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.

 insaniak wrote:

 Vermis wrote:
I think they pick a different part of their anatomy when they come up with 40K rules.

"Why GW staff don't post here, exhibit A"

"Doing my bit to keep the average IQ of Dakka just a little bit higher. You're welcome."

"Confucius says, If you don't want to be laughed at for having gak smeared over your face, don't smear gak over your face."

"It's like having people lay the entire blame at your feet, for the fact they were denied the chance to congratulate the winners of the Darwin Award."

"The drones may regain some semblance of humanity once disconnected from the collective, but until then, set phasers to randomised frequencies."

"Let me make amends by providing a handy catch-all answer to every GW rules design question for the last thirty years: 'the accounts department wanted to keep selling a ton of models to the same people so I changed things just enough to nerf one unit/army/meta and/or buff another unit/army/meta so that you would have to buy the books to keep up with the rules and buy the best units/armies after a certain period of mathammering and netlisting until a few years later when the next unit/army/edition is released and we do it all over again'."

" "

... are just some of the possible responses that went through my head.

Blastaar wrote:I said that the rules folks have an obligation to communicate with the players. Yes, to gain feedback, as well as explain their intentions with the rules.

I'm not sure what makes communication with customers an 'obligation.'

I'm not even clear how it would benefit them. They get feedback regardless, whether they want it or not, and whether its useful or not. In my experience, constructive criticism that's actually actionable doesn't come from anonymous online sources. Even in person, its vanishingly rare. If it isn't constructive and actionable, its a complete waste of time at best. So what would be the point?

'Explaining intent' is worse than useless. It gives people license and encouragement to quibble. Not discuss or debate, but bog down in what are essentially trivia fights that aren't worth wasting time on.

Overread wrote:So if you produced a product and chose to use your free time to come join a group of people who engage with part of the product that you helped produce - that you'd be ok with that kink of tone being directed at you? Perhaps from multiple people who might use even more scornful language?


I don't know about you, but it would fast sap any enthusiasm I'd have to engage with that community. In fact I'd wager most people would simply leave and go elsewhere. Even if you're looking for feedback and critique that level of discourse isn't constructive nor productive; again it serve no purpose other than to insult. Again I'd not expect anyone to hang around in such an atmosphere.

insaniak wrote:Yes. Absolutely, it's better to not put themselves through that.

At best, being subjected to that sort of negativity on a constant basis is exhausting, demoralising, and bad for creativity and productivity. At worst, it's incredibly damaging to someone's mental health.

It's also pointless. When 90% of the 'feedback' that you're receiving is of the 'You suck and should die in a fire' kind, there is little value in wading through it trying to find the occasional gem of actual, practical critique. It's not going to give them an understanding of their customers' experience... it's just going to show them that a vocal section of the online community has no filter. Until the majority of people can learn to behave as if the guys in the studio are actual human beings, it's just not worth the bother of trying to sort through that.

Good God you people get wound up over a bad throwaway joke. Are we sure this isn't Twitter?

The problem with having a dry sarcastic style of humour online is that it is very hard to tell from an insult.


It also kind of was well timed to highlight the reason why GW designers don't appear on forums. Even if you meant it as a joke there are those who would not mean it as a joke. Or who would run with it and before long all you've got is an endless series of insults. Either from those spewing hate or those trying to just join in. Either way is not that welcoming nor engaging for a person to interact with.

 Vermis wrote:

Good God you people get wound up over a bad throwaway joke. Are we sure this isn't Twitter?

See, the problem is, its only a 'throwaway joke' if people don't actually behave that way. We all know that some actually do (and go further), so as 'jokes' go, it falls pretty flat.

Sarcasm doesn't work when its actually an opinion people express with complete sincerity.

 Vermis wrote:

Good God you people get wound up over a bad throwaway joke. Are we sure this isn't Twitter?

The “just joking” defense uses the joke as a form of deflection.

This is a way for children to test boundaries: when they’ve crossed one, they can back away and not take ownership over what they said. This process allows children to learn. They realize where the social boundaries are, and (hopefully) won’t cross them again. By the time someone grows to become an adult, they should have a clear understanding of where these boundaries are. An adult who uses the just joking defense no longer is testing boundaries but is attempting to escape punishment for crossing them.

What bothers me most about adults using the just joking defense, however, is that someone is trying to not only escape blame, but reassign it. Instead of listeners reprimanding a speaker who says something cruel, insensitive, or wrong, they are told they are being overly sensitive for taking offensive. The just joking defense also ignores the power construct within it. Oftentimes, the punch line of an offensive statement attacks a group with less power within society.

MaxT wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

Good God you people get wound up over a bad throwaway joke. Are we sure this isn't Twitter?

The “just joking” defense uses the joke as a form of deflection.

This is a way for children to test boundaries: when they’ve crossed one, they can back away and not take ownership over what they said. This process allows children to learn. They realize where the social boundaries are, and (hopefully) won’t cross them again. By the time someone grows to become an adult, they should have a clear understanding of where these boundaries are. An adult who uses the just joking defense no longer is testing boundaries but is attempting to escape punishment for crossing them.

What bothers me most about adults using the just joking defense, however, is that someone is trying to not only escape blame, but reassign it. Instead of listeners reprimanding a speaker who says something cruel, insensitive, or wrong, they are told they are being overly sensitive for taking offensive. The just joking defense also ignores the power construct within it. Oftentimes, the punch line of an offensive statement attacks a group with less power within society.

Conversely, what you just described is a way to make joking impossible and force everybody to walk on eggshells at all times because someone might get upset. How can you even have a discussion with this mindset? And even if it wasn't a joke who cares.

 Vermis wrote:

Good God you people get wound up over a bad throwaway joke. Are we sure this isn't Twitter?

I'm not sure who you think is 'wound up'... I''m not feeling particularly agitated. A question was asked, and answered.

If you're not interested in actually participating in the discussion, feel free to move on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irkjoe wrote:

Conversely, what you just described is a way to make joking impossible and force everybody to walk on eggshells at all times because someone might get upset. How can you even have a discussion with this mindset? And even if it wasn't a joke who cares.

It does nothing of the sort. What he was referring to is a comment that doesn't read as a joke at all, that is then walked back in an effort to paint those who respond to it as being unreasonable. There is plenty of space for levity, when it is presented in good faith.

We're talking about "I think they pick a different part of their anatomy when they come up with 40K rules." right? This is transparently a joke, if you want to make a case that it adds nothing to the discussion then I understand but the idea that this was cruel or insensitive is just silly. If I'm missing the comment forgive me, if that's all it takes to get under your skin I'm genuinely sorry for you. Either way, I'll leave it at that.

Voss wrote:

Blastaar wrote:I said that the rules folks have an obligation to communicate with the players. Yes, to gain feedback, as well as explain their intentions with the rules.

I'm not sure what makes communication with customers an 'obligation.'

I'm not even clear how it would benefit them. They get feedback regardless, whether they want it or not, and whether its useful or not. In my experience, constructive criticism that's actually actionable doesn't come from anonymous online sources. Even in person, its vanishingly rare. If it isn't constructive and actionable, its a complete waste of time at best. So what would be the point?

'Explaining intent' is worse than useless. It gives people license and encouragement to quibble. Not discuss or debate, but bog down in what are essentially trivia fights that aren't worth wasting time on.

Perhaps the word "obligation" was too strong. It would be a mutual benefit if the rues team were to bother to come out of their hole periodically. Players may acquire some understanding of what actually happens when they sit down to write, what leads to the issues we see, etc., and for the rues team to be more in touch with what the players experience. It is painfully obvious that the rules writers have no clue what they actually produce. So what if feedback it isn't always constructive? Even general knowledge that the players are upset is something. You're making an awful lot of excuses, and I don't understand why. You sound bitter.


How does communication encourage arguing any more than bits of PR BS? We're already complaining that GW doesn't tell us enough, and arguing about whether it would be helpful if GW did explain things more!

 Irkjoe wrote:
We're talking about "I think they pick a different part of their anatomy when they come up with 40K rules." right? This is transparently a joke, if you want to make a case that it adds nothing to the discussion then I understand but the idea that this was cruel or insensitive is just silly. If I'm missing the comment forgive me, if that's all it takes to get under your skin I'm genuinely sorry for you. Either way, I'll leave it at that.

It's only a joke when you're not the subject of it. Picture yourself as the creator of something, who has just had a comment like that directed specifically at you. For most people, it becomes considerably less funny at that point... hence my comment that it was a reason for said creators to stay away.

In isolation, a comment like that isn't a big deal. The problem is, for creators trying to have an inline presence these days, those sorts of comments don't remain in isolation for long.

Some people can take those waves of negative comments and just let them slide off. And that's a useful skill. But not everyone can do that, nor should they have to. And if they can't, or don't particularly want to, then until people start behaving themselves online, it's only sensible to not put themselves in that position in the first place.

 insaniak wrote:

Some people can take those waves of negative comments and just let them slide off. And that's a useful skill. But not everyone can do that, nor should they have to. And if they can't, or don't particularly want to, then until people start behaving themselves online, it's only sensible to not put themselves in that position in the first place.

There's also the aspect of volume to consider. 1 Joker in the pack is fine, they can mostly be ignored or just overlooked or their comments don't hurt all that much.

But when you've got hundreds of "jokers" all at once building off each other, then its much harder to ignore. If you get to insults and such it gets even worse. The issue is volume and once it starts going toxic it can self perpetuate. I think we've all seen an online community go "toxic". Where any good comments get ignored or overlooked or piled on and where the general attitude of the active membership is very sour to insulting. Such environments are rarely a welcoming nor nice place to be.

You see this on steam a good few times where developers will often just outright ignore it by having their own forums and not using the steam ones.



I've also noticed that people who can let insults slide off their back (or retaliate) often can only keep it up for so long. A continual bombardment will cause them to engage less and less; or shift to more positive environments. Worse is if they stick it out they can end up changing in their personality and how they relate to the site; sometimes becoming as sour and jaded as the community they are interacting with. A very destructive cycle. Or if they lash out and "fight back" it becomes their normal attitude and something they can't turn off even in the face of more positive engagements.

Well if you can't pick up on the wordplay on 'picking' then I don't know what to say. Maybe I should've peppered the thing with smilies?

There are some more serious points I want to make, then. Starting with this one made by Techsoldaten already, that makes most of the topic moot:

 techsoldaten wrote:
Yeah, GW instituted a no social media policy a while back. It applies to all full time employees and selectively to freelancers, who are mostly involved in design projects. I think they sign NDAs on a per-project basis.

As for old GW employees: Beast GTS posted Tuomas Pirinen's twitter link too. Looking at his profile and a quick scan of his feed, I'd guess GW occupies very few of his waking moments these days. Why would an ex-GW studio member who's working with - what? EA? Ubisoft? His own RPG projects? - continue to hang around on a GW forum? Would that not be usual for staff who leave and are, presumably, not so hungry after they learn how the sausage is made and have ground up thousands of snouts and tails in their time? Does Paul Sawyer hang around here when his main focus is Warlord Games? Does Alessio Cavatore pop in to keep up with with the constant stream of KoW chat? They might attract a bit of interest because of their past history, but using someone like Easy E as an example of a non-GW rules writer who openly posts here, he's soundly (and unfortunately) ignored, squirreled away in the historicals board. No time to think of other games when there's a multi-page argument to be had about some obscure, awfully-written and inconsequential point of 40K rules.
Face it gentlemen, they may still be involved in the same general hobby sphere, but unlike us other manchildren, they've moved on.

(I wouldn't mind seeing Easy E's input on this. Whether he gets more feedback on social media or somewhere like TMP, compared to here; whether or not more of it is negative elsewhere; and whether it's worth it.)

Then there's the process of making GW rules. Now this may be a GW fan forum and anyone who displays negativity about their games is an icky troll and everything that's wrong with the world or somesuch, but I hope you can still grasp the highly corporate, cynical nature of GW's main rulesets for at least the past twenty years. They're not designed to be good games, they're designed to sell miniatures. I could say more but it's been said.
If we can take that point as given, I'd be extraordinarily surprised if anyone in the last few years went for a job in Nottingham HQ, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, certain that they were going to write the best edition or codex or battletome for the best set of rules in the wargaming universe. If they did, I imagine they'd be disabused of that notion, pretty quickly. They're not there to innovate, they're there to churn. Less pan-seared prime steak, more McDonalds 99p menu.
They know full well what they're doing, who they're doing it for, and why. In that case, what would you think they'd expect? Do you think they'd still be so naive as to think no-one on the other side of the till would say 'hey waitaminnit'? Could it even be that, even with their corporate face on (and assuming they were permitted by GW to speak anyway), they'd think there's some legitimacy to the negativity?

And that negativity. To be honest, this thread is giving me flashbacks to Warseer. Biggest difference is no mass bannings of those who question Glorious Leader GW, yet. Anyway, contrary to what's being said, there's still an awful lot of hand-wringing and concern for the feelings of grown men who are paid to knowingly write bad rules, in here, and a lot of certainty that it's the mean kids chasing them out of the playground. As far as I can see in this thread, I'm the only one to propose that GW rules fall out of the machine with a grunt and a splat, rather than springing fully-formed from someone's immaculate brow. Maybe it's much worse in news and discussions about GW rules that I stopped looking at, the type of thing that apparently chased the likes of JohnnyHell away. Which doesn't exactly add doubt to my notion that the rules are trash. But I digress. I'll not say ranting about rules is not a factor in depriving Dakka of their, hum, insights, but I wonder how it stacks up against those things like:

A) they can't post here. Is verboten by GW.
B) they're just not that into you.
C) what possible reply they might have to the complaints. "Yes, we know"?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Irkjoe wrote:
We're talking about "I think they pick a different part of their anatomy when they come up with 40K rules." right? This is transparently a joke, if you want to make a case that it adds nothing to the discussion then I understand but the idea that this was cruel or insensitive is just silly. If I'm missing the comment forgive me, if that's all it takes to get under your skin I'm genuinely sorry for you. Either way, I'll leave it at that.

Oh look, someone with a functioning sense of humour. I should have him stuffed.

(Note to the rest of you: I don't actually want to have Irkjoe taxiderrmied. You don't have to get all morally indignant on his behalf.)

This is such a weird place for a pissing contest.

Like, how did a yes / no question turn into a pissing contest? The answer seems to be that GW employees, *if* they want to, can’t openly post in connection with being a GW employee.

After that, everyone’s just getting wet and smelly. So to join in, I ate a bunch of asparagus for supper. I’ve probably got the smelliest per here. I’m cocked and loaded, so to speak.

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is such a weird place for a pissing contest.

Like, how did a yes / no question turn into a pissing contest? The answer seems to be that GW employees, *if* they want to, can’t openly post in connection with being a GW employee.

After that, everyone’s just getting wet and smelly. So to join in, I ate a bunch of asparagus for supper. I’ve probably got the smelliest per here. I’m cocked and loaded, so to speak.

I fed my cats asparagus and they just drank their entire water bowl. Your move.

Blastaar wrote:

Voss wrote:

Blastaar wrote:I said that the rules folks have an obligation to communicate with the players. Yes, to gain feedback, as well as explain their intentions with the rules.

I'm not sure what makes communication with customers an 'obligation.'

I'm not even clear how it would benefit them. They get feedback regardless, whether they want it or not, and whether its useful or not. In my experience, constructive criticism that's actually actionable doesn't come from anonymous online sources. Even in person, its vanishingly rare. If it isn't constructive and actionable, its a complete waste of time at best. So what would be the point?

'Explaining intent' is worse than useless. It gives people license and encouragement to quibble. Not discuss or debate, but bog down in what are essentially trivia fights that aren't worth wasting time on.

Perhaps the word "obligation" was too strong. It would be a mutual benefit if the rues team were to bother to come out of their hole periodically. Players may acquire some understanding of what actually happens when they sit down to write, what leads to the issues we see, etc., and for the rues team to be more in touch with what the players experience. It is painfully obvious that the rules writers have no clue what they actually produce. So what if feedback it isn't always constructive? Even general knowledge that the players are upset is something. You're making an awful lot of excuses, and I don't understand why. You sound bitter.


How does communication encourage arguing any more than bits of PR BS? We're already complaining that GW doesn't tell us enough, and arguing about whether it would be helpful if GW did explain things more!

They get feedback anyway. Of course it doesn't really help with balance etc as that's wonky because changing imbalance makes more money. They don't take　less profits just because they would be on forums.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 greatbigtree wrote:
This is such a weird place for a pissing contest.

Like, how did a yes / no question turn into a pissing contest? The answer seems to be that GW employees, *if* they want to, can’t openly post in connection with being a GW employee.

After that, everyone’s just getting wet and smelly. So to join in, I ate a bunch of asparagus for supper. I’ve probably got the smelliest per here. I’m cocked and loaded, so to speak.

I fed my cats asparagus and they just drank their entire water bowl. Your move.

Whoa! Hold on! Can’t we negotiate before we go to the nuclear option!?!

As much as I wish I could sit down and have a game design discussion with the designers in person, I'm glad they don't post here.

I'm a wargame designer in a real life (though in a WAAAAAAAAAAAAY different field, not recreational games) and would love to talk shop (and the philosophy of game design, especially!) with the designers of frankly the most popular commercial miniatures wargame in the world.

But this forum isn't the place to do that, and I do think it is too hostile.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm a wargame designer in a real life (though in a WAAAAAAAAAAAAY different field, not recreational games) and would love to talk shop (and the philosophy of game design, especially!) with the designers of frankly the most popular commercial miniatures wargame in the world.

But this forum isn't the place to do that, and I do think it is too hostile.

Yeah, the videogame industry is exactly the same. Developers love to talk shop with other developers. What they don't like to do is go on a public forum and defend themselves against Internet vitriol.

Blastaar wrote:

Voss wrote:

Blastaar wrote:I said that the rules folks have an obligation to communicate with the players. Yes, to gain feedback, as well as explain their intentions with the rules.

I'm not sure what makes communication with customers an 'obligation.'

I'm not even clear how it would benefit them. They get feedback regardless, whether they want it or not, and whether its useful or not. In my experience, constructive criticism that's actually actionable doesn't come from anonymous online sources. Even in person, its vanishingly rare. If it isn't constructive and actionable, its a complete waste of time at best. So what would be the point?

'Explaining intent' is worse than useless. It gives people license and encouragement to quibble. Not discuss or debate, but bog down in what are essentially trivia fights that aren't worth wasting time on.

Perhaps the word "obligation" was too strong. It would be a mutual benefit if the rues team were to bother to come out of their hole periodically. Players may acquire some understanding of what actually happens when they sit down to write, what leads to the issues we see, etc., and for the rues team to be more in touch with what the players experience. It is painfully obvious that the rules writers have no clue what they actually produce. So what if feedback it isn't always constructive? Even general knowledge that the players are upset is something. You're making an awful lot of excuses, and I don't understand why. You sound bitter.

They don't need to be involved to find out if players are upset. Or even to divine if it's meaningful upset.

Non constructive is feedback is useless to them. Why would they engage with it?

I have no idea why you think I 'sound bitter' or why that would even matter.

How does communication encourage arguing any more than bits of PR BS? We're already complaining that GW doesn't tell us enough, and arguing about whether it would be helpful if GW did explain things more!

Because for us, arguing is pointless entertainment. For them, it would be about and affect their jobs, the difference isn't subtle. Players wasting their free time doesn't matter, Writers wasting their work time does, especially if there isn't any benefit to it.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Really? You want to make that joke?

What 'joke' did you think I was making? We may have gotten our wires crossed.

My point was this: if Thomas Parrott got fired for what he did, Just Tony would definitely get fired for what he implied he would do. If he were hypothetically on GW's design team and got crap from random muppets on the internet about his work, responding with "Here's where I live; come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!" is not something GW would tolerate.

We now know that GW will fire you for the way you respond to donkey-caves on the internet, even if your response is an entirely understandable human reaction, or even if it's absolutely righteous. So why would any GW employee feel safe posting somewhere like Dakkadakka under their real name?

(FWIW, I do not agree with what happened to Thomas Parrott. The only thing I find at all humorous in the whole situation is GW's shameless hypocrisy... but that's very far away from the topic of this thread.)

 catbarf wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
I'm a wargame designer in a real life (though in a WAAAAAAAAAAAAY different field, not recreational games) and would love to talk shop (and the philosophy of game design, especially!) with the designers of frankly the most popular commercial miniatures wargame in the world.

But this forum isn't the place to do that, and I do think it is too hostile.

Yeah, the videogame industry is exactly the same. Developers love to talk shop with other developers. What they don't like to do is go on a public forum and defend themselves against Internet vitriol.

I've been a fan of the Factorio Developer Diaries because they put into reasonably simple terms a lot of the complex code that goes into quite basic things that a mundane person can at least appreciate, if not understand. In my view one of the reasons a lot of people get hostile at game developers is because they have no idea how to code at even the most basic level. They've just no idea. So its very easy to be hostile and critical because on the surface the changes/fixes can seem really simple. Yet under the hood of the engine they can be quite a complicated situation and the error might not be the result of a mistake, but instead a complex collection of elements working together that individually work well; but which when combined end up creating an unforeseen side effect.

I've always been of the opinion that one of the best ways to manage a community is to involve them a bit in the development process. To show then what really goes on behind the scenes. I think it does more to build trust and faith in the firm and also to start to make more of the consumer base aware of the work that goes into what they enjoy.


When you look at big firms that are top names in their industry they often harp on about the quality, processes and such that they use all the time. Because they know that the more they make the customer aware of how much work went into the creation of the product; the more respect the customer is potentially going to have and thus the more chance that they'll accept the premium price for a product. And I don't just mean when a company goes on about "X process" or "Y material" but actually goes into the showing of how its put together; the worker skill and man hours and such.

Take this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKqfC0E82gU

After watching I'm sure more people would have a greater appreciation and awareness of why those brushes cost more than a mass produced synthetic brush. It's all part of making your customer aware.

You can see it in forums too, those who are a bit more aware of the processes involved can be more appreciative of costs and such. I think GW misses a trick in not doing factory video tours and talking about how they make models from design to model more often. Even with Corona a sight of the working factory (not just the neat art they've done) can be a neat way to communicate how things have changed and what they are working with.

 Overread wrote:
I've been a fan of the Factorio Developer Diaries because they put into reasonably simple terms a lot of the complex code that goes into quite basic things that a mundane person can at least appreciate, if not understand. In my view one of the reasons a lot of people get hostile at game developers is because they have no idea how to code at even the most basic level. They've just no idea. So its very easy to be hostile and critical because on the surface the changes/fixes can seem really simple. Yet under the hood of the engine they can be quite a complicated situation and the error might not be the result of a mistake, but instead a complex collection of elements working together that individually work well; but which when combined end up creating an unforeseen side effect.

I've always been of the opinion that one of the best ways to manage a community is to involve them a bit in the development process. To show then what really goes on behind the scenes. I think it does more to build trust and faith in the firm and also to start to make more of the consumer base aware of the work that goes into what they enjoy.


When you look at big firms that are top names in their industry they often harp on about the quality, processes and such that they use all the time. Because they know that the more they make the customer aware of how much work went into the creation of the product; the more respect the customer is potentially going to have and thus the more chance that they'll accept the premium price for a product. And I don't just mean when a company goes on about "X process" or "Y material" but actually goes into the showing of how its put together; the worker skill and man hours and such.

Take this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKqfC0E82gU

After watching I'm sure more people would have a greater appreciation and awareness of why those brushes cost more than a mass produced synthetic brush. It's all part of making your customer aware.

You can see it in forums too, those who are a bit more aware of the processes involved can be more appreciative of costs and such. I think GW misses a trick in not doing factory video tours and talking about how they make models from design to model more often. Even with Corona a sight of the working factory (not just the neat art they've done) can be a neat way to communicate how things have changed and what they are working with.

Oh hey, also a fan of Factorio. I completely agree with everything you're saying; transparency is a good way to alleviate a lot of the frustrations that arise between fans and companies.

But there are, IMO, a couple of key factors to it.

One is that not every designer/developer is suited to that kind of engagement. You need a lot of patience and a cool head to have that kind of community engagement without it getting ugly when there are issues that seems confrontational or otherwise impassioned. Some people are good at that, some aren't. So, even the companies that do engage in this manner have one or a couple of 'community outreach' people, who are essentially doing PR. Total direct access to all the designers/developers is quite uncommon.

Another factor is that, tying back to it being a PR thing, how corporate a company is can have a big influence on how much community engagement there is. Wube Software is a handful of people working on games without a lot of baggage; something like EA games absolutely does not want their developers talking about roadmaps, reception to previous releases, current frustrations, and the like. GW seems a lot closer to the latter than to the former nowadays- and they certainly wouldn't want a designer going on the Internet and saying 'Yeah, we wrote all that fluff about AdMech walking everywhere because the model team hadn't made any transports, but now they have so we don't know what to do about it' (not a made-up example, I remember this from an interview with a former staffer).

And lastly, if you have to pick someone who can handle community outreach and toe the corporate line well enough, they're probably going to be putting a non-negligible number of hours into it and that adds to the expense. A lot of companies just don't feel it's worth the money. In some cases that's probably true, in others it definitely isn't.

So I'm honestly not sure whether GW appointing a spokesman to engage with the community would really be all that game-changing, since they'd probably be just as in the dark as the rest of the team is about what's going on behind the scenes, and beholden to maintaining the image of their corporate masters. It'd be cool to get one of the actual designers on here to talk about the game, but all it would take is one heated exchange, one comment taken out of context, giving away something corporate didn't want leaked, or corporate telling them to get back to work, and it'd be over.

I'd love to pick Robin Cruddace's brain. I just don't think it's likely to ever happen.

Its also important to remember that the current GW is actually more open and responsive in many ways than it has been in the past. They actually do address rules and errata in a fairly timely matter, and they do have dedicated PR staff (regardless of whether people like their articles or responses) and still drag in studio folks for things like preview streams.

That's a big change from years past, whether people acknowledge it or not. Directly posting on forums and facebook doesn't come across as a necessary or important step on top of that. Certainly not with all the additional headaches that would come with it.

 Overread wrote:
There's also the aspect of volume to consider. 1 Joker in the pack is fine, they can mostly be ignored or just overlooked or their comments don't hurt all that much.

But when you've got hundreds of "jokers" all at once building off each other, then its much harder to ignore. If you get to insults and such it gets even worse. The issue is volume and once it starts going toxic it can self perpetuate. I think we've all seen an online community go "toxic". Where any good comments get ignored or overlooked or piled on and where the general attitude of the active membership is very sour to insulting. Such environments are rarely a welcoming nor nice place to be.

Let's not mince words--we can see it right here. On average, this community is horribly toxic, bitter and hate-filled when it comes to discussing the thing the site is nominally about. It's a terrible place to discuss actual 40K if you're not either on the hate-train or prepared to get shouted down by them if you express an opinion that's either positive, or negative but not knee-jerking, hyperbolic hatred.

 Elemental wrote:

 Overread wrote:
There's also the aspect of volume to consider. 1 Joker in the pack is fine, they can mostly be ignored or just overlooked or their comments don't hurt all that much.

But when you've got hundreds of "jokers" all at once building off each other, then its much harder to ignore. If you get to insults and such it gets even worse. The issue is volume and once it starts going toxic it can self perpetuate. I think we've all seen an online community go "toxic". Where any good comments get ignored or overlooked or piled on and where the general attitude of the active membership is very sour to insulting. Such environments are rarely a welcoming nor nice place to be.

Let's not mince words--we can see it right here. On average, this community is horribly toxic, bitter and hate-filled when it comes to discussing the thing the site is nominally about. It's a terrible place to discuss actual 40K if you're not either on the hate-train or prepared to get shouted down by them if you express an opinion that's either positive, or negative but not knee-jerking, hyperbolic hatred.

That's more than a little one-sided. Hive mind theories like that are woe-fully inaccurate. Its mostly individuals on, frankly, any side of an issue.
I know I've had people flip out at me for not being positive enough.

Its a perfectly fine place to discuss 40k if you've got about a dozen or so specific individuals on ignore. (And media and off topic are fine with a dozen more ignored).

Let's not mince words--we can see it right here. On average, this community is horribly toxic, bitter and hate-filled when it comes to discussing the thing the site is nominally about. It's a terrible place to discuss actual 40K if you're not either on the hate-train or prepared to get shouted down by them if you express an opinion that's either positive, or negative but not knee-jerking, hyperbolic hatred.

That happens occasionally, but really, posts like that contribute to that perceived negativity more than they help it. There's a lot of threads on a regular basis that aren't one sided hate-fests or pure white-knighting. There's a thread right now in 40k GD about strategems for example that has a lot of good stuff in it.

Like Voss said - you have to ignore a few folks, but that's no different than anywhere else. If it's that bad here ... why even stay or bother responding? I think it's actually a pretty big tribute to the site, the keepers/mods etc, and the community at large that it even still exists in this day and age. I've been on many forums for many different subjects ever since forums became a thing and this is one of only 3 of the ones I view that have survived the onset of Social Media, Reddit etc to stay active and relevant. In fact, of those 3, really only 2 are still truly active. One is "up" but mostly over run by bots and spam. So surely Dakka must be doing something right?

Still though - much as it might be cool to see a carefully curated Q/A w/someone form the GW design team, I can't blame 'em for not publicly wading in as an open member of said team. lol

Tycho wrote:
Still though - much as it might be cool to see a carefully curated Q/A w/someone form the GW design team, I can't blame 'em for not publicly wading in as an open member of said team. lol

James Hewitt did a Reddit AMA (admittedly after he left GW).

James Hewitt did a Reddit AMA (admittedly after he left GW).

Hey thanks! I missed that one!

Yeah, he's quite active on Twitter, and occasionally shares little gems from his time at GW as well.