly released) plastic Vyper and a plastic spoon. And it was endorsed that way in White Dwarf!

It's just some idiots thinking that their way of playing with armymen gives them some sort of moral highground to troll their "lessers". Which is more than a little sad.

Hell, I play Epic Armageddon with tokens made from Vassal40K sprites printed and mounted at correct scale. So Epic Poorhammer, evidently.

Exactly. There was a time when GW didn't even make vehicles. Scratch building was the only option. Interesting how times have changed.

Gamgee wrote:Oh my god your army is fantastic. Still laughing at ground pounders thing. I would play you any day of the week. We mostly use whatever is at hand for terrain ourselves be this cardboard or boardgame boxes as buildings. We do have some fancy craters but that's about it.

Hehe, thank you. He's one of my favorites. I field him on a regular basis.

Orlanth wrote:
Cleatus wrote:
I recently discovered that some pictures of my scratch builds had been tagged "poorhammer". For what it's worth, the images in question had voting disabled and were marked as WIP. I also found some images belonging to other users that had been tagged with "poorhammer" and "cheaphammer". That's pretty insulting. It's one thing if you don't happen to like something that someone else creates, but to go out of your way to poor shame someone and mock something they have created because it's not an official model, that's pretty low. The Dakka Dakka community has been extremely supportive of scratch builders. It saddens me to see this kind of behavior here.

I have removed the offending tags from my images.

I like the term poorhammer, and see no shame in it. All those who used Kings of War to make Vampire Counts armies are into poorhammer.
Many time I have taken shortcuts to field units that resemble more expensive GW models.

I agree with the earlier statements that poor hammer rolls with warhammer and i a better term for budget warhammer than other options. Also those who practice budget warhammer should own the phrase, not the haters.
When you look at it, poorhammer players are a large minority. People who use alternate models, people who scratchbuild, people who proxy, people who use techniques to make ranked units have fewer models in them than the unit numbers (and I have seen GW staff use this technique). I could argue that those who buy exclusively from auctions are also into poorhammer.
Also as complaining about GW pricing is a common theme, it should be laudable, not derisable, to do something about it. Perhaps us poorhammer players are smarter.

Can I see your poorhammer units please Cleatus. I promise you it is not to laugh at them.

I would post them here, but that would likely derail the thread, and to be honest I feel that this thread has probably gone on long enough already. With that being said, feel free to pop over to my gallery or my P&M blog (link in sig). I don't claim to be the most skilled scratch builder, but I've managed to make a few things that look "thematically correct" you might say. Trukks, bikes, artillery, etc.

Skinflint Games wrote:Speaking on behalf of our group - the weird kids in the corner - Poorhammer IS our philosophy - DIY papercraft and junk model tanks, and we settled on 1/72 for our games primarily because of the model pricing. Between our little group, the fun we've had scratchbuilding and converting, making awesome toys out of cheap junk, and writing our own ruleset and fluff to cover the demented creations of three lovers of bad sci fi and pulp horror has been tremendous.

Back when I was into the hobby as a kid, scratchbuilding was encouraged - anyone remember the WD with the Gobsmasha template? - and I have fond memories of an Ork Braincrusha I built around a kitchen roll tube representing the macro cannon. Happy days...

More power to you. I have also embraced the scratch building philosophy. Oh yes, the Gobsmasha template! And the articles in WD that taught you how to scratch build terrain and such. Admittedly I was not playing the game back in those days, but I have seen pictures from the old WD's and I'm a little bummed that GW doesn't include that sort of content anymore.