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.

Niiai wrote:I don't know about all that intro post. But i remember you dash. You used to have well articulated tips on my armies. I think it was DE at the time. Great stuff. Hope you are doing well. Nice to have you back for a spell.

Hey Niiai! I remember you, and your avatar hasn't changed. I hope to one day be useful again! Right now I'm in "Mouth to the firehouse" mode absorbing tips from other people so I can learn how to play again.

Briancj wrote:Just...wow.

I hate to say it*, but I'm going to root for you, Dash. I believe people can change, and I hope you can bring your new maturity to the tournament scene.

Thanks Brian! Challenging assumptions over here! I used to assume that people thought like me, and if they disagreed with something that I thought was fact, they didn't understand what I was saying, so I would spend endless time rewording my data to try making them understand. That was the root of all the arguments. I believe (A). Someone says (A) is wrong and it is (B) instead. Instead of spending my effort trying to convince people (A), I spend my time trying to figure out why they think that and getting them to express (B) in a way I can understand <insert heuristic math reference>.

I'm glad to help or have a lively debate, but I don't feel like I have to "fix" people who I think are wrong. Sometimes, a better understanding of (B) might even help me learn something new! It's not just 40k. My wife gets frustrated with me because we'll have an argument about something, and I'll map it out into the scientific process (Observe, Define, Quantify, Postulate, Test, Conclude), quantify the variables, create conflict resolution options that control or solve for each variable, and if she doesn't like any of them, I make her to propose her own solution because I'm not ok with problems being unresolved.

It frustrates her that I dispassionately diagnose our problems and propose solutions based on emperical evidence. I do it for everything, not just 40k.

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Do you still have the Pink Necrons Dash?

Just back to Dakka myself after a couple of years away, so just finding my feet again.

Sadly, no. All of my models are gone. I wish I still had them. I gave everything to an acquaintance down on his luck, who sold his 40k models to pay bills, and since mine had been sitting around for so long doing nothing, I offered him mine on commission to split 50/50. When I started nosing back into 8th edition, I went asking for either money or models and ....well, ANGRY MARINES.

Welcome back, and thanks for playing Stelek as the better man.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Welcome back, and thanks for playing Stelek as the better man.

Hey John! I don't know if we've played before, or if we just know each other from Dakka, but I've ... "watched you" over the years. Erm, looked at your avatar with keen interest.

Playing Stelek is the sort of exercise where my inability to produce data in a tactful, massaged fashion creates hostility. For example:

-Stelek was vocal on the internet before our game that my Dark Eldar list was terrible.
-He used many unnecessary ad hominem adjectives in his description of all the things that were wrong with my army.
-Before our game, he made a prediction that I was going to do a boring "1, 2, 3, 4" things in that order.
-He created an army list optimally suited to killing my dark eldar army list.
-We played.
-I pushed his army's poop in.

To me, that is the pinnacle of gaming excellence.

-You know what I'm going to do.
-You know how I'm going to do it.
-You know what I'm going to do it with.
-There is NOTHING YOU CAN DO TO STOP IT. Not even tailoring a list.

In my head, that information can only be processed in one of two ways to Stelek.
-Option #1: The army list that Dashofpepper brought is not as bad as I thought it was, and I will change my mind.
-Option #2: The army list that Dashofpepper brought is still bad, but he can use it so well that it that he mitigates its badness.

Stelek instead came up with Option #3, which I cannot intellectually fathom:
-Option #3: I didn't try very hard, and Dashofpepper got lucky.

He then went and blogged about how he was right, I was terrible, and on any normal day, his army would eat my breakfast.

To me, that presents a clinical diagnosis that Stelek is not tactically competent to understand what is happening on the table. Or he's simply not smart enough to do the math. If the competitiveness of an opponent can be illustrated as f(x) = A+B+C+D, where each of those are skill, list, dice, and terrain; if you control for three of them and create f(x) = A + 0, where you heuristically value A at 0, the equation is now f(x) = 0. If you cannot produce a result that can exceed your hypothesis that f(x) = 0 under those conditions, your assumptions must be wrong, and you must discard your hypothesis because the data does not support it, and create a new hypothesis.

It's just math and science. If you plug data into your model, and the model doesn't replicate reality, the model is wrong. You tweak your assumptions, adjust your algorithm, and plug the data in again. And again. And again. Until the model works. Or until you give up because you have run out of ideas to solve it.

Here's the challenge. I do not know a different way of communicating that message, except for the method I just used. I do not intend to sound.... ....however everyone who reads that subjectively perceives it. When people take offense at something, I remind them that offense can never be given, it can only be taken. If that sounds arrogant, or dickish, or whatever...

What is a different way that I can communicate those facts without sounding offensive?

Welcome Back! Your advice many many moons ago enabled me to enjoy my own return after a long hiatus and do reasonably well with ork Wagon Rush in 5th. I have certainly been branching out a great deal into 30k and Necromunda especially of late, but look forward to some battle reports from you!

I remember you from arguments in You Make Da Call about pivoting Battlewagons to get the most out of a vehicle's movement. Also from all of your Ork batreps. I also remember all the drama. Here's hoping that your newfound attitude will help you flourish in a new way. The competitive scene can always use more laughs and camaraderie and less white-knuckled WAAC players. Good luck.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

In my head, that information can only be processed in one of two ways to Stelek.
-Option #1: The army list that Dashofpepper brought is not as bad as I thought it was, and I will change my mind.
-Option #2: The army list that Dashofpepper brought is still bad, but he can use it so well that it that he mitigates its badness.

Stelek instead came up with Option #3, which I cannot intellectually fathom:
-Option #3: I didn't try very hard, and Dashofpepper got lucky.

He then went and blogged about how he was right, I was terrible, and on any normal day, his army would eat my breakfast.

To me, that presents a clinical diagnosis that Stelek is not tactically competent to understand what is happening on the table. Or he's simply not smart enough to do the math.

That seems to me that you're missing the far simpler diagnosis: that he was simply rationalizing his loss as an ego defense. He certainly presented as having a lot of confidence, and you're match up was, shall we say, contentious. That is in no way a set of conditions that's likely to change anybody's mind. You can present all the evidence on earth to a person, but if they're motivated to think the opposite, they will.

If anything, you're making the fundamental attribution error by assuming that Stelek's actions are based on his abilities or character, and not the circumstances.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

Here's the challenge. I do not know a different way of communicating that message, except for the method I just used. I do not intend to sound.... ....however everyone who reads that subjectively perceives it. When people take offense at something, I remind them that offense can never be given, it can only be taken. If that sounds arrogant, or dickish, or whatever...

What is a different way that I can communicate those facts without sounding offensive?

Well, I'd start by no longer telling people that offense can only be taken. If you are trying to persuade people, you are going to not want to offend them, which means affirmatively working to not do so. When people are offended, they stop listening. That doesn't mean you can't be confident or even arrogant, you just need to not piss people off. Angry people won't listen to you.

As for how to communicate better, you have to understand that you won't persuade everybody of something, even if it's objective true. there are still people that believe the earth is flat! I"m not sure how you can hope to convince people of things much less empirically sound, such how to win more 40k games.

I'm sure you feel like you've had some success reaching people, and I'm sure you have. some people do respond well to simple evidence and logic. Others, counter intuitively, probably responded positively to your demeanor. A lot of people like a"tough guy" that's "shaking things up." As long as they feel like they're in on the joke, they like the abrasive feel.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Welcome back, and thanks for playing Stelek as the better man.

Hey John! I don't know if we've played before, or if we just know each other from Dakka,

Playing Stelek is the sort of exercise where my inability to produce data in a tactful, massaged fashion creates hostility.
-We played.
-I pushed his army's poop in.

He then went and blogged about how he was right, I was terrible, and on any normal day, his army would eat my breakfast.

What is a different way that I can communicate those facts without sounding offensive?

Hey, I'm not sure if we've ever played. I think I was active before you made your tournament run. It's all good.

I appreciate that you outplayed him, moreso that you did it as the better man.

Honestly, you'll never communicate it to him, because you're challenging the foundations of his worldview and identity, so he just won't accept it like others might. Others might, because we're not so invested into it. Understand your audience and recognize that not everyone will be open to every idea, no matter how it is presented.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Polonius wrote:
As for how to communicate better, you have to understand that you won't persuade everybody of something, even if it's objective true. there are still people that believe the earth is flat!

I'm pretty sure that the Flat Earth movement is a well-constructed joke in the current age, which is why buying the membership card is so cheap. It's a setup for a lot of fun argument and conversation.

Now the anti-vaxx crowd? Those are the ones who are truly anti-science.

 Polonius wrote:
some people do respond well to simple evidence and logic. Others, counter intuitively, probably responded positively to your demeanor.

This is the part I mean about lacking social grace. I have a really hard time understanding those social cues, and thus don't understand why people are upset when I am presenting evidence. With experience, I have learned to RECOGNIZE some of these triggers. But I still don't understand them.

-I play someone and beat them.
-They tell me they lost because they brought a bad army list.
-I don't think army list was relevant to the win or loss.
-I suggest we switch sides, and play the same game again.
-They get upset.
-I offer to play their army with a 200 point handicap against my own army, just to reinforce that their army list isn't bad.
-They get more upset.
-I offer to pay them money to validate their hypothesis.
-They get more upset.

At every point, I am trying harder and harder to HELP. To get them to challenge their assumptions and prove their hypothesis. At every point, I am making them angrier.


I have learned to recognize that this exchange will cause someone to respond negatively. I do not understand the negative response. Make sense? Recognition and understanding are different. At least now, I have the experience to recognize situations that can cause someone to get emotional, even if I do not understand why they are getting emotional - and I've switched from trying to FIX the problem to ...either trying to understand them through questions and data gathering, or leaving them to their world view.

Dash, I get that. Against people who actually cared about winning, they want to win by playing well. The above exchange sometimes comes off as patronizing or rubbing it in.

Back when I was playing actively, I had Eldar, IG, CSM, and SM armies. When I was arranging casual games, I would just ask my opponent what they wanted me to play. Or, I'd make a list on the spot, with some randomly-selected units, and I'd still win most games because my opponents often just weren't that serious about the winning part. They don't really care that they lost.

Either way, people usually want to play a full game, a close game - not to be tabled out on Turn 2. There's an art of playing to ensure a fun win, but I'm not really good at that, being more of a min-max grinder.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
some people do respond well to simple evidence and logic. Others, counter intuitively, probably responded positively to your demeanor.

This is the part I mean about lacking social grace. I have a really hard time understanding those social cues, and thus don't understand why people are upset when I am presenting evidence. With experience, I have learned to RECOGNIZE some of these triggers. But I still don't understand them.

-I play someone and beat them.
-They tell me they lost because they brought a bad army list.
-I don't think army list was relevant to the win or loss.
-I suggest we switch sides, and play the same game again.
-They get upset.
-I offer to play their army with a 200 point handicap against my own army, just to reinforce that their army list isn't bad.
-They get more upset.
-I offer to pay them money to validate their hypothesis.
-They get more upset.

At every point, I am trying harder and harder to HELP. To get them to challenge their assumptions and prove their hypothesis. At every point, I am making them angrier.

I can see why - that comes across as incredibly condescending. You're basically telling the person they're too stupid to use their army and then offering incentives like they're a child ("I'll give you a candy bar").

If you want to offer advice, offer it casually - just say something like "I think the list would have worked if you deployed like this, or if you added this unit, etc etc". Don't try to drag someone who probably already feels bad about losing into another game. Especially for some people they're just going to see it as an excuse for you to whomp them again so they're going to get angry really quick.

One or two pointers where "you might have won if..." is probably sufficient.

I think the offer to switch sides or bring a different army to the replay is usually enough.

DashofPepper, I think you will find 8th edition quite good.

The fact that they keep tweaking the game with rule updates and point adjustments is very possetive in my oppinion.

Also, GW actually tro to have good communication with their customers, and try to awnser FAQ as soon as possible.

Also, they model game is spot on these days. Although I do not remember if you used to have 3rd edition dark eldar paper planes. ^_^

DoP maybe you just don't have the social grace to interact with others in a game such as 40k. You openly admit that you act like some tactical robot and a West Point military education permits you to not lose to burgers flippers. You do sound dickish just as you always have. Kinda not just an opinion your really making your own case. Then in order to appear more socially awkward you go out of your way to discuss details of your exploits. Is it some kind of therapy or an effort to get a rise out of strangers? Almost seems like a cry for help. Trying to act as arrogant as you are is concerning. If your level of don't give a crap is so high, how could you take all this time to write all that you do on the internet. Its a weird story man.

Maybe try video games on twitch? You get to be all anti social and everything. Fun right?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ScarletRose wrote:

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
some people do respond well to simple evidence and logic. Others, counter intuitively, probably responded positively to your demeanor.

This is the part I mean about lacking social grace. I have a really hard time understanding those social cues, and thus don't understand why people are upset when I am presenting evidence. With experience, I have learned to RECOGNIZE some of these triggers. But I still don't understand them.

-I play someone and beat them.
-They tell me they lost because they brought a bad army list.
-I don't think army list was relevant to the win or loss.
-I suggest we switch sides, and play the same game again.
-They get upset.
-I offer to play their army with a 200 point handicap against my own army, just to reinforce that their army list isn't bad.
-They get more upset.
-I offer to pay them money to validate their hypothesis.
-They get more upset.

At every point, I am trying harder and harder to HELP. To get them to challenge their assumptions and prove their hypothesis. At every point, I am making them angrier.

I can see why - that comes across as incredibly condescending. You're basically telling the person they're too stupid to use their army and then offering incentives like they're a child ("I'll give you a candy bar").

If you want to offer advice, offer it casually - just say something like "I think the list would have worked if you deployed like this, or if you added this unit, etc etc". Don't try to drag someone who probably already feels bad about losing into another game. Especially for some people they're just going to see it as an excuse for you to whomp them again so they're going to get angry really quick.

I honestly think he's just trolling and living in the past. Who would play a person like this? Imagine doing it willingly twice? Wow.

ScarletRose wrote:

I can see why - that comes across as incredibly condescending. You're basically telling the person they're too stupid to use their army and then offering incentives like they're a child ("I'll give you a candy bar").

If you want to offer advice, offer it casually - just say something like "I think the list would have worked if you deployed like this, or if you added this unit, etc etc". Don't try to drag someone who probably already feels bad about losing into another game. Especially for some people they're just going to see it as an excuse for you to whomp them again so they're going to get angry really quick.

I have learned that, but by the time I did, there were already a lot of people that didn't like me - which presents a problem when it manifests in real life in some of the ways that it did. Like I said, I look back at some of my old Dakka posts and cringe. Old dogs can learn new tricks, but not as easily as pups.

Niiai wrote:
Also, they model game is spot on these days. Although I do not remember if you used to have 3rd edition dark eldar paper planes. ^_^

I did! I had 3rd edition raiders. When the 5th edition DE codex came out (with Venoms), before there were Venom models, I cut down my 3rd edition raiders to try making "venoms" but ran into some complaints at the first GT I took them to (even though I had TO permission to bring and use them) that I was using models bigger than "intended" which gave me an unfair advantage in range and their ability to provide screening cover.

Byte wrote:DoP maybe you just don't have the social grace to interact with others in a game such as 40k.

That's possible, but I hope not. Do you find everyone the pinnacle of social grace? When you run into a stinky gamer, do you avoid them? Refuse to play them? Do you bear it silently? Do you talk to them quietly on the side and suggest a little deodorant might be social lubricant?

That isn't a rhetorical question, I'm honestly curious what you do. Hulksmash and I carry spare deodorant. I've learned through experience that stinky gamers generally don't realize that they smell bad. They - like all of us - are used to the smell of their own body odor, and no one has ever pointed out to them that they might be missing a hygiene step. I've given out my fair share of deodorant to gamers. Quietly, in private, with a compassionate - but unasked for - mentoring lesson on the importance of it. On two occasions, someone's temperament has made me unwilling to say anything, and I wrote an anonymous note that said something to the effect of "Please use this, its important!"

The point being, change starts with identification and understanding of a change being needed. Hulksmash has helped me over the years contextualize things that are more and less important in 40k games to reduce social friction. That is the very essence of mentoring. I used to be an enlisted infantryman - I spent a lot of time in places without showers or deodorant. Later in my army career as a junior officer (in a garrison environment), a senior officer coached me in private about my need to use deodorant. It had never dawned on me that I might smell bad. I've done my best to forward this courtesy to other people I run into. Both in 40k and professionally. People who grumble about a problem and do nothing to be part of the solution irritate me change doesn't happen until the need for a change is identified.

You might have a different approach than me. That's ok. I respect your right to be different than me ... as long as your beliefs don't require mandatory participation from people who don't believe the same things that you do.

Byte wrote:
You openly admit that you act like some tactical robot.

Yes! That is my point. If it provides context, I have reactive attachment disorder; long story from a horrifying childhood. Part of that is the inability to attach emotional significance to information - which results in the tactless blunders I've made in the past. I know how I think, and have long assumed that everyone else thinks like I do. As it turns out, they don't. While I make a dispassionate analysis of a situation, other people are emotionally invested in it. While I cannot understand that because part of my brain is broken, I have learned how to recognize situations where people are having an emotional reaction.

That's the maturity growth we're discussing. Instead of assuming that people are disagreeing with me because they don't UNDERSTAND, and endlessly trying to find different words to make them UNDERSTAND, I have learned to accept that people may think differently than me, and that is not something I need to fix. That behavior may come naturally to you. It does not to me.

Byte wrote:
You do sound dickish just as you always have...Then in order to appear more socially awkward you go out of your way to discuss details of your exploits.

I'm sorry that you feel that way. I can't please everyone - but I respect your right to have that opinion. I'm doing my best to figure out how to not sound dickish. Part of that is in explaining how I would react to a situation before, and how I react to a situation now. Even this response to you now is miles apart from how Dash of old would respond. Having been personally attacked, the Dash of old would spent 6 pages explaining why you are misinterpreting the facts to come to the wrong conclusion. Then I would endlessly argue with you, using dispassionate reasoning to try convincing you, and if that didn't work, I would conclude that you were a troll - because my logic dictates that if you are presented with facts, and are intelligent, there is no way that you could arrive at a different conclusion than I could.

Over the intervening years, I have problem solved this difference in opinion into something that makes sense in my head. People evaluate data with subjective filters, which I can express as math - a heuristic formula - to understand that someone values something differently than I do.

Does that make sense?

Byte wrote:

Kinda not just an opinion

This may sound like ...being dickish ... but I promise, it is an unemotional presentation of logic. There are fifteen logical fallacies. They are errors in reasoning common enough to warrant a fancy name. You have used five of the fifteen in your post. The Dash of old would tell you point by point why you are not only wrong, but how you aren't even structuring what you are saying sensibly. Your opinion *is* just that. You may use a sixth logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) to present your opinion as a fact. That is ok. That's the lesson I have learned. People are not robots who assess information coolly, or even logically. I can't change that - and its not my job to try.

Byte wrote:
Is it some kind of therapy or an effort to get a rise out of strangers? Almost seems like a cry for help.

This thread serves four purposes.

1. To inform the community that I am going to play 40k again, and as an opportunity to reconnect with old friends.
2. To explain why I was a polarizing person when I used to play 40k.
3. To apologize for my lack of tact and social grace when I was around Dakka last, and explain how I have changed.
4. Cathartic therapy. The first step to fixing a problem is to identify the problem. That's the scientific process I explained earlier. Observe, Define, Support, Hypothesize, Test, Conclude. In learning to challenge my assumptions about people, I have learned - to some extent - how to not make the wrong conclusions.

I recognize that some folks will bear me some ill will. I hope this thread helps mitigate some of it - because I just want to play angry marines, have fun, and drink. I bear you no ill will for your opinion of me, and respect your right to have a different opinion than me! That's what has changed.

Happy gaming Byte. If we ever run into each other at a tournament, I hope you'll let me buy you a beer. Or take a swig from my everpresent bottle of Captain Morgan.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
some people do respond well to simple evidence and logic. Others, counter intuitively, probably responded positively to your demeanor.

This is the part I mean about lacking social grace. I have a really hard time understanding those social cues, and thus don't understand why people are upset when I am presenting evidence. With experience, I have learned to RECOGNIZE some of these triggers. But I still don't understand them.

Well, we're talking pretty basic human behavior, not the subtle nuances of salad fork vs. shrimp fork. Basically, most people don't want to be lectured. Ever. People might for help, but as a rule, people aren't interested in constant debate or litigation. I am literally an attorney, and I very rarely actually "present evidence."

-I play someone and beat them.
-They tell me they lost because they brought a bad army list.
-I don't think army list was relevant to the win or loss.
-I suggest we switch sides, and play the same game again.
-They get upset.
-I offer to play their army with a 200 point handicap against my own army, just to reinforce that their army list isn't bad.
-They get more upset.
-I offer to pay them money to validate their hypothesis.
-They get more upset.

At every point, I am trying harder and harder to HELP. To get them to challenge their assumptions and prove their hypothesis. At every point, I am making them angrier.

Yeah, this is incredibly condescending to start, and then when you see somebody get upset, you escalate the situation. You have to understand that when somebody is upset, you don't ratchet up the confrontation, right? That's not even human emotion, that's just basic strategy, right?

I have learned to recognize that this exchange will cause someone to respond negatively. I do not understand the negative response. Make sense? Recognition and understanding are different. At least now, I have the experience to recognize situations that can cause someone to get emotional, even if I do not understand why they are getting emotional - and I've switched from trying to FIX the problem to ...either trying to understand them through questions and data gathering, or leaving them to their world view.

Why are you even trying to fix the problem? You keep mentioning that you want to help, but unwanted help is about as appreciate as an unwanted punch to the shoulder.

Look, it's possible that your personality and world view are so far removed from everybody else that you really cannot understand why people are upset at behavior that is objectively upsetting. If so, I feel bad, because that's got to be tough. But if you can understand, and you keep pushing people's buttons, than that's just poor behavior.

DoP, believe it or don't I comprehend everything you wrote and actually appreciate a digestible response. See your not the only one with super powers. I read people, by their words and presence. This comes from 25 years or being a career military officer. I've led/mentored thousands of young people and peers as well as seniors. Thousands. I read at a glance or an inflection of voice or breathing rate. This was why I was able to predict some under lining issues with the information you provided.

Now I just want to point out just a couple of things since your listening and not just hearing me.

You were making the case that your a self admitted donkey cave. I pointed out you were right. You may he working on it but a quick review of your response to me further illustrates how you have to be right and everybody else is wrong. It doesn't matter if you know/think your right. Some think communism is right.

More about the dickish response and deflection, lets recap. You go on and on about how you act like a donkey cave. But your only a donkey cave because your smarter than people that actually think your being a donkey cave. Im just saying. No, your acted like a donkey cave and you made your own case. So in actually I was agreeing with you. Yet my "opinion" was wrong. Didn't see that did you.

"Your opinion *is* just that. You may use a sixth logical fallacy (argumentum ad verecundiam) to present your opinion as a fact. That is ok. That's the lesson I have learned. People are not robots who assess information coolly, or even logically. I can't change that - and its not my job to try. "

For the uninitiated, thats being dickish. Documenting your open disdain for a thought that doesn't polarize with yours. This is called being obtuse and dismissive.

About the flip the script question and body odor. This actually has nothing to do with my statement. But Ill attempt to structure a response to address your question.

If I just played a obtuse robotic donkey cave that was as fun as pulling my own eyes out and after telling the player that was my opinion and subsequently being told "well I can play your army vs mine and do the same thing again. I would suggest to the player, that they try online gaming or air traffic control. I would than advise everyone else I knew on what to expect. Than go out of my way to never play said player again. However, if the response was, "damn, Im working in that". That would open a new event tree.

I would have a drink with you and moreso I think you trying to emerge with a new attitude is good. I hope you find your gaming happy place with the understanding that the fleshy humanoid across the table wants to have fun as well. Poo pushing isn't fun actually. For most anyway. Some players get off on destroying their opponents. It is a thing.

Cheers

 Polonius wrote:
[
Look, it's possible that your personality and world view are so far removed from everybody else that you really cannot understand why people are upset at behavior that is objectively upsetting. If so, I feel bad, because that's got to be tough. But if you can understand, and you keep pushing people's buttons, than that's just poor behavior.

This is like a queue for my wife to log in and post what a long-suffering spouse she is, to have her emotional arguments distilled into variables for presentation without the emotional responses she's looking for.

I'm too new to the hobby to know or recollect who you are, but you seem like a rather... intense individual. I wonder if some of the negativity you encountered was less to do with your play style and more to do with your personality. Far be it from me to judge your whole personality based on a couple of forum posts, but have you considered how much you use the word "I" in your posts? Perhaps that's not a fair observation in what was seemingly intended to be a biographical thread, but it may be worth self reflecting to see if this is a habit you bring to gaming tables?

Another thing you might consider is that perhaps not everyone you beat actually want's your advice to improve. That may seem bizarre, but often, people just want to learn from their own experiences. Perhaps the best way to deal with absolutely trouncing someone might be with a simple, "Sorry. Looks like I got really lucky today." This may not be the truth, and you may not really feel this way, but it might help soothe your opponents ego somewhat, assuming that's what you want to do. If someone want's your advice, they'll let you know.

Anyway, best of luck to you, and whatever you decide to do, may it bring you nothing but happiness and satisfaction.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
[
Look, it's possible that your personality and world view are so far removed from everybody else that you really cannot understand why people are upset at behavior that is objectively upsetting. If so, I feel bad, because that's got to be tough. But if you can understand, and you keep pushing people's buttons, than that's just poor behavior.

This is like a queue for my wife to log in and post what a long-suffering spouse she is, to have her emotional arguments distilled into variables for presentation without the emotional responses she's looking for.

Ayy you can't be that terrible emotionless if you got a spouse

jk aside, just don't be a smartass about your win, infact don't even give critical feedback if not asked for.
BTW if you are good enough then instead of grinding one down you could just try to match his list level, to get as close as possible in a match.
just a thought

Additionally i think you misunderstood my first comment, it was more of a humorous outlook.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
[
Look, it's possible that your personality and world view are so far removed from everybody else that you really cannot understand why people are upset at behavior that is objectively upsetting. If so, I feel bad, because that's got to be tough. But if you can understand, and you keep pushing people's buttons, than that's just poor behavior.

This is like a queue for my wife to log in and post what a long-suffering spouse she is, to have her emotional arguments distilled into variables for presentation without the emotional responses she's looking for.

I just realized we've been having the wrong discussion. You're like a man who doesn't understand why people are upset when he pulls a knife in a fistfight. We're trying to explain why that's wrong, when the bigger question is: why are getting into so many fights?

I don't want to belittle whatever work you've done, and the insights into your own behavior. I think it's good that you're growing. Still, I think there's a bigger problem than how you handle conflict: how you seem to seek out conflict. Keeping in mind that not only am I a third party observer, but also that I'm only seeing whatever you choose to show me, your behavior has generally been to either seek out, or readily invite conflict. Not always maliciously, but you crave the debate, the argument.

I think the problem isn't how you argue, but rather that you have seem to have a deep seated impulse to always be correct, to prove others wrong. That's fine, there are plenty of people that have that. The problem is that you are now trying to cloak a lot of your behavior by saying that you don't understand people's emotional reactions. You paint yourself as a man of pure logic and science... but you're dragging everybody you interact with into your own emotional vortex.

I think it's one sided to expect the community to accept that you can't handle other people's emotional responses when the community handles your emotional need to be correct.

 Polonius wrote:


I don't want to belittle whatever work you've done, and the insights into your own behavior. I think it's good that you're growing. Still, I think there's a bigger problem than how you handle conflict: how you seem to seek out conflict. Keeping in mind that not only am I a third party observer, but also that I'm only seeing whatever you choose to show me, your behavior has generally been to either seek out, or readily invite conflict. Not always maliciously, but you crave the debate, the argument.

Put this into current day context for me. From my view, these discussions haven't been anywhere outside of this thread, which in turn is "mine." Having created an opportunity to solicit feedback (this thread), I'm attentively responding to people interested enough to chat with me in a manner that should convey that I have given their thoughts the full weight my consideration and am responding in depth to engage in the conversation. That seems like an appropriate tempo to keep where I am the author. Elsewhere, that might be derailing someone else's thread, which I wouldn't do. Help me understand the "Seeking out conflict."

 Polonius wrote:

I think the problem isn't how you argue, but rather that you have seem to have a deep seated impulse to always be correct, to prove others wrong. That's fine, there are plenty of people that have that. The problem is that you are now trying to cloak a lot of your behavior by saying that you don't understand people's emotional reactions. You paint yourself as a man of pure logic and science... but you're dragging everybody you interact with into your own emotional vortex.

That is not my intent. What you are describing is what I have described as well for my historical posting on Dakka, which ended circa 2011. In the intervening years, I have learned some of the things I do that trigger negative emotional reactions. I don't understand why people are having emotions about things that I think deserve emotionless scrutiny...but I've learned that people don't think like me.

My intent there is to diffuse the potential drama of people who remember me, dislike me because I provoked a negative emotional reaction from them, and explain why it happened, and what steps I've taken to prevent from doing it again. If that message isn't clear (which it may not be; I can only say that it is to me) - help me find different words than those I just used and keep using to present that information.

One of the guys who taught me to play harder in WHFB played a lot like Dash. And it’s the thought process of all the guys who played at his tables. Dash, you would fit in perfectly with the Warhammer group in my old hometown. My buddy who taught everyone to play harder coached from the sidelines, played weaker armies (he played TK in Warhammer when they were considered bottom of the barrel and won almost every game!), and would often trade armies with his opponent to show tricks they can do to improve. I figure if you guys got to playing, the games would last into the night and be nuts to watch.

Dash, you should have gone to Oneonta, NY to play!

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


I don't want to belittle whatever work you've done, and the insights into your own behavior. I think it's good that you're growing. Still, I think there's a bigger problem than how you handle conflict: how you seem to seek out conflict. Keeping in mind that not only am I a third party observer, but also that I'm only seeing whatever you choose to show me, your behavior has generally been to either seek out, or readily invite conflict. Not always maliciously, but you crave the debate, the argument.

Put this into current day context for me. From my view, these discussions haven't been anywhere outside of this thread, which in turn is "mine." Having created an opportunity to solicit feedback (this thread), I'm attentively responding to people interested enough to chat with me in a manner that should convey that I have given their thoughts the full weight my consideration and am responding in depth to engage in the conversation. That seems like an appropriate tempo to keep where I am the author. Elsewhere, that might be derailing someone else's thread, which I wouldn't do. Help me understand the "Seeking out conflict."

Well, I'm glad you're channeling it better. I'm basing my thoughts solely on what you've described, and you keep describing situations where you felt frustrated at people being upset. If that's only in the past, than that's good.

 Polonius wrote:

I think the problem isn't how you argue, but rather that you have seem to have a deep seated impulse to always be correct, to prove others wrong. That's fine, there are plenty of people that have that. The problem is that you are now trying to cloak a lot of your behavior by saying that you don't understand people's emotional reactions. You paint yourself as a man of pure logic and science... but you're dragging everybody you interact with into your own emotional vortex.

That is not my intent. What you are describing is what I have described as well for my historical posting on Dakka, which ended circa 2011. In the intervening years, I have learned some of the things I do that trigger negative emotional reactions. I don't understand why people are having emotions about things that I think deserve emotionless scrutiny...but I've learned that people don't think like me.

My intent there is to diffuse the potential drama of people who remember me, dislike me because I provoked a negative emotional reaction from them, and explain why it happened, and what steps I've taken to prevent from doing it again. If that message isn't clear (which it may not be; I can only say that it is to me) - help me find different words than those I just used and keep using to present that information.

 Dashofpepper wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
[
Look, it's possible that your personality and world view are so far removed from everybody else that you really cannot understand why people are upset at behavior that is objectively upsetting. If so, I feel bad, because that's got to be tough. But if you can understand, and you keep pushing people's buttons, than that's just poor behavior.

This is like a queue for my wife to log in and post what a long-suffering spouse she is, to have her emotional arguments distilled into variables for presentation without the emotional responses she's looking for.

Dash... that's like almost every married coupled relationship.

You've gotten two threads locked so far Dash. Maybe try to dial things back a bit, your reintroduction is not going great so far.

(deleted)

 puma713 wrote:
I remember you from arguments in You Make Da Call about pivoting Battlewagons to get the most out of a vehicle's movement.

At the time there was no clear ruling whether it was legal (he did same with DE Raiders, which was equally controversial). Nowadays it is of course illegal, and with hindsight should have been clearly illegal back then too.

My god it has been forever since I actually logged into Dakka. But I came here to post this reply once I was alerted that this thread was made.

Dash, you don't know me. I don't know you. I know your history, however, as it is very much well documented by people whose integrity I value and trust. I am only posting on here and replying to you because you apparently live in north Florida. Why does that matter? Well because I am a TO in south Alabama. Events I run get tons of players from the north Florida region. Once you start perusing around the circuit finding events and figuring out how that works now, you'll end up seeing RTTs I host on the calendar. Skip them. You are not welcome at events I run. Do not come. Do not register. These events are usually held in Enterprise or Dothan, AL. So, if you see an event on the calendar in those areas, don't register. Don't come under a pseudonym and try to be clever either. I will simply boot you from my event which will just end up being a waste of your time and mine. I mean this with the utmost truest sincerity. I can't speak for other event organizers in this region, only events I run. You are not welcome to attend them.

Good luck in whatever pursuits you fancy.

Sasori wrote:You've gotten two threads locked so far Dash. Maybe try to dial things back a bit, your reintroduction is not going great so far.

Hello! I challenge your assumptions, and ask you to question the value of presenting that information out of context. For example, this thread is locked. I started it. I didn't get it locked. Ingtaer identified that it was in the wrong sub-forum. I do not know if Dakka moderators can move threads or not. He posted that it was in the wrong sub-forum and locked it. That thread now exists here where it arguably belongs instead.

Did you not know, or are you presenting it in that fashion to paint me as a troublemaker? If you didn't know, why did you present the information with the assumption of intent on my behalf? Honest question. In another age, I would have jumped to the conclusion that you are attempting to sway public opinion against me - but in learning how to challenge my assumptions and not assume intent, honest question for you. I am truly not attacking your intent; I am just asking what your intent is.

 puma713 wrote:
I remember you from arguments in You Make Da Call about pivoting Battlewagons to get the most out of a vehicle's movement.

Hey Puma! As in all things where I don't know what to do, I transfer my decision making to a larger group. [/url=https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/769170.page]That hasn't changed. [/url]. The battlewagon pivoting went through the same steps.

-Some unremembered thing happened that made me read the rulebook more closely about how pivoting works.
-I didn't get a consensus answer from my locals on what I should do.
-I didn't know what to do.
-I expanded the inquiry beyond my available knowledge (to Dakka) to get better guidance.
-Dakka was pretty divisive.
-I still didn't know what to do, because I was looking for a definitive answer to ensure I was playing correctly.
-I created a Dakka poll to present each option because I didn't know where the consensus was.
-A majority opinion was formed.
-I conformed to the majority opinion.

I did facilitate those conversations. I needed to know how to correctly play 40k. Since there was not consensus on how to read the rules, I needed some means of making a decision on how to play. The consensus was that the rules as written - and intended - require pivoting from the center point of a vehicle, with the understanding that no vehicles are circles.

I understand - very well - that not everyone agreed with that position. I didn't care either way; I only cared that whatever I was doing could be logically explained if the issue came up. As an interesting anecdote... ....while people on Dakka argued it - and I don't have an eidetic memory - I can't recall (nor find in any of my prolific battle reports) an instance where this ever came up in real life. It was an interesting intellectual exercise on Dakka! Two groups of people think different things about the same words. Find out why. In the absence of unified agreement, go with majority rule.

Backfire wrote:
At the time there was no clear ruling whether it was legal (he did same with DE Raiders, which was equally controversial). Nowadays it is of course illegal, and with hindsight should have been clearly illegal back then too.

I do not know how vehicles pivot in 8th edition, nor move. I vaguely understand that vehicles must offload troops before any movement now...but I need to learn the rules. If that "lack of clarity" from a 5th edition rule, and all other unclear rules are now made clear - then I applaud!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

robzidious wrote:
My god it has been forever since I actually logged into Dakka. But I came here to post this reply once I was alerted that this thread was made.

Dash, you don't know me. I don't know you. I know your history, however, as it is very much well documented by people whose integrity I value and trust. I am only posting on here and replying to you because you apparently live in north Florida. Why does that matter? Well because I am a TO in south Alabama. Events I run get tons of players from the north Florida region. Once you start perusing around the circuit finding events and figuring out how that works now, you'll end up seeing RTTs I host on the calendar. Skip them. You are not welcome at events I run. Do not come. Do not register. These events are usually held in Enterprise or Dothan, AL. So, if you see an event on the calendar in those areas, don't register. Don't come under a pseudonym and try to be clever either. I will simply boot you from my event which will just end up being a waste of your time and mine. I mean this with the utmost truest sincerity. I can't speak for other event organizers in this region, only events I run. You are not welcome to attend them.

Good luck in whatever pursuits you fancy.

Hello! I understand that you have formed an opinion of someone you have never met (which is fine), based on things you were told by people you trust (which is fine). You have used that information to take an action against that person and pre-emptively ban them from your store - one that they may never attend in the first place. I don't believe that offers a valuable contribution to any conversation, and is by definition an injustice in America, where you live.

That is not enough information for me to problem solve. I would encourage you to present the data and documentation that has been presented to you so that we can validate its accuracy, because what you're saying here is "The integrity of data is less important than how I feel about the person presenting the data." That is your choice; possibly to my detriment.

Let's tackle it together and see what's at the root of this! The reason you *should* do this is because the situation you are describing is called argumentum ad ignorantiam - where I think your friends have used your ignorance of a topic to spur you to a conclusion without data. You may have reinforced that with a hasty generalization . These logical fallacies get fancy names because they are so, so common that people don't understand that they are not processing information logically.

I may be wrong, and you're not doing these things.... ....but I can't remember any information about myself that would cause someone to logically come to the conclusion that you have. Open air! Let's talk about it! If you think I'm a turd, help me understand why in a form that I can understand. If you *do* have documentation, bring it out. I don't want to have wronged people. I don't like having animosity pointed at me. I suspect that if we got to the bottom of it, either you or your friends is fundamentally misinformed, and has propagated that misinformation...but that's not for me to say.

Let's get to the bottom of this together! I might learn something new, and be able to fix something.

Just going to leave the ITC Code of Conduct here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RFhFICnwr15wK0pdUcUnp0uNRn_-jUdtZvHKPTTR4Yo/edit?usp=sharing