The "We are all playing with toy soldiers" - argument

[AlphaKennyThing]

5 minutes ago, Karol said:

See, this is the kid thing again. You accusing people of throwing tantrum or throwing out their models and I don't think I have seen a mass of people saying they will do that. I do see a fair number of people that worry about stuff like free summoning or magic focus, specially if their armies don't have those options open to them. Worrying about how they think GW may balance that seems legit. Specially its not like GW is on its 1 year of designing games. They are what, a 40-50 year old company? I think that someone who seen them work for 10-15 years can more or less extrapolate what GW may or may not do. So if the fix to something they worry about, is only possible with an solution GW is not know to use, their worries are valid.

Am a new player, so my knowladge is limited, but when I see that the coming edition is suppose to be focused on magic, and my army has 0 mages, am I allowed to voice my concern? Or do I have to wait to see all the rules including those for narrative play and co, are shown.

Because even if we see all rules, someone could use the argument that the rules aren't finished till we see the general handbooks, and if the general hand book still gives problems to someones army, you could say they should wait till an updated battle tome. And if the battle tome still has the problems you could tell someone to wait for the next edition. This way you could expect people who see or have problems with the game , to never say a thing.

As I said in my original post, it's absolutely fine to voice an opinion about something, even if it is negative, but it needs to provide some kind of worthwhile contribution to further a discussion.

'Throwing your toys out the pram' was probably the wrong saying to pull out the bag given the context of the conversation, but it's an English expression to mean someone is having a tantrum and giving up to spite themselves more than anything else.

At the moment no-one knows how any army is going to play in AoS 2.0. The previews so far have provided quite a lot of change, but we don't know at all how things are going to perform. It is really annoying to continually read comments about how a whole faction has been destroyed before anything has been officially released.

You're right in that further down the line, once everything is released, if a faction is genuinely poop then there's grounds to be severely disappointed. Right now though, we have very little knowledge and already people are going full Alt+F4 on the hobby.

Makes me giggle more than anything!

[Austin]

44 minutes ago, silentdeathz said:

I see no boon to calling them 'little soldiers' or belittling someone for taking them 'too seriously' in YOUR opinion. They can take them as seriously as they like, and people should not feel any need to impress their own personal opinion on them.

If they are being disrespectful etc to others on here then that is a matter which the moderators etc can/will handle. If people truly want to help and not just get their little dig / flippant comment in then they can steer the thread back on track instead.

 

I suppose I think there is a line where someone is taking it so seriously that it isn't just my personal opinion.  It isn't all shades of grey.

If you were an art buff and walked into an art gallery to start shouting angrily at other people about some aspect of modern art you thought didn't compare to the classics, I don't imagine many people would find that acceptable.  They might tell you to find somewhere else to be, and they would certainly suggest to you that you a) don't impair the enjoyment of others or b) find a hobby you could do by yourself/enjoyed more.

32 minutes ago, Karol said:

Serious question, are hobbies actually seen as a diversion, and assuming yes, what from? Am asking because the doesn't impact part seems an odd type of argument then. An army costs so much, and takes so much time to finish, and you live in a constant fear of it being nerfed in to oblivion, or buffed sky high that no one will want to play you, that I can't just imagine how it can not impact someones life. The cost alone is enough to have a huge impact.

Yes hobbies are a diversion. If you Google it right now the definition is, "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure." So a hobby is a diversion from other, more serious, tasks such as your job or other responsibilities that aren't done for pleasure.

I am not saying a hobby can't have an impact.  I think in the face of this discussion it is clear a hobby can have an impact. 

[Sleboda]

5 hours ago, DanielFM said:

"Playing a more complex chess with detailed, expensive, skilfully painted pieces?"

It's not difficult to imagine an alternative, less condescending view of wargaming.

Please don't look at this next bit as an insult - just a way to take a different perspective:

It could be that you and the OP are perhaps imposing some value judgement or adding an implication that was not intended and is derived from your personal experiences.

What I mean by this is that no one I've ever known in 33 years of hobby wargaming has ever meant "toy soldiers" in a condescending way.

I'll point out a subtle bit from the OP's original post. He says he wants to talk about the usage of "toy soldiers" but when he phrases the quote (the bold part in his post) he adds "little" to the statement. He's added the condescending element in his own. Most (all?) folks I see taking about it being "just toy soldiers" don't say "little" at the start.

Just a thought.

 

Also, keep in mind this all comes from Little Wars, and they were toy soldiers even back then.

 

Lastly, as a former GW trade salesman, I attended several sales conferences. Our head of Trade, and several other managers, referred to our models as toy soldiers regularly - not as an insult, but as a simple description, and even a term of endearment.

[Killax]

8 hours ago, Infeston said:

In the second phase there are people complaining about people complaining or people complaining about people.

Maby we should have a topic called the book of grudges that goes into this aspect and can be lit with wildfires of assumptions. 

[silentdeathz]

57 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

Please don't look at this next bit as an insult - just a way to take a different perspective:

It could be that you and the OP are perhaps imposing some value judgement or adding an implication that was not intended and is derived from your personal experiences.

 

 

In the context given, it is being used to portray someone as being silly for taking something too seriously.

Everyone is going to have their own experiences, and their own perspective on what a phrase means.

To that end, I don't see why there is a need to respond to someone in such a manner.

People are not responding telling others and using "little soldiers" and "toys" as a term of endearment in the context given. Context is always important. 

I very much doubt Tony Cottrell imagined people to take his comments recently  re. Escher negatively, or that he meant any ill will when he made them - but some people took offence.

My point isn't that a general use of the term is negative in any way, but when you try and tell someone to stop expressing their opinion because you believe they are being too passionate about just 'little soldiers' or 'toys' then you are treading a line. Because there was no need to make that statement to them in the first place.

People can be perfectly capable of discussing a topic without trying to put each other down - which seems to often be how things end up. 

My 'personal' take on the subject isn't really about the 'little soldier' or 'toy' wording itself, but rather that people seem to be using it (and other phrases, mind)  to try and be dismissive of the opinions of others. 

To that end, I believe they are also misusing the term in the sense of how you and others may use the term as one of endearment. Which is why the term itself is less important than the fact that people feel the need to comment in such a manner (and there is very clearly an intention) in many cases.

I would love it if people could just discuss rumours etc in the rumour thread, and if someone is getting a little 'salty' or perhaps not commenting in the most constructive way... dont then engage them dismissively or in such a way that COULD be construed negatively.

If someone says "i hate command points, they are awful. I play X faction and it just sucks, why does GW do this ******. What am I meant to do with this? My faction doesnt have any battalions!" .

Then you can just ignore it, or reply in such a manner that relates to them and is unlikely to further antagonise. 

Three options to such a response:

• Replying "calm down you're taking your little toy soldiers too seriously" - imo,  very unlikely to elicit a positive response or calm the situation.
• Replying "Yeah, I can understand why you might have an issue with what we've seen of command points so far. But perhaps there will be a way for those without battalions to gain additional command points revealed. Maybe we'll see some additional support/updates for X faction which we haven't anticipated too!"  - Far more likely to de-escalate or elicit a favourably response (rational discussion). 
• Not replying to it at all and simply discussing the rumours/news  - Unlikely to provoke further 'negative' comment from the original poster.

If people are truly going off the reservation so to speak then the mod team can handle it themselves. 

I don't believe people are generally meaning ill will from either side, but being dismissive almost never leads to a sudden 180 turnaround to your own point of view.

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Karol said:

calling something a toy automaticly means the person using it is a child, 

I'll try to be mindful of forum decorum here, but let me just say the my gf and I, and many other people with whom we are acquainted, enjoy the products of a large industry that manufacturers self-described (and culturally identified) toys for adults to enjoy in a very grown up way.

Additionally, I know plenty of people who refer to their high end sports cars as their toys.

Toys =|= stuff only for kids.

[AthlorianStoners]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'll try to be mindful of forum decorum here, but let me just say the my gf and I, and many other people with whom we are acquainted, enjoy the products of a large industry that manufacturers self-described (and culturally identified) toys for adults to enjoy in a very grown up way.

Additionally, I know plenty of people who refer to their high end sports cars as their toys.

Toys =|= stuff only for kids.

Hahahaha this is the best

[Soulsmith]

2 hours ago, Sleboda said:

I'll try to be mindful of forum decorum here, but let me just say the my gf and I, and many other people with whom we are acquainted, enjoy the products of a large industry that manufacturers self-described (and culturally identified) toys for adults to enjoy in a very grown up way.

Additionally, I know plenty of people who refer to their high end sports cars as their toys.

Toys =|= stuff only for kids.

Nice explanabrag.

[TheOtherJosh]

5 hours ago, Karol said:

You accusing people of throwing tantrum or throwing out their models and I don't think I have seen a mass of people saying they will do that. I do see a fair number of people that worry about stuff like free summoning or magic focus, specially if their armies don't have those options open to them

There is a difference between expressing rational concern about what you’re seeing in a preview with a “this new thing concerns me because ...” and “my Army is totally destroyed for Matched Play and everything is horrible” with no discussion of WHY they’re now suddenly completely destroyed or useless.

The former is good.

The latter is not, because it doesn’t encourage constructive discussion, it’s just raging for the sake of anger.

[Barkanaut]

My grand parents and some family are so old they think of them as toys lol. It’s the younger ones who get it more. 

[Infeston]

In the context of my job I also often have to translate texts in different languages. So maybe this also has to do with me not being a native english speaker and a different cultural perspective which is embedded in my way of thinking through my mouther tongue.

Maybe this might be why some people also misunderstand some sentences. I am a german native speaker. So maybe it also has to do with my translation of the word "toy", which would be "Spielzeug" in german. In germany you normally wouldn't call wargaming miniatures "toys" in the sense of "Spielzeug".

Because of that I might associate things with the term, which a native speaker wouldn't normally associate with this term. But I don't know if this might be the case. It is just a guess.

I am very interested in linguistics and the way languages form and get created, so I might be over-interpreting things. But I often think that some conflicts are also created, because of language differences.

[Lousy Beatnik]

7 hours ago, Karol said:

See this is a part I seem to not understand, yes it is plastic soldiers. They weren't always plastic, but I think what your understand what you mean. Models were and never will be something like  a work of art. But the game part just blows up my mind. Because people get killed over games, playing in wrong places, being followers of the wrong team in the wrong place. I have seen people lose teeth, get beaten because they wanted to play football in the wrong place. Almost all events where there aren't many girls, end or have a high potential of ending in fights.

Who said anything about plastic? I would never assume miniatures need be plastic!

I'll admit, perhaps it's the "toy" part people sook about, so just call them model soldiers. Model soldiers, used in a game. Playing a game, of model soldiers, not so bad.

You might need to stop thinking playing games like this has anything to do with old feetball. It doesn't (unless it's Bloodbowl...).

See this hip crew? No beaten up, killed for playing in the wrong place or any other stupid stuff like that. Don't let feetball gits ruin the word "game"!

[Screwface]

16 hours ago, Caladancid said:

I suppose I think there is a line where someone is taking it so seriously that it isn't just my personal opinion.  It isn't all shades of grey.

If you were an art buff and walked into an art gallery to start shouting angrily at other people about some aspect of modern art you thought didn't compare to the classics, I don't imagine many people would find that acceptable.  They might tell you to find somewhere else to be, and they would certainly suggest to you that you a) don't impair the enjoyment of others or b) find a hobby you could do by yourself/enjoyed more.

Yes hobbies are a diversion. If you Google it right now the definition is, "an activity done regularly in one's leisure time for pleasure." So a hobby is a diversion from other, more serious, tasks such as your job or other responsibilities that aren't done for pleasure.

I am not saying a hobby can't have an impact.  I think in the face of this discussion it is clear a hobby can have an impact. 

I actually find that work is an irritating diversion from my hobbies.

[Kramer]

15 hours ago, Karol said:

I have yet to see someone get calmer when your making fun of him in a public situation. It maybe a good argument, but it is pure sofism. Has nothing to do with being right or wrong, or arguments, but everything with making the other side look bad. Because for humans if someone looks bad, he is automaticly assumed to be wrong. And am not saying it is wrong, it is actually easier to achive the same effect with arguments. What I do not understand is why the "its playing toys" argument somehow given a higher moral ground, then being seriously angry. Neither two seem to be better then the other.

 

Next time you have an argument with another male call him a boy and check, if this doesn't hurt him any way. Specially if you do it in public. I advice doing this online though.

I disagree. If someone is that upset, rational arguments don't work. So the only thing I know off that occasionally works is saying something so surprising you get him out of that righteous anger. Toy soldiers seemed to work a couple of times. So I agree that calling a man a boy is hurtful but your assumption that those two are interchangeable is, in my opinion, a false premise. You can't compare challenging someones person (being a man, a boy, sane or whatever) to challenging someones opinion or behaviour. A behaviour we all share by the way. I'm placing myself in the same spot as the person that's angry. So your argument is a false syllogism*, your argument is sound but it's based on a false premise so the conclusion is incorrect as well.

To be fair, I do realise that's a grey area so it's all down to anecdotal evidence and personal opinion.  

But to give a situation I saw in the 'Age of sigmar: second edition thread'. The discussion was around the command points system, which had just been teased. Person A argued it would make the game less fun. Person B disagreed. Conversation went back and forth getting more heated. Until A wrote: 'Command Points are c*ncer'. Now tell me how you are going to have constructive conversation with that person?

No, in my opinion it's more constructive to make a jokey remark that puts the two of you on the same side for a moment and gives the situation some perspective. It's not making fun of a person, it's making fun of the heated situation. 

*had to google sofism as I didn't know the term but all the definitions include a element of wanting to mislead? In context of the rest of your argument which is well written and a fair description of your opinion it seems unintended. But I hope you didn't try to imply I was trying to mislead anyone with my arguments in my first post? 

[Kramer]

6 hours ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

See this hip crew? No beaten up, killed for playing in the wrong place or any other stupid stuff like that. Don't let feetball gits ruin the word "game"!

We both know those sunglasses are hiding the black eyes from the previous game  Lord Varlak was a beast!

[AGPO]

My models are toys. So is a racing bike or a gaming PC. I play with them.

Warhammer is a game. Just like rugby, D&D and go fish.

I played all these games and with these toys as a kid and I still enjoy them as an adult. Not one person here would claim that's a negative. I even spend an inordinate amount of time discussing them with strangers on the internet (well, except go fish). One of the definitions of toy in the current Oxford English Dictionary is "an object regarded as providing amusement." 

I'm aware that many people here are from a generation when having so-called geeky hobbies was a license to be judged or bullied by others and had pretty rough experiences growing up because of it. 'Coming out of the basement' is a thing many have struggled with, and still do. But this is, to borrow a divisive phrase, a safe space. Everyone, with the possible exception of a couple of WFB diehard trolls, is here because they like Age of Sigmar. It's very unlikely that they're setting out to belittle their own hobby.

What this hobby absolutely isn't is serious. Serious is worrying about keeping a roof over your head, or working in healthcare or emergency response where people's lives rest on your actions. It's the stuff many people take up hobbies and come on websites like ours to get away from. So whilst constructive, reasoned discussion of differing opinions has always been welcomed here, gross hyperbole, constant negativity and blowing things out of proportion aren't. It's like turning up to a party and insisting on whinging at people all night. Nobody wants that when they're trying to have fun, and fun is why we're all here. That's why ultimately, some people will be reminded that it's just a game of toy soldiers.

[Infeston]

46 minutes ago, AGPO said:

What this hobby absolutely isn't is serious. Serious is worrying about keeping a roof over your head, or working in healthcare or emergency response where people's lives rest on your actions. It's the stuff many people take up hobbies and come on websites like ours to get away from. So whilst constructive, reasoned discussion of differing opinions has always been welcomed here, gross hyperbole, constant negativity and blowing things out of proportion aren't. It's like turning up to a party and insisting on whinging at people all night. Nobody wants that when they're trying to have fun, and fun is why we're all here. That's why ultimately, some people will be reminded that it's just a game of toy soldiers.

Maybe we both also have a different understanding of the word "serious". But for me treating something as serious doesn't have to mean it worries me or it isn't fun. I would also say the things that I treat as serious are often things I enjoy heavily. 

I think my problem behind the "toy soldier"-statement is more about that people should't  tell other people how they should treat their hobby or how they should feel about their hobby. Just because many people treat the game "as playing with toy soldiers", not everybody sees it this way. And I think by saying that people shouldn't be so emotional or angry about "toy soldiers" you are forcing a opinion on someone. 

I just think their might be other ways to counter destructive behaviour without telling people how they should see his hobby. 

If you talk about politics and have a very emotional discussion you also normally wouldn't try to end it by saying "Hey man. In the end we are just talking about politics, this isn't something which should be taken so serious". I know politics is a different and very serious field, but for me an optimal response to heated discussions on any topic would be something like this:

"Okay. We have discussed a lot about this topic and things might have gotten a little bit heated up. But you know what? We might have different opinions on this matter. And in the end we might have not hit a common ground and maybe we never will. I will propably think about some of your arguments later. But maybe we should just put things to rest and wait what the future brings. But it was still interesting to have talked and discussed this matter with you"

[Kramer]

24 minutes ago, Infeston said:

 

1 hour ago, AGPO said:

What this hobby absolutely isn't is serious. Serious is worrying about keeping a roof over your head, or working in healthcare or emergency response where people's lives rest on your actions. It's the stuff many people take up hobbies and come on websites like ours to get away from. So whilst constructive, reasoned discussion of differing opinions has always been welcomed here, gross hyperbole, constant negativity and blowing things out of proportion aren't. It's like turning up to a party and insisting on whinging at people all night. Nobody wants that when they're trying to have fun, and fun is why we're all here. That's why ultimately, some people will be reminded that it's just a game of toy soldiers.

Maybe we both also have a different understanding of the word "serious". But for me treating something as serious doesn't have to mean it worries me or it isn't fun. I would also say the things that I treat as serious are often things I enjoy heavily. 

I think my problem behind the "toy soldier"-statement is more about that people should't  tell other people how they should treat their hobby or how they should feel about their hobby. Just because many people treat the game "as playing with toy soldiers", not everybody sees it this way. And I think by saying that people shouldn't be so emotional or angry about "toy soldiers" you are forcing a opinion on someone. 

 

True, and it’s so most of the time, it comes down to definitions and interpretations of words. Same goes for your interpretation of toy soldiers. For me calling them toy soldiers in no way devalues the time and effort and passion people put into it. It’s just a phrase and the value you give it, as you rightly argue, is personal. 

So maybe that’s the best thing to come out of thread. A definition for the phrase. 

[Sleboda]

I think part of what confuses me in this discussion of context, forced opinions, and the like is that these models literally are toy soldiers.  Calling them that is just factual. It's not like we're calling them "nerd nuggets" or "geek junk" or anything else. They are toys. Regardless of local experiences or personal values, we're playing. With toys. That are soldiers.

We all play with toy soldiers.

I don't get the angst over the term itself.

I get how if someone were to say "hey man, don't be so serious about this stupid stuff" it could be bothersome, but the words "toy soldiers" are, then, not the problem.

[Infeston]

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

I think part of what confuses me in this discussion of context, forced opinions, and the like is that these models literally are toy soldiers.  Calling them that is just factual. It's not like we're calling them "nerd nuggets" or "geek junk" or anything else. They are toys. Regardless of local experiences or personal values, we're playing. With toys. That are soldiers.

We all play with toy soldiers.

I don't get the angst over the term itself.

I get how if someone were to say "hey man, don't be so serious about this stupid stuff" it could be bothersome, but the words "toy soldiers" are, then, not the problem.

Jeah. Totally. I understand what you mean. But if it wouldn't have an intended meaning it also wouldn't make sense to use the phrase to end an argument.

And several people in this thread have already stated that "toy soldiers" often has the intended meaning of "kids toys". Some people often point out that there are strict definitons for certain terms, but I can tell you if you have really worked in a profession which focusses on interpreting languages or texts you might find out that there is no such things as a "neutral term". That there is never a set definition for words and that language is fluid and changes every minute. Sometimes terms change and in the end they mean something totally different than before (A good example would be the term "******").

On a philosophical level there is no set definition on what something "is". Also there are often no "factual" terms. Every word has intended meanings, if we want it or not.

 

I can give you an example. Look at both sentences;

1. "Hey guys, please stop being so emotional. We are talking about toy soldiers after all".

2. "Hey guys, please stop being so emotional. We are talking about tabletop miniature gaming after all".

 

Even though  both sentences could literally mean the same, they have different meanings behind them. I would even say the second doessn't really seem as an argument, because you could directly ask a question like this after the second one: "Why shouldn't we discuss seriously about tabletop miniature gaming?" 

Whereas the first statement implies that we are just talking about "toys" and not also about the rules behind the gaming etc.

I could go on and on. I just wanted to state that there are no such things as neutral terms and every term has intended and unintended meanings.

 

If the "toy soldier" - term would really be a neutral term, there should be no possibility to use it to end an argument. But many people in the thread stated that it was their intention to calm people down or to state that this is just a hobby to relax. Therefore this would mean that "toys" is no neutral term (because there is clearly an intended or unintended meaning behind the term), whereas tabletop miniatures or tabletop miniature gaming would be (or a more neutral term, because I stated above that there no such things as "neutral terms").

[Screwface]

I don't have an inherant problem with the literal term "toy soldiers", (although I don't think I've ever used it to describe Warhammer miniatures, except to people who have no experience of Warhammer. The little green plastic army guys will likely be the closest point of reference they're likely to have heard of). 

But I thought the OP's point was that the term was used in a derogatory way by people in response to someone getting "overly" (subjective term there) heated about something to do with the game. In that sense a literal term is loaded with nuance and undertone. As with many terms, context and intention can take what would normally be a purely descriptive and neutral phrase and turn it into something else. 

Imagine a group of bullies converging on the kid in high school who plays Warhammer. They point and say, "Ha! This one plays with toy soldiers."

[VBS]

Of course there is context, subjective understanding and blablabla... Except that on a AoS Forum like TGA, the context will always be a bunch of guys/gals that enjoy this niched hobby just discussing and sharing a passion of theirs. No one will be judgmental or look down on your fun, since we all are part of it too!

Thus, I find it difficult to see how can someone perceive the use of "toy soldiers" as negative/derogatory/etc... in the context of a forum like TGA. It is pretty obvious that,  in the context of TGA, if the expression is thrown at someone who gets a little too upset over rules/minis , it is done as a gentle reminder to not lose perspective. Nothing else. The fact a expression like "toy soldiers" is used instead of getting all so serious adds to the general tone that wants to be transmited (ie. light-heartedly asking to calm down).

[Riavan]

On 5/27/2018 at 10:03 AM, TheOtherJosh said:

There is a difference between expressing rational concern about what you’re seeing in a preview with a “this new thing concerns me because ...” and “my Army is totally destroyed for Matched Play and everything is horrible” with no discussion of WHY they’re now suddenly completely destroyed or useless.

The former is good.

The latter is not, because it doesn’t encourage constructive discussion, it’s just raging for the sake of anger.

Yeah I also don't see people saying it unless the conversation is starting to feel a bit over the top and "the end is neary".

Like I try to never actually argue with people on here and it's the nicer way of saying you are getting too serious imo. Like it's throwing the person saying it into the same boat. It's not like it's some jock calling you a nerd, it's on a Warhammer forum

Not that I think I have actually said it ever. Irl or on here.

[AGPO]

10 hours ago, Infeston said:

Maybe we both also have a different understanding of the word "serious". But for me treating something as serious doesn't have to mean it worries me or it isn't fun. I would also say the things that I treat as serious are often things I enjoy heavily. 

I think my problem behind the "toy soldier"-statement is more about that people should't  tell other people how they should treat their hobby or how they should feel about their hobby. Just because many people treat the game "as playing with toy soldiers", not everybody sees it this way. And I think by saying that people shouldn't be so emotional or angry about "toy soldiers" you are forcing a opinion on someone. 

I just think their might be other ways to counter destructive behaviour without telling people how they should see his hobby. 

If you talk about politics and have a very emotional discussion you also normally wouldn't try to end it by saying "Hey man. In the end we are just talking about politics, this isn't something which should be taken so serious". I know politics is a different and very serious field, but for me an optimal response to heated discussions on any topic would be something like this:

"Okay. We have discussed a lot about this topic and things might have gotten a little bit heated up. But you know what? We might have different opinions on this matter. And in the end we might have not hit a common ground and maybe we never will. I will propably think about some of your arguments later. But maybe we should just put things to rest and wait what the future brings. But it was still interesting to have talked and discussed this matter with you"

See this is exactly my point. I've worked in government, on political issues which seriously affect thousands if not millions of lives. It's the very definition of serious and even as a "neutral public servant" it's perfectly reasonable to get heated about it. My best friend works in paediatric oncology. He gets heated about healthcare policy because it directly affects how often he has to watch a child die. Playing a game, with nothing other than a bit of pride at stake with what are objectively toy soldiers is at the very opposite end of the scale of seriousness. 

Whether you devote a lot of time and energy to your hobby and how much you care about it is one thing, but let's not pretend that Warhammer and actual life or death matters are analogous. 

Your optimal response is a great model for the type of discussion TGA encourages - reasoned, nuanced debate where the potential impact of a rules shift is examined constructively. However, these types of posts never get the "calm down" response because they're already calm, even if people disagree. When people make the "toy soldiers" argument it's almost always in response to the kind of hyperbolic "GW are totally incompetent/killing the hobby/wrecked my army/should only cater to people who play like me" type of posts. Such posts are not constructive, but they also go against the rules of the site.

Ben, Gaz and the other mods have stated many times that this site exists for constructive discussion and inspiration, and that venting, raging and excessive negativity isn't on.  This is in the site rules, pinned threads and at the bottom of pretty much every thread that has been locked or gone down this route on the site. People lightheartedly telling people to chill in what is a fairly self deprecating way (we all play with toy soldiers after all) is probably preferable to the alternative, which is the mods getting heavy handed with locking threads and the ban hammer. 

None of this is forcing an opinion on someone - they're perfectly entitled to hold any view they want, they're just not entitled to use a private site as a platform against the wishes of its owner, management and community. It's the difference between being allowed to hold a religious belief and not automatically being allowed to go into other groups' homes and sacred places and proselytise.

[Infeston]

@AGPO I do understand your point but I still disagree with you. Maybe we just have a different understanding of this matter. But if someone wants to treat wargaming as serious as politics or a heart transplantation who am I to judge?

I don't agree with you that these topics are objectively more serious than wargaming and that people therefore shouldn't be so emotional with this. In my opinion it is the opposite. Political topics are in my opinion where people shouldn't be irrational or emotional, because these are issues which affect a lot of peoples lives. So the people making decisions should make calm decisions. But why not being upset about a hobby? In my eyes it is more logical to get upset about a hobby being changed than other things.

In the end I just wanted to stay that no one should dictate other people how they should feel about their hobbys. A forum and a community might be a place for many people to discuss things in an open way, but for other people forums and a community are also a place where they can turn to when they are sad or frustrated. I think a healthy community should be comforting when people are frustrated and not telling them that their feelings are unjustified.

If you meet a group of friends and you are sad or emotional about a certain thing, you don't want them to tell you that you shouldn't get upset about such trivial things and just stop being so negative. No, most certainly you want them to comfort you and be there for you. You want them to say "I understand your situation. I really do. But the way you are responding to this situation does not bring us somewhere. So try to clam down for a minute and let's discuss this in a rational manner". And this is in my eyes what a community shoud also be about. Not only a place to voice your excitement and your enjoyment of something, but also a place to voice your sadness and frustration.

I just wanted to say that a healthy community supports their members and gives them comfort when there is frustration and not call them irrational. Not respecting each others opinions and feelings or calling them irrational is as toxic as the people always complaining and it eventually becomes a vicious circle where people get more negative with every post. First one person complaints, then another person calls this person out for spreading negativity and after that is gets even more toxic.

If we really want to have open discussions and a friendly community, we should start by respecting that some people might get upset about miniature games or "toy soldiers" and that it is totally okay. But I think nothing is achieved by treating these people the wrong way. I just don't think telling the people to stop complaining has ever helped. I have been on so many forums and reddits for different computer games and I often see similar patterns which always end the same way,

And the only times where I really have seen that something has worked, were the times where people focussed on the concerns of the people and have respected their frustration. And I just wanted to state that a statement such as "We are all playing with toy soldiers" doesn't help to end the discussion or improves the atmosphere. There are better ways which are more respecting and appreciating, which will result in coming back to topic and having a polite and sensible discussion.