Register    Login    Forum    FAQ

Board index » Blood Bowl » House Rules forum




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2016 2:55 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 86
Darkson wrote:
Moraiwe wrote:
My memory, while hazy, is that this didn't happen with 4th edition rules. I was under the impression that most people hated 4th edition, and that they stuck with 3rd edition instead (or modified it based on the things they liked from 4th). The fallout from so many people disliking 4th edition was why the rules got changed soon after. How wrong am I on this?

You're not wrong on that, but that was a set of experimental rules in a side magazine that specifically invited feedback, and which many players at the time (and even now) had never heard of.
A new box set with "official" finished rules is a different animal.

IF there are new rules, and IF they suck, I'd like to think the community would not use them, but I think VM and Galak are correct. Sure, some/many won't (just like some still play vanilla 3rd ed) but the majority will go with whatever is "official".

It may well come down to whether herd mentality or apathy wins out. I think the longevity of LRB6/CRP has caused it to be so embedded that the path of least resistance will be to carry on regardless, especially as the playerbase demographic is 6 years older than last time this came up.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:04 am 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15809
Location: Indiana, USA
hutchinsfairy wrote:
Greshvakk wrote:
I thought there was a forum rule about personal attacks. But from this thread I guess not.

Well if attacking the message isn't finding traction then swing for the messenger. As long as the heretics are silenced then the end justifies the means.

Then people act all surprised that the forum doesn't get much traffic...

I am watching the thread. VoodooMike has been banned for periods of time in the past. But at this point ... his posts read to me like a heated argument more than a personal attack. So yes there are forum rules and if hutchinsfairy feels those lines were crossed he is happy to tell a moderator why ... but at this point ... I did not feel that line was crossed in the discussion.

_________________
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:32 am 
Experienced
Experienced

Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2015 1:12 am
Posts: 82
For the record I think hutchinsfairy should have complained about these posts - but he also shouldn't have to for action to be taken. I read a series of vitriolic personal attacks thinly disguised as genuine points about the post. In my view they were way over the line and show that the lack of moderation on tff is a problem.

And to Lunchmoney no it should not be up to new posters, in a new environment to have to raise a problem in order for the moderators to moderate. That just isn't how discussion boards work not when they are properly moderated anyway.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:47 am 
Godfather of Blood Bowl
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2001 1:00 am
Posts: 15809
Location: Indiana, USA
Greshvakk wrote:
and show that the lack of moderation on tff is a problem
Yeah ... I long ago learned that the amount of moderation someone likes on a forum is as different as night and day. My apologies that you do not feel we are heavy handed enough at this time.

_________________
Impact! - Fantasy Football miniatures and supplies designed by gamers for gamers
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 12:29 pm 
Experienced
Experienced
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:42 pm
Posts: 86
@Greshvakk thanks!

The problem is that there is no good way to deal with people whose coping strategies are so woefully inadequate that they are compelled to find release siphoning their impotent bitterness onto strangers.

Once you realise that the sole purpose of the posts is to manufacture conflict then if follows that their supposed content is largely irrelevant, even to the person posting them.

Tightening the moderation rules, however, only really serves to alter the playing field, it doesn't stop the game.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:06 pm 
Ex-Cyanide/Focus toadie

Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 5:55 pm
Posts: 2425
Location: Near Reading, UK
Greshvakk wrote:
In my view they were way over the line and show that the lack of moderation on tff is a problem.
In mine it is not. YMMV.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is there ever conaensus on forums about "unofficial" stu
 Post Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:13 pm 
Emerging Star
Emerging Star
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 9:03 am
Posts: 420
hutchinsfairy wrote:
The problem is that there is no good way to deal with people whose coping strategies are so woefully inadequate that they are compelled to find release siphoning their impotent bitterness onto strangers.

Is this a self-referencing example? It's one of my favourite forms of entertainment: watching people with low self-awareness bitterly denounce someone else's character for having denounced theirs, but imagining that it's different because "he started it!". In reality, you just declared that someone (me, in this case) is somehow fundamentally broken as a human being... because you feel I was rude to you. Short of calling for my entire bloodline to be rounded up and put into a death camp it's pretty much the most over-the-top place you can go over a forum dispute.

hutchinsfairy wrote:
Once you realise that the sole purpose of the posts is to manufacture conflict then if follows that their supposed content is largely irrelevant, even to the person posting them.

..and right here you try to dismiss the content of posts because of their presentation, something you yourself claimed was typically the realm of someone who feels "threatened".

What you're engaging in is the typical "coping strategy" of someone who feels socially marginalized but feels they are clearly worthy of greater respect. You see it in bullied middle-school children, too... the claims that their bully is only bullying them because the bully comes from a broken home, or the belief that the bully will grow up to amount to nothing while the bullied child will be the CEO of a fortune 500 company, etc etc.

In reality those bullies often come from loving environments, and they're no less likely to succeed than anyone else... in fact, the assertiveness and confidence often works in their favour. The mistake hinges on what psychology terms the "just-world hypothesis" or what is more commonly referred to as "karma" (the common use being different from the actual origin of the term). Most adults are fully aware that what goes around rarely comes around.. people don't get what they "deserve" (positive or negative).. and bad things happen to good people as often as good things happen to bad people.

Personally, I don't mind people being aggressive or rude or insulting to me - those aren't things that I find inherently offensive (with some exceptions) because they're quirks of personality. What bothers me is hypocrisy, disingenuity, and dishonesty - things that reduce the amount of truth in the world. I'm also annoyed by intellectual laziness because it is the root of 90% of the stupidity in human history. People aren't inherently stupid, they're just too damned lazy to be smart most of the time... and find it easier to make excuses for being lazy.

So, believe whatever you want if it helps ease your cognitive dissonance, but be aware (or don't) that your hypocrisy is symptomatic of your not knowing yourself very well. I advise you to get to know yourself.. not who you imagine yourself to be, but who your actions prove you to be. If you find you don't like that person then change it, or adjust your worldview to match who you really are, and don't hold everyone else to higher standards than you're willing to hold yourself.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Board index » Blood Bowl » House Rules forum


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

 
 

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to: