Why TGA is a happy place and is going to stay that way. NEEDED A BUMP AGAIN

[Kramer]

 

10 hours ago, blueshirtman said:

I think I will limit myself to reading posts then, and asking questions about rules etc. I don't get the whole don't being a ****** part, I assume it is some sort of interaction thing or something, and I am really bad with that.

 

Ok, I don't think this would work for me. Even with medicin am in a unhappy state 24/7. Is a question like "how do people think rule X will shape Y" a constructive one, I think it is, but am never sure about stuff like that.

I actually do not get the post, but I see this is a moderator rules post, and I wouldn't want to get kicked out. The not being negative part seems hard to do, as is the bitterness. Name calling I never really understood how it works, I know that calling peoples parents is not ok, as are any vulgar terms, but I think that is covered by the forum rules.

Hi man. yeah it can be hard. Especially if details of social interaction like this doesn't come natural to you. Your example of "how do people think rule X will shape Y" is definitely a constructive one. That allows a conversation to happen, so that would be a great contribution. 

I read your post yesterday night and its been spinning around in my head since then. The best advice I could come up with is this (goes for me as well, btw): when you give your opinion, explain why. So if I think a specific unit is awesome I would say: 'I really like unit x, because it adds this to my army'. If I think a unit could be better I could say: 'Unit X doesn't work for me, because unit Y does the same but is better at it because of Z.'
And sometimes the explanation is just an emotional reaction which is fine: 'I don't like the design of unit X, the poses are too static for my taste.'

That means that the person reading it can have a conversation about a hobby we all love. How cool is that! 

Just like your post I quoted. You open up about something, you explain that you think it wouldn't work for you and why. I have yet to see a negative reaction to that. Only conversations with others. Which is (in my opinion) the point of the thread. So you'll be fine! Have fun and hope this helps. 

[MrZakalwe]

Thing is the negativity isn't really all that deserved these days- I understood it in the early days of AoS because GW screwed up a great many things (squatting of one of the most popular armies in the game - High Elves - destruction of others + the weird balkanisation of factions that made half the model lines that were left... less than ideal) but aside from the rampant Stormcast overpopulation they haven't really done anything major wrong in a long time and have got a whole load of stuff right. 

Summoning might be a bit rubbish in 2.0 but we don't know as we don't know the details and everything else is sounding pretty great so probably sensible to wait and see.

What's actually  got people so riled recently? Thought generally AoS was in the best state it has ever been at the moment. Why the recent outbursts?

[RuneBrush]

Well said @Ben!

It's great to read why so many of you come to TGA, as expected we've a huge cross-section of people from across the world united for an interest of Age of Sigmar.  How amazing is that?!  We've all registered up because we love something about what is at it's roots a game of toy soldiers!  There are so many different levels to fall in love with too - be it playing games with friends, painting and assembling miniatures, reading and writing background - the list goes on and on and on.  We're all different though, the bits that I enjoy are going to be different to the bits that you enjoy, I'm going to have a different opinion on something to you because it'll effect me in a different way to you.

For me personally the biggest thing that I love about Age of Sigmar is that it gives me a huge amount of escapism.  I know that if I'm having a rubbishy day or just want to get away from the real world, that I need only pick up a paintbrush, battletome, arrange a game or jump on the forums - and for a short period of time I can be taken away into a fantastical world of Orruks, Dragons and such like.  And why I stick with Games Workshop is simple - they keep delivering me new content that allows me to maintain the same level of escapism - I mean seriously what's not to love about that*!

* My wallet does make fairly frequent gasping noises though

[Tzaangor Management]

Well said @Ben and thank you for creating and maintaining TGA.

As Steve alluded to, the last time a post like this was needed was in the run up to GHB18 and the furore over the 'free' units gained through the horde bonus. Despite all the posts that said that every army would have 120 Skeletons and the general gnashing of teeth, the game is in a better place now than it was in 2017. Part of that is down to the fact that the GW rules writers and play-testers do have some idea of what they're doing. The other contributing factor is that the community continue to help shape the game and the way it is played. So, if you cannot have faith in the rules writers, then have faith in the community. The community of which you are part.

On negative posting, and this by no means a magic bullet, but I would encourage people to read back over posts once or twice before posting and ask themselves what they're contributing to the discussion. I never post / send / perform / submit the first draft of anything in life and I certainly don't do that here. The beauty of a discussion on a forum is that you do not need to reply immediately. You can think for 30 minutes about your snappy rejoinder if you'd like and this means that you can make sure that it's snappy, makes the point you want and isn't insulting.

I see many posts that arrive within five minutes of the post they're replying to and while it's possible that you could read a post, digest it, formulate a response that you edit once or twice in that time, it'd undoubtedly be better if we all took two, three or even four times that amount of time. The immediate response will be an emotional one, the considered response will take longer.

[Phil D]

My Twopennoth for what it's worth (tuppence?) I came back to GW after 20 years away (I knew Grombrindl when he was a boy) via Silver Tower when my son introduced me to it. I love this game, the modelling the game play and the narrative, I'm more a narrative and thematic player than a tournament winner. I don't care if I loose so long as I have fun, and I've taken some beatings but had a great laugh while it happened.

Remember when you press send/post, your words are in the public domain and can be read by anyone eventually, you have no more control over them. When posting on the internet, sending email or text I apply two simple but effective steps,

Step 1: Imagine three people are going to read your message: Your boss, a judge and your partner.

Step 2: Imagine the screen that your are looking at to type your message is a person. When posting about GW imagine you are sat in Bugman's Bar with two of your AoS buddies, Phil Kelly and Duncan Rhodes. Would you really say to Phil Kelly "I hate GW, AoS2 is rubbish and should be completely rewritten?" If you did your breaking Wheaton's Law right there. I don't know Phil Kelly or Duncan but I'm pretty sure I know what their reaction would be.

However, if you said to Phil Kelly "I don't like the new rules for summoning, it makes Death really overpowered" (you can make up your own question) I'm sure he would come back with some discussion about why it was done and how they see it working, within the confines of not giving anything away. I'm sure he wouldn't say "Your an A***ehole and don't know what your talking about". Personally I think this is the sort of constructive discussion that should take place on forums like this. Several times I have read a rule, or a post on WH community and thought that's outrageous they can't do that! I've then spoken to my son and he has explained the way he saw it and realise it's not as bad as I thought. Getting other peoples opinions is always good to allow you to better form your own opinions.

And always remember what Abraham Lincoln (from John Lydgate) said "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time." I think GW have got the balance right overall, and the bits of AoS2 that we haven't seen may well allay many peoples fears for the game.

 

[Thanatos Ares]

Well said Ben and I wholeheartedly agree. I am unashamedly a GW fanboi. And have been for 30yrs!

[Twitch of Izalith]

I find the way relatively harmless negativity or argumentative content is shut down, censored or completely removed on this forum is a little bit over the top. though I have never been subject to it. there have been a couple of threads I never got the chance to comment on because a mod decided the conversation was over before i had the chance. Hopefully people realise i'm always just joking around.

I have a sarcastic sense of humour and way of expressing things, and while I let some of that show on TGA I always find myself having to limit my posts to avoid upsetting people who I consider to be over sensitive. Why don't they have to make allowances for me being under-sensitive? 

Its fine. I mean the positive aspects of this online community far outweigh that one thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. BUT its not an accurate reflection of how a normal bunch of gamers converse with each other. Almost all the people I play warhammer with are adults with university educations, professional careers and families - we all swear occasionally, tell dirty jokes, trash rules decisions if they are bad, throw shade at models or armies we don't like for whatever reason (because they ride fish for example) and are generally open, honest and tolerant with each other. Not all these people are my close friends. some i only interact with across a games table.

None of us really worry if what we are saying is politically correct, mildly disrespectful towards women with impressive anatomical features, likely to offend people with a sense of entitlement etc We are just normal people!!! I would like it if I didn't have to be so careful about what I say and I could just hang out with you all online like I hang out in real life. If people are offended by something its because they choose to be offended. They can equally choose NOT to be offended. What does that even mean? "I'm offended" Congratulations I hope you are proud of your achievement!

Just let people be people.

Anything which is truly out of order should be dealt with obviously but giving a guy a warning because he says he thinks SCE are "stupid" for example? thats hardly gratuitously offensive.

I totally agree with the sentiment that we should all just concentrate on enjoying playing and talking about warhammer - not so keen on being dictated to, censored and having my freedom of speech limited.

Maybe I should be banned and all my posts should be deleted.  I'm obviously a filthy heretic  

 

[MikeButcher]

Well said Ben, well said. I agree it is an exciting time, the current GW vibe reminds of the olde rogue trader days and that is a good thing. 

[Ollie Grimwood]

This is a private enterprise funded by and run by a private individual, freedom of speech is not a concept that exists in this situation. Them’s the rules. 

I would point out there’s plenty of other places for the rough and tumble of unmoderated “discussion”. TGA has never made any claims to be anything other than how it’s described by @Ben and is the one forum that operates like this.  Horses for courses maybe some are in the wrong place  

 

[stato]

42 minutes ago, Twitch of Izalith said:

I have a sarcastic sense of humour and way of expressing things, and while I let some of that show on TGA I always find myself having to limit my posts to avoid upsetting people who I consider to be over sensitive. Why don't they have to make allowances for me being under-sensitive? 

Its fine. I mean the positive aspects of this online community far outweigh that one thing that makes me feel a bit uncomfortable. BUT its not an accurate reflection of how a normal bunch of gamers converse with each other. Almost all the people I play warhammer with are adults with university educations, professional careers and families - we all swear occasionally, tell dirty jokes, trash rules decisions if they are bad, throw shade at models or armies we don't like for whatever reason (because they ride fish for example) and are generally open, honest and tolerant with each other. Not all these people are my close friends. some i only interact with across a games table.

I can see the humour in peoples sarcastic posts, but I can also see that it often wont translate over the internet, even more so where someone has English as a second (or more) language.

I totally get your hope, but unfortunately its just not possible in an open forum without arguments starting, hence the need for this post by Ben.

[AGPO]

Great post Ben.

To those who don't get the difference between constructive criticism, there's a simple way to work it out. If it adds to the discussion for other people then it's constructive. If it's purely for your own catharsis then it's whinging. We all need a good whinge from time to time but there's a time and a place. Ben has now explicitly said that this is not that place. It's his place, his rules.

Example:

Quote

GW have done nothing for Destruction players for ages. All they give a **** about is ****ing Sigmarines!!

Clearly this isn't adding anything for anyone else. We all know destruction could use some love but GW have clearly done a lot for plenty of other factions. Stormcast get a lot of releases because, as with Space Marines in 40K they are the most popular army and a safe release, so they subsidise GW taking risks on innovative stuff like the Idoneth. 

Instead try something like:

Quote

Destruction could use some support. I hope we see a points reduction for X or some new command abilities in the new general's handbook to offset Y. What do you guys want to see for them?

This is constructive. It's making suggestions and encouraging further discussion which makes the site a more engaging place.

If your post isn't constructive, don't post it. That simple.

[Gaz Taylor]

23 minutes ago, Ollie Grimwood said:

This is a private enterprise funded by and run by a private individual, freedom of speech is not a concept that exists in this situation. Them’s the rules.

100% this

For anybody who has been thinking about censorship, heavy handed moderation or this is going to be far to happy and a yes place, I just need to mention that this is all funded by Ben. If he would like you all to act in a certain way, you should be able to do that. It's like going round somebodies house and asking about taking your shoes off. Some people don't care whilst others want you to remove your shoes  

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Some of you seem to be thinking a bit too hard about what you can or can't post. It's been mentioned several times in this topic and Ben has mentioned it in his first post. Please use a bit of common sense and courtesy but if you are unsure, ask a mod.

Can we please not discuss this any more?

This topic isn't about what you can talk about, censorship or anything like that. It's a gentle reminder that we are all here because we love Warhammer Age of Sigmar.  

[Ungface]

This is currently the best place on the web to be able to openly discuss the pros and cons of AoS without it generally devolving into mess. The idea that this is now going to change because you want to remove opinions you dont like only spells doom imo.

 

Id also add that you are running a place of discussion open to the public. Youre going to get all manner of people coming here and behaving in whatever way. The idea that you can just say "I dont want to deal with this!" is a bit naive, considering what you are running. Dont open it to the public if you dont want to have to moderate.

[Bosmer Nightblade]

26 minutes ago, Gaz Taylor said:

100% this

For anybody who has been thinking about censorship, heavy handed moderation or this is going to be far to happy and a yes place, I just need to mention that this is all funded by Ben. If he would like you all to act in a certain way, you should be able to do that. It's like going round somebodies house and asking about taking your shoes off. Some people don't care whilst others want you to remove your shoes  

+++ Mod Hat On +++

Some of you seem to be thinking a bit too hard about what you can or can't post. It's been mentioned several times in this topic and Ben has mentioned it in his first post. Please use a bit of common sense and courtesy but if you are unsure, ask a mod.

Can we please not discuss this any more?

This topic isn't about what you can talk about, censorship or anything like that. It's a gentle reminder that we are all here because we love Warhammer Age of Sigmar.  

I actually thought this was a really good forum and was surprised to see the OP as I've not noticed any sort of culture of negativity.

I think the reason people are worrying about censorship now is because maybe they, like me, don't see a huge problem so are thinking that if we're talking about warning the community here, that we're saying that even the fairly constructive discussions will be off limits, so that's where the censorship fears come from.

It's absolutely right to say this is Ben's forums and his rules, but if the rules become too crazy, people will simply up and leave. For a forum like this to exist successfully in the way that it does in the age where everything is migrating to Facebook and WhatsApp, is a bit of a modern miracle. So please don't kill it by trying to 'fix' a problem that actually doesn't seem to exist.

[Lousy Beatnik]

It really isn't that hard. I learner to appreciate the moderation, when elsewhere we had months of "how the hell do fish swim out of water?" rubbish threads/posts elsewhere.

Don't feel too bad banning serial offenders. It's good fun when you see the same name on other forums, and it's clear they haven't gotten over it ages later

[Euphanism]

I love AoS and have a small group of people that play casual/narrative/180 zombie joke lists as well as matched play, but unfortunately the majority of players locally are very competitive-focused (not unfortunate that they enjoy the game like that, as they're generally good folks, unfortunate that it's not really my style and I get stomped).

Stumbling onto this forum from a Reddit thread was one of the best things about the hobby, since I can come here and theorycraft as well as just talk general AoS stuff without being brought down by negativity.

[AGPO]

1 hour ago, Ungface said:

This is currently the best place on the web to be able to openly discuss the pros and cons of AoS without it generally devolving into mess. The idea that this is now going to change because you want to remove opinions you dont like only spells doom imo.

 

Id also add that you are running a place of discussion open to the public. Youre going to get all manner of people coming here and behaving in whatever way. The idea that you can just say "I dont want to deal with this!" is a bit naive, considering what you are running. Dont open it to the public if you dont want to have to moderate.

It's open to the public, but TGA is still a privately owned site with access that is contingent on following rules. That's always been the case and Ben is free to set those rules as he sees fit. This post is just reminding people of those rules. It's not saying "I don't want to deal with this" but "I'm not going to tolerate this." 

As an analogy, if Ben were running a bar, niavety would be expecting people never to get drunk somewhere you serve alcohol. This is simply the barman reiterating that if you overdo it and starts to really aggravate the other customers, the bouncers will chuck you out.

46 minutes ago, Bosmer Nightblade said:

I actually thought this was a really good forum and was surprised to see the OP as I've not noticed any sort of culture of negativity.

The modding policy of the site seems to be to delete or edit especially problematic posts, whereas some other sites will leave them up and post a warning below. The mod team here are also very efficient at responding to reported posts. These two things mean that unless you happen to be in the thread shortly after such a post is made, you're not going to see it.

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Ungface said:

This is currently the best place on the web to be able to openly discuss the pros and cons of AoS without it generally devolving into mess. The idea that this is now going to change because you want to remove opinions you dont like only spells doom imo.

Id also add that you are running a place of discussion open to the public. Youre going to get all manner of people coming here and behaving in whatever way. The idea that you can just say "I dont want to deal with this!" is a bit naive, considering what you are running. Dont open it to the public if you dont want to have to moderate.

That's not what's being said (though I can see why some might feel that).  Recently there's been quite an increase in really negative comments and ones that are pretty rude/nasty about other people on here, this post is Ben being really open and honest about exactly what he's trying to achieve on TGA, it also highlights that he's a hobbyist too - we all are.

We want open discussion - but in a mature and adult way.  The reason conversations don't generally devolve into a mess is because overall you all have this approach with the occasionally nudge from a mod when necessary. 

Now I can't resist creating a fictitious example (as my odd answers in the rules section attest to my obsession with them), so here's an example of one argument expressed in two ways.  Let's say a command ability has just been introduced that increases units in a Destruction army movement characteristic by 8".

Quote

That new <fictitious> CA feels a bit powerful, whack it onto a Goregrunta and they're crazy fast.

vs

Quote

What the <bleep> is gee-dubs thinking?  That new CA is <bleep> awful, it'll make Ironjawz mega powerful when under a blood-red moon and rolling pink dice.  Oh and <insert-random-person> you're an <bleepy-bleep-bleep> to say Ironjaws are weak as they've got <random-rule>.

Quite different - the first one is rational, expresses a concern and encourages somebody to respond.  The second is rude, aggressive and risks derailing the thread.  Pretty much across the board we get the first example, but on occasion we get the second and that's when it's necessary to step in and get involved.

[Turragor]

As someone who has managed some very toxic communities in the past I can recommend this thread be locked before it reaches 200 pages of debate between "my ancestors died for the free speech of the internet" and "if you are worried you're part of the problem!"

Even the nice communities fall foul of that debate.

It's a bit zeitgeist-y - the world is writ small in all online spaces.

[blueshirtman]

1 hour ago, AGPO said:

This is constructive. It's making suggestions and encouraging further discussion which makes the site a more engaging place.

But wouldn't this just be ingored by a non destruction players? what do they care if not their faction is bad or good, specially if is a rare opponent. On the other hand, if you use strong language they have to engange you otherwise they come up as week and make your arguments right, by sole fact of not responding.

[michu]

Using strong language doesn't make you stronger and other weak. Ignoring aggresive and rude comments is sometimes for best  - if your interlocutor is acting rude and accept no arguments, there's no reason to continue discussion with him.

[Mikeymajq]

This is the only forum I've felt like being a part of and it's 99% thanks to the topic Ben talks about here. (The other 1% is because it's an AoS forum) ?

[AGPO]

I honestly have no idea where you're coming from there. Personally as a non-Destruction player I'd love to see a wider variety of armies, and I'll always welcome other people's perspective on my army or tactics, because it's good to see things from different angles. But if they don't want in on that discussion who cares? There's plenty of other things for them to discuss and destruction players can have a civilised conversation amongst themselves.

I think @michu gave a perfect response to the second part of your comment. If one person is being aggressive in an argument and the other is remaining calm, it's normally not the latter who looks weak.

[Lardidar]

I have to say it's not until I wandered into the rumour section that I noticed hate on here. All the 'lets chats' seem to have a good mix of orgasmic joy, level-headed chat and the occasional moan...they are a joy to read and I find myself reading them to help pick new armies.

Painting section is great with good advice and proper criticism of peoples work.

I understand peoples panic, I know that blind faith can be as annoying as blind pessimism. I'd say I'm pleased in the most with the odd buttock clench at the rumours so far...I'm excited about the release but then I do declare myself a fan of the product.

Remember all, you survived WFB to AOS...you live through that then you have easily got this!

[Cerlin]

Good post Ben.

I would remind everyone that Ben and Company are making a free to associate society. While you are free to stay as long as you follow the spirit of the sight, you are also able to be asked to leave if one only hates on the game. 

I have noticed this often when it comes to hype, and AoS 2.0 seems to bring it out more. Maybe because I am old, but I do not get needlessly hyped anymore. I like AOS now, my armies were fun to paint, and at least one will be decent in the new addition, and probably they all will be. 

So far, not every army I would like to get full support got it. But every army I have built was fun and when played lead to new friends, great stories, and a fun experience.