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.

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

Its interesting how much this demonstrates the emotional reaction this word generates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HuskyWarhammer wrote:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming."

This also.

Yeah, like I mentioned: Spam is just like WAAC or CAAC and has no real meaning, instead being a word thrown about to attack people.

I run three units of Demonettes for a batallion. That's the only unit I have more than one of in my list.

I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

 Farseer_V2 wrote:

 AndrewGPaul wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
I see a lot of people talking about spam.

Curious where the community breaks down in this regard.

Spam would be considered adding the same unit more than 2 times.

I play Astra Militarum, and I try to do so according to the background, so apparently I "spam". As opposed to fielding an organised, ordered military force rather than a rabble of warbands.

Its interesting how much this demonstrates the emotional reaction this word generates.

Not really. It's just that trying to field an Imperial Guard army with only one or two of basic units like Infantry Squads means you end up with an odd combination of units that looks less like an organised company and more like the leftovers from five different regiments that got mostly eaten by Tyranids; a platoon of one command squad, two infantry squads, two special weapon and two heavy weapon squads, some Ratlings some Ogryns, a couple of Leman Russ and a Hellhound or two, etc, etc. It might work, but it's quite the abnormality. If I played Orks or Chaos, I'd be all for that sort of thing.

Yeah, I didn't even want to bring up in this thread how silly Spam is for some of the "real armies" in the setting. A modern tank company is not two tanks, two squads of infantry, an AAV, a single helicopter, a brass section of the regimental band, and eighteen conscripts.

Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

Please show me how an emotional response adds value to the discussion.

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

I'm not saying that everybody lied but it is naiive to think that nobody used their own definition. Also at least two people voted before reading the definition (including me) (I actually do fit into your definition with my lists in 8th).

Also I am fielding more guardians in this edition (2 squads of 20) than I did last edition (3 squads of 10) but apparently last edition i was spamming them and this edition I'm not.

 Marmatag wrote:
Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

This is 100% the motto Dakka Dakka.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Of course that contention only matters if you attach an emotional response to the word spam.

God forbid people have emotional responses to words that have loaded meanings.

Please show me how an emotional response adds value to the discussion.

That's something people pay thousands of dollars for at university (behavioral science and psychology) but I'll give you a rundown:

We're discussing a hobby that people play for purely emotional reasons. Therefore, any attempt at rational understanding of why or how people play the way they play is inherently flawed, because emotional effects can outright prevent someone from playing (or, alternatively, convince them to play more). We're also discussing a subjective topic not rooted in objective truth, which means that the decision making is entirely done within the mind in this fabricated universe. This means that emotions explicitly affect the way we will behave and since "do you spam?" is a behavioral question, we must consider emotions as a decisionmaking factor.

Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds. If your definition is so controversial that the respondents disagree with it, then perhaps your methodology requires reexamination. Otherwise, all you'll get out of the study is "people with emotional responses to the words I used didn't understand them the way I meant them!" which isn't what you were going for (I think).

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds.

Explain how disagreeing based on an emotional response is worth anything at all.

You are basically saying: "I'm upset by the premise therefore I disagree." A better solution would be to come up with an opposing viewpoint that is rooted in logic rather than hurted feels.

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place

I mean, two thoughts really:

1. Dakka has no correlation to how actual 40k players play the game. We're just a few hundred people on a message board.
2. I voted myself "casual non-spam" since I'm not a very serious tournament player. I do play 3 Strike Teams in a Battalion though which I guess makes me a spammer.

 Marmatag wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Yes. But other people disagreed with the definition and disregarded it purely on emotional grounds.

Explain how disagreeing based on an emotional response is worth anything at all.

You are basically saying: "I'm upset by the premise therefore I disagree." A better solution would be to come up with an opposing viewpoint that is rooted in logic rather than hurted feels.

Why though?
It's an emotional game. Nothing at all has to be rooted in logic. Your 3 units is arbitrary. It could've been 50, in which case, why bother, or 2, in which case, yes, a spam do. In order to defeat an arbitrarily-drawn line in the sand, all I have to do is draw another line, say, 5 units, and say "NUH UH, this line is spam, your line is fabricated and made up!" and then your retort is, naturally, "NO YOU!"

Unless you can provide some logic why "3 of something" is the definition of spam? And why those things can be from vastly different datasheets (with as much as a 40-man transport capacity difference between them!) but still count the same?

3 was chosen because it is the general consensus in blogs/discussions I've had.

What would be the best way for me to see if that definition is accurate? Maybe find out if it matches the expectations in a given data set? How would I go about doing that?

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

Ehh - if you asked the question differently. You'd get a different response.

If the title was "who here like to run duplicate units?" I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more honest answers. Spam has a negative connotation.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
Not even close.

This was a simple question that was not open to emotional interpretation, with the boundaries clearly laid out.

While the definition of spam may be subjective in a broader sense, in the context of this thread, it is clearly and mathematically defined.

Bear in mind you're defending the stance that it is OK to lie to screw up data because you're emotionally charged. Or that it is okay to be upset because you don't like the premise of a discussion. There is no value in that. But i'm not surprised to see that response, this is literally what they teach in the USA now. If you're upset, someone must be at fault.

Ehh - if you asked the question differently. You'd get a different response.

If the title was "who here like to run duplicate units?" I'm pretty sure you'd get a lot more honest answers. Spam has a negative connotation.

Bingo. Spam is an emotional word ('negatively connotated'), and to use it and then be upset when people respond emotionally is just silly.

It's like saying "How many of you are WAAC (by this I mean want to win games)?" and wondering why the thread devolved into an argument about the definition of WAAC. "It's just a clear, concise definition guys, why can't you understand it!?"

Okay, if this is how we're going to play it Unit, I can do that too.

"Oh look, this question is framed such that I would fit into a category I dislike. Since I only run 3 baneblades, i'm going to make a tremendous stink and derail the thread completely."

You have voiced your displeasure. What exactly are you expecting at this point?

I consider this poll and thread to be more spam than three ork trukks or three 5 man scout teams. The definition is so broad, I can't see how this would bring any usefull data. In this poll an all infantry army or all tank army is not even considered spam as long as it's different units.

 Marmatag wrote:
Okay, if this is how we're going to play it Unit, I can do that too.

"Oh look, this question is framed such that I would fit into a category I dislike. Since I only run 3 baneblades, i'm going to make a tremendous stink and derail the thread completely."

Actually, earlier in the thread I admitted I was a spammer. It doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Just so everyone knows, I spam Baneblades. I'm firmly in the spammer category. Fite me about it if you don't like spam! I love spam. It's what makes armies real armies (as I mentioned earlier as well).

EDIT:
I'm expecting you to understand why this is a silly thread. "Data gathering" in 40k (and especially on DakkaDakka) is a frankly silly endeavor in general, because there's a lot of emotion involved. I once heard someone say that when Guard is OP everyone complains more than when other people are OP, not because they have some hateboner for IG specifically because, viscerally and emotionally, gunlines are not as much fun to play against as mobile armies, even if the mobile army creams you just as badly. That's a purely emotional response, and I won't deny its validity nor its utility into understanding the "Guard problem."

 Marmatag wrote:
I laugh at people saying we can't trust people to answer honestly in a poll.

If we can't trust them to answer honestly in a poll, we can't trust anything people say on these forums.

So i'll start with the people who said we can't trust the poll results. Since I can't trust these guys, I'll disregard their comments that people probably lied.

lol, this place


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 roflmajog wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:
But it's largely irrelevant.

If we can assume that people actually answered honestly, the vast majority of players do not spam, even with what we can agree is a fairly strong boundary to qualify as non-spam.

It also doesn't reflect that some armies simply have to spam, due to limited troop choices, or overall limited variety in their unit counts. This is more true - probably - for casual players than competitive players, because competitive players are more open to souping.

I don't think you can assume people answered "honestly". I think quite a few people will have either not read your overly restrictive definition of spam before they voted or read it and voted that they don't spam anyway because they disagree with the definition you gave.

"I disagree with the premise therefore i'm going to lie to feth up the data." -Dakka dakka, in a nutshell. This forum's motto should be "ego before rationality."

Or perhaps, "I am offended therefore the data is bad."

"Confession: I voted "no" before reading his ridiculous definition of "spam." Apparently that time I ran 3 units of 5 DE Warriors in a 1500 pt list is considered "spamming.""

Legitimately another guy posting a reply indicating that supports my point while you wrote your reply dismissing it.

I am not saying that people are INTENTIONALLY fething up the data. I'm saying they're doing it unintentionally because humans have a tendency to read sentences using their own definitions of particular terms. This is not a revolutionary concept in poll construction. It has nothing to do with me or anyone else being "offended". It is a thing you can look up.

I don't think I spam, but it is hard to fill out a brigade without "spamming troops". 3 squads of tacs I guess is spam. I could see it if they were 3x10 marine squads. so maybe I do spam but I only take 5 marines per squad tho. I guess I could take 2 intercessors, 2 scouts, and 2 tacs but I don't have enuff scouts.

I'm also a spammer. I take no shame in it. Basically all I play is spam.

For marines I run full primaris with 30 intercessors and 20 hellblasters and G man.

For Nids I run 3 Flyrants and at least 6 Carnifex.

For Daemons I run 3+ burning chariots with the rest of my army consisting of pink horrors and LOC.

Its how I have fun.

So for most armies any detachment other than patrol is spam. Got it.

 deviantduck wrote:
So for most armies any detachment other than patrol is spam. Got it.

seems so

Changed the title, and wording a bit, to hopefully decrease salt levels / turn off suicide watch.

Honestly, I'm regularly surprised at how little meaningful variety most factions have within a single FOC. Combine that with a chart of "must take 3 of X" and I don't see where anyone would wind up not taking 3 of things as the minimum standard.