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.

feth store A. Who cares? Arranges games with you people you wanna play at store B.

It was the guys at store A who wanted to play the game in the first place. It was the other player who said okay when it wasn't really okay. The owner sounds like a grognard who can't empathize with non grognards, which is why he torpedo'd your killteam league. I've heard of a buy in for campaigns before. A couple bucks or whatever. Even tournaments have entry fees. But $15 per week? fething lol, feth that guy.

Man, I paint a bunch and IMHO to a high standard, but I'd be pretty pissed off if I got that attitude from a store owner. I buy from local gaming stores because they give space to play. I'm not getting paid for marketing, nor for my time painting my army.

Sure, it would be nice to have an army slowly get painted, but that time barrier is rather severe. Some times I don't have time to devote to painting, or, hell, I'd rather be relaxing or hanging out or playing.

If you're amiable/not disruptive and support the store, I think that's about all that should be required.

 Lance845 wrote:
@ Fifty & Saturmourn

It's true. You are not REQUIRED to not be a dick head in society. People are welcome to go around being as big or as little of a jerk as they want to. If you wanted to sit on the side of the road and yell obscenities your welcome to do so. That comes with all the consequences that come with your actions.

You can do as little or as much as you want to be a toxic element in your personal or gaming community. And believe me, I am reading what you are writing and I understand that you TRY to be POLITE while fostering an attitude in your local gaming communities that is self destructive. It's great really. You guys should be rewarded for not being the WORST and instead being just kind of bad.

And yet you are turning players away too.
Self destructive, if you ask me.

I didn't say you were obligated to play with every person every time. You can choose not to play for any reason including just not feeling like playing a game right now. BUT, IF your reason is simply because that persons army is unpainted than you are part of the problem this thread got started because of. You help cause incidents like the one the OP experienced. You foster incidents like this one in your local communities even if you are not the person with the hostile unwelcoming attitude because you try to be polite about it. By putting that attitude out there and making excuses for why it's ok you encourage others to behave that way.

So you're saying that I can turn people away UNLESS it's for XYZ reason. I wasn't aware that was objective.
Huh. I guess I could say that you are also at fault for turning people away because XYZ.

And no, you justified the owner of Store A yourself. You said: "If you want to invite other players to your home based on the quality of their paint jobs do so. Get enough of them together that you have all the matches you could want with all the prettiest armies." The owner of Store A is effectively doing just that. They are letting OP into their "home", on the condition he plays by A's rules, because he's in A's "home".

You're encouraging the owner of Store A yourself.

Rules:

Pages 8+ read the opening paragraph, Models and base sizes, Forming a unit, and page 14 LoS.

Since 40k is a permission based rule set it sounds like you do not have permission to play with cardboard cut outs and that the models are required to be at least mostly built in order to comply with the rule requirements for the game.

I acknowledge your point on cardboard cut-outs. Fair point, which I concede. But still - are they required to be mostly built?
Interestingly enough, on Page 8 about the "Citadel Miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000": no non-GW models can be used in 40k, I guess, because they're not Citadel Miniatures, and cannot therefore be classed as models for game purposes. The more you know.

Still, you've missed my point, and avoided what I've said: ask GW how they view painting. For reference, allow me to quote what every GW event pack pack asks for: your army to be "fully assembled and painted".
They, the creators, see painting as important. I don't think it's unreasonable for someone to share that view.

Given everything you've said OP, go to store B. It's more what you prefer, and if you disagree with store A's policy, so be it. Let them suffer for it, it's not your fault. If the owner wants to run it that way, let him. Store B will always accept you.

Pretty long thread for what's ultimately fairly simple.

Nobody has any requirement to play.
Nobody has any requirement to play against anybody.
Nobody is better or worse in the hobby whether he paints or not.

And here problem is funnily enough with the store owner rather than players. Store owner seems to be hell bent on making sure his business go out of business!

tneva82 wrote:
Pretty long thread for what's ultimately fairly simple.

Nobody has any requirement to play.
Nobody has any requirement to play against anybody.
Nobody is better or worse in the hobby whether he paints or not.

And here problem is funnily enough with the store owner rather than players. Store owner seems to be hell bent on making sure his business go out of business!

This.

 Lance845 wrote:
@ Fifty & Saturmourn

It's true. You are not REQUIRED to not be a dick head in society. People are welcome to go around being as big or as little of a jerk as they want to. If you wanted to sit on the side of the road and yell obscenities your welcome to do so. That comes with all the consequences that come with your actions.

You can do as little or as much as you want to be a toxic element in your personal or gaming community. And believe me, I am reading what you are writing and I understand that you TRY to be POLITE while fostering an attitude in your local gaming communities that is self destructive. It's great really. You guys should be rewarded for not being the WORST and instead being just kind of bad.

I didn't say you were obligated to play with every person every time. You can choose not to play for any reason including just not feeling like playing a game right now. BUT, IF your reason is simply because that persons army is unpainted than you are part of the problem this thread got started because of. You help cause incidents like the one the OP experienced. You foster incidents like this one in your local communities even if you are not the person with the hostile unwelcoming attitude because you try to be polite about it. By putting that attitude out there and making excuses for why it's ok you encourage others to behave that way.

@ Fifty I have also never played in a competitive tournament. I play nids and own 0 mucolid spores. I think it's a jerk move to bring more than 1 Flyrant for every 1k points in the game so I currently own 2. One for each of the up to 2k points I generally enjoy playing. I only build TAC lists.

I try to compare lists with my opponent because I think the best matches are ones that come down to the wire and are real close. If by the end of turn 2 things are looking pretty hopeless for one side the game tends to become more of an unfun slog for both of us.

Rules:

Pages 8+ read the opening paragraph, Models and base sizes, Forming a unit, and page 14 LoS.

Since 40k is a permission based rule set it sounds like you do not have permission to play with cardboard cut outs and that the models are required to be at least mostly built in order to comply with the rule requirements for the game.

The rules never define what a "Model" nor what a "Citadel miniature" is. Presumably it's a model kit sold by Games Workshop that's fully assembled according to the instructions provided barring individual conversions/kitbashes. But nothing in the rules state as much. A Citadel miniature could just be a bunch of ground up sprues glued onto a base. Heck, it sounds like you can use cardboard cut outs as long as they are sold under the Citadel brand.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yet you are turning players away too.
Self destructive, if you ask me.


So you're saying that I can turn people away UNLESS it's for XYZ reason. I wasn't aware that was objective.
Huh. I guess I could say that you are also at fault for turning people away because XYZ.

And no, you justified the owner of Store A yourself. You said: "If you want to invite other players to your home based on the quality of their paint jobs do so. Get enough of them together that you have all the matches you could want with all the prettiest armies." The owner of Store A is effectively doing just that. They are letting OP into their "home", on the condition he plays by A's rules, because he's in A's "home".

You're encouraging the owner of Store A yourself.

These are the exact same flawed logical arguments Peregrine tried to use. They are straw men arguments with no merit what so ever. See my comparison for why they are invalid.

It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:
And yet you are turning players away too.
Self destructive, if you ask me.


So you're saying that I can turn people away UNLESS it's for XYZ reason. I wasn't aware that was objective.
Huh. I guess I could say that you are also at fault for turning people away because XYZ.

And no, you justified the owner of Store A yourself. You said: "If you want to invite other players to your home based on the quality of their paint jobs do so. Get enough of them together that you have all the matches you could want with all the prettiest armies." The owner of Store A is effectively doing just that. They are letting OP into their "home", on the condition he plays by A's rules, because he's in A's "home".

You're encouraging the owner of Store A yourself.

These are the exact same flawed logical arguments Peregrine tried to use. They are straw men arguments with no merit what so ever. See my comparison for why they are invalid.

Which argument? Could you please be specific?

The store owner can do whatever he wants to refuse business. Could hurt his business or rep, though, especially with competition not that far away.

Lance, you are really close to calling me a dill weed and toxic. Please be very careful, because if you go any further, I will report you for it.

Also, whilst you did not call people Nazis, it is very much not the appropriate way of explaining your point, because by the very nature of yoru argument, you equated one half of the logic to Nazis. If you even tangetially imply anyone is a Nazi, I'll also request mods to look at that too, if they are not already.

Peregrine's attitude might indeed make some people not want to play. Your attitude is definitely making me less likely to want to play.

 Fifty wrote:
Lance, you are really close to calling me a dill weed and toxic. Please be very careful, because if you go any further, I will report you for it.

Also, whilst you did not call people Nazis, it is very much not the appropriate way of explaining your point, because by the very nature of yoru argument, you equated one half of the logic to Nazis. If you even tangetially imply anyone is a Nazi, I'll also request mods to look at that too, if they are not already.

Peregrine's attitude might indeed make some people not want to play. Your attitude is definitely making me less likely to want to play.

Threatening to tell mommy because someone called you a name is imbarassing and proves your counter argument is childish along with your personality. If someone calls your analogy a straw man then use more substance in your argument not go Nuh uh I'm telling on you.

 Fifty wrote:
Lance, you are really close to calling me a dill weed and toxic. Please be very careful, because if you go any further, I will report you for it.

Also, whilst you did not call people Nazis, it is very much not the appropriate way of explaining your point, because by the very nature of yoru argument, you equated one half of the logic to Nazis. If you even tangetially imply anyone is a Nazi, I'll also request mods to look at that too, if they are not already.

Peregrine's attitude might indeed make some people not want to play. Your attitude is definitely making me less likely to want to play.

Report whatever you want lol.

I explained how the attitude is toxic. I have explained how people have a right to act any way they like. Wanna be a jerk? Go be a jerk. The consequences of acting like a jerk is people call you a jerk. Don't like being called a jerk? Stop acting like one.

Don't bring false equivalencies into a debate. If your false equivalency is crushed by a comparative argument you don't like, how about, instead of complaining that you didn't like the comparison you find a new argument and continue the discussion in a productive way by making some actual points.

Fact is my stance this entire time has been about taking personal responsibility for your actions and how they help foster your gaming community whether you want to be fostering your community or not. If you bring crap attitudes to your community you ARE toxic. Justifying the crap attitude because you "try to be as polite as possible" doesn't make it any less a part of the problem.

I am sorry you do not like being told that the ideas you are holding on to are bad ones. I am sorry that the 3 people in this thread who have tried to defend those ideas have fallen back onto the exact same failed logical argument to defend it. If you have any actual points to make that counter this core argument,

"Fact is my stance this entire time has been about taking personal responsibility for your actions and how they help foster your gaming community whether you want to be fostering your community or not."

in defiance of this attitude,

 Peregrine wrote:

"paint your models or you aren't welcome here".

I am happy to discuss them with everyone and anyone. Instead of getting offended because your loosing you could participate or learn something. If your attitude is the same as Peregrines then I am happy to loose you. The community would do better without it. But if instead you understood the ways in which your attitude could impact your community and you became better, well that is a net gain and we will have all won.

 slip wrote:
feth store A. Who cares? Arranges games with you people you wanna play at store B.

It was the guys at store A who wanted to play the game in the first place. It was the other player who said okay when it wasn't really okay. The owner sounds like a grognard who can't empathize with non grognards, which is why he torpedo'd your killteam league. I've heard of a buy in for campaigns before. A couple bucks or whatever. Even tournaments have entry fees. But $15 per week? fething lol, feth that guy.

If you can't sp be $15 a week, why are you even in this expensive hobby? The store owner probably don't want people playing with 'toy' soldiers at his store, but rather gaming with models; the standard he wants to uphold is his business, if you can't and unwilling to meet it then go to store B. From what the OP has stated, he's simply giving excuses not to work on the painting side of the hobby, which is fine, but then complains why store A should lower their standards. I think if the OP genuinely put in some effort in painting his models squad at a time while playing, the owner would have no objection.

 Big Mac wrote:
I think if the OP genuinely put in some effort in painting his models squad at a time while playing, the owner would have no objection.

So somehow OP is carrying sign that "I won't paint these IG troopers" despite some BEING painted so that owner of store can tell immediately on the very first time he brought them to the store that he won't paint them...

...Yeah right.

Store owner didn't give OP chance to paint them squad at a time. Sorry your thought was busted.

 Lance845 wrote:

I didn't say you were obligated to play with every person every time. You can choose not to play for any reason including just not feeling like playing a game right now. BUT, IF your reason is simply because that persons army is unpainted than you are part of the problem this thread got started because of. You help cause incidents like the one the OP experienced. You foster incidents like this one in your local communities even if you are not the person with the hostile unwelcoming attitude because you try to be polite about it. By putting that attitude out there and making excuses for why it's ok you encourage others to behave that way.

Conversely, you contribute to the toxicity of the community by stating the players that only want to play opponents with painted models are the WORST. You do know there are robust wargaming communities out there that playing with painted models is so ingrained that they wouldn't even think playing with unpainted models is a thing. They don't look down upon it, just the idea would never occur to them.

It could be argued that the reason this thread exists is that players feel entitled to play games with any opponent regardless of the opponent's preferences in a game. If players had the expectation of painted models with players asking for their opponent's permission to use unpainted (similar to proxy or count as) models the OP wouldn't experienced what they did. I don't know if I would make that argument, but it is all about perspective.

I don't condone rude behavior. I don't think my attitude concerning unpainted models has any connection to how others behave. I am sorry if some Napoleonics playing old grognard told you off a long time ago for having unpainted stuff. It wasn't called for back then, and it is call for now. But you should at least acknowledge that players have different things they want out of their gaming with different levels of willingness to game. I would take it as a kindness if a group of gamers told me they were powergamers and played very competitively before hand as I don't want that out of my gaming and it would save me a lot time and frustration with that information upfront. The same can be said about unpainted to painted. Neither is right, neither is wrong but some players, like myself, don't enjoy the game with unpainted miniatures to the point its probably best not to game.

OgreChubbs wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Lance, you are really close to calling me a dill weed and toxic. Please be very careful, because if you go any further, I will report you for it.

Also, whilst you did not call people Nazis, it is very much not the appropriate way of explaining your point, because by the very nature of yoru argument, you equated one half of the logic to Nazis. If you even tangetially imply anyone is a Nazi, I'll also request mods to look at that too, if they are not already.

Peregrine's attitude might indeed make some people not want to play. Your attitude is definitely making me less likely to want to play.

Threatening to tell mommy because someone called you a name is imbarassing and proves your counter argument is childish along with your personality. If someone calls your analogy a straw man then use more substance in your argument not go Nuh uh I'm telling on you.

Lance845 didn't call Fifty's analogy a strawman. That was mine.
Know who you're insulting before you insult them.

Lance845 wrote:

 Fifty wrote:
Lance, you are really close to calling me a dill weed and toxic. Please be very careful, because if you go any further, I will report you for it.

Also, whilst you did not call people Nazis, it is very much not the appropriate way of explaining your point, because by the very nature of yoru argument, you equated one half of the logic to Nazis. If you even tangetially imply anyone is a Nazi, I'll also request mods to look at that too, if they are not already.

Peregrine's attitude might indeed make some people not want to play. Your attitude is definitely making me less likely to want to play.

Report whatever you want lol.

I explained how the attitude is toxic. I have explained how people have a right to act any way they like. Wanna be a jerk? Go be a jerk. The consequences of acting like a jerk is people call you a jerk. Don't like being called a jerk? Stop acting like one.

It may appear that someone isn't listening to your advice.

Don't bring false equivalencies into a debate. If your false equivalency is crushed by a comparative argument you don't like, how about, instead of complaining that you didn't like the comparison you find a new argument and continue the discussion in a productive way by making some actual points.

The thing is that your own points are combating yourself.
You're saying it's wrong to refuse a game on Reason XYZ, yet, you're more than happy to segregate people based on XYZ reasons.

Fact is my stance this entire time has been about taking personal responsibility for your actions and how they help foster your gaming community whether you want to be fostering your community or not. If you bring crap attitudes to your community you ARE toxic. Justifying the crap attitude because you "try to be as polite as possible" doesn't make it any less a part of the problem.

Hmm. Maybe someone needs to listen to that advice.

I am sorry you do not like being told that the ideas you are holding on to are bad ones. I am sorry that the 3 people in this thread who have tried to defend those ideas have fallen back onto the exact same failed logical argument to defend it.

I have said myself:
"I do not share Peregrine's view on refusing unpainted models. I'll happily play against an unpainted army. But if Peregrine doesn't want to, that's up to them, and I respect their view, same as I respect your view of refusing games because you dislike their attitude."

I believe that Peregrine has as much right to refuse a game as you do to refuse to play him. Regardless of reasoning.
If you're allowed to deny a game, so is he.

And please, show us the error of our argument. That hasn't been disproved already.

If you have any actual points to make that counter this core argument,

"Fact is my stance this entire time has been about taking personal responsibility for your actions and how they help foster your gaming community whether you want to be fostering your community or not."

in defiance of this attitude,

 Peregrine wrote:

"paint your models or you aren't welcome here".

And I quote yourself, talking about people who segregate others (which YOU ARE ADVOCATING FOR PEREGRINE): "It's better if you don't show up at all."

You outright say that you want to segregate Peregrine, and then say you oppose people who segregate others.

You are doing exactly what Peregrine is.

I am happy to discuss them with everyone and anyone. Instead of getting offended because your loosing you could participate or learn something.

I'm not contradicting myself. If contradicting myself means winning an argument, then I guess I've lost.
People are getting offended because someone seems very close to breaking Rule 1.

If your attitude is the same as Peregrines then I am happy to loose you.

Again, that segregation talk coming back in - IOW, if you're not with me, you're against me etc etc.

And I've told you my view on Peregrine's opinion. I don't support it myself, but I support his freedom to it. I do not have the same attitude, and I would appreciate if you didn't attempt to lump anyone who disagrees with you into the same net.

The community would do better without it.

What's that I hear? The sound of...
Segregation?

But if instead you understood the ways in which your attitude could impact your community and you became better, well that is a net gain and we will have all won.

Maybe it's not just Peregrine's attitude that's the issue here.

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

Well... Yikes.

I think a lot of people here need to take a breath of fresh air. You'd save the Mods doing it for you if this goes the way it is going.

I see the problem clearly from both sides, as someone who paints very slow, but who also dislikes unpainted/partially painted armies. However, it's important to recognise effort here; if someone is actively trying to paint up their army, but just can't muster enough units for most games in the store, people should respect that and not take them to task for bringing a partially painted army.

Playing against painted armies is much more fun than painting against an unpainted one, and having a fully painted army should be pursued by everyone, either by hand or by commission (because let's be honest, if you don't have the time to paint yourself, chances are you have the money to get someone else to make something that will please your eyes every time you unpack it at the club)

Is a rule saying that you should only play with a painted army a good idea? I think it's really contextual based on who visits the store, although I'll frankly say, even as someone who would really prefer if you bring a painted army (and that I only play if I have everything painted too), that not playing them based on that sole fact is a little too immature for my liking, certainly not something I'd expect a fully grown adult to come out with if I told them I might have to bring my new Valkyrie to our next game unpainted.

Fight the right battles when it comes to this hobby people.

G.A

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

I didn't say you were obligated to play with every person every time. You can choose not to play for any reason including just not feeling like playing a game right now. BUT, IF your reason is simply because that persons army is unpainted than you are part of the problem this thread got started because of. You help cause incidents like the one the OP experienced. You foster incidents like this one in your local communities even if you are not the person with the hostile unwelcoming attitude because you try to be polite about it. By putting that attitude out there and making excuses for why it's ok you encourage others to behave that way.

Conversely, you contribute to the toxicity of the community by stating the players that only want to play opponents with painted models are the WORST. You do know there are robust wargaming communities out there that playing with painted models is so ingrained that they wouldn't even think playing with unpainted models is a thing. They don't look down upon it, just the idea would never occur to them.

I am aware. They are primarily made up of people who have been playing for a long time and have the least amount of growth because of course they do. It takes so much MORE to get involved in that community that so more less are willing to do all the extra work just to get their foot in the door. I also never said they were "the WORST" I said they were bad. And that the bad attitude spreads and causes a growth of the attitude present in store A.

It could be argued that the reason this thread exists is that players feel entitled to play games with any opponent regardless of the opponent's preferences in a game. If players had the expectation of painted models with players asking for their opponent's permission to use unpainted (similar to proxy or count as) models the OP wouldn't experienced what they did. I don't know if I would make that argument, but it is all about perspective.

I don't think it's fair to say people feel entitled to a game. The OP didn't come here and start this thread saying he demanded that he get games where ever he goes. He came in saying the crap he got because of a lack of paint for very reasonable reasons (and even ... I don't like/want to paint is a very reasonable reason) created an uncomfortable and unwelcoming situation inside of a place where the community is supposed to be all welcoming and supporting the growth of the community.

The more barriers to entry to you create the less the community grows. It's a simple math equation. I know I would not make that argument. It's a bad argument. And that perspective is toxic to the community.

I don't condone rude behavior. I don't think my attitude concerning unpainted models has any connection to how other behave. I am sorry if some Napoleonics playing old grognard told you off a long time ago for having unpainted stuff. It wasn't called for back then, and it is call for now. But you should at least acknowledge that players have different things they want out of their gaming with different levels of willingness to game. I would take it as a kindness if a group of gamers told me they were powergamers and played very competitively before hand as I don't want that out of my gaming and it would save me a lot time and frustration with that information upfront. The same can be said about unpainted to painted. Neither is right, neither is wrong but some players, like myself, don't enjoy the game with unpainted miniatures to the point its probably best not to game.

Another assumption about me and my past experiences. I started painting fro the get go. I got my army built. I played 1 game to see how it worked. And then I got to work painting. My first model was a full magnetized Hive Tyrant with all options painted. The heads were magnetized to swap between Swarmlord and HT. I even disliked the SL head and used greenstuff to customize it. I built, magnetized, and base coated that model before I bought my second model. Nothing happened to me that "scared me against the bullys". I simply understand how communities work, and this thread not being the only thread on here in which someone had the same or similar experiences shows that there is a pattern with that perspective. Do the math.

I agree that it's nice for people to talk about what they expect out of a game! The powergamers in your example would do wonders explaining that. There is a appropriate time and place for all things. Pick up games at the LGS are not the place to make the game unwelcoming and you should expect nothing but the bare minimum from games in that setting. Good sportsmanship, follow the rules.

When TFG brings his cut throat hyper competitive tourney list to bear against the guy who is just looking for a pick up game in his LGS without talking about the power level of the game first is also being toxic and dragging down the community. JUST LIKE the guy who refuses to play against unpainted. Again, if you want to play a bunch vs all painted armies buy a table and terrain, set it up in your house, and invite all the prettiest armies you can find. Don't degrade the place where the community grows by bringing the bad attitude into the store.

Where did we get this idea that elitism is bad? I have elitist standards about many things. I expect your models to be painted. I expect you to have bathed recently and wear clean clothes. I expect you to be capable of good sportsmanship and not be a poor loser or rules-lawyering TFG. I expect you to buy legitimate models and not support illegal recasters, especially if you're playing in a store that sells those models. If you can't do those things then no, I don't want you in the community. Part of having a healthy community is having standards beyond "have the greatest possible number of members".

 Peregrine wrote:
Where did we get this idea that elitism is bad?

It can be if you end up pushing out people who just want to enjoy something with you.

Perhaps a lazy "hobbyist" who just rolls up with seas of grey plastic with no intention of ever painting it/getting it painted should be warned that they will not find a pickup game very often, but should we also prosecute a person who does try their hardest to paint, but would never be seen from again if they said they won't turn up till they have everything for their list painted up?

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

 slip wrote:
It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Where did we get this idea that elitism is bad? I have elitist standards about many things. I expect your models to be painted. I expect you to have bathed recently and wear clean clothes. I expect you to be capable of good sportsmanship and not be a poor loser or rules-lawyering TFG. I expect you to buy legitimate models and not support illegal recasters, especially if you're playing in a store that sells those models. If you can't do those things then no, I don't want you in the community. Part of having a healthy community is having standards beyond "have the greatest possible number of members".

Everything you have listed there that is not about paint is not elitist. That is just common courtesy. It's the base line. The basics. You're not elitist for not wanting to be around someone who doesn't bathe. You are not elitist for expect that people support the store that provides a space for them to play in.

It is elitist to expect people to go beyond one facet of the hobby and do other parts of the hobby just to play the game. A guy in my LGS has shaky hands and no artistic ability. He doesn't want to paint. He has no interest in it. He likes playing the game. He also has brought 3 other people into the store since last November 2 of which have signed up for my P&M workshop next month.

Your stance would have pushed him out the door. Those 3 other players would have never gotten started when he quit playing because the community shunned him. Those 2 people would not be signed up to learn about the other facets of the hobby because they would have never gotten started with any part of the hobby.

Can you start to see the toxicity?

Gonna throw it out there: I reckon melts getting furious and bickering on the Internet is way more detrimental to the hobby than people saying they'd prefer to only play games with painted models.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

 slip wrote:
It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

Isn't that sentence self-fulfilling?

Person A: I'm intolerant.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance.
Person A: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance.
etc etc

At the end of the day, Person A and B are both intolerant. Neither is in the right.

And neither is your solution. You are doing exactly what you accuse Peregrine of. By your own logic, you deserve to be segregated.
Do you support that?

EDIT: All this talk of elitism: Are you not also elitist for expecting someone give up their own personal time and energy to obey something not supported by the rules of the game? That rule being both players consenting to a game?

This thread should have been a poll, you are worse than Horus for that alone.

 General Annoyance wrote:
It can be if you end up pushing out people who just want to enjoy something with you.

But why is this a problem, if I don't want to enjoy something with them? If a person brings unpainted models, refuses to bathe, etc, I'm not going to enjoy playing with them. And I don't have an obligation to entertain them at my own expense. If refusing to play with them pushes them out then nothing of value to me is lost.

but should we also prosecute a person who does try their hardest to paint, but would never be seen from again if they said they won't turn up till they have everything for their list painted up?

If someone is making a good-faith effort to get everything painted then my standards can be a bit flexible, though I'd rather play a smaller game with fully painted armies using the stuff they do have painted. But in my experience most of the people with unpainted models aren't making that effort. They don't want to paint, proudly tell everyone that they don't want to paint and painting shouldn't be a requirement, and will only ever paint anything if they have no other choice.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Everything you have listed there that is not about paint is not elitist. That is just common courtesy.

IOW: "The things I expect people to do are just common courtesy. The things Peregrine expects people to do, which I don't care about, are elitism."

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

 slip wrote:
It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

Isn't that sentence self-fulfilling?

Person A: I'm intolerant.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance.
Person A: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance.
etc etc

At the end of the day, Person A and B are both intolerant. Neither is in the right.

And neither is your solution. You are doing exactly what you accuse Peregrine of. By your own logic, you deserve to be segregated.
Do you support that?

I am sorry the logic of the argument is beyond your grasp. If you cannot understand it from how it has been explained thus far there is nothing I can do to teach it to you. I refuse to debate your strawman and poor logic any further because it's just going to be a repeat of page 2 of this thread. If you have any OTHER point to make I am happy to discuss it.

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

 slip wrote:
It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

Isn't that sentence self-fulfilling?

Person A: I'm intolerant.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance.
Person A: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance.
etc etc

At the end of the day, Person A and B are both intolerant. Neither is in the right.

And neither is your solution. You are doing exactly what you accuse Peregrine of. By your own logic, you deserve to be segregated.
Do you support that?

I am sorry the logic of the argument is beyond your grasp. If you cannot understand it from how it has been explained thus far there is nothing I can do to teach it to you. I refuse to debate your strawman and poor logic any further because it's just going to be a repeat of page 2 of this thread. If you have any OTHER point to make I am happy to discuss it.

How is my argument a strawman? Please explain. As is "common courtesy", as you put it.

If you're just going to use strawman as a buzzword as to why you don't want to argue and address my points any more, that's fine. You're welcome to do so. But you have no disproved in any way how you and Peregrine are not the same.

EDIT: And yes. There are many points I have addressed on page 3 which you have not responded directly to. I would be happy if you could address them, preferably without using buzzwords.

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

 Lance845 wrote:

 Sgt_Smudge wrote:

Your issue with Peregrine is that he wants to segregate a group of people. Your solution? Segregate Peregrine.
I think that speaks for itself.

 slip wrote:
It's always funny when people bust out the "you're intolerant for not approving my intolerance!"

Isn't that sentence self-fulfilling?

Person A: I'm intolerant.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance.
Person A: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance.
Person B: I'm intolerant of your intolerance of my intolerance of your intolerance.
etc etc

At the end of the day, Person A and B are both intolerant. Neither is in the right.

And neither is your solution. You are doing exactly what you accuse Peregrine of. By your own logic, you deserve to be segregated.
Do you support that?

I am sorry the logic of the argument is beyond your grasp. If you cannot understand it from how it has been explained thus far there is nothing I can do to teach it to you. I refuse to debate your strawman and poor logic any further because it's just going to be a repeat of page 2 of this thread. If you have any OTHER point to make I am happy to discuss it.

How is my argument a strawman? Please explain. As is "common courtesy", as you put it.

If you're just going to use strawman as a buzzword as to why you don't want to argue and address my points any more, that's fine. You're welcome to do so. But you have no disproved in any way how you and Peregrine are not the same.

EDIT: And yes. There are many points I have addressed on page 3 which you have not responded directly to. I would be happy if you could address them, preferably without using buzzwords.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

Your argument that being intolerant of intolerance is, itself, intolerant is a informal fallacy in the form of a strawman argument.

I state. Intolerance is bad. It degrades the community. Or, A is bad. It hurts C.

I state. We are better off without people who are intolerant. Or Since A hurts C, C is better off without A

You state. Well if C doesn't have A then isn't C = A?

The answer is no. C not having A around does not make C A. It's a strawman following this example

The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:

Person 1 asserts proposition X.
Person 2 argues against a superficially similar proposition Y, falsely, as if an argument against Y were an argument against X.

This reasoning is a fallacy of relevance: it fails to address the proposition in question by misrepresenting the opposing position.

For further reading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Enjoy.

Temp lock until I can deal with all the alerts caused by this thread...