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.

 Sqorgar wrote:


Look, there are certain points of contention in this hobby (female space marines, boob armor, Slaanesh's child friendliness) that are definitely ideological, if not outright morality-based, and I think that flat out disallowing these discussions really does lead people to believe that their viewpoints and opinions are being oppressed by an authoritarian group trying to force their morality/ideology on others. Allowing those discussions, even if consensus is never reached, at least allows those people to feel like their viewpoints are allowed and being heard.

Being heard by whom? You make it sound like its a crusade and that people are being oppressed.
It's just admin/moderators on community websites who want to have an evening where they spam=ban a few bots, move a few threads and otherwise carry on enjoying the site. They don't want to spend an hour going through a dozen reports on insults flying back and forth in a topic that has no "conclusion" save for people shouting and arguing at each other.
They don't want to see people leaving the site or the site getting a hostile reputation for such fights; they don't want ot have to hand out bans to people who otherwise are often good, sane, sensible contributing members.

Furthermore most of the community doesn't want fights. No seriously they don't. When a debate is just airing opinions back and forth over and over with insults there is no ground to cover, no viewpoint to express that hasn't been expressed before and thus its FAR easier and better to just ban the topic and move on.

This isn't human rights or the right of women to equal pay on a government website; its a FLUFF argument that people get way too heated about. Esp considering that no amount of forum arguing will "win".

You can talk down a person from a ledge because they've decided to step down on their own, but if you grab them off the ledge, they'll just wait until you aren't looking and jump anyway.

And how many free hours were you wiling to talk people down off the edge on forums over, what are otherwise, totally pointless debates? I've been there and done that and in general you have a few worth the time, most are not going to listen and many just go off in a huff and ignore you. Or they make a lot of noise about how sorry they are and that they won't do it a gain and then next time that topic comes up they are fired up once more.
As you say some people are calm and able to debate, others get fired up WAY too easily and not only get really into the debate, but start insulting and slinging accusations and generally being obnoxious. And once they start others react in kind and suddenly it becomes a brawl.

As for politics, some politics is absolutely necessary. I mean, you can't tell me that Brexit won't impact a major part of the hobby miniatures market. Like 3D printing, politics is something that seem peripheral until it doesn't. But I agree that complaining about Trump and Russian collusion in the election is a little off topic and should be treated as such.

The point is whilst things will change, endless debate on forums isn't where the change is happening, that's just airing opinions. Heck go back 20 years and people were predicting that we'd all have home 3D printers by now and we'd be 3D printing Everything. Products would be sold in pouches of materials and you'd home-cast them.

Regardless GW isn't selling 3D prints so you can very much leave htem out of AT discussions. There's the official models, 3rd party parts (on 3rd party sites), tactics, lore, painting, model assembly, converting etc.. there's a whole wealth of things to chat about other than 3D printed parts.

Sqorgar: you're making valid points, and from an ideal standpoint, I agree with you.

I think that in practice, most Facebook groups are run by a small team of very part time admins, and the discussions can escalate very quickly.

All I'm saying is that while I've never moderated a discussion group, I've inherited enough responsibility in my life to not immediately second guess every decision that's made. There's simply a finite amount of time, energy, and willpower to manage discussions, and sometimes just cutting them off is the only way to stay sane.

I'm just puzzled by the whole debate. To me, gatekeeping is the very point of social media and forum groups.

If it's somehow 'bad,' I have no idea what function those groups serve.

 Overread wrote:
Being heard by whom?

The community. Nothing makes you feel more like an outsider than people explicitly telling you that you and/or your views are not welcome there. People who feel like outsiders don't feel obligated to fit in, follow social norms, or even rules.

It's just admin/moderators on community websites who want to have an evening where they spam=ban a few bots, move a few threads and otherwise carry on enjoying the site. They don't want to spend an hour going through a dozen reports on insults flying back and forth in a topic that has no "conclusion" save for people shouting and arguing at each other.
They don't want to see people leaving the site or the site getting a hostile reputation for such fights; they don't want ot have to hand out bans to people who otherwise are often good, sane, sensible contributing members.

I know, man, and that's why I don't run a forum anymore. It is a thankless job and there are times when you are woken up in the wee hours of the morning because of some forum drama that really should've never happened, and yet there you are, wiping sleep from your eye because some jerk decided to spam your forum with gay porn. While I wouldn't want my mods acting out of anger or frustration frequently, I get it.

That being said, there are good ways to host a community and there are bad ways to host a community, and I think the benefits of doing it the good way is, honestly, the reason why we all join forums and participate in discussions. I get that most admins and moderators don't do it for a live, or have any formal training, or do it in their free time - but they volunteer largely because they love the community and want to support it... and they should want to support it in the best possible way. A surprising number of people who want to be mods just want a power trip over the community, and you really have to watch out for those people. Insidious and toxic, they are.

Furthermore most of the community doesn't want fights. No seriously they don't. When a debate is just airing opinions back and forth over and over with insults there is no ground to cover, no viewpoint to express that hasn't been expressed before and thus its FAR easier and better to just ban the topic and move on.

I think you are wrong here. Flame wars are as old as the internet and will pop up in the weirdest places - like whether or not a particular dress is blue or gold. It's the weirdest thing, and the only conclusion I can draw is that people WANT to argue online. I certainly do.

I think nerds, especially, take a thrill from a good debate that should never be underestimated. Why, back in the early days of the internet, when we called forums "usenet", I read literally hundreds, if not thousands, of arguments over whether Picard was a better captain than Kirk. I think a lot of people use the social aspects of online debates to virtue signal, increasing their own standing within the community, or simply out of moral outrage - but nerds are different. They argue because they can and because they want to. That's what I love about being a nerd. Any hour of the day, there is a heated debate going on - right now even - about the Star Wars prequel trilogy. God bless.

And how many free hours were you wiling to talk people down off the edge on forums over, what are otherwise, totally pointless debates?

It doesn't really take that long, and your options are really dependent on whether you are a part of the conversation or not. If you are a part of the conversation, you should never invoke your mod powers - it seems like you are exploiting your powers to cheat at an argument, and it just makes people angry. Have another mod come in and give a warning or two when things start to go off topic or get too heated. If it continues, have the mod lock the thread. People generally don't get as upset when there has been sufficient warning and the locking seem more like an inevitability than a punishment.

If you are a part of the conversation, there are steps you can take to dial back the heat a little bit. Generally speaking, giving a little ground here and there can stave off frustration. Saying things like, "man, you make a really good point here" can go a long way to diffusing a heated argument. Generally speaking, it's easy to calm down a thread before it has heated to a boil, unless there is a peanut gallery "helping" with a bunch of drive-by posts egging on bad behavior. Like if someone posts an insult, someone else will come in with an "Epic burn!" comment or something. When that happens, the discussion has basically been lost and it's now a performative piece - mod action is required.

As you say some people are calm and able to debate, others get fired up WAY too easily and not only get really into the debate, but start insulting and slinging accusations and generally being obnoxious. And once they start others react in kind and suddenly it becomes a brawl.

A good discussion can go south very easily if the wrong mix of personalities are involved, or if in an environment that rewards bad behavior (getting upvotes, for example).

Wargaming, being mostly older men, many with families, limited free time, and enough disposable money to be able to afford wargaming, is in a good place for developing a decent community of like-minded individuals. There are a few hot button topics (feminism, tournament players) which you have to watch out for, and being older, politics is more likely to seep into various discussions, but if you compare it to something like video games, it's a pretty chill community. I ran a forum dedicated to a webcomic, and it was mostly teenagers - and holy hell that was a nightmare.

Heck go back 20 years and people were predicting that we'd all have home 3D printers by now and we'd be 3D printing Everything. Products would be sold in pouches of materials and you'd home-cast them.

30 years ago, I was discussing how annoying Britney Spears was and trying to keep my Tamagotchi alive.

A lot of those groups on FB have GW employees / jobs worths in them hence why many of the mods seem to have a stick fully inserted. Most of the time these groups follow the same trajectory, eventually the mods get pissed off with so many things escalating, they have to start introducing more and more sometimes ridiculous rules just so they can keep on top of things.


Its inevitable that some people wont agree with some of the rules they come up with, that AT one on FB is particulary bad, I left it pretty early on when they started removing posts and posters mentioning price, it doesnt help that the admins have sly digs at many of the posters as well.



Social media really does bring out the worst in some people.

Quite honestly - discussion forums and facebook groups have become such a joke in how they moderate that they have all become echo chambers.

They are only good now a days for getting inspiration for hobby related projects.

Any disagreements can result in bannings now, regardless of the language used simply because disagreeing with someone is now considered toxic and negative.

Sometimes I think its good to take a step back.

If people find that "every" social group is the issue then either society has huge problems, or it might be that the issue isn't everyone else its the person themselves. Perhaps the language they use; the tone of their written voice (this doesn't just mean swear words).

Another aspect might be their general conduct on a site and the threads they take part in; if a person is continually taking part in the same threads and beating out the same arguments over and over then they might well be seen more as trolling than as a contributing member of the site. More so if most of their posts are more hostile/critical/negative in nature.



Of course a person doing this might not even realise that they are doing it. I know I've dealt with people who can't talk to beginners in any topic online at all. They get irate at "the same basic questions being asked over and over*" and often take out their hostility on the newbies. They also tend to complain that "there's nothing on the site for them" which is a reflection more that they've either outgrown or joined the wrong social group.

Eg above there are people complaining of one or two groups banning 3D modelling discussion. That isn't necessarily an issue with the group, its with the person being in the wrong group. Sure sometimes a good constructive discussion can result in policy change, but if not then its time to either accept that and talk about eveything else or move onto another group. Or heck found and put the effort in to start a group on the subject if there isn't one around. Facebook at least makes that super-easy as you don't have to go through any signup process for new members; you just have to advertise and get the word out.
Heck you might even approach the mods/admin of the group that bans the discussion and say "hey I know you don't allow it, but how about a referral link to my group that does allow it and I'll link back to yours as well - ergo networking.

Heck start talking about Age of Sigmar on Dakka and there's more than a few who will give good answers but also link to or suggest checking out The Grand Alliance forum; plus get into a chat about Tyranids and people might suggest checking out The Hive. Similarly people on those sites looking for more general 40K or wargaming sites might well be recommended to check out Dakka.



*Thankfully wargames don't suffer from this complaining much if at all that I've seen

 Overread wrote:
If people find that "every" social group is the issue then either society has huge problems, or it might be that the issue isn't everyone else its the person themselves. Perhaps the language they use; the tone of their written voice (this doesn't just mean swear words).

Another aspect might be their general conduct on a site and the threads they take part in; if a person is continually taking part in the same threads and beating out the same arguments over and over then they might well be seen more as trolling than as a contributing member of the site. More so if most of their posts are more hostile/critical/negative in nature.

I think it is too easy to blame a person for not properly belonging to a community instead of realizing that a community might be too insular and homogeneous. There's several major obstacles to a new community that is largely insurmountable by most upstarts:

New communities tend to be formed by people from old communities, who suffer from that "I'll treat my children better than my parents treated me" mindset. That is, they had issues with the old community and explicitly want to conduct themselves counter to that, not realizing that many of those policies existed for a reason. The "learning things the hard way" period for a new community can be pretty harsh. And like I said, most new communities are being started by amateurs who have little to no experience running a community, but maybe have experience being a power poster in an old one - the Peter Principle applies here.

Also, if you start a new community on Reddit or Facebook, those communities allow you to "like" or "upvote" posts, which tends to favor a specific kind of drive-by posting. You are more likely to be rewarded for making an amusing quip than to disagree with someone, and as such, the communities tend to move towards forced consensus with punitive measures taken against members who go against the group. Some people call it an echo chamber. Echo chambers aren't communities. They are just places to reaffirm your opinions by having them shouted back at you.

And finally, in this age of social media, bannings and ostracization are seen as the correct course of action when dealing with disagreeable people. There's always a sort of integration period where new posters (and even old posters) adapt to community norms, and it is really difficult for new members to adapt with the fear of banning hanging over their head. It becomes a situation of "follow my instructions or die". There should be a little give and pull to a community, such that people who aren't full integrated into the echo chamber are allowed to test boundaries and even move them on occasion, but with capital punishment with trial or recourse being meted out on the first offense, the community can't grow. It will only shrink as more and more reasonable behavior is considered aberrant and punished.

Eg above there are people complaining of one or two groups banning 3D modelling discussion. That isn't necessarily an issue with the group, its with the person being in the wrong group. Sure sometimes a good constructive discussion can result in policy change, but if not then its time to either accept that and talk about eveything else or move onto another group.

I really don't think "find the echo chamber which best suits you" is really the approach to community building we should be honoring, especially seeing how polarized social media has made our society. We should be more tolerant of those we disagree with, or else we start to see disagreement as a sin.

Or heck found and put the effort in to start a group on the subject if there isn't one around. Facebook at least makes that super-easy as you don't have to go through any signup process for new members; you just have to advertise and get the word out.

The fact that it is easy is part of the problem. A lot of Facebook groups are started by people who aren't fully committed to it, or who just want one very specific thing out of it and try to impose their will on it.

My forum was attached to a webcomic, and it was great when it was relatively small. It was just a few fans who wanted to talk about the webcomic. But as it got larger, I needed to create a government for it - hiring volunteer moderators, creating new sections, policing content, holding trials for racist posters (I'm generally pretty lenient on speech, but I can't have people going around talking about killing "dirty jews"), and even engaging in outright war with other webcomic forums. I didn't sign up for that, and it got to the point where I was spending five or six hours a day moderating the forum and not creating a webcomic. In fact, of the thousands of posts made every day, very few of them involved the webcomic. The forum became its own beast. I would never recommend someone start their own community without knowing (and hopefully planning for) what kind of responsibility they are in for.

Heck start talking about Age of Sigmar on Dakka and there's more than a few who will give good answers but also link to or suggest checking out The Grand Alliance forum; plus get into a chat about Tyranids and people might suggest checking out The Hive. Similarly people on those sites looking for more general 40K or wargaming sites might well be recommended to check out Dakka.

Like I said earlier, the more focused the topic of a community is, the more off topic much of the discussion become. There's a place for them. Like I think TGA largely exists because of how hostile places like Dakka and other established places were towards Age of Sigmar - fans had little choice but perform their exodus and find a new promised land. But there's definitely discussions that I don't think are appropriate for TGA that you can find at a place like Dakka. I think the vast majority of discussions on TGA are rather surface-level.

I guess to put a fine point on it, I have an account and post on Dakka, while I merely read forums and subreddits specific to games like Infinity, Star Wars Legion, Kill Team, and so on.

I think the issue is a lot of communities really want to just be a place for fans, not fans who have complaints and want to discuss them. I've seen many forums and groups basically turn into "Negativity is not welcome here, this is a place to say how great everything is" which is 100% an echo chamber and absolutely wrong. Dakka is one of the few places where this is NOT the case; nearly every other forum or Facebook group I'm in has people who are quick to report and mods that are quick to warn/ban someone for saying things they don't like or not thinking everything that comes out is the best thing ever.

Not surprisingly, I see this the most in GW-related communities but not other ones where you often see a bit more leeway in allowing dissent (usually only actual hostility is dealt with but not criticism). But the GW communities seem to have all taken a page from the Imperium itself and squash anything that isn't praise. I remember being banned from a group once because I pointed out that third-party models (not recasts, I mean alternative models) that were similar in style to GW models were not illegal. A moderator who "has mates who work for GW" said yes they are illegal and stealing from GW and you aren't allowed to post/mention them in this group because it's a GW fan group.

If you treat any criticism as being toxic and negative, it shows you really don't want a discussion about things, you want to just stick your head in the sand and follow the GW tactics of old: If nobody can complain, there is no problem.

I think its more that people don't want to debate or have discussions that challenges their viewpoints and ideologies and that if you debate or challenge then that is toxic and negative. People like discussions. Just so long as they aren't challenging their ideologies or viewpoints and the discussion is on the path of mutual agreement.

I think its more that people who ENJOY a hobby want a place to share that enjoyment with others. It's not that they don't want some critical debate, its that they don't want every single 5-10 page thread that dominates the site to be a huge list of negative elements.

Or for people who constantly interject negative elements into every thread.

Eg a discussion on how to best build an army list for a "weak" faction that gets posts which are "well the solution is don't play that army its rubbish" or "eh the game has no value anyway just stop playing" etc...

Ergo they want a positive atmosphere to the community which is closer to what most real life clubs are like, but online. It's why some sites fight back against the negativity, sometimes too much I do agree.


It's not about being an ostrich and burying your head in the sand, its about finding a balance where you're not sitting neither in an echo chamber nor in a complaints chair.

Thats pretty reasonable to say that if you are in a how do I build this army to keep things constructive and not post things like you mentioned, Overread.

In comparison, it is not reasonable for say a complaint thread that someone else starts that one participates in (the topic of that thread) to invoke the wrath of the moderators either

It's all about balance and sometimes complaint threads have to be shut down too. People get irate or very protective of what they enjoy so a wrongly worded thread or one that just appears to pile hate atop hate (or dislike atop dislike) can appear more hostile than many might intend.

You can also run the risk that those complaint threads keep happening over and over. This can set a tone for the site that is unintended by those who take part in the threads, but does get noticed by people.

Also sometimes many of the complaints are just whining about things that are set in stone or have been like they are for years. At some point the complaints are just an echochamber on their own. Given the choice most people prefer at least a positive echochamber over a negative one. Esp since most game complaints are often at company level where forums and forum members have no power to make actual changes - so often its just a cycle that runs and runs with no possible resolution.

the gatekeeping can be pretty bad, for example reading the comments here


Be warned


Thankfully the store has closed now and the customers have moved to another store nearby that is more welcoming.

I'd honestly not call that gatekeeping but rather bad management. They weren't gatekeepers to anything but their own store.

Interestingly the positive and negative reviews are so polarized that its actually quite abnormal in itself. Then again its only a small subset of reviews so likely reflects that. Still as a local retailer I'm sure any negative airs would fast spread around the local customer community.

Interesting all of the negative reviews are from people in different states.... sounds like internet outrage gone wild to me.

Some limited googling seems to show that the store was in financial troubles; however it also got into some controversy around the "Jawbreakers" comic which appears to be a whole messy amount of drama unto itself with multiple stores boycotting it and stuff. I honestly only glanced enough to learn that and have no idea about all the ins and outs of it.

I think too many people are willing to work against those who have a differing opinion and do not see it's value.
Hence, the "echo chamber effect".

I really like these quotes:

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't.
- Frank A. Clark

Whenever people agree with me I always feel I must be wrong.
- Oscar Wilde

I like it when someone tells me 'I don't agree.' This is a true collaborator. When they say 'Oh, how great, how great, how great,' that's not useful.
- Pope Francis

Sometimes people want to control the message, but to what purpose is the real question.

 Overread wrote:
Some limited googling seems to show that the store was in financial troubles; however it also got into some controversy around the "Jawbreakers" comic which appears to be a whole messy amount of drama unto itself with multiple stores boycotting it and stuff. I honestly only glanced enough to learn that and have no idea about all the ins and outs of it.

The Jawbreakers thing is from ComicsGate, which is largely just some guy on YouTube who complains about how terrible Marvel and DC are these days (largely due to its progressive agenda taking the place of actual characters and storytelling), which pissed off a bunch of comic creators who threatened to punch the guy at cons. The YouTuber basically said, I'll put my money where my mouth is and created his own comic book (Jawbreakers) which got an astounding amount of support on Kickstarter (or GoFundMe or whatever). Then a bunch of comic book stores decided they wouldn't carry this comic (which had more preorders than Marvel's most popular book), and the lines were drawn in the sand and, as we've seen in every nerd industry recently, the SJW vs Nazi virtue wars found a new battle front. Last I heard, ComicsGate is still going on.

But basically, those comments are a reflection of this internet drama and not legitimate complaints at all. I mean, they could be, I don't know, but they are definitely biased by this drama.

auticus wrote:
Quite honestly - discussion forums and facebook groups have become such a joke in how they moderate that they have all become echo chambers.

They are only good now a days for getting inspiration for hobby related projects.

Any disagreements can result in bannings now, regardless of the language used simply because disagreeing with someone is now considered toxic and negative.

This is basically my conclusion after reading the other pages. Mod abuse + whining + circlejerk + more whining

Instagram seems to avoid most of this and Reddit doesnt seem half bad on the mod end. I havent been on Facebook for years so I assume its a FB specific issue with how the format works

I'm genuinely torn on this.

First and foremost, there is no gate. Not to The Hobby. And that means there shouldn't be anyone Gate Keeping, trying to dictate what is and isn't acceptable. Even GW themselves do a minimum of this (and most of that is linked to 'our store, our products only). In terms of how one actually Hobbies, they're very hands off.

But. When it comes to social media? That's where your niches start to gather. Where likeminded gamers can chat with each other, without fear of anyone criticising their preferred niche. It's not only ultimately desirable, but necessary.

Slightly wonky example? My Loot Trading Group. We're a teeny tiny niche. And as such, we've very strict rules about what can and can't be sold, and how. Zero Tolerance on scalping. All strictly At Cost. Because that's the entire aim of the Group. Where peeps are looking for general shopping, we let them know of suitable groups, and delete the post.

As someone who's not terribly interested in the high end tournament performance scene, I've little business joining such a group on Social Media. The posts are unlikely to be of interest to me. And that's fine. Because there'll be groups that cater to me elsewhere. And it's definitely right out to join a given niche and then tell people their niche is wrong.

Same with modelling and painting. Most groups I'm a member of in that regard are supportive of all efforts. Constructive feedback is given, even on basics like 'I think you need to thin your paints'. But if there exists a Golden Deamon Serious Competitor group? Excellent. So there should be.

So whilst Gate Keeping within the Hobby itself is undesirable, it's probably to be encouraged within Social Media groups that offer specialised discussion.

In summary? There is The Hobby. There is Your Hobby. And there is My Hobby. Nobody should be telling anyone else how to do the other.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Some limited googling seems to show that the store was in financial troubles; however it also got into some controversy around the "Jawbreakers" comic which appears to be a whole messy amount of drama unto itself with multiple stores boycotting it and stuff. I honestly only glanced enough to learn that and have no idea about all the ins and outs of it.

The Jawbreakers thing is from ComicsGate, which is largely just some guy on YouTube who complains about how terrible Marvel and DC are these days (largely due to its progressive agenda taking the place of actual characters and storytelling), which pissed off a bunch of comic creators who threatened to punch the guy at cons. The YouTuber basically said, I'll put my money where my mouth is and created his own comic book (Jawbreakers) which got an astounding amount of support on Kickstarter (or GoFundMe or whatever). Then a bunch of comic book stores decided they wouldn't carry this comic (which had more preorders than Marvel's most popular book), and the lines were drawn in the sand and, as we've seen in every nerd industry recently, the SJW vs Nazi virtue wars found a new battle front. Last I heard, ComicsGate is still going on.

But basically, those comments are a reflection of this internet drama and not legitimate complaints at all. I mean, they could be, I don't know, but they are definitely biased by this drama.

Cheers for the breakdown, I was wondering what all the hoo har was about around that issue.

I found out about the store from a you tube video on this very subject, about different stores "gatekeeping" for various reasons, I wanted to see what the comic store scene was like in the states since im moving over next year, its a strange one as UK we have clubs in all kinds of places like pubs or scout huts etc. but in the states they all seems to be in LGS, bit of a strange one.

Formosa - I figure the USA is just more friendly to small shops than the UK is at present. These days its basically not worth opening small stores in many areas unless you can cater to a wide audience and serve food. A lot of hobby related stores have gone and those that hang on are often struggling; or the owner bought the shop and land years ago and so can at least avoid rent costs (but still have to contend with london set business rates and taxes)

The USA is built around the concept of the small FLGS for hobby areas barring the big cities. And even the big cities will have an assortment of smaller FLGS spread around.

Stop using social media for your hobby (though stop using them entirely is much better), problem solved.

Panzerkanzler wrote:
Stop using social media for your hobby (though stop using them entirely is much better), problem solved.

Its not that easy for everyone though is it ?

Some people are confined to their own houses or rooms and / or cannot socialise in person.

 Overread wrote:
It's all about balance and sometimes complaint threads have to be shut down too. People get irate or very protective of what they enjoy so a wrongly worded thread or one that just appears to pile hate atop hate (or dislike atop dislike) can appear more hostile than many might intend.

You can also run the risk that those complaint threads keep happening over and over. This can set a tone for the site that is unintended by those who take part in the threads, but does get noticed by people.

Also sometimes many of the complaints are just whining about things that are set in stone or have been like they are for years. At some point the complaints are just an echochamber on their own. Given the choice most people prefer at least a positive echochamber over a negative one. Esp since most game complaints are often at company level where forums and forum members have no power to make actual changes - so often its just a cycle that runs and runs with no possible resolution.

Heck, I'm sure we can all name posters on this site who have a certain complaint that they'll air every time it's humanly possible or vaguely relevant, and some of them have been doing it for years with no sign of ever getting tired of griping.

And eventually, even if you're sympathetic to the substance of the complaint, the non-stop complaining gets tiresome. They seem to live in mortal fear that someone on the site might not know their opinion on subject X. And eventually....okay, we get it. We fully understand your issue, heaven knows you've explained it enough. But why are you still complaining to us? Do you think we can change anything? If you haven't had anything positive to say on the subject for this long, why are you still involved with it? Unless your pleasure is coming from the complaining itself*, wouldn't you be better off moving on to something you do enjoy?


* Actually, this would explain a LOT about the internet.

Eh some people complain lots in real life conversations too - where the chances of a CEO of the company overhearing and responding and changing things is basically 0. On the net some people have a faith that if they repeat a thing enough it will get noticed and it will lead to change.

What many online forget is that the active conversing online community is a tiny faction of most real world communities in hobbies. Even on Steam forums you only get a tiny number who actually interact and give feedback.

 Overread wrote:


What many online forget is that the active conversing online community is a tiny faction of most real world communities in hobbies. Even on Steam forums you only get a tiny number who actually interact and give feedback.

Which in and of itself means nothing.

The online community is either
- representative of the community as a whole but in smaller numbers, therefore what is happening online is also happening in the world to a similar degree, or
- comprised of the most invested and enthusiastic members of the community who are far more likely to identify issues with your product and offer informed opinions.

Sure, there's noise accompanying that signal, but it's folly to dismiss or diminish the online community because it's "small" (ps is there anywhere that actually backs this up, or is it just an assumption? Warcom has 137k followers on Facebook, that seems substantial to me.) Or do you think it's coincidence that GW's turn in fortunes has been accompanied by a more significant engagement with its customer base, much of it online?

I think a key point is that for a lot of hobbyists, first contact with a games system is a forum or Facebook group. A lot of these now suppress any “negativity” but the problem is that this extends into inexcusable defence of the owning company.

I’ve seen on one Facebook group for a newly released licences game where admin defend a certain company that has not , in some apparent cases, sent preorders paid in April whilst releasing the product at retail. Or where mispacks are hilariously out of control - people getting 3 identical figures when it should be 3 quite different figures. Or the fact the company has so many emails coming in that the mailbox has been full for weeks.

All it does is make the admins look like rabid fanboys.

Another issue is unfair standards. Dakka along with other places do not, I believe, allow hosted image leaks or discussion of exact points values. Yet Natfka and reddit are awash with 40k chapter approved scans to the point where you could print all the points changes off.