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.

Deadnight wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Then there’s the larger scale PITA. For instance, someone who knocks a game because it wasn’t designed for a certain way of playing. Criticising rules is typically fair game, and can lead to useful and fun discussion, and perhaps even change in the game. But when (such as earlier editions of 40K) it just wasn’t designed with tournament play in mind? That’s….that’s not actually a failing of the game, anymore than X-Wing being a steep learning curve is a failing of the game or it’s design. And constantly harping on and on and on about it is just irritating, not to mention pointless.

I'd also add people who are constantly negative, constantly miserable about everything, and constantly broadcasting it, and who can really, never realistically be pleased by any offering or approach and who cant accept anyone elses positivity or neutrality onnthe things they consider bad. They just want to sit there and moan and stew in it, but also can't accept it unless everyone is as miserable as they are

This is why I had a hiatus from 40k until around a week ago. It just seemed that with every single announcement there was the most minute thing that people were getting so arsey about. Not the typical game mechanics, rule discussion, but anal things such as:

- In the Tau Codex on the Drone dataslates, two of the Drones are T'au colours while the rest are Vior'la
- Some of the mini-photos in the Tau dataslates go over the borders.
- Ulthwe have 4 faction rules in the book. The rules are simple enough that they could be condensed into three, maybe two rules but the fact that it's four bullet-points is too much for some people.

Some people just want to find anything to whine about. Step away from the screen, take a break for Christ's sake.

You win Voss.




I also find that the internet is designed to raise up negative comments, toxicity and "hot takes". I am prone to it myself from time-to-time. I am only human after all.

Then, these online activities start to bleed over into everyday interactions at the club, store, or game group. That is when it can become a bigger issue, as it needs to then be dealt with, and that can lead to reinforcement of the negative behaviors. That said, I am no expert on the subject.

That said, stepping away from the internet can be very helpful. I think I shall take my own advice for a while,

Voss wrote:

Eilif wrote:Using abuse victims as an outlier to win an argument is pretty bizarre

Most people understand that any maxim must be applied in context and the golden and platinum are rule are caveated against people who want harm for themselves.

Er... no. Sorry if I didn't express it well, but I'm not talking about an 'outlier' or somehow 'winning' an argument- just taking an obvious example as to why a generalized, pithy axiom is a poor policy, and incredibly harmful

To expand further, a lot of people expect terrible behavior from others, and have accepted it as normal. I'd argue its a cultural norm at the moment, and explains pretty well why people react to news and media the way they do- someone else getting respect or accomplishments means they're somehow losing, and they have to lash out to defend themselves. As demonstrated, even simple disagreement is construed as as an attack and somehow it means telling people that they're 'stupid and should feel bad.' Disagreeing is about the opinion, not the person.

I think I understand now, please excuse my earlier tone.

If your concern is that axioms being used in an way that bypasses rational thought can harm some groups of people then I think that everyone agrees with you. No one here has advocated that axioms be utilized without consideration.

As to your other points I assume we would also largely agree that presuming disagreement as attack and zero-sum-thinking regarding the achievements of others are unproductive.

So, it seems that our fundamental disagreement may simply be over whether there may be positive social and personal goods and/or useful shared understandings that can arise from use of such axioms. However, that's a divergence unlikely to be resolved in a Wargaming forum.

 Easy E wrote:
You win Voss.

I also find that the internet is designed to raise up negative comments, toxicity and "hot takes". I am prone to it myself from time-to-time. I am only human after all.

Then, these online activities start to bleed over into everyday interactions at the club, store, or game group. That is when it can become a bigger issue, as it needs to then be dealt with, and that can lead to reinforcement of the negative behaviors. That said, I am no expert on the subject.

That said, stepping away from the internet can be very helpful. I think I shall take my own advice for a while,

Online behaviors -- and by that I mean not just the tone of interactions, but the content and the thought processes behind them -- have been leaking into the real world for quite some time now. It's not surprising that nuance and genuine exchanges of ideas have been lost in a world populated by people trained to communicate in 160 (or whatever number) characters in forums where the loudest, most extreme opinions are rewarded with attention. The internet -- and especially social media -- is training minds to become toxic PITAs.

I agree that online anonymous helps people say things they would never say in public. Recently and one reason I started this thread were that I had posted on an RPG forum about an older game, I felt the combat was taking too long and listed my ideas for house rules for speeding up the game. The only reply was someone saying I was wrong about the game and everything I listed was incorrect. I never thought that the idea of changing a die type from percentage dice to a twenty-sided die would cause so much rage. In my eyes, the percentages are the same but the odds are different. No discussion, I was just wrong. People get set in their ways and any change is almost heresy in their eyes, no matter how trivial the change is.

The other thing is that toxic can be how a person is, there's a difference between being competitive and winning at all costs. I have encountered both over my years at the local game store. Back in the day when
40k Epic was popular, we had a player that would find the hardest unit and then buy the max amount of them, He would destroy players easily knocking them out of the game but throw a fit if anyone attacked him or his son. A few of us just broke off from the main group to start a separate group on another day. But before we knew it most players got tired of the crap and moved to our game. When it came time for the trouble players to join, we were upfront with what happened and explained that that attitude was not welcome in our current game. Did he end up changing his way? No, he complained to the owner instead of trying to play nice.

On the other side, I have been part of competitive games and tournaments where I literally learned something new about the game and wanted the opponent to be my new best friend even though we lived thousands of miles apart. Then I had a local games a few years back of War machine when I was trying to return to the game and be curb stomped knowing that I was a novice player.

 Genoside07 wrote:
I agree that online anonymous helps people say things they would never say in public. Recently and one reason I started this thread were that I had posted on an RPG forum about an older game, I felt the combat was taking too long and listed my ideas for house rules for speeding up the game. The only reply was someone saying I was wrong about the game and everything I listed was incorrect. I never thought that the idea of changing a die type from percentage dice to a twenty-sided die would cause so much rage. In my eyes, the percentages are the same but the odds are different. No discussion, I was just wrong. People get set in their ways and any change is almost heresy in their eyes, no matter how trivial the change is.

Heh, yup. Wargamers are often... dogmatic to a fault.

The most important thing isn't good rules, its official rules and essentially 'toeing the line'. Deviating from the dogma and 'how to play properly' id often severely frowned upon. Homebrewing or suggestions to ignore/change broken rules in your group are often met with hostility and derision, but that's by the by.

To your point, often times the one thing wargamers will hate more than the official, often admittedly broken rules (they're obligated to follow) is change to said admittedly broken rules.

 Genoside07 wrote:

The other thing is that toxic can be how a person is, there's a difference between being competitive and winning at all costs. I have encountered both over my years at the local game store. Back in the day when
40k Epic was popular, we had a player that would find the hardest unit and then buy the max amount of them, He would destroy players easily knocking them out of the game but throw a fit if anyone attacked him or his son. A few of us just broke off from the main group to start a separate group on another day. But before we knew it most players got tired of the crap and moved to our game. When it came time for the trouble players to join, we were upfront with what happened and explained that that attitude was not welcome in our current game. Did he end up changing his way? No, he complained to the owner instead of trying to play nice.

On the other side, I have been part of competitive games and tournaments where I literally learned something new about the game and wanted the opponent to be my new best friend even though we lived thousands of miles apart. Then I had a local games a few years back of War machine when I was trying to return to the game and be curb stomped knowing that I was a novice player.

I often see chatter online where people talk about 'competitive players' as some kind of aspirational gold standard, with all the positive traits one would wish to lay claim to, including being a good sport, wanting a fair/equal game etc, being associated with them and all the negative things associated with the mythic waac evildoers. It falls into 'no true scotsman' territory very quickly when you point out that those traits exist in players of other approaches, as well as conpetitive shenanigans you've witnessed being dismissed as 'no true competitive player would ever do that'. Yeah, mate, on your bike with you. The truth is far more nuanced. You can be competitive, play entirely legally and within the rules, and still be a colossal toxic douche. And lets be clear - the Same can absolutely be said for some who play casually - there are some hilariously musguided cry-bullies out there. There is a reason I refer to competitive-at-all-cost in addition to win-at-all-cost, and casual-at-all-costs as being... problematic.

That said, some of my fondest gaming memories were playing competitive wmh at fairly top tables with some very decent people. There is a time and a place for it, and it has value but if its left uncontrolled it can absolutely decimate communities.