STOP WITH THE COMPLAINING AND REMEMBER WHY WE HAVE TGA.

[Naflem]

1 hour ago, Tzaangor Management said:

I completely understand the sentiment, however I would draw a parallel between this and the oft run WAAC players bringing their power lists to a narrative event debate. While some see this as the rules being too vague or the points too imbalanced, others will see this as the players responsibility. Those are both opinions and you can argue the merits of either, however in the end you do have to come down on one side or the other. Having an absolute encourages people to push right up to the edge of it, bending a rule as far as they can, while having a vague rule encourages the community to find their own level and use their own judgement.

In the real world this admittedly doesn't often work, but if I had to choose right now, for this forum, I choose allowing people free choice in building their narrative lists and trusting that they won't bring too many Skyfires to the table. There will be people who go overboard and I also choose to trust the moderators to address this in a proportionate and measured way.

 

I think the reason for the purposely vague rule was that people were arguing about his interpretation of the clear rule; seems to me a vague rule is almost by definition not going to help there and there'd be well more room to argue, I guess unless the theory is that I'm going to have a rule that give the ruler the maximum amount of power so they won't have to brook any dissent (hey I could cite our presidents twitter feed again).   Baseball has some clear rules, like what is a ball and what is a strike, and it also has this goofy vague and seemingly limitless rule that the commissioner can do anything that is in the best interest of the game.  Sure, when an umpire calls a strike you might have some arguments about his interpretation (open your eyes ump!, etc.) and maybe that's due to the partisanship of a fan or maybe the umpire actually screwed up the calls, but that usually settles down quickly.  It's when the commissioner uses that "best interest of the game" that you've got people arguing about the appropriateness of an action for years on Sportcenter or whatever.

 

I agree with what your saying mostly though, and I think I would come to the same calculus on the open narrative list and taking the risk of skyfires.  Looking at the history of the forum, it seems it was started at a time there was a lot of hate from the greater community about AOS, people missed fantasy, were change-adverse, there were hinky parts of the game that hadn't been sorted out yet (no points!) and I think the game probably needed a safe protected place.  But the game is pretty healthy overall now, it's grownup somewhat, like a teenager - and sometimes you need to tell a teenager hard truths about what they're doing, so I think some post like "This Wanders ability is awful, here's the numbers that I think show that, here's a house rule that might help, or here's a different rule maybe GW should try next GHB" could be important, and if I had to read a couple "ah! death needs more options" so people feel free to make that Wanders post or a post like it, then that doesn't bother me at all.  

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, Kramer said:

Of course everybody should be welcome but come on... 

This was the first post after this one yesterday when I checked the forum and it opened like this.

In one go you go from a faction getting a update, should be exciting, to not only invalidating the release if it isn't top tier competitive but also completely invalidating the last release. This isn't a 'critical attitude'. Luckily others were also excited and the thread got turned into something I enjoyed reading. 

My personal opinion is, of course everybody should feel welcome. But if the original post made you conclude you would get banned at some point than maybe you should consider the possibility that yes, it's also meant about you. And at @Auticus not trying to call you out but you were the example mentioned and I don't think you should be made a martyr.

 

 

The guy just made an offhand remark about a faction that didn't live up to his personal expectations for whatever reason. Yes, technically speaking it's negative but who does it actually hurt? It's not whining particularly, it's not aggressive, it's not rude, it's not directed towards any individual or group. I actually read that thread earlier today and my brain just filtered that comment out. It's trivial and completely innocuous. If this is the kind of thing that we're supposed to be getting worked up about / reporting / banning etc then god help us.

EDIT: Also, my general perception of Auticus is of someone who may be a little cynical, but who over the years has made a net positive contribution to the forum with his posts. If people who generally make a lot of valuable, mature and respectful contributions to the forum are going to be hounded out because they occasionally express themselves in a way that's less than saccharine, well then I think that's sad.

[Ratatatata]

5 hours ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I appreciate that some people take the attitude that all negative thoughts are better internalised than broadcast publicly, but the majority of people inhabit a spectrum between 100% positive and 100% negative.

Ben's forum and Ben's rules but to be perfectly honest I think this is a good rule of thumb. 

If I'm down at the club and there's people playing half-painted armies full of broken stuff, I don't go up to them and strike a conversation about how the units look awful or the armies broken. If someone has bought a new model I'm not a fan of, I won't tell them their new toy is ugly. If someone is reading a 40K book I won't tell them 40k is a stupid game, let's play AoS instead.

The same thing should apply online. So yes, feel free to internalise all negative thoughts. That's really not a bad idea at all.

[wayniac]

4 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

The guy just made an offhand remark about a faction that didn't live up to his personal expectations for whatever reason. Yes, technically speaking it's negative but who does it actually hurt? It's not whining particularly, it's not aggressive, it's not rude. I actually read that thread earlier today and my brain just filtered that comment out. It's trivial and completely innocuous. If this is the kind of thing that we're supposed to be getting worked up about / reporting / banning etc then god help us.

Especially because for most intents and purposes Kharadron Overlords are lackluster.  I'm not sure I would use the term "wet sock", but the army was hyped and came out with a lot of cool models and fanfare, and then kinda just fell by the wayside in how good they are in the game; they are midtier at best, overcosted and underpowered.  Is it negative to point out that an army is milquetoast and hope that something else is better?  Is that the sort of comment we want to prevent, because it's not "kharadron overlords were awesome" if they are not?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

Especially because for most intents and purposes Kharadron Overlords are lackluster.

 

Now, now - are you sure you don't want to consider phrasing that in a more positive manner? You might be spoiling someone's forum experience with that remark. It's far too negative, aggressive and confrontational. Try this instead:

"Especially because maybe from some people's subjective viewpoint Kharadron Overlords are BRILLIANT(!) but not quite as brilliant as other things possibly, but your mileage may vary and actually now that I think about it maybe they're the best. Hugs!"

Can we still be sarcastic?? 

[Gaz Taylor]

4 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

Now, now - are you sure you don't want to consider phrasing that in a more positive manner? You might be spoiling someone's forum experience with that remark. It's far too negative, aggressive and confrontational. Try this instead:

"Especially because maybe from some people's subjective viewpoint Kharadron Overlords are BRILLIANT(!) but not quite as brilliant as other things possibly, but your mileage may vary and actually now that I think about it maybe they're the best. Hugs!"

Can we still be sarcastic?? 

To a degree you can be sarcastic but I'm going to ask you to stop now. This is now going down the path of what we don't want to have on this forum. So no more now please!

Cheers

[polarbear]

1 minute ago, wayniac said:

Especially because for most intents and purposes Kharadron Overlords are lackluster.  I'm not sure I would use the term "wet sock", but the army was hyped and came out with a lot of cool models and fanfare, and then kinda just fell by the wayside in how good they are in the game; they are midtier at best, overcosted and underpowered.  Is it negative to point out that an army is milquetoast and hope that something else is better?  Is that the sort of comment we want to prevent, because it's not "kharadron overlords were awesome" if they are not?

No forum talk is the end of the world, but to me I don't like being around a lot of negativity. It's like saying, "Hey, did you see this new thing coming out?" And the first thing the other person says is "Hope it doesn't suck like that other thing that sucks." That's the kind of interaction I try to avoid in real life. If that happens to me I just think all right, won't be talking to you about that anymore.

The pit that other forums fell into was letting any sort of "debate" go on as long as it wasn't profane. In effect it just makes every thread a fight about whether something sucks or not. That was what all the AoS forums were like when the game came out. 

Obviously, it's a hard thing to define. But to me it's like interacting in real life. I don't show up to my friend's place and go "man, these rules suck." I'm there to have fun. We can have a positive discussion about lacklustre rules but tone matters. In real life or online, you don't want to be a debbie downer. I think we all have known people who seem to ****** on everything you're doing, anywhere you go, restaurants, new places, etc. It's like sure, your opinion might be legit, but I don't want to hang out with you. 

That said, I don't want to make my post all about Auticus's one post. It was just used as an example above. I'm not perfect myself and I'm sure you can find whiny comments in my post history. It is something I try to moderate online and off.

[TheWilddog]

27 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

 

The guy just made an offhand remark about a faction that didn't live up to his personal expectations for whatever reason. Yes, technically speaking it's negative but who does it actually hurt? It's not whining particularly, it's not aggressive, it's not rude, it's not directed towards any individual or group. I actually read that thread earlier today and my brain just filtered that comment out. It's trivial and completely innocuous. If this is the kind of thing that we're supposed to be getting worked up about / reporting / banning etc then god help us.

It may not be uber offensive, but it almost certainly does not contribute anything.  If you think Overlords are underwhelming talk about the nuts and bolts of that and suggest possible solutions in the Overlords thread.  Don't make an off-hand dig in a thread about about an exciting Nurgle release.  It's all about tone.   

[Guest]

Just now, TheWilddog said:

It may not by uber offensive, but it almost certainly does not contribute anything.  If you think Overlords are underwhelming talk about the nuts and bolts of that and suggest possible solutions in the Overlords thread.  Don't make a off-hand dig in a thread about about an exciting Nurgle release.  It's all about tone.   

I don't see anything particularly egregious about that comment or its tone. I think it's fine. Which means that I could very easily make a similar type of remark myself and fall foul of the new unspecified 'use your own judgement' community behaviour guidelines. My good judgement clearly doesn't align with yours, and perhaps doesn't align with @Ben's or @Gaz Taylor's either (it's all guesswork at this point). So what am I and others in the same boat as me to do?

I'm not one of these 'free speech' lunatics who insist upon their right to be cretinous and boorish to people on privately owned forums, but at the other end of the spectrum I don't want to be part of a community where I have to police my language with zero tolerance for negativity either. I'm unashamedly passionate about GW and its products, but I also have a pretty strong cynical streak and being relentlessly positive just isn't me. I'm happy to express myself within whatever reasonable parameters the community gatekeepers decide upon, but no parameters have been given, just a mildly threatening 'be positive or else'. That makes me nervous. Everything Ben and Gaz have said, whilst it clearly comes from a good place, does make it seem like people who have a particular personality type are being put on notice, regardless of the broader contribution they might make to the community.

There may very well be a small minority of members who are relentlessly negative, contribute nothing and sour the community with their very presence. By all means target those people. But hounding out people who make a genuine contribution just because they occasionally take a cynical attitude or 'strike the wrong tone' is cutting your nose off to spite your face. I wish that Ben and Gaz would come out and make a clear distinction between the two, because already I can see the 'deliberate vagueness' policy giving license to some members to target others for what are essentially harmless comments.

[Fungrim]

6 minutes ago, Jamie the Jasper said:

I don't see anything particularly egregious about that comment or its tone. I think it's fine. Which means that I could very easily make a similar type of remark myself and fall foul of the new unspecified 'use your own judgement' community behaviour guidelines. My good judgement clearly doesn't align with yours, and perhaps doesn't align with @Ben's or @Gaz Taylor's either (it's all guesswork at this point). So what am I and others in the same boat as me to do?

It's honestly really simple, just talk to people like human beings. There's absolutely no need to carve the community into divisions of 'people who might say something that could possibly be misconstrued as negative' and 'people who don't'. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

Go back to Ben's first post, he asks for a bit more positivity. It's not as if you're going to get an auto-ban for saying 'not a fan of this mini, it looks like my Aunt Petunia'. You don't need to feel this affronted.

[Dragon10]

..

[Mayple]

I'm just gonna go ahead and double down on my 'use smilies more often' argument. I did not see anything wrong with Autucus' Kharadron statement either, and even found it to be a bit humorous. 

Regardless of my own interpretation, if there had been a smilie included, it would definitely dodge the current scrutiny

Not saying that people must always do that, but it does do the trick, so it's good to be aware of.

[wayniac]

13 minutes ago, Fungrim said:

It's honestly really simple, just talk to people like human beings. There's absolutely no need to carve the community into divisions of 'people who might say something that could possibly be misconstrued as negative' and 'people who don't'. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

Go back to Ben's first post, he asks for a bit more positivity. It's not as if you're going to get an auto-ban for saying 'not a fan of this mini, it looks like my Aunt Petunia'. You don't need to feel this affronted.

But people do.  This feels like it comes as an attack against some of us who may recently have expressed different opinions, with one person outright saying they feel this is directed to them and that they won't post here anymore (to which a regular poster posted a snarky image as a reply).  Again, I have actually been targeted with this for reasons unknown to me (the specifics were not mentioned, only that a few people reported several posts of mine for no crime other than "negativity", when I felt that everything I've stated has been non-confrontational if a bit cynical; it's not like I insult people).  So what else is there to feel like other than this is a veiled "Only positive comments allowed, negative comments may be dealt with if enough people think it's negative"?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions; I totally get wanting to have a wholesome forum experience, and there are some negative posts that are just adding noise.  But a vague "no negativity" is going to make those of us who have issues with the game or the direction we feel GW is going in feel like we are about to be targeted and/or punished for having a different opinion.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Fungrim said:

It's honestly really simple, just talk to people like human beings. There's absolutely no need to carve the community into divisions of 'people who might say something that could possibly be misconstrued as negative' and 'people who don't'. It doesn't need to be this complicated.

Go back to Ben's first post, he asks for a bit more positivity. It's not as if you're going to get an auto-ban for saying 'not a fan of this mini, it looks like my Aunt Petunia'. You don't need to feel this affronted.

 

But 'I don't like this mini' is functionally identical to Auticus saying 'I hope Nurgle is better than Kharadron Overlords', which some members in this thread have clearly expressed is an undesirable comment for them and something that they perceive to fall foul of the new 'guidelines' - and neither Gaz nor Ben have stepped in to say 'Actually no, this comment may be negative but it's essentially harmless and still perfectly acceptable'. So we're left to assume that this kind of thing actually does fall foul of the new regime.

Read Ben's original post again. He doesn't ask for 'a bit more positivity', he says 'moaning and complaining will not be tolerated here any more'. Will not be tolerated. That's strong language. Until someone steps in to clarify, that can very easily be interpreted as a zero-tolerance policy on any comment that isn't emphatically positive. And indeed, some members are already interpreting it in precisely that way. Ben is free to set whatever parameters he likes for his forum, but under the circumstances I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for more clarity about what exactly 'will not be tolerated'.

EDIT: I'm just going to come right out and ask @Gaz Taylor and @Ben: Is 'Hopefully they are viable and not like a wet sock like the Overlords were' the kind of complaining that members should be reporting to you as per the original post?

[stato]

14 minutes ago, wayniac said:

Again, I have actually been targeted with this for reasons unknown to me (the specifics were not mentioned, only that a few people reported several posts of mine for no crime other than "negativity", when I felt that everything I've stated has been non-confrontational if a bit cynical; it's not like I insult people).  So what else is there to feel like other than this is a veiled "Only positive comments allowed, negative comments may be dealt with if enough people think it's negative"?

So what else is there to feel like?  It was stated in the OP, less complaining.  Most of the problem posts in my eyes are complaining about the game and how things work when its clear nothing can be done about it, yet still the threds drag on with continued moaing, or other threads get derailed by snide, cynical or sarcastic comment.  How many times has 'but kunning ruk' or 'maybe i should just git-gud' been posted in unrelated topics.  Posters should stay on topic, if they have a complaint frame it so it can actually be responded too and debated, avoid sarcasm and being cynical.  Ben wanted this place to be about all the good things of AoS, if there is stuff you hate then yeah maybe take that elsewhere.

[Gaz Taylor]

++ Mod Hat On ++

@Jamie the Jasper - I'm asking you nicely now. Please stop, go make a cup of tea and come back when you are more relaxed. Your last few posts are a good example of what @Ben doesn't want to have on the forums. I can understand that you may require a set of rules to act on this internet forum but I think you are more than capable of applying some common sense here to what Ben is actually asking you to do. 

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

++ Mod Hat On ++

@Jamie the Jasper - I'm asking you nicely now. Please stop, go make a cup of tea and come back when you are more relaxed. Your last few posts are a good example of what @Ben doesn't want to have on the forums. I can understand that you may require a set of rules to act on this internet forum but I think you are more than capable of applying some common sense here to what Ben is actually asking you to do. 

I'll leave it alone because I've obviously voiced my concerns pretty robustly and no one in a position of authority is willing to constructively acknowledge them or provide any real clarity, which is pretty disappointing, but equally I don't want to jeapordise my membership of this community by pushing people's buttons, which is what my whole issue with this thread comes down to in the end. So yes, I'm walking away from this now.

I'm genuinely sorry if I've detracted from anyone's enjoyment of the forum in any way, but sometimes we feel the need to say things because we believe they matter (at least within the context of painting little model soldiers), not just because we believe they'll be popular. I haven't been trying to troll here. I look forward to fun times with you all on other threads.

[Mayple]

To be fair, he is really just asking for a clarification so that he, and pretty much everyone else, myself included, are more able to operate within the intended guidelines as best as we can. It -is- guesswork at this point, for plenty enough people that a clear statement of intent would solve a -lot- of confusion. Subjective interpretations only get us so far. 

To clarify; everyone is capable of acting with some degree of common sense - no one is saying we are incapable of behaving properly without clarification - just that it is in everyone's best interest to know what is and isn't out of line

 

To sum up in a single question; 

What is, and what is not, out of line as per these guidelines?

[Sete]

The vibes I'm getting from this is that we need to like and agree with everything or else...

And I assume I'm not the only one thinking this.

Hence the clarification request.

[BasetheRuin]

My reason to frequent forums is very simple: to find hobby enjoyment and inspiration. And in these two aspects, TGA has more than delivered. That is why I very much agree with very Ben's appeal.

 

Just like painting and gaming, frequenting these forums is hobby time for me. And there is no point doing it when it's not enjoyable anymore.

 

So I say yes to constructive critisism. But just as in normal conversation, just use your common sense to determine when you are no longer contributing to the other person's enjoyment of their hobby.

 

I mean, when I want to hear a bunch of people complaining, I can just go back to work!

 

[Galas]

2 hours ago, wayniac said:

Especially because for most intents and purposes Kharadron Overlords are lackluster.  I'm not sure I would use the term "wet sock", but the army was hyped and came out with a lot of cool models and fanfare, and then kinda just fell by the wayside in how good they are in the game; they are midtier at best, overcosted and underpowered.  Is it negative to point out that an army is milquetoast and hope that something else is better?  Is that the sort of comment we want to prevent, because it's not "kharadron overlords were awesome" if they are not?

Whas that post about Kharadron Overlords and their competitive viability? Yes? No? Based in the answer, the Auticus response was appropiate to the thread or just repetitive unconstructive moaning (And I say this being one that has defend Auticus in other situations and that thinks he is a very valuable poster. But in that case he did wrong) 

[hobgoblinclub]

It's sadly deeply ironic that we now have a thread where people are moaning in great detail about being asked not to moan. Combine this with the comments debating what constitutes positivity and you have a frankly ludicrous thread. 

Almost everyone is agreement that TGA has suffered recently from negativity. What doesn't seem apparent is that all that negativity has most likely come from the people on this thread (not singling anyone out, it's simply probably judging by the length of the thread).

If members wish to leave as they're being asked to be positive, I can only assume that to be a good thing. If you don't want to be positive, TGA clearly isn't the place for you. 

This isn't the dawning of a new draconian regime. It's not Warseer. I hated Warseer in the end, I certainly wouldn't want to help mod a place like that. You're just being asked to, please, be nice. Please be positive. If that's an issue, please don't post about why it is. Take some time, think about it, and then come back to TGA when you've something cool /interesting to discuss about AoS.

And, if you do decide to martyr yourself, please do so in a civilised manner. 

[Chikout]

To use Auticus's post as an example (sorry Auticus but it is a really good example) the problem is a couple of things. The first is that in the very first reply to a topic with Auticus started himself  about a potentially exciting new release there is a negative comment about something which has very little to do with the topic which he himself is presenting. This sets the tone of the thread off to a bad start. 

The second is that he didn't merely say I hope this army is better than another army. He said I hope this army is not a wet sock like Kharadron Overlords. He presents his opinion about an army as a fact. It is like the difference between saying I don't like this mini (stating an opinion which can lead to discussion) and this mini is bad. (Presenting an opinion as fact and preventing discussion) 

The third problem is that the thread descended into another discussion of balance, before we know what ghb2 will bring or any rules from the upcoming release. There is absolutely nothing wrong with debating balance, but I think it would be better remaining in its own thread. 

The final point I will make is that people unfortunately are more likely to post about something that frustrates them or makes them angry than something that pleases them. If I find myself tempted to write something negative I always try to pause and consider if writing a post will actually add something to the conversation or if I am just writing to vent. On the other hand I have always found the painting sections of any warhammer forum to be excellent. If you are not sure what a good balance of positivity and constructive criticism is, then look there. 

 

[Sete]

7 minutes ago, hobgoblinclub said:

It's sadly deeply ironic that we now have a thread where people are moaning in great detail about being asked not to moan. Combine this with the comments debating what constitutes positivity and you have a frankly ludicrous thread. 

Almost everyone is agreement that TGA has suffered recently from negativity. What doesn't seem apparent is that all that negativity has most likely come from the people on this thread (not singling anyone out, it's simply probably judging by the length of the thread).

If members wish to leave as they're being asked to be positive, I can only assume that to be a good thing. If you don't want to be positive, TGA clearly isn't the place for you. 

This isn't the dawning of a new draconian regime. It's not Warseer. I hated Warseer in the end, I certainly wouldn't want to help mod a place like that. You're just being asked to, please, be nice. Please be positive. If that's an issue, please don't pay about why it is. Take some time, think about it, and then come back to TGA when you've something cool /interesting to discuss about AoS.

And, if you do decide to martyr yourself, please do so in a civilised manner. 

This is acceptable? It's way more inflammatory than what Jamie posted.

 

[Kyriakin]

I was going to buy some GW Fell Bats today, because I might actually want to play Soulblight in a GW shop.

It's hard to express my opinion on the aesthetics and price of these sculpts within this new forum meta, so I will describe them as "interesting" and leave it there.

The Black Coach is very "interesting" too.