Switch Theme:

Requesting feedback on what exactly constitutes "Impolite"  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in gb
Norn Queen






Your post at http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/765273/10189183.page#10189183 has been identified by our moderation team as being impolite. If you are unfamiliar with Dakka's rules of conduct, please take a moment and familiarize yourself with them.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
 DeathReaper wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 BaconCatBug wrote:
RaW you can use whatever Citadel Miniature you want for whatever datasheet you want.
Please stop repeating this like it's an actual thing. It's not RAW, it's something you've made upon the absence of rules.
You're given permission to use models and to use datasheets. That permission is not then restricted to using the "correct" models with the "correct" datasheets. Therefore, RaW, you can use whatever models to represent whatever datasheets.


Not true.

It is implied that you use the correct model for any given datasheet.

The RaW is implied that you should use the Land Raider model kit, to represent a land raider datasheet.
Can you please show me in the rulebook where this is "implied"? And in any case, an implication isn't a rule.

To summarise: You can use Bloodreavers as CSM cultists unmodified just fine. If someone disagrees, they are not following the rules. You are free to make up whatever house rules you want.
Can someone on the moderation team please give me feedback on what exactly in my post was "impolite"? I asked for a citation, stated an objective fact, then stated another objective fact.

I ask so that I don't do it again, I don't want to step on any moderators toes, as it were.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/16 19:45:46


 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





While it's not "impolite", as far as I can see, in the context of the thread, and wider board, it is pointed out that your philosophy of "strict RAW" isn't always helpful, and some things you say can be incorrect interpretations of the rules of YMDC.


They/them

 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

You might consider asking the moderators through PM, rather than make a spectacle of it.

That way you get a direct answer, rather than the guesses, well meaning or otherwise, from the peanut gallery.

Best guess, is that your assertion that you can use any models you want for any data sheet as RAW, and then asserting that belief that Models use a specific datasheet as being a house rule, after being directly asked not to do that, was considered disrespectful to the moderation team.

But that's a best guess. From an ignorant peasant. With no particular benefit other than I get to gaze into my navel.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 greatbigtree wrote:
after being directly asked not to do that


Note that the moderator in question did NOT use their red text to indicate an official statement by a moderator, they posted as merely an ordinary user making a request. Which is fine, moderators are posters too and are allowed to express their personal opinions even when those opinions are critical of a poster or their argument. But there is no obligation to pay any attention to a moderator's opinion or requests unless they present it as official moderation statement, and it's ridiculous to consider it "disrespectful" to treat them just like an ordinary user in that context.

That said, the OP's opinions may be considered incorrect by most of us but nothing in the quoted posts is impolite. Disagreement over a rule is not grounds for moderator action, and unless there's more that has been deleted this looks an awful lot like abuse of power by the moderator in question.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/17 09:46:09


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Peregrine wrote:

Note that the moderator in question did NOT use their red text to indicate an official statement by a moderator, they posted as merely an ordinary user making a request.

Red text or the lack thereof does not make a moderator statement any more or less 'official'. We use it sometimes to make a post stand out, but the lack of it doesn't make the post any less that of a moderator.

Having said that, I also wasn't the moderator who issued the warning in this case.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 insaniak wrote:
Red text or the lack thereof does not make a moderator statement any more or less 'official'. We use it sometimes to make a post stand out, but the lack of it doesn't make the post any less that of a moderator.


Then that needs to change. If a moderator is saying something in an official capacity then it needs to be separated from a moderator's posts expressing their personal opinions.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in gb
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge





 Peregrine wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
Red text or the lack thereof does not make a moderator statement any more or less 'official'. We use it sometimes to make a post stand out, but the lack of it doesn't make the post any less that of a moderator.


Then that needs to change. If a moderator is saying something in an official capacity then it needs to be separated from a moderator's posts expressing their personal opinions.


Yeah I completely agree with this. If nothing else I think its important that mods can wade into a conversation in an unofficial capacity and that being the case we need to know if you have your mod hat on or not.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought





Eye of Terror

Moderator toes are hard and act as steel planks for the rest of the site. Step on them with great gusto and welcome the "helpful" suggestions they have to offer.

BCB, you've been guilty of disagreeing with others before and have demonstrated a tendency for having your own opinion on many occasions. Warnings like this should come as no surprise.

   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

At the end of the day, being obtuse or intentionally annoying is impolite, especially after you've been asked to stop. You may genuinely feel that your views are correct, but you have to understand that they aren't particularly useful. Sharing them constantly and forcibly does not lead to productive conversation, and frankly, it's impolite.

Pointing out GW's rules flaws is your hobby horse, and there's nothing wrong with that... until it starts to get in the way of productive conversation.

Oh, and airing this dirty laundry in Nuts and Bolts does not exactly do anything to dissuade anybody from thinking that you're just attention seeking.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/17 11:14:57


 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 Peregrine wrote:

Then that needs to change. If a moderator is saying something in an official capacity then it needs to be separated from a moderator's posts expressing their personal opinions.

It really doesn't. The use of coloured text has never been a universally adopted practice amongst the mod team, and people seem to have been dealing with that just fine for 20 years now.

 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






London

 Polonius wrote:
At the end of the day, being obtuse or intentionally annoying is impolite, especially after you've been asked to stop. You may genuinely feel that your views are correct, but you have to understand that they aren't particularly useful. Sharing them constantly and forcibly does not lead to productive conversation, and frankly, it's impolite.

Pointing out GW's rules flaws is your hobby horse, and there's nothing wrong with that... until it starts to get in the way of productive conversation.

Oh, and airing this dirty laundry in Nuts and Bolts does not exactly do anything to dissuade anybody from thinking that you're just attention seeking.


100% Agree. The OP had no relevance to the discussion at hand. I think the fact that you demand a citation for a rule, when you know that no such citation exists as it's not something which should need a citation in the first place, is edging towards impolite territory when combined with previous attitudes and discussions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 insaniak wrote:
 Peregrine wrote:

Then that needs to change. If a moderator is saying something in an official capacity then it needs to be separated from a moderator's posts expressing their personal opinions.

It really doesn't. The use of coloured text has never been a universally adopted practice amongst the mod team, and people seem to have been dealing with that just fine for 20 years now.


While it's not an accepted practise, the coloured text is helpful if you're skimming a page before you comment to see if a Mod has warned people beforehand.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/10/17 11:57:01


 
   
Made in ie
Norn Queen






Dublin, Ireland

BCB, you've been guilty of disagreeing with others before and have demonstrated a tendency for having your own opinion on many occasions.


Whilst BCB has quite a robust way of viewing things, since when did:
A
disagreeing with others

B
tendency for having your own opinion


violate forum rules? Thats complete nonsense.

2/3s of this forum is people disagreeing with others (no matter how correct they might be) and the other 1/3 blaring their opinions out for all and sundry to hear (or ignore).

Dman137 wrote:
goobs is all you guys will ever be

By 1-irt: Still as long as Hissy keeps showing up this is one of the most entertaining threads ever.

"Feelin' goods, good enough". 
   
Made in gb
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar





 Ratius wrote:
BCB, you've been guilty of disagreeing with others before and have demonstrated a tendency for having your own opinion on many occasions.


Whilst BCB has quite a robust way of viewing things, since when did:
A
disagreeing with others

B
tendency for having your own opinion


violate forum rules? Thats complete nonsense.

2/3s of this forum is people disagreeing with others (no matter how correct they might be) and the other 1/3 blaring their opinions out for all and sundry to hear (or ignore).
At face value, those are fine.

When those "own opinions" (such as only posting RAW in YMDC, when it's been stated before that YMDC is for RAI as well, and saying that RAI has no place) conflict with the rules of the forum, that's a problem.

Disagreeing is fine. Breaking forum rules is not. I think this was a situation which it was a breach of forum rules, or at least a contempt of them.


They/them

 
   
Made in us
Legendary Master of the Chapter





SoCal

 Polonius wrote:
At the end of the day, being obtuse or intentionally annoying is impolite, especially after you've been asked to stop. You may genuinely feel that your views are correct, but you have to understand that they aren't particularly useful. Sharing them constantly and forcibly does not lead to productive conversation, and frankly, it's impolite.
... is your hobby horse, and there's nothing wrong with that... until it starts to get in the way of productive conversation.


According to Dakka precedent, there is no action we can take against BCB. The only answer is to ban all discussion of rules. Forever.

   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






So, I received a PM from RiTides. While I won't post the actual message, it basically said "You're the victim of a mass flagging campaign, and that saying that breaking the rules is House Rules is impolite."

Can I have an official, Red Text moderator post telling me that telling someone that their "interpretation" of the rules is breaking RaW is forbidden now please? That way I know not to do it again (and will switch to a RaI poster from now on).
   
Made in us
Rogue Daemonhunter fueled by Chaos






Toledo, OH

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, I received a PM from RiTides. While I won't post the actual message, it basically said "You're the victim of a mass flagging campaign, and that saying that breaking the rules is House Rules is impolite."

Can I have an official, Red Text moderator post telling me that telling someone that their "interpretation" of the rules is breaking RaW is forbidden now please? That way I know not to do it again (and will switch to a RaI poster from now on).


start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_language

   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 BaconCatBug wrote:
So, I received a PM from RiTides. While I won't post the actual message, it basically said "You're the victim of a mass flagging campaign, and that saying that breaking the rules is House Rules is impolite."

If what you got from the message was that everyone else is the problem, I would recommend reading it again.

I think we're done here.




 
   
Made in us
[DCM]
Dankhold Troggoth






Shadeglass Maze

I totally missed this thread! I'm re-opening to add a copy of the PM text that was referenced above, explaining why this post generated a warning. As I said in the text, it wasn't just for this single post, but for a series:

RiTides wrote:Hi BaconCatBug,

I apologize that I didn't have time to send an email after the warning - my basement flooded and I just haven't been able to sit down at a PC!

You received a warning in YMDC for repeatedly referring to other people's interpretations as "house rules". This is very close to the comment where people say others "can't read" or "can't comprehend" the rules, in that it instantly puts the other person's back up.

While it for this, it could have been for any number of line-toeing comments that are very dismissive of opposing views (and therefore, rude, breaking our #1 rule). During your brief suspension (automatically generated since you've received so many) there were almost no alerts in the YMDC section. As you've received many similar warnings, if you continue to post in this manner your suspensions will begin to escalate - your next will be for one week.

Please think about how you can post your interpretation of rules in a way that isn't dismissive or condescending (which then leads to people flaming you, and getting warnings themselves!). An easy way to help do this is to avoid characterizing other people's posts as house rules, due to bad reading comprehension, or any other similar sentiment, like I mentioned above.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to reply here. Thanks,
RiTides

However, as I said in my message above, any time the term "house rule" is used to refer to others interpretations in YMDC debates (in a manner similar to dismissing someone's ability to read / comprehend / etc the rules) it is very possible to generate a warning.

I also wanted to note that this was in response to a user alert, and I didn't even see that insaniak was participating in the thread until afterwards...

If anyone has any questions at all about this, please don't hesitate to PM me! With that, I'll lock this back up...
   
 
Forum Index » Nuts & Bolts
Go to: