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.

Frazzled wrote: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.

Rum? That is so Last week. Gin is where it's at now!

My grandfather says gin is what saved him from a heart attack.

More moderation simply won't work in a situation like this. The change needs to come from the posters, but we need incentives (good or bad) to get this forum to where we would like it to be.

There needs to be a really big sticky at the top of the forum with the title, "Read more, post less." I actually think that should be our watermark, but that's just me.

The real problem is the snide commentary, the verbal jabs, the confrontations, the lack of empathy. The tone, if you will. Tone is a VERY difficult thing to moderate, and we sound awfully stupid saying things like, "I don't appreciate the tone of your post. Please post something with more flowers, teddy bears and kittens in it". The problem is that we have seen, time and time again, how the tone of a few posters can completely ruin whole threads. Escalation is very rapid here on Dakka. YMDC is, by nature, about debate, which only engenders opposition, and combined with tone, it leads me to use too many commas. I mean, it leads to inflammatory comments, trolling, and a headache for everyone involved in the thread (even people just reading it).

It's really up to you, the posters, to improve YMDC. All of you frequent posters, set a good example. Be polite, be understanding, be conciliatory when necessary. Don't respond harshly to inflammatory posts. Don't talk down to anyone. Don't hide behind "telling it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth"; these are weak excuses that hold no water here. We're perfectly capable of being direct without being abrasive.

Make the effort, people. YMDC used to be, and can still be, a TERRIFIC resource. We are one of the more lenient mod teams out there for Warhammer 40k boards, as we realize people have the occasional bad day. But don't take advantage of this. Step up and make YMDC, and Dakka in general, a great place.

Meh. Gin is like bitterbeerfaceX2.

How about some more moderaters from among the regulars? Not to ban/suspend accounts but to close threads that are getting out of hand or are concluded and then tidy them up (most threads could be reduced to half a dozen posts or less - question, correct answer, explanation)

Yea but then you have the inevitable Mod gang fights break out and IOREK, Malf, and I have formed a drunken sock stealing crotchety unholy alliance and that might disturb our power base. You should see our tree fort. Its really cool.

Split the area in two?

YMTC - RAI - Come to this section to discuss the intention of a rule and work around clashing rules or inconsistances.

YMTC - RAW - Come to this section to debate the nuances of the written word in detail.

A poster could then post in both areas and see what comes about from each.

------------------------------------------OR-----------------------------------------------

Another idea is a template for the question and a template for the answers people give. Limit the ability to expand these post to incorporate sleights or attacks.

*Brief summary of problem.

*Rules consulted so far/which tome/which page/paragraph.

*Inconsistancy.

*Believed intended outcome.

*Understood actual outcome.

*Impact on game/playstyle/metagame.

*Suggested improvements?

*Counterstatement to prior post by .... :

Its when the posting drifts from the actual question raised that we see most hostility here. Limit the poster's ability to expand past the actual issue.

RAI is waaaaay too nebulous to have a serious discussion - by the very nature of it there are too many possibles for it to work well.

Distracting mods from beer drinking seems like a major no-no as well.

Personally YMDC is fine, opinion up / down would just become Slashdot where people with "mod" points sometimes abuse them, and fits a tree style more than a conversation style thread.

Iorek wrote:More moderation simply won't work in a situation like this. The change needs to come from the posters, but we need incentives (good or bad) to get this forum to where we would like it to be.

There needs to be a really big sticky at the top of the forum with the title, "Read more, post less." I actually think that should be our watermark, but that's just me.

The real problem is the snide commentary, the verbal jabs, the confrontations, the lack of empathy. The tone, if you will. Tone is a VERY difficult thing to moderate, and we sound awfully stupid saying things like, "I don't appreciate the tone of your post. Please post something with more flowers, teddy bears and kittens in it". The problem is that we have seen, time and time again, how the tone of a few posters can completely ruin whole threads. Escalation is very rapid here on Dakka. YMDC is, by nature, about debate, which only engenders opposition, and combined with tone, it leads me to use too many commas. I mean, it leads to inflammatory comments, trolling, and a headache for everyone involved in the thread (even people just reading it).

It's really up to you, the posters, to improve YMDC. All of you frequent posters, set a good example. Be polite, be understanding, be conciliatory when necessary. Don't respond harshly to inflammatory posts. Don't talk down to anyone. Don't hide behind "telling it like it is" or "not sugarcoating the truth"; these are weak excuses that hold no water here. We're perfectly capable of being direct without being abrasive.

Make the effort, people. YMDC used to be, and can still be, a TERRIFIC resource. We are one of the more lenient mod teams out there for Warhammer 40k boards, as we realize people have the occasional bad day. But don't take advantage of this. Step up and make YMDC, and Dakka in general, a great place.

There's our sticky, right there!

Seriously, that IS what it comes down to.

Well said Iorek!

I think, if a thumbs up/down system is implemented, it should be three-way.
* Thumbs up for opinion A
* Thumbs up for opinion B
* Thumbs down.
If done properly it could be much easier to prevent people downrating the opposing arguments.


I also think it is a hard task because there are so many different views that people come from:
1) Games Workshop writers are perfect, always write exactly what they mean and mean exactly what they write.
2) Games Workshop writers are not perfect, but they're the best we have so we have to do exactly what they say.
3) GW writers are not perfect but I enjoy being pedantic and arguing as if they were.
4) GW writers know exactly what they mean but fail at (or are unwilling to) putting it into unambiguous technical language, and as such when queries arise we should attempt to find a logical, intuitive solution which makes sense in context.
5)... others. But you get the idea that a #4 and a #1 will rarely ever agree on a rules interpretation. Perhaps people could even add to their signature "I am a #4 type rules debater"

We should all endevaour to be quite so clever.

G

insaniak wrote:

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.

QFT.

If we could keep the rules discussion about the rules and not attach value judgments to different conclusions, that would go a long way toward increasing the cordiality of YMDC.

There is no moral value attached to a particular interpretation of the rules. Accusing people of being TFG or bad sportsmen because of their opinion about how the game should be played really has no place on a rules forum. Ad hominem attacks and bullying don't advance anyone's understanding of the rules.

Is this already in the forum guidelines? If not, it should be.

I think we just need the sequel to Yak's "How to have an intelligent rules debate" essay, called "How to act after you've figured out the RAW." I mean, YMDC centers on two related but very different questions: What do the rules say to do in this situation, and how should my local group/club/store/tournament play that situation. Allowing people to ask for one or the other, without either side chipping in their 5 cents, would go a long way to cleaning it up.

For example, we're having a small store tourney on sunday. I'm finally taking valkyries, and I'm asking the TO if my birds get a 4+ cover if they scout over 12". I laid out the relevant RAW, the lack of precedent, etc., and his first question was "well, have you asked on dakka how people play this?" That's not a situation with an unclear RAW or a clear RAI, but there is still value in knowing how others play it.

As Iorek pointed out, YMDC is a snake pit because everybody is ready to flame at the drop of a hat. As I pointed out in my thread on YMDC and the personalities, I'm convinced that a lot of that is the result of simply lack of understanding between two separate groups: those that see RAW as the only way to properly play as a way to guard against cheating, bullying, and intimidation; and those players that see the rules as a framework for games to be modified as needed to have a good experience.

Neither group is right, but it will help for people to realize that not every RAW champion is TFG, and neither is every loosey goosey RAI player.

As another poster stated, there needs to be a slight relaxation of sphincters about the moral high ground RAW stands on. That said, more RAI players need to realize that RAW is clear cut and accessible far more often than they realize.

I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.

I still think a great way to tone down the multi page disagreements that go nowhere is to actually define how RAW works. Seriously, if we outlined the system and could discuss different opinions of systemic issues, the majority of what turns into flame wars would never exist past one page.

Almost every multi page thread I see here can be traced back to people using different assumptions of how RAW actually works. The actual issue being argued would resolve itself if the baseline assumptions were agreed on, or at least recognized.

I think that may be part of the issue, getting people to agree on the baseline assumptions.

Ultimately any thread that exceeds two or three pages normally devolves into a flame fest or constant bickering over the same points for the rest of the thread. There are a few exceptions, but they are few and far throughout.

Don't know how much free time you mods have, but any YMDC thread that exceeds three pages should be reviewed by a mod and locked if there is no new information that they feel could be added to the debate. If it helps, they could then sum up everything in the final post could with a brief summation of both sides of the argument.

Gwar! wrote:Is it me, or does Night Lords remind me of myself?

At first I thought this to be an insult, but then thinking about it, from your perspective it must mean Im always right and I walk on holy land. Thanks

I was not talking about Gwar!, I was talking of myself.

Frazzled wrote:I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.

I could have been clearer. I think that bulk of the big fights I've seen or taken part in have been between two different interpretations of RAW, but between a textualist approach and more contextual approach. I think rather than a RAW vs. RAI, you see an argument based on if a single sentence or two can be read independently, or if you need to use a certain context to determine the meaning.

To put it another way, the main rift seems to be between people that hold that every scrap of rule is nearly as valid as another, and that nothing was included by mistake or sloppiness and those that see the rules as a whole to be more important, and are willing to excise or ignore certain passages. I'm not sure that's really RAW v. RAI, but I haven't been able to think of a good name yet.

Polonius wrote:

Frazzled wrote:I think you're focusing on the RAW vs. RAI too heavily Polonius. the big flame fights I see and get reported are usually between RAW'rs disgareeing on interpretation and then getting snippy.

I could have been clearer. I think that bulk of the big fights I've seen or taken part in have been between two different interpretations of RAW, but between a textualist approach and more contextual approach. I think rather than a RAW vs. RAI, you see an argument based on if a single sentence or two can be read independently, or if you need to use a certain context to determine the meaning.

To put it another way, the main rift seems to be between people that hold that every scrap of rule is nearly as valid as another, and that nothing was included by mistake or sloppiness and those that see the rules as a whole to be more important, and are willing to excise or ignore certain passages. I'm not sure that's really RAW v. RAI, but I haven't been able to think of a good name yet.

You and I are talking about the same thing I think.

We should call it RAW in the raw: A guide for the process of interpreting an answer in the 40K rules using the 'how' statements of the instructions, rather than the 'why'.

I have most of a document written on deductive reading of 40K rules, common logical fallacies, etc. Can finish it up as a supplement to whatever people want to do.

But if Kaaihn is going to co-opt the term "RAW" for his version of reading, then I might need to coin a new term for my "maul it with a dictionary" version. I can call it "ultra-RAW" or "Infernus-RAW" or whatever.

Here's an idea: Each poster can only post once in a YMDC thread. That way, if posters are going to voice an opinion, have only one opportunity to explain and justify that opinion.

So what happens if someone needs to retort or rebut something? They edit their original post and it becomes a horrible unreadable mess?

Gwar!:

That's the point: We would have no opportunity to retort, rebut, or otherwise answer any criticism of what we have posted except by pre-emptively addressing possible criticisms in our posts, and getting our posts right the first time.

This limit would require posters to put more care and thought into their posts, and encourage posters to discuss the issue at hand rather than each other.

Now that you mention it, though, an addendum to my suggestion would be that one should not be able to edit YMDC posts either. If we don't want to look like idiots, then we should edit our work before we post it.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

That's the point: We would have no opportunity to retort, rebut, or otherwise answer any criticism of what we have posted except by pre-emptively addressing possible criticisms in our posts, and getting our posts right the first time.

This limit would require posters to put more care and thought into their posts, and encourage posters to discuss the issue at hand rather than each other.

Now that you mention it, though, an addendum to my suggestion would be that one should not be able to edit YMDC posts either. If we don't want to look like idiots, then we should edit our work before we post it.

Honestly this would stifle intelligent (ha!) debate. I post something, you respond, I see a point where you are misunderstanding something I said (or vice versa)...and we can't clear that up because neither of us gets another post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Flavius Infernus wrote:I have most of a document written on deductive reading of 40K rules, common logical fallacies, etc. Can finish it up as a supplement to whatever people want to do.

But if Kaaihn is going to co-opt the term "RAW" for his version of reading, then I might need to coin a new term for my "maul it with a dictionary" version. I can call it "ultra-RAW" or "Infernus-RAW" or whatever.

The title is a joke. Don't get hung up on it

I'm not proposing I make a full document myself by the way, I'm proposing that people that want to contribute to a project like this do so. While we could go with what is agreed on by popular vote as a worst case final, I think the real goal is to outline some cohesive concepts that we see being regularly disagreed upon and get GW feedback as to which is the correct method. That validated method is what should be included in a sticky for reference.

Kaaihn:

That's exactly it, it wouldn't stifle intelligent debate because intelligent debate is about the subject rather than the debaters. If I misunderstand something in my response to your post, a third person should be able to point out and correct my misunderstanding.

So Nurglitch, you have never ever made a typo I presume?

And what happens if someone posts something while I am posting. I now cannot reply to the point made by that person, as I cannot edit nor make a new post.

Gwar!:

I make typos all the time unless I take the care to edit my work.

As for posting at the same time as someone else, whether you get to reply to whatever point they make is irrelevant because someone else can.

Nurglitch wrote:Gwar!:

I make typos all the time unless I take the care to edit my work.

As for posting at the same time as someone else, whether you get to reply to whatever point they make is irrelevant because someone else can.

Your system works if you can trust that someone else is going to come and post after you with a correct and comprehensive (to you) reply. I don't trust that to happen. Add to that the fact that I have cleared up misconceptions that people have had through an ongoing back and forth dialogue on multiple occasions, and I don't think your one post system is ideal.

Just my opinion.