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.

This isn't a direct question about the game, but rather some comments about the discussions here. If it should be moved feel free, I just didn't think it belonged anywhere else...
First off: Saying 'Citation Needed' is not an argument. There are clearly times when someone is remembering wrong or needs to cite an obscure piece of text, but 99% of the time when I see someone write 'Citation Needed' it's to a post that needs no citation. (In fact, I've seen several people say 'Citation Needed' to people who were posting opinions, not rules, and said as much in their post.) So please, think before you type those 5 pointless syllables.

Which leads into my next statement: (Which ends as a question.) There has got to be a better way to handle arguments on here. Whenever there is a point with even the slightest contention it seems to devolve into a constant back and forth with no shifting of opinion, and by pthe second or third page of posts people are just posting their same opinions over and over, mixed in with snipes at other people and (as seen above) pointless 'Citation Neededs' and 'You're Wrongs'.
I've never seen a single person change their mind if they have posted more times than twice on an argument thread.
So how do we fix this? Clearly the current system doesn't work all too well... we can answer simple questions but bigger arguments just fall apart and dissolve into bickering until people get bored and stop replying. So how do we fix this?

It's the internet usually when a thread goes beyond page 3 i personally stop participating, but i won't stop people from arguing if they feel strongly enough that the subject is worth it it is their right to freely express it.

As for the constant "veiled" attacks between people, i feel this will always be an issue with the impersonal communication method of text.

Its the internet.

And this is not a YMDC discussion...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
And this is not a YMDC discussion...

Citation Needed. Page and paragraph will suffice.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Its the internet.

And this is not a YMDC discussion...

Yes, this is the internet, but where is the problem with attempting some good adult conversation, I know people get frustrated with these debate sometimes, I know I sure as hell do, that is why I don't weigh in often. maybe there needs to be a point where people just need to accept different interpretations of the BRB and it's myriad rules somewhat like Warhammer denominations or orders, but I digress, agreeing to disagree may be the most grown up thing to do in some of these situations and not drag it on for 9 pages before getting so heated it gets locked.

and I think this has complete relevancy to YMDC as it is talking about YMDC only the regulars of YMDC really need to see this so no need to put it in the wrong forum where someone who is part of this that never reads General will not see this.

TLDR: you're wrong.

Waaaghpower wrote:
There are clearly times when someone is remembering wrong or needs to cite an obscure piece of text, but 99% of the time when I see someone write 'Citation Needed' it's to a post that needs no citation. (In fact, I've seen several people say 'Citation Needed' to people who were posting opinions, not rules, and said as much in their post.)

Gonna need a citation on that.

Waaaghpower wrote:
This isn't a direct question about the game, but rather some comments about the discussions here. If it should be moved feel free, I just didn't think it belonged anywhere else...
First off: Saying 'Citation Needed' is not an argument. There are clearly times when someone is remembering wrong or needs to cite an obscure piece of text, but 99% of the time when I see someone write 'Citation Needed' it's to a post that needs no citation. (In fact, I've seen several people say 'Citation Needed' to people who were posting opinions, not rules, and said as much in their post.) So please, think before you type those 5 pointless syllables.

Which leads into my next statement: (Which ends as a question.) There has got to be a better way to handle arguments on here. Whenever there is a point with even the slightest contention it seems to devolve into a constant back and forth with no shifting of opinion, and by pthe second or third page of posts people are just posting their same opinions over and over, mixed in with snipes at other people and (as seen above) pointless 'Citation Neededs' and 'You're Wrongs'.
I've never seen a single person change their mind if they have posted more times than twice on an argument thread.
So how do we fix this? Clearly the current system doesn't work all too well... we can answer simple questions but bigger arguments just fall apart and dissolve into bickering until people get bored and stop replying. So how do we fix this?

In what vein are we talking about here? 40k Background?

That's not entirely unreasonable. There are some people who feel the need to flatout make stuff up and apply it to the background discussions, while insisting "They read it in a book once..." and then fleeing from the discussion when they get called on it.

 chaplaincliff wrote:
TLDR: you're wrong.

Except the MODs disagree.

Yes, people are jerks on the internet. Yes, discussion devolves quickly. No, this is not a topic for YMDC.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Waaaghpower wrote:
This isn't a direct question about the game, but rather some comments about the discussions here. If it should be moved feel free, I just didn't think it belonged anywhere else...
First off: Saying 'Citation Needed' is not an argument. There are clearly times when someone is remembering wrong or needs to cite an obscure piece of text, but 99% of the time when I see someone write 'Citation Needed' it's to a post that needs no citation. (In fact, I've seen several people say 'Citation Needed' to people who were posting opinions, not rules, and said as much in their post.) So please, think before you type those 5 pointless syllables.

Which leads into my next statement: (Which ends as a question.) There has got to be a better way to handle arguments on here. Whenever there is a point with even the slightest contention it seems to devolve into a constant back and forth with no shifting of opinion, and by pthe second or third page of posts people are just posting their same opinions over and over, mixed in with snipes at other people and (as seen above) pointless 'Citation Neededs' and 'You're Wrongs'.
I've never seen a single person change their mind if they have posted more times than twice on an argument thread.
So how do we fix this? Clearly the current system doesn't work all too well... we can answer simple questions but bigger arguments just fall apart and dissolve into bickering until people get bored and stop replying. So how do we fix this?

In what vein are we talking about here? 40k Background?

That's not entirely unreasonable. There are some people who feel the need to flatout make stuff up and apply it to the background discussions, while insisting "They read it in a book once..." and then fleeing from the discussion when they get called on it.

No, this is in reference to YMDC stuff. I posted this there originally, but it has apparently been moved.

Welcome to the internet, land of the noble Keyboard Warriors, the most stubborn sub strain of humanity to ever exist.
Nerds are also notorious for not shifting opinion when they think they're right. I admit that I'm a nerd, and most people here will admit it too. We know our 40k, we just all seem to know a different version of it, and the only thing we know more than that our fluff is right, is that yours is wrong.

The phrase "Citation Needed" is used when someone posts a statement, intended to be construed as "fact", generally in relation to background fluff related to the setting, that appears beyond the norm of generally-accepted events within the setting, or providing scenarios that seem unusual to it. I've seen it used in YMDC when someone posts.... creative interpretations of rules that seem to imply far more than the various books permit, or seem flat-out made up on the spot.

Waaaghpower wrote:
First off: Saying 'Citation Needed' is not an argument.

Correct, but when someone posts 'Citation Needed' they are asking for a page and Graph to back up a claim someone has made.

If they can not provide the Page and Graph then clearly their argument is not true.

Which leads into my next statement: (Which ends as a question.) There has got to be a better way to handle arguments on here. Whenever there is a point with even the slightest contention it seems to devolve into a constant back and forth with no shifting of opinion, and by pthe second or third page of posts people are just posting their same opinions over and over, mixed in with snipes at other people and (as seen above) pointless 'Citation Neededs' and 'You're Wrongs'.

Not all "'Citation Neededs'" are "pointless"

I've never seen a single person change their mind if they have posted more times than twice on an argument thread.
So how do we fix this? Clearly the current system doesn't work all too well... we can answer simple questions but bigger arguments just fall apart and dissolve into bickering until people get bored and stop replying. So how do we fix this?

People change their minds at times, I know I have before, reference this thread where I changed my outlook because of the rules presented:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/495528.page

That thread talks about disembarking from a Flyer before the flyer moves. we worked it out, it seemed to work one way, then the rules presented allowed me to realize the way I was presenting it was incorrect.

Saying "citation needed" "show me the evidence" or anything else like that is an easy way of avoiding arguing with people who have failed to create a logical argument. Now if only more people actually used it correctly....

Deathreaper, psienesis, I was referring specifically to the people who use 'Citation Needed' as an argument in and of itself, or in context where it doesn't work. (For example, I've posted 'IIRC' and opinions based on translation of the rules before and received 'Citation Needed.')
I never said all 'Citation Needed's' were pointless. I said that we should get rid of the pointless ones

Waaaghpower wrote:
Deathreaper, psienesis, I was referring specifically to the people who use 'Citation Needed' as an argument in and of itself, or in context where it doesn't work. (For example, I've posted 'IIRC' and opinions based on translation of the rules before and received 'Citation Needed.')
I never said all 'Citation Needed's' were pointless. I said that we should get rid of the pointless ones

That'd be nice, but then we'd need arbitration to enforce that, and unfortunately that's down to the discretion of individual Dakka-ites.

Waaaghpower wrote:
First off: Saying 'Citation Needed' is not an argument.

No, it's not. What it is, is a call for the other party to back up their position... which technically shouldn't actually be necessary in the first place, since the Tenets of YMDC ask people to either provide the appropriate reference to their rules argument, or to make it clear that their position is a 'WYWPI' claim and not based in actual rules.

The 'better way to handle it' is for people to remember to do those things in the first place, rather than making their claim and waiting for people to question where it is coming from...

I always wonder how half the debates in YMD would go in RL. On one hand I could see them be much more civil and actually reach conclusions... on the other hand, it ends in a hospital ward as several participants have to be tranquilized and then have hands surgically removed from others' throats.

It would rapidly devolve into name calling and insults.:
"No, you idiot, you *CANNOT* place a model like that!"

"F**k you, I can't! I placed YOUR MOM like that!"

I agree, "Citation Needed" is very much overused. I've seen people quote page numbers, exact phrasing and still have one or more others say "citation needed!".

Regarding the rest of the question: I think part of the problem is that YMDC (or really any 'forum' type) is the wrong format for rules questions. There can be so much back and forth while, as you stated, little to no movement on either party. Confusing things is when multiple people take to each side and you end up with 3 or more conversations interspaced with each other... and then there are the fully quoted replies.

Honestly, I think this is an example of how to do it:
http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/8627/can-necron-deathmarks-shoot-in-your-opponents-turn

Essentially that's a Q&A site. Someone posts a question, others post answers. If you, as a third party, like one of the answers you upvote it to indicate agreement. Any discussion on a particular answer is handled via comments on it. I use a site like it targeted for my area of work and have been extremely happy with the results. Oh, and the search function is awesome. Basically, it eliminates all of the back and forth and focuses things.

Another couple of points, those sites are heavily moderated (by the community) and duplicate questions are quickly removed. The site even shows you potential matches as you are typing in your question. You can even edit the original questions (and answers) themselves; this is generally to help people clarify what they are saying. Yes, those go into a review area for others to vote on to ensure you aren't trashing someone. Also, because it is reputation based, name calling and that crap are non-existent AND, even on those rare occasions that it appears, quickly stamped out.

tldr version; forums are not conducive to resolving issues. They are a great place to debate things; but if you are looking for a way to get to a solid straight answer then there are better ways.

clively wrote:
Regarding the rest of the question: I think part of the problem is that YMDC (or really any 'forum' type) is the wrong format for rules questions.

The bigger problem that arises from these discussions is that people tar the entire YMDC forum with the same brush, based on a minority of threads which evolve into multi-page arguments.

Seriously, go have a look at the first couple of pages of YMDC. Note how many (or, more precisely, how few) threads actually go as far as page 2. For the vast majority of rules issues, the question is asked and answered, and everyone moves on. For those questions, the forum works perfectly fine.

For the remainder, those threads that have no clear resolution, or that someone gets fixated on a given interpretation and won't back down on, the forum allows a full discussion where anyone with an opinion on interpretation of the written rules or on how the game best functions, can join in with that opinion, so that those reading the thread can read as broad a range of possibilities as possible. Which ultimately gives people a better grounding for making up their own minds on how the game should be played.

Yes, in some cases those threads eventually devolve into pointless back-and-forth... but for the most part, those threads do exactly what they are supposed to do, which is to allow discussion and provide people with the tools to make their own decisions. So again, the forum works just fine.

A format which only allows minimal responses is fine where the rules are clearer and easier to interpret. For a game with rules as big a mess as 40K, the open discussion format is really the best option for giving people access to all of the relevant information.

I strongly believe that any topic is pointless, if your conversation partner has already made up their mind and is unwilling to budge. This situation is only ever exacerbated when conducted online, precisely because there is no visual contact or connection.

That only makes the discussion pointless if you think that the point is to change the mind of that particular person.

If you instead look at it as just putting different points of view out there so that other people can see the different ways people interpret the rules, it's not quite so.