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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And to be clear, it may not be. I don't think anyone is arguing that we know for sure that was the reason, only that death threats are a serious problem and not something to just be brushed off like nothing. Even assuming this WAS the reason, no one is saying that GWs response was the best approach (I certainly don't think so).

And I think it's a certain someone using this entire tangent as a distraction to get away from the main topic and tar the community as a whole with one hell of a brush. And not for the first time, I might add.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
There is a huge difference between 'this person writes for army books' and 'this person wrote the rules for THIS army book'. The former is unspecific so people freaking out over a certain thing can't pin their hate to a certain person.

And, what, throw their hate out indiscriminately instead?

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Maybe it is like that in Australia, but in other parts of the world that is very much not the case. Yes, the overwhelming majority of threats aren't followed through on, but some are and the people receiving them don't know if they got a 'hollow' one or a credible one. Except they aren't hollow, because the very fact that they might not be creates entirely legitimate fear, and quite often the people making the threats know that.

Death threats are death threats wherever they are. It's not different in Australia, but we seem to be forgetting that this is The Internet, and the Internet makes people do dumb things and say dumb things that they'd never actually say in real life. The signal-to-noise ratio is astronomical, and, I'm sorry, not a good enough reason to not credit writers for their work.

These aren't people getting fatwas declared against them by government bodies. These are anonymous nobodies screaming in chat rooms, and trolls who do it specifically for the reaction. This gak was solved years ago.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Not one person anywhere in the thread has contested that.

Not in as many words, no, but no one's supporting it either.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Further, you just said above that they are credited in White Dwarf, so either this sentiment is invalid or that one is, because they are mutually exclusive.

My point about WD was that they're fine to do it there, but somehow not fine to do it in Codices/Army Books, meaning I doubt it has anything to do with "death threats" and more an internal policy to do with not creating personalities within the company.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
And really, to those who feel death threats aren't a big deal, that they can just be brushed off, I call bs. Send me the screenshots of the threats you've received, then I'll buy it.

Provide some examples when they were real.

 Gert wrote:
Matt Ward stopped writing for GW and disappeared for years to the point where he popped back up again in like 2018/19 and people were surprised that he came back to GW. The people that sent those threats got rid of the person they hated for a good amount of time so the threats worked.

How do you know he left because of death threats explicitly instead of leaving because people really disliked what he was writing. While related, these are still two different things.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Matt Ward stopped writing for GW and disappeared for years to the point where he popped back up again in like 2018/19 and people were surprised that he came back to GW. The people that sent those threats got rid of the person they hated for a good amount of time so the threats worked.

How do you know he left because of death threats explicitly instead of leaving because people really disliked what he was writing. While related, these are still two different things.

They had him write The End Times and an amount of Dark Imperium/8th soft reboot fluff so I doubt he's scared of fan reactions.

Jesus...capital G gaming really is filled with the worst possible people.

The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.

Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

 ArcaneHorror wrote:
For a while, it's been a trend to not give the specific names of people in Warhammer rulebooks of various kinds. Personally, I think that this is quite unfair. Do you all think we would go back to crediting specific people in these publications instead of just 'The Warhammer Studio'?

Aside from what others have said. I wouldn't want my name attached to the half-assed works and botched rules filled with spelling mistakes.

Purifying Tempest wrote:
The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.

Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.

Hecaton wrote:

beast_gts wrote:
No. One of the main reasons was named writers were getting death threats, and I don't want that to happen again.

I think that was the reason stated, but I think that the real reason was they didn't want to be called out on obvious favoritism or shoddy rules writing.

Exactly, that's just a cop out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

If I were as terrible at my job and had the same customer satisfaction rating as the people writing rules for GW, I would be homeless and starving.

 Sim-Life wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.

Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.

Absolutely does! Reputation is the currency in which creative folks live and die by. I am not going to speculate as to why GW does or does not want to hang onto contributors with pretty bad reputations in their industry. I'm not even going to speculate on if they use a core group of writers or large pods of freelancers, even though freelancers definitely makes sense with how hit-and-miss the cohesiveness of the game is at times. Hiding an author's bad work also allows them to get gigs at other places, no negative equity to affect their outcomes, and thus the problem spreads. I find it pretty poor that for whatever reason, people are not getting credited with the good (and bad) work they do. Like I doubt many people would gripe about the Custodes, Tau, or Craftworld books outside of toning them down a little. I think a lot of the play experience delivers, just a few things deliver a bit more than expected. But overall, they're more on the level of "well written" than something like the lifeless husk that was GK 8th edition. But, if we take everything at face value and the internet is the primary cause of those authors no longer getting credit for their work... then I think it is an opportunity for self-reflection over our contributions to that and say "yeah, maybe I did go a little too far this one time". Besides, if it is all truly a sham, but people started maybe guarding their vitriol a little before spewing it out towards whatever target they've acquired most recently... the worst case is the internet may be a bit better of a place, even if it is just a little.

 Gert wrote:

And yet you still aren't understanding what is being said. A death threat does not have to be acted upon to be considered a problem because it is a criminal offence to send a death threat in the first place. Death threats are used to coerce the recipient into committing acts that the sender wants and all the sender needs to do to make that threat feel real is put the slightest amount of pressure, say for example waiting for the recipient outside their publicly known place of work and take a photo of them leaving. Matt Ward got death threats and disappeared from GW and public life altogether, the threats worked. That he came back to GW after the fact shows that he has more spine than the scum who tried to get rid of him.

In professional sports people say different things to each other, specialy when the ref can not hear it, and I don't think many people were jailed for making death or physical harm threats to each other. The things that happen to people playing water ball, for example, make me think only crazy people want to do it. And sports people engaging in real physical contact, can actually hurt each other. There are plenty of examples of boxers or MMA guys getting angry at the other guy, and not KOing their opponent just to work them over for full number of rounds and really destroy them. When, I hope this isn't racism again,Khabib told McGregor he is going to punish him and his people for what he did insulting his father, he did 100% that. Writers of table top games have almost no interaction with that play their game. Probably well know tournament players and playtesters have more to worry about.

 Gert wrote:

There's this magical thing that people do called "fear" and it tends to not give two figs what facts or logic do.

Being afraid and building policies on stuff that doesn't happen is a wierd thing to do. Specially when those policies are real and enforced. Plus how about real fears of players. Spend two years saving up and a designer writes a codex that wrecks your army and makes it unplayable, and make you feel like someone stupid who wasted time and money? That fear is not just something people can have, but it is based on things that did happen in the past and were done by the design studio. In fact they are still being done today. it seems wierd to "protect" the fears of a few designers, who historically do a bad job at writing the game, and at the same time ignoring the problems thousands of players have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Purifying Tempest 804494 11343700 wrote: Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

Have you seen or played a faction that was bad in the past? you know how good someone feels, if they spend 2-3 years of money on an army, only for it to be very bad and unfun to play with, and you thinking each night about, why didn't I just buy a tablet or a bike, or something that would have been fun? You think that doesn't impact life. That impacts life for real. If a designer gets told to get cancer, then unless he believes in shamanistic powers among some of twitter posters, the actual impact on his life is zero. Specially when the person doesn't move on, but rather works for the same GW company for a few decades.

All the actors and film makers, that make horrible movies and TV series, and then claim persecution somehow alway do find work, often in the same frenchise they just wrecked. This sounds more like trying to make some people feel good and make any critique non existant, then actually protect someones lives.

Purifying Tempest wrote:

 Sim-Life wrote:

Purifying Tempest wrote:
The worst part is... an author's name on their work is like... their brand, their resume. Something real world that can spread their name to other groups and companies who may want to sign that author on for a project they're working on. Once again, the internet is such a place that a few rabid lunatics can affect the real world in a very real way that negatively impacts people just trying to 1) get by and make a living, and 2) doing something they didn't have to sell their soul to do and may have enjoyed doing it.

Suppose there's a lesson EVERYONE here can learn, especially the next time we think about launching off in an unhinged rant against someone we perceive as wrong, ignorant, or just plain stupid. Like... being a human, even on the internet, and treating other people in kind is one of the most important things we can strive to do. Sometimes someone's lunch quite literally depends on it.

It works the other way as well. Cruddace is not good at rules but for some reason he's in charge of the largest tabletop game in the world.If Cruddace still had his name printed on books we'd all know to avoid it. Board games are a great example of this. Eric Lang is very well known as a designer and when you see his names you know what you're getting, even if it's not to your taste you know what to expect a streamlined (perhaps overly so), easy to learn game. If you buy and Eklund game you know to expect a lot of depth and a fair amount of rules overhead, and it it's a Phil Eklund game you might be one of those crazies who avoid his games altogether because of some misconstrued Facebook posts.

Absolutely does! Reputation is the currency in which creative folks live and die by. I am not going to speculate as to why GW does or does not want to hang onto contributors with pretty bad reputations in their industry. I'm not even going to speculate on if they use a core group of writers or large pods of freelancers, even though freelancers definitely makes sense with how hit-and-miss the cohesiveness of the game is at times. Hiding an author's bad work also allows them to get gigs at other places, no negative equity to affect their outcomes, and thus the problem spreads. I find it pretty poor that for whatever reason, people are not getting credited with the good (and bad) work they do. Like I doubt many people would gripe about the Custodes, Tau, or Craftworld books outside of toning them down a little. I think a lot of the play experience delivers, just a few things deliver a bit more than expected. But overall, they're more on the level of "well written" than something like the lifeless husk that was GK 8th edition. But, if we take everything at face value and the internet is the primary cause of those authors no longer getting credit for their work... then I think it is an opportunity for self-reflection over our contributions to that and say "yeah, maybe I did go a little too far this one time". Besides, if it is all truly a sham, but people started maybe guarding their vitriol a little before spewing it out towards whatever target they've acquired most recently... the worst case is the internet may be a bit better of a place, even if it is just a little.

So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc...

Don't let me misunderstood: online harassment (through death threats or not) is atrocious and deals proven damages to people. But that's not what's its about. What it's about is labour. Especially when you work on intangibles ownership of your work is paramount to your ability to live off your work, improve your pay and working conditions or to change jobs. What GW's company policy does is about power over it's employees. If it was, they'd simply allow for their employee to sign as Alan Smithee (better yet, they'd be forced to be able to do so if they chose).

Sorry if I'm a bit more heated then usual. But the matter is close to my heart.

Imagine being John Blanche in the 1980s/90s and no one would give him credit for his work.

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:


So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.

However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

 Eldarsif wrote:
This thread is horrible. I agree that creators should get credits if they wish it. I found it weird that the animated WHTV shows didn't have any credits at all.

However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

Because the source of the threats is "trust me, bro" as soon as said writer is called out for their gakky writing. You'd think there would either be investigation or them showing off these supposed threats.

Karol wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:


So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

Wouldn't want creators to actually have intellectual properties now do we ?

Karol wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:


So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed

Toofast wrote:

Karol wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:


So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed

Which is also a really contentious example

Toofast wrote:

Karol wrote:

 DreadfullyHopeful wrote:


So f ing true. Whoever wrote this "They aren't credited for their own safety " bull is naive. What H.B.M.C. wrote should be the f king gospel: Credit workers for their work. And thus whether they write rules or fluff. Draw illustrations. Design page layout. Paint or take pictures of models. Etc....

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

You can credit the author without giving them legal rights to the work. See: literally every comic book ever printed

GW's legal team wouldn't know how that works.

 Eldarsif wrote:
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/

I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.

Lincoln... The one that got shot in the head... great example.

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/

I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.

Roman legionaries were writing things like "Vegetius was here" and drawing dicks on buildings. None of this is new, it's been around since we started walking upright

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/

I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.

At the same time you mandate safety standards for cars; impose restrictions on driving; have approved tests and police to enforce safety; using remote cameras and such. Heck we are also getting black-boxes in cars which monitor your driving performance and report back and dash cams are getting more and more common.

Any level of technology or action comes with inherent risk attached. However as time passes society generally seeks to find ways to reduce the risk factors as much as possible. OF course over time there are ups and downs and waves of understanding. Social organisation, attitude and structure also come into play as to resources and such. So some things will get safer and safer and then will go back several steps. Or a new technology comes along and suddenly you have to start all over again .


The internet is one of those new things and society is still grappling with how to reduce the risk and make it safer

 Gert wrote:
Lincoln... The one that got shot in the head... great example.

Yeah, that was quite possibly the worst example.

But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...

Never stopped a prison shiv

Toofast wrote:
But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...

Wow, everything you said here is wrong!

pgmason wrote:

Toofast wrote:
But guns are illegal in Britain so surely nobody would have to worry about that. You can't even buy pointy steak knives there any more...

Wow, everything you said here is wrong!

Sure, you can have knives...if the blade is under 3", doesn't open automatically or have an assist, and doesn't have any sort of locking mechanism (which would ban nearly evey pocket knife sold/carried in the US). Sure you can have a gun, as long as it isn't a pistol, or semi-automatic (which is 90% of the firearms sold and carried in the US). There have been multiple organizations campaigning for a ban on pointy kitchen knives. It isn't law...yet.

Racerguy180 wrote:

 Gert wrote:
Lincoln... The one that got shot in the head... great example.

Yeah, that was quite possibly the worst example.

1. It's arguably a great example. The actual assassin JWB didn't send hate mail to Lincoln, while those who sent hate mail are largely unremembered.

2. Would you rather know people hold harsh sentiments about you, so you can any appropriate measures? Or would you rather remain ignorant to the zeitgeist?

3. What do you think Lincoln's response to hate mail was? I'd reckon it probably wasn't "Ban them from using the mail!" Lol.

 Overread wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Eldarsif wrote:
However, I find it disturbing and weird that people are actually brushing aside and making excuses for threats and fearmongering as „business as usual”.

Nobody is "for" threats. But it just kinda is "business as usual", and it is as old as any form of remote messaging, probably. I remember hearing about celebrities getting hate mail since my youth (the 80's), and probably Alexander the Great himself received nasty messages in whatever form they took many thousands of years ago. Here's some hate mail for Abraham Lincoln: https://alphahistory.com/pastpeculiar/1861-abraham-lincolns-hate-mail/

I think it's like car crashes. They happen all the time, and they're horrible, but somehow you have to accept that it's just going to be a thing, and that not-driving at all to avoid them is not going to work. You devise a strategy of engagement that works for you and find a way to cope.

At the same time you mandate safety standards for cars; impose restrictions on driving; have approved tests and police to enforce safety; using remote cameras and such. Heck we are also getting black-boxes in cars which monitor your driving performance and report back and dash cams are getting more and more common.

Any level of technology or action comes with inherent risk attached. However as time passes society generally seeks to find ways to reduce the risk factors as much as possible. OF course over time there are ups and downs and waves of understanding. Social organisation, attitude and structure also come into play as to resources and such. So some things will get safer and safer and then will go back several steps. Or a new technology comes along and suddenly you have to start all over again .


The internet is one of those new things and society is still grappling with how to reduce the risk and make it safer

^I agree with all that.

Karol wrote:

Doesn't GW not want their creators to own any right to the stuff they do, because of legal issues coming from it?

Just because you're credited in a work doesn't mean you have rights to it.