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.

Some "you make da calls" follow a similar structure.

-A question is asked
-There is some confusion and the different hypothetical solutions seem to formulated.
-A general consensus seems to be met relatively fast an most posters drop out.

and then the interesting part happens

-A minority reject the consensus and start to vent there ideas with vigour or even start babbling utter nonsense.

The interesting thing about this is that this generates much more attention then the previous phases by just the seer volume of posts and being on top for days if not weeks. This seems to have some remarkable similarities with scientific discussion in the real world.
Do others see the same similarities and does someone know the science behind it ?

(Also no referencing to YMDC topics or users please to keep it civilised)

Dogs and bones always spring to my mind.....

Does it tell us something about human nature? Sure.... when people believe something to be true they're willing to argue about it, even if it's against what appears to be the general consensus (which is often not the general consensus anyway, but rather just the consensus of the few people who were discussing it before the "dissenting" views came along).

I presume you mean scientific arguments like Evolution versus Intelligent Design, or Climate Change versus Climate Change Denial.

There are similarities in conspiracy theory. The Loose Change people are still banging on about 9/11, and there are still Birthers arguing against Obama's citizenship.

In fairness, a lot of the YMDC arguments arise because they rules genuinely are badly written, unclear and badly explained. However the arguments sometimes continue even after the facts seem to have been clarified.

It seems that sometimes people get an idea in their head and won't let go of it no matter how much evidence is presented. As John Maynard Keynes did not say, "When the facts change, I don't change my mind."

I don't think this springs from one single cause. It's true that people have an aversion to being seen to be wrong, but surely we look stupider by continuing to argue a pathetically weak position than by conceding the point.

I've read a theory that a particular type of mentaliy doesn't like the idea that "gak happens", thus the 9/11 attack can't be a small bunch of terrorists getting lucky, it has to be a deep-laid, cunning plan. This satisfies a desire for order in the universe. The same might be true of Intelligent Design fans.

I don't think this would apply to YMDC arguers, since the rules are all the arbitrary creation of GW and do not arise randomly out of natural laws.

Those threads have persuaded me that having debate classes in schools are a waste of time and money.

Don't forget there crucial differences between debates and YMDC threads.

1. Debates follow a set format governed by a chairman while YMDC is open to anyone to join in at any time. There is a time limit for a debate, and a binding vote at the end.

2. Debates can be won by rhetorical tricks that don't work on the Internet because users can easily read back and think about what is being said in non-real-time.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Some "you make da calls" follow a similar structure.

-A question is asked
-There is some confusion and the different hypothetical solutions seem to formulated.
-A general consensus seems to be met relatively fast an most posters drop out.

and then the interesting part happens

-A minority reject the consensus and start to vent there ideas with vigour or even start babbling utter nonsense.

The interesting thing about this is that this generates much more attention then the previous phases by just the seer volume of posts and being on top for days if not weeks. This seems to have some remarkable similarities with scientific discussion in the real world.
Do others see the same similarities and does someone know the science behind it ?

(Also no referencing to YMDC topics or users please to keep it civilised)

It's mainly because 40k's rules are so badly written that pretty much every person who reads them reads them a different way. Which is why you get people so vehemently arguing against the masses. Because if you're willing to look, you can find justification for the silliest of rules. It doesn't matter what the rule's intent was, they can still say "I'm gonna deploy my Leman Russ and the 3rd floor of a ruin and if you don't like it you need to learn how to read, because the rules say I'm right."

I'd say it's more an insight into just how far people will go to twist things to give them an advantage more than anything else. YMDC for every other major system combined pales to the activity the 40k one gets, and as a result, it brings out the people who are more likely to abuse that.