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.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:

Amen to that

I'm so glad my well reasoned and sound reply regarding stereotypes and how not every Sisters player is like that is so quickly ignored in favor of helping the martyr climb onto his cross.

I guess we only accept the versions of reality that fit what we believe and no more.

The points made by H.M.B.C. ring true for every SOB player I've ever met, however I appreciate this certainly doesn't represent the whole group. On the other hand your dismissive responses towards those that believe the players of the SOB are overly defensive about their army and constantly grumbling about the neglect they face only serve to reinforce the perception of sanctimonious and condescending SOB players.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
You’re right, no one likes to be insulted because of the army they like, but this is the one area where I actually draw a line. Everywhere I’ve been since I got involved in the internet side of 40K (way back before ‘forums’ were really a thing and when people use guestbooks as forums) Sisters players have always struck me in this manner.

Now I hate the Tau with the fury of both a thousand suns and a Thousand Sons. I want every Tau in the galaxy to curl up and die (presuming they don’t let my troops kill them first), but I’d never attack someone for playing Tau (hell I even have a Tau force myself). But with Sisters it’s the opposite. I like the Sisters. I think they’re an interesting force. What I don’t like are their players, who, as many here can attest, jump to defend/attack at the slightest provocation. Yes there are always exceptions and yes my comments are hyperbolic in nature (Sisters players are not a Hive Mind after all, despite their repeated attempts to convince me otherwise), but come on man – you realise you’re doing exactly what I’m talking about?

Your comments were also intentionally inflammatory to attempt to get a rise out of people. And that's what disappointed me, I except better of you when I see you post, but instead here we are with you climbing up onto a cross to martyr yourself because two whole people disagreed with your assessment of a collective whole and said you were over generalizing. We both know you're far better than this, so don't make excuses to rationalize the behavior.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say “Sisters players are the most loyal. They’re fanatical to the point of being self-obsessed and extremely entitled despite the minor role their chosen army plays in the grand scheme of things*”, and immediately I have two Sisters players jumping to refute that… and in that action they prove my criticism to be 100% on the money! As I said, life imitating life! You have to at least appreciate the irony of that?

No you said took a pot-shot at people regarding Sisters players being all alike and mentioning "entitlement and self-important". It doesn't matter what army I play, that gak stinks and you know it. We aren't proving you correct, we're disagreed with your claims and no one attacked you over them. You can keep trying to put yourself on that cross though, but the fact is you were baiting for an emotionally charged response and you're still doing it.

Flippin' hell, act like the mature poster I've seen you be instead of this self-appointed martyr to your cause. I'm not going to lash out and "prove you right" by sinking to that level. I was serious when I said I was disappointed, I look forward to your posts because they're normally well reasoned and highly rational, and sometimes a little sarcastic. Instead I find someone who is intentionally trying to get a rise out of specific group of people because he dislikes the actions of a few, and when corrected on that claim of how not all members of the group act like that you declare yourself vindicated in your response? No, you're not vidicated because you lashed out at a group over the actions of a few individials.

Stop hiding behind this false-shield of righteousness in your attack on people. You may try to brush it off as a "wide generalization" but from the quality of your pasts posts I know you're smart enough to know better. But feel free to prove me wrong about that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
*No matter how much bigger you, I or anyone might want that role to be.

Everyone wants their army to be important in the grand scheme of things. No shocks there

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I’m not normally like this, but as I said, Sisters players are a special case because I’ve encountered so many in multiple places that are all like this.

I know you're not like this, but once you start making such generalizations and start stereotyping a group like this you're on a slippery slope. You showing prejudice against a group of people based on the army they play? Seriously? I expect better of you because I've seen better of you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I am generalising, but I don’t think I’m doing it unfairly. I mean there's even a mod here who's a Sisters player and he doesn't act the way I'm describing at all.

But look at it from the other side. When the Witch Hunters Codex went bye bye we had our usual suspects (they know who they are) celebrating the end of Inquisitorial units. Well… I had a Witch Hunter army without any Sisters. I was losing an army (as I did when Daemonhunters went the way of the Squats), yet all I saw was “Finally we’re free!” comments and got yelled at for having the temerity to wish that a Sisters Codex didn’t mean invalidating yet another army of mine.

Oh, and by the way, all those people celebrating the end of Witch Hunters then went on to complain about the Codex they did get, thus fulfilling the prophesy that Sisters players can never be happy about anything ever.

I admit that I wasn't sad to see the Inquisition gone, but I wasn't sad to see the new codex either. I actually won more games with that WD than I ever did with C:WH. I had fun with both, but I legitimately did better with the second one.

I didn't really post on Dakka when the switch happened, so I can't speak of what happened here, but I know I was a voice on other boards who was a lot more accepting about the book and was encouraging others to be too. And I know I wasn't alone either.

As for the kneecap shot to the Inquisition Players, I can't justify GW's need at times to invalidate armies but at least Coteaz still gives you some mileage out of it. I just had to shelve my Repentia because they've actually gotten worse, so it's not like I don't know the feeling to have things you like playing taken away.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I wouldn’t say using the subject line is “clever”. I just think it’s fun to see who’s paying attention, but that’s neither here nor there.

This time it was definitely and attempt at baiting, but like I said, I'm not giving you an emotionally charge response full of anger and vitriol, but a well reasoned response that you're not being fair to everyone, and you even admitted it. Honestly justifying it has disappointed me more than you keep trying to justify your prejudices against a group because your dislike of a few individuals. I expected better of you because I've seen better from you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say “Sisters players are the most loyal. They’re fanatical to the point of being self-obsessed and extremely entitled despite the minor role their chosen army plays in the grand scheme of things*”, and immediately I have two Sisters players jumping to refute that… and in that action they prove my criticism to be 100% on the money! As I said, life imitating life! You have to at least appreciate the irony of that?

But that's hardly a fair test. Either every SoB fan stayed quiet and let a negative, unfair portrayal of us stay unopposed, or we disagree with you and "prove" your point. You said it yourself, no one likes to be insulted because of the army they like. It was a self-fufilling prophecy, really.

Also, only two SoB fans, myself and Zion, actually responded to your points. It's not like every SoB player on the board piled in to angrily argue with you.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
But look at it from the other side. When the Witch Hunters Codex went bye bye we had our usual suspects (they know who they are) celebrating the end of Inquisitorial units. Well… I had a Witch Hunter army without any Sisters. I was losing an army (as I did when Daemonhunters went the way of the Squats), yet all I saw was “Finally we’re free!” comments and got yelled at for having the temerity to wish that a Sisters Codex didn’t mean invalidating yet another army of mine.

But, you see, before the Sisters were in WH, they were on their own. A lot of SoB fans didn't like suddenly having to share with the Ordo Hereticus. Yes, it's a shame that you lost your army that you put time and effort into, but the people who celebrated the splitting off of the Sisters were probably also quite passionate about the idea as the SoB as their own force, because that's what they were used to.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Oh, and by the way, all those people celebrating the end of Witch Hunters then went on to complain about the Codex they did get, thus fulfilling the prophesy that Sisters players can never be happy about anything ever.

But the codex we got was contained in two WDs that if you missed you had get off eBay or pirate, and had some very notable gameplay flaws. Those were quite legitimate complaints.

And, on the contrary to your generalisaiton, I saw plenty of happy SoB fans when the AS Digital Codex dropped. We got a buyable codex with improved rules, as well as nice extra bits like Apoc formations and relics.

 Banzaimash wrote:
The points made by H.M.B.C. ring true for every SOB player I've ever met, however I appreciate this certainly doesn't represent the whole group. On the other hand your dismissive responses towards those that believe the players of the SOB are overly defensive about their army and constantly grumbling about the neglect they face only serve to reinforce the perception of sanctimonious and condescending SOB players.

Obviously you haven't met the right Sisters players.

Seriously though, read my first post. I never claimed that no one was like that, but I was against the claims that everyone is like that just because they play an army. I don't lump all Tau players into a single group, nor Marine players, nor Ork players and I expect the same, not to be lumped into a single group for the soul purpose of justifying the "right" to look down upon me. You can claim a lot of things, but I am no angry, over defensive Sisters player. I admit the army has a lot of problems and I've honestly made my peace with whatever GW decides to do with them (if they get Squatted I'm going to have a really cool Salamanders army ).

I just don't appreciate this notion that all Sisters players are just waiting to pounce on the slightest notion of any sort of criticism about the army. I don't do it, and I know others who don't do it. And even if a large number of players here do it, Dakka doesn't have every single Sisters player out there and it never will. It's just a fact that you can't gather enough data from even the entire internet community to really "prove" anything about any one group of people, especially those who play wargames. We're a diverse bunch of individuals and all deserve to be treated as such instead of lumped into stereotypes and lashed out at because of the armies we play. It's not fair to any of us to do so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sisters players. Through and through.

Never have I encountered such a group of people in my life. Every Sister player is the same.

EDIT: Caught onto the "joke". Yeah, real "cute" there. You sound like a bigot there.

Y'know, you weren't supposed to prove HBMC right, you're supposed to prove him wrong.

"You're a bigot!"
"Sexist!"
"Misogynistic!"

What next? It's the same white-knight crap time after time, though it never stops being amusing.

I didn't say he is a bigot, I said he sounded like a bigot.

A person who is a bigot, is bigoted. Or to use the definition:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So, that is to say that is post makes it appear that he shows a prejudiced intolerance towards Sisters players as a whole. I'm not "proving him right" I'm commenting that his post makes him sound bad because he's showing an unfavorable side of himself that might not even be true.

I'm not accusing him of bigotry, I'm saying that the nature of his post presents a possible negative aspect I don't think he intended. But please, continue to accuse me of White Knighting when I'm objecting to the idea of stereotyping any player based on their army of choice.

 Troike wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I say “Sisters players are the most loyal. They’re fanatical to the point of being self-obsessed and extremely entitled despite the minor role their chosen army plays in the grand scheme of things*”, and immediately I have two Sisters players jumping to refute that… and in that action they prove my criticism to be 100% on the money! As I said, life imitating life! You have to at least appreciate the irony of that?

But that's hardly a fair test. Either every SoB fan stayed quiet and let a negative, unfair portrayal of us stay unopposed, or we disagree with you and "prove" your point. You said it yourself, no one likes to be insulted because of the army they like. It was a self-fufilling prophecy, really.

If SOB fans stayed quiet then the "negative, unfair portrayal" of them would not come about or, being existent, be perpetuated.

 Banzaimash wrote:
If SOB fans stayed quiet then the "negative, unfair portrayal" of them would not come about or, being existent, be perpetuated.

But isn't the stating of it as a fact a perpetuation in itself? Would you stay quiet if somebody said negative things about you?

 ClockworkZion wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Sisters players. Through and through.

Never have I encountered such a group of people in my life. Every Sister player is the same.

EDIT: Caught onto the "joke". Yeah, real "cute" there. You sound like a bigot there.

Y'know, you weren't supposed to prove HBMC right, you're supposed to prove him wrong.

"You're a bigot!"
"Sexist!"
"Misogynistic!"

What next? It's the same white-knight crap time after time, though it never stops being amusing.

I didn't say he is a bigot, I said he sounded like a bigot.

A person who is a bigot, is bigoted. Or to use the definition:

having or revealing an obstinate belief in the superiority of one's own opinions and a prejudiced intolerance of the opinions of others.

So, that is to say that is post makes it appear that he shows a prejudiced intolerance towards Sisters players as a whole. I'm not "proving him right" I'm commenting that his post makes him sound bad because he's showing an unfavorable side of himself that might not even be true.

I'm not accusing him of bigotry, I'm saying that the nature of his post presents a possible negative aspect I don't think he intended. But please, continue to accuse me of White Knighting when I'm objecting to the idea of stereotyping any player based on their army of choice.

Wow, you certainly know the best ways of twisting and mincing words. What if I said you "sounded like a slimy politician"? It's a really thin line between saying someone sounds like something and saying someone IS something. You can argue technical definitions but in most manners of speech you just sound like you're going in a roundabout way of calling him a bigot.
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

His post doesn't make him sound bad at all. It's just another way of thinking and you seem quick to be very intolerant to his views.

 Banzaimash wrote:
If SOB fans stayed quiet then the "negative, unfair portrayal" of them would not come about or, being existent, be perpetuated.

Yes, because that's how it worked for all the other times human beings use unfair and untrue generalizations of groups.

Perpetuating an unfair and untrue generalizations of a group of people regardless of the demographic doesn't get solved by pretending it isn't happening. There are always a few who perpetuate the stereotype, but even now we have two people who play Sisters who have posted a disapproval of an obviously slanted truth and yet are rebuffed as perpetuating that idea, yet neither of us have made angry postings that fill that stereotype.

So what's wrong with this picture right? Well first that we have people brushing other people off when a valid point is made, and that we have people who defend someone for making inflammatory remarks and chastise anyone who corrects said remarks, particularly as is being done now: calmly and without anger, vitriol or malice.

If every single Sisters player was in here up in arms I understand, but only as far as the point he made about reactions, for the reactions aren't aimed at anyone criticizing the army, it's aimed at a statement that was made about the players. Of have we forgotten that groups are made of individual people and that regardless of how much in common a group has, they are still people who behave, think and feel differently than each other?

If we have, then perhaps we need to take a step back and reevaluate how we see each other.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
The points made by H.M.B.C. ring true for every SOB player I've ever met, however I appreciate this certainly doesn't represent the whole group. On the other hand your dismissive responses towards those that believe the players of the SOB are overly defensive about their army and constantly grumbling about the neglect they face only serve to reinforce the perception of sanctimonious and condescending SOB players.

Obviously you haven't met the right Sisters players.

Seriously though, read my first post. I never claimed that no one was like that, but I was against the claims that everyone is like that just because they play an army. I don't lump all Tau players into a single group, nor Marine players, nor Ork players and I expect the same, not to be lumped into a single group for the soul purpose of justifying the "right" to look down upon me. You can claim a lot of things, but I am no angry, over defensive Sisters player. I admit the army has a lot of problems and I've honestly made my peace with whatever GW decides to do with them (if they get Squatted I'm going to have a really cool Salamanders army ).

I just don't appreciate this notion that all Sisters players are just waiting to pounce on the slightest notion of any sort of criticism about the army. I don't do it, and I know others who don't do it. And even if a large number of players here do it, Dakka doesn't have every single Sisters player out there and it never will. It's just a fact that you can't gather enough data from even the entire internet community to really "prove" anything about any one group of people, especially those who play wargames. We're a diverse bunch of individuals and all deserve to be treated as such instead of lumped into stereotypes and lashed out at because of the armies we play. It's not fair to any of us to do so.

As I said, I appreciate all SOB players aren't the same as the one's I've met, but with respect to those I've met I concur with what H.M.B.C. said. Perhaps I should have made this clear when I first agreed with him. One cannot deny though that there is still a fairly common perception of most SOB players being highly protective of their armies; true or not, by responding to someone you obviously believe to be making bigoted arguments, you only are strengthening this.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

If I were to call you unlikable and overly argumentative, and you disagreed with me, would you be wrong for doing so? Similarly, would you be okay with me saying things like that about you unchallenged?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
If SOB fans stayed quiet then the "negative, unfair portrayal" of them would not come about or, being existent, be perpetuated.

Yes, because that's how it worked for all the other times human beings use unfair and untrue generalizations of groups.

Perpetuating an unfair and untrue generalizations of a group of people regardless of the demographic doesn't get solved by pretending it isn't happening. There are always a few who perpetuate the stereotype, but even now we have two people who play Sisters who have posted a disapproval of an obviously slanted truth and yet are rebuffed as perpetuating that idea, yet neither of us have made angry postings that fill that stereotype.

I'm saying that eventually such a stereotype would die out if it were not fueled by many SOB player's defensiveness which is sometimes to the point of being aggressiveness.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Wow, you certainly know the best ways of twisting and mincing words. What if I said you "sounded like a slimy politician"? It's a really thin line between saying someone sounds like something and saying someone IS something. You can argue technical definitions but in most manners of speech you just sound like you're going in a roundabout way of calling him a bigot.

Your statement uses comparative speech, not stating that I am something, but that you believe I resemble something in some form or manner. Comparing me to a slimy politician isn't very correct though as no one writes my speeches for me.

That said, I wasn't trying to say he was a bigot, just that what he said made him sound like one to me at the time. What was said was frankly very generalized and was aimed at all Sisters players regardless of their actual behavior. That was wrong of him to do unless he was jesting, but based on his follow up posts he was not. He has a prejudiced view against people who play the army and I don't like that in anyone for any reason.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive

I'm cutting you off here because you're missing points in the conversation I feel and need to be corrected on them. Sisters of Battle players aren't all overly defensive about their armies. Generalizations and stereotypes about groups of players though, everyone should be against, regardless of which army they play. His accusation was that Sisters players are all overly sensitive about their any slight against the army.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

You seem to be quick to choose sides in a debate that you don't know all the facts on, would that make you the HMBC Internet Defense Force then? No, it makes you someone who feels that someone (HMBC) is receiving unfair backlash about what he said. Likewise, I believe I'm recieving unfair backlash aimed at me because of what others have done in the past and I'm receiving unfair treatment because of the army I play. Ad Hominen attacks don't solve the issue though.

The issue at hand that some things were said that generalized and stereotyped an entire group because of some select individuals based on the army they play. Is it fair, just, or right? Would it be if I replaced "army they played" with "race" or "sex" or "religion" or "nationality"? Of course not to all of those! It doesn't matter who you do it to, or why you do it it the act isn't right.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
His post doesn't make him sound bad at all. It's just another way of thinking and you seem quick to be very intolerant to his views.

I'm intolerant only to those who stereotype and generalize and then try to justify it. I happen to like H.M.B.C. and the fact that he can be so willing to do so was disappointing. I'm not mad, I'm just let down that someone I usually see as a very intelligent individual would post something that is so logically unsound. He's a good guy and I just expected better than that of him I suppose.

 Troike wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

If I were to call you unlikable and overly argumentative, and you disagreed with me, would you be wrong for doing so? Similarly, would you be okay with me saying things like that about you unchallenged?

Well this is purely hypothetical because I am very likable and I consider being argumentative a good thing, so you may want to pick another example. :^)

:edit:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
Wow, you certainly know the best ways of twisting and mincing words. What if I said you "sounded like a slimy politician"? It's a really thin line between saying someone sounds like something and saying someone IS something. You can argue technical definitions but in most manners of speech you just sound like you're going in a roundabout way of calling him a bigot.

Your statement uses comparative speech, not stating that I am something, but that you believe I resemble something in some form or manner. Comparing me to a slimy politician isn't very correct though as no one writes my speeches for me.

That said, I wasn't trying to say he was a bigot, just that what he said made him sound like one to me at the time. What was said was frankly very generalized and was aimed at all Sisters players regardless of their actual behavior. That was wrong of him to do unless he was jesting, but based on his follow up posts he was not. He has a prejudiced view against people who play the army and I don't like that in anyone for any reason.

Hey, it's based off of multiple personal experiences and I can vouch that I've run into every Sisters player being the exact same, as well. And let's not forget that stereotypes come about for a reason.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive

I'm cutting you off here because you're missing points in the conversation I feel and need to be corrected on them. Sisters of Battle players aren't all overly defensive about their armies. Generalizations and stereotypes about groups of players though, everyone should be against, regardless of which army they play. His accusation was that Sisters players are all overly sensitive about their any slight against the army.

See, on the other hand I don't think that it's a generalization or stereotype at all. Even note in this very thread about how most people are noting that SoB players are the most "loyal".

You seem to be quick to choose sides in a debate that you don't know all the facts on, would that make you the HMBC Internet Defense Force then? No, it makes you someone who feels that someone (HMBC) is receiving unfair backlash about what he said. Likewise, I believe I'm recieving unfair backlash aimed at me because of what others have done in the past and I'm receiving unfair treatment because of the army I play. Ad Hominen attacks don't solve the issue though.

I'm more quick to jump in on a debate that I know a lot about, and both on here and every other forum I've been on, SoB players have been the same so I'm affirming what HBMC said.
No, but it's okay if you're the one issuing the Ad Hominem attacks. I see see where this is going.

The issue at hand that some things were said that generalized and stereotyped an entire group because of some select individuals based on the army they play. Is it fair, just, or right? Would it be if I replaced "army they played" with "race" or "sex" or "religion" or "nationality"? Of course not to all of those! It doesn't matter who you do it to, or why you do it it the act isn't right.

Well if you said that all Christians believe in God, that wouldn't be a stereotype, it would be true. If you said that indigenous Native American Indians are less resistant to alcohol, that'd be right too. These are what we call facts.

I'm intolerant only to those who stereotype and generalize and then try to justify it. I happen to like H.M.B.C. and the fact that he can be so willing to do so was disappointing. I'm not mad, I'm just let down that someone I usually see as a very intelligent individual would post something that is so logically unsound. He's a good guy and I just expected better than that of him I suppose.

See I don't get all of these appeals. So it's okay to be intolerant only in the way that you feel is correct and that's it. That's how I'm reading it.

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'm saying that eventually such a stereotype would die out if it were not fueled by many SOB player's defensiveness which is sometimes to the point of being aggressiveness.

If we're talking about the defensiveness some individuals have for the army, then only if the negative folks shut up as well. The problem is the positive folks try to avoid such debates and what happens because of it? We end up unfairly labeled and categorized. I don't see that as right, do you?

Would anyone here who doesn't play Sisters really liked to be lumped in as being exactly the same as the most negative and generally least fun to deal with people who play their army? I don't think so. And voicing a disagreement about that point isn't something that should be so harshly attacked. You may disagree with my viewpoint, but at the end of the day I'm not just saying this about Sisters players but all players: everyone is an individual, don't stereotype them based on the others that also play that army.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So what's wrong with this picture right? Well first that we have people brushing other people off when a valid point is made, and that we have people who defend someone for making inflammatory remarks and chastise anyone who corrects said remarks, particularly as is being done now: calmly and without anger, vitriol or malice.

What you may view as an inflammatory remark others may view as a largely valid opinion, you ought to respect that rather than be so dismissive, I also wouldn't say that your valid points on stereotyping have been brushed off, and in fact I agree with you in that regard. Finally by saying that you are correcting others remarks "calmly and without anger, vitriol or malice", you seem to be implying that perhaps others are not doing the same, and in doing so cause offence.

Ok SOB players you have proven your point, lets get back to the topic at hand, at this point everyone is arguing with walls that wont budge.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
I'm saying that eventually such a stereotype would die out if it were not fueled by many SOB player's defensiveness which is sometimes to the point of being aggressiveness.

If we're talking about the defensiveness some individuals have for the army, then only if the negative folks shut up as well. The problem is the positive folks try to avoid such debates and what happens because of it? We end up unfairly labeled and categorized. I don't see that as right, do you?

Would anyone here who doesn't play Sisters really liked to be lumped in as being exactly the same as the most negative and generally least fun to deal with people who play their army? I don't think so. And voicing a disagreement about that point isn't something that should be so harshly attacked. You may disagree with my viewpoint, but at the end of the day I'm not just saying this about Sisters players but all players: everyone is an individual, don't stereotype them based on the others that also play that army.

Getting a bit tetchy Clockwork Zion, we're just having a debate, you can be passionate without telling people to "shut up". I've already said that I also disagree with stereotypes, but that seems to be something you choose to ignore. My point still stands; in the long term if SOB players weren't so defensive (which they largely, but not entirely, are) then the generalization of them being this way would eventually die out.

 Banzaimash wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
So what's wrong with this picture right? Well first that we have people brushing other people off when a valid point is made, and that we have people who defend someone for making inflammatory remarks and chastise anyone who corrects said remarks, particularly as is being done now: calmly and without anger, vitriol or malice.

What you may view as an inflammatory remark others may view as a largely valid opinion, you ought to respect that rather than be so dismissive, I also wouldn't say that your valid points on stereotyping have been brushed off, and in fact I agree with you in that regard. Finally by saying that you are correcting others remarks "calmly and without anger, vitriol or malice", you seem to be implying that perhaps others are not doing the same, and in doing so cause offence.

Actually the point about being calm was that the Sisters players, who are stereotyped as being a loud and angry mob, are being civil in this and yet we still have people behaving as if we're somehow not right in saying that we are not all that angry mob that the entire group is being painted as. It's a little unfair to be told you can't defend yourself when being unfairly portrayed was more the intended meaning there.

I disagree with HMBC's post being an opinion that is worth defending (all opinions are "valid", just not all of them are "good" or even worth defending) though because of the generalities he's making. By claiming "all Sisters players are the same" as if we all roll of an assembly line, perfectly manufactured to be loud and angry and bitter, and yet we're not. There are large portions of our little sub-group in the community who try and be positive and avoid the debates about the army.

 Banzaimash wrote:

Getting a bit tetchy Clockwork Zion, we're just having a debate, you can be passionate without telling people to "shut up". I've already said that I also disagree with stereotypes, but that seems to be something you choose to ignore. My point still stands; in the long term if SOB players weren't so defensive (which they largely, but not entirely, are) then the generalization of them being this way would eventually die out.

I'm not telling anyone to "shut up", I'm saying that the only way the idea of angry Sisters players can go aways is if the angry Sisters players shut up.

And I largely disagree with the generalization dying out because it came into being because people tried to stay out of it. Because, I, and others like me, chose to stay out of the arguments our only representation in such things has been those loud, angry voices. That doesn't stop just because we choose to be silent. It's the same issue I face being an American, to a large part of the world we're loud and stupid because those they hear are loud and stupid. It doesn't stop just because I'm polite and quiet.

With your explanation I realise your point on calm was not to imply offence but only part of your argument, and so apologise for reading into it a bit too much. However I don't think you appreciate that perhaps H.M.B.C. was perhaps being slightly hyperbolic. It's obvious that no two people are exactly alike regardless of their similarities. However, the idea that it takes two hands to clap also has merit. If SOB completely stopped defending themselves and their armies, then those who had gripes with many of them, whether real or simply as an act of trolling, would no longer have anything to complain about. You yourself have seen how your largely valid points are still being dismissed by some as stereotypical SOB ranting.

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

If I were to call you unlikable and overly argumentative, and you disagreed with me, would you be wrong for doing so? Similarly, would you be okay with me saying things like that about you unchallenged?

Well this is purely hypothetical because I am very likable and I consider being argumentative a good thing, so you may want to pick another example. :^)

Okay, so if I were to say that you are unlikable, surely you'd be more inclined to argue against me, especially since you regard a bit of argumentativeness to be a good thing? That's really all that's happened here, a negative statement which some felt to be incorrect was posted, so some of us argued against it. If I were to do the same to you, you'd feel bad about it and try to correct my statement, right?

 Troike wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

 Troike wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
And again ironically, you keep on attempting to say that Sisters of battle players aren't overly defensive when, in reaction to HBMC's post, you and one other sisters of battle come riding in to defend yourselves. Very nice Sisters Internet Defence Force.

If I were to call you unlikable and overly argumentative, and you disagreed with me, would you be wrong for doing so? Similarly, would you be okay with me saying things like that about you unchallenged?

Well this is purely hypothetical because I am very likable and I consider being argumentative a good thing, so you may want to pick another example. :^)

Okay, so if I were to say that you are unlikable, surely you'd be more inclined to argue against me, especially since you regard a bit of argumentativeness to be a good thing? That's really all that's happened here, a negative statement which some felt to be incorrect was posted, so some of us argued against it. If I were to do the same to you, you'd feel bad about it and try to correct my statement, right?

See, there's a slight difference here: I know that's what being said isn't true, and furthermore I seriously couldn't care less about what somebody on this forum thinks about me. Though if you -did- do that, what I wouldn't do is come on the thread and go "wow you fethers are so fething slowed i hate all of you" because that'd be proving that I am unlikable. This is in direct contrast with what y'all did.

 Banzaimash wrote:
With your explanation I realise your point on calm was not to imply offence but only part of your argument, and so apologise for reading into it a bit too much. However I don't think you appreciate that perhaps H.M.B.C. was perhaps being slightly hyperbolic. It's obvious that no two people are exactly alike regardless of their similarities. However, the idea that it takes two hands to clap also has merit. If SOB completely stopped defending themselves and their armies, then those who had gripes with many of them, whether real or simply as an act of trolling, would no longer have anything to complain about. You yourself have seen how your largely valid points are still being dismissed by some as stereotypical SOB ranting.

I don't think any player should be told that they can't defend themselves in the face of hyperobole, generalizations or stereotypes. I wouldn't ask that of any person, and asking it of those who play a specific army won't sold that army's issues anyhow. I can't stop the angry and bitter players from being so, but that doesn't mean I have to sit idly by either when accused of being in the same group, particularly when it is not done in jest but in seriousness.

As I said before, I was never mad or upset but disappointed. I'm disappointed to find someone I hold in high regard could hold such a unsavory opinion, and I'm dissapointed that we're asked to be silent and told "our problems will go away". You can't solve problems by ignoring them. I can't present an example of a level headed and rational Sisters player by sitting idlying by and pretending it isn't happening. I can only do so by being an example of who I am, by presenting a rational and decent human being who just wants to play an army they enjoy and doesn't wish to be stereotyped for it. I can't do that by being silent because then any example I am is ignored for the clambering voices that shout at the top of their lungs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
See, there's a slight difference here: I know that's what being said isn't true, and furthermore I seriously couldn't care less about what somebody on this forum thinks about me. Though if you -did- do that, what I wouldn't do is come on the thread and go "wow you fethers are so fething slowed i hate all of you" because that'd be proving that I am unlikable. This is in direct contrast with what y'all did.

You also wouldn't have a contrasting viewpoint that contradicts the perceived stereotype.

Like I said, being quiet about it hasn't done the more sensible part of the little sub-group labeled "Sisters players" now has it? We only got to this point because the sensible were silent. And honestly I'm tired of being accused of just being some angry person on the internet because of the army I play. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last time because people will keep lumping those of us in who wish to be treated like the reasonable individuals we are because we said nothing in the past. Now we have to push even harder to correct that.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:
See, there's a slight difference here: I know that's what being said isn't true, and furthermore I seriously couldn't care less about what somebody on this forum thinks about me. Though if you -did- do that, what I wouldn't do is come on the thread and go "wow you fethers are so fething slowed i hate all of you" because that'd be proving that I am unlikable. This is in direct contrast with what y'all did.

You also wouldn't have a contrasting viewpoint that contradicts the perceived stereotype.

Like I said, being quiet about it hasn't done the more sensible part of the little sub-group labeled "Sisters players" now has it? We only got to this point because the sensible were silent. And honestly I'm tired of being accused of just being some angry person on the internet because of the army I play. This isn't the first time, and it won't be the last time because people will keep lumping those of us in who wish to be treated like the reasonable individuals we are because we said nothing in the past. Now we have to push even harder to correct that.

By being proving that I am a rather likable person would contradict the stereotype.
The sensible were silent, or was it because there were no sensible people (SoB players) to begin with. And of course, the more you'll push, the more you'll just be regarded as "-yawn- another overly defensive and angry SoB player, news at 11 the sun is going to rise tomorrow" and so on and so forth. You guys are certainly caught in a nice little Catch 22 here but it's one that the SoB fanbase created.

The most loyal would be the few remaining Adepta Sororitas players. I say this because they are one of the armies that has lost, not gained, power over the many long years. They are still a decent army though.

Why such fervor? The lore of the Battle Sisters calls to the zealous, righteous, and outspoken. My army is the Sororitas and those traits are what make them appeal to me. HBMC's post is entirely troll bait, but I'll agree with his sentiments and I share in the sadness of the lost Inquisition/Witch Hunters.

After the Sisters I would lean towards pre-5th edition Space Wolves players. The local players near me are all diehard fluff nuts and those that played the army before 5th edition are still playing it now, the 5th ed band wagoners all jumped off for Grey Knights.

Honorable mention would go to Ork players. An army that has never been high-tier, but always enjoyable/fun.

Orks, by far.

Anyone else is just getting their knickers in a twist.

Ork players are in a weird position because they've never had a full model range. Not once. They've always had gaps. It's bizarre. Other armies have full ranges and are starting to get new things there's so little left to re-do. Even Sisters for crying out loud can technically do everything in their book with the models they have. But Orks? There's always something missing. I don't know what it is, and it's not as if they have the most extensive list of vastly different unit types (surely Eldar holds that record, right?).

 Banzaimash wrote:
However I don't think you appreciate that perhaps H.M.B.C. was perhaps being slightly hyperbolic.

I'm always hyperbolic. I'm the most hyperbolic person ever. Of all time.




Anyway, I say that Sisters players conform to the OP - that they are the most loyal, due to their endless vocal attempts to defend the Sisters at every opportunity - and we get a full page of argument from Sisters players saying that they aren't. Good God people! Aren't we drowning in the irony yet! And for the record I wasn't trolling. Trolling implies I only said what I said to get a rise out of people. I knew what I was saying would get a rise out of people, but that's not why I said it. I said it 'cause it's true. The past page has proven that.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Banzaimash wrote:
However I don't think you appreciate that perhaps H.M.B.C. was perhaps being slightly hyperbolic.

I'm always hyperbolic. I'm the most hyperbolic person ever. Of all time.




Anyway, I say that Sisters players conform to the OP - that they are the most loyal, due to their endless vocal attempts to defend the Sisters at every opportunity - and we get a full page of argument from Sisters players saying that they aren't. Good God! I'm drowning in irony here!

So err...was that intentional or accidental trolling

Neither. Read above.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Neither. Read above.

Forgot being sardonic really doesn't cross over well online

I was going to try and argue my case, but since we seem to have veered off into the land of "Discussing the merits of the English Language" while at the same time telling people "You're an abused minority so you should shut up", I seem to have lost the will to do more than point out that you all just invoked Godwin's Law.