Maybe... think on it. 

Now obviously nobody likes passive-aggressive "downvotes". Personally I don't entirely agree with the concept of a downvote on a community forum at all; if someone doesn't agree, they can just say as much, and if something's really awful then it can be reported, whilst a quick reaction of "yeah, I like this!" is obviously far less of an issue.

Now, that said I think there is a place for the Respectfully Disagree reaction, but not in its current form. Assuming it should stay (and I think there's arguments that it should) I'd say the best solution would be to make it actually give reaction points to the receiver as with the other "positive" reactions. This would serve two purposes:

1: Encourage use of it as a constructive reaction. "I think X model would look good in Y colour! What do you think?" might get a few of 'em with the intention of saying "I don't think that would work" in a genuinely helpful way, rather than any kind of snide or unpleasant undertones.

2: Discourage it from being used as the Dreaded Grey Circle of Disapproval, as it is being used at present. If someone really doesn't like a post, they can either say why they don't like it, or ignore it completely and just not engage- a drive-by "I disagree but I see your point" is going to give the poster extra points, after all, so if a post really ruffles their feathers enough they feel the need to express their dislike for it, they're considerably less likely to drop a silent "downvote"- they can just say why they don't like the post, or not say anything at all.

Just a thought, anyway.

This isn't so much as blocking another member on social media where they can't see your post if you mute them, it just means you wouldn't have to see the muted members posts. When it came to things like quotes in 3rd party members posts, the software would only show the 3rd party post not the quoted material itself. With regard to Threads, if I remember right, if you mute another member you won't see their threads, but they can still post in yours but again, the person who muted the other would not see that. 

I do realize we are a discussion forum, and that as such we should be open to hearing differing opinions, but sometimes we've just got people arguing in circles over the same stuff over and over. My thought is, if they're intent on being contrary, why even engage with them?

1-Remove the letter B followed by S from the word filter requiring moderator action

1b-Alternatively...automatically change it to the cuss emoticon instead of requiring moderator action

I personally have been caught by this auto filter when posting batreps and explaining the game mechanics.

Ballistic skill is a core game mechanic and will continue to pop up in a random 40k game discussions about how different rules stack and provide combo buffs.

Requiring moderator action for common terms doesnt seem worth the benefit it is intended to provide.

People abusing the shortened insult form of bovine excrement can be still be dealt with under the no profanity rules as well as no disrespect rules so there shouldn't be a loophole to be exploited by the change.

The reason I bring it up is:

https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/387264-warhammer-40k-magazine-anyone-seen-this/

This new member, in his first ever post, opens a new topic with a "not link" (he directs members how to search for said website, even though posting an actual link would be as easy as copy and paste) to a brand new site that appears to be an AI summary of WarCom. The whole thing seems like astroturfing. Maybe this guy is legit and wanted to share, but the optics are poor. Given the nature of the post, I question whether the poster is even human.

You've now deleted at least 4 posts, with zero explanation, guidance, or feedback.

This site has always been militant in its moderation, despite allowing Blow Fly to exist here over and over, and so at the VERY LEAST an update to the user for WHY you deleted their appropriate content should be the bare minimum of feedback.

But anyway, the point of the post is that this forum user interface is just leagues apart from all other hobby forums.

I think the Lead adventure forum is good too, but this is more modern and easier to use, and well designed.

Is there any plan to expand the forum to invite other hobby communities and games for their own boards?

I'm sure a lot of people are over facebook.
 

I'm thinking posts like this

or the Dornian Heresy

or Maybe some particularly good models and images?

By @DanforthLaertes

That example shows the URL from sharing the first post (clicking on the 3 dots that appear at the far right of the top of the first post, then clicking "share," then copying the URL (Link to comment) that appears in the Share this post dialog box that appears). Alternatively, you could take the URL that appears at the top of the page (when on the first page) and remove the "/#comment-~" portion, a la:

By @DanforthLaertes

If you are suggesting a specific reply within a discussion (rather than the first post or the entire discussion), post the URL of the specific reply and the name of the post's author. For example, we once had an interesting discussion where we debated theories on how the Exarchs and Phoenix Lords developed. If you thought that one person's theory would make a suitable article, you could link to that person's post. For example:

By @Brother Tyler

(Note that I'm already working on turning that one into an article, so there's no point in recommending it )

There are three ways to get the link to the member's profile.

The first is to simply type the @ symbol followed by the member's name, without spaces. The software may provide you with a list of likely members, allowing you to choose the correct one. Sometimes, however, that method doesn't work.

The second method is to use the BBCode:

[member=<member name here>]

That will achieve the same result and will always work (as long as you enter the name correctly). Granted, that method may stop working if Invision ever decides to terminate support for BBCode conversion.

The third method is to open the member's profile, copy the URL, and then enter that as a link with the member's name as the displayed text.

For example, the URL for my profile is:

https://bolterandchainsword.com/profile/26-brother-tyler/?wr=eyJhcHAiOiJmb3J1bXMiLCJtb2R1bGUiOiJmb3J1bXMtY29tbWVudCIsImlkXzEiOjM4MzA2OSwiaWRfMiI6NjA2MzUwMH0=

Realistically, you can just remove everything that appears after my display name, so:

https://bolterandchainsword.com/profile/26-brother-tyler

You would then simply type "Brother Tyler", highlight the name, and then insert the URL as a link to get:

Brother Tyler

That gives a slightly different result from the other two methods in terms of appearance, but achieves the same result in linking to my profile (though that method won't give the member a notification that someone has mentioned them).

When we see that someone recommends content for an article, we will reach out to the author to see if they're interested. If they are not interested, we may ask permission to create the article anyways, being sure to attribute it to them if they grant permission. If the content author is no longer active and does not respond to our queries, we may create the article, again, being sure to attribute it to them as the original author. If a content's original author explicitly directs us to not create an article from their content, we will respect their wishes.

If you recommend content that later becomes an article, you will receive achievements - the more articles we see from your recommendations, the more badges you'll get (see the ARTICLE SUGGESTION progression in the description of Achievements & Ranks in our community information).

Note that the Librarians will also be identifying content that they recommend for article submission, and we will track those recommendations here so that we know who recommended what first (the first person to recommend the content is the one that will receive the achievements if that content later becomes an article).

Only include one recommendation per post. Our method for awarding achievement badges will be to do so via the post in which you originally recommended the content. We can only award one badge per post, however.

Just an idea.

examples

genestealer cults: first generation hybrid second generation hybrid etc

aelderi: guardian, aspect warrior, dark reaper, etc

ta'u pathfinder, fire warrior, stealth suit pilot, etc

orks: boy, nob warboss, etc

I'm sure there is someone who can can make something much better but this is just a proof of consept.

Something like:

Line 1 of text        ---------

Line 2 of text        | image |

Line 3 of text        ---------

I tentatively propose WFB and AoS models being shown and discussed in a 40k/30k/GW sci fi context, but no rules discussion.

e.g the brand new Wildercorps Hunters could very easily be painted in Cawdor colours with a weapon swap or two and the dogs are really characterful models that fit the necromunda aesthetic at least a bit. 

The Warcry warbands are ripe with chaos cultist material. The Sphiranx, the slaaneshi pseudo keeper of secrets twins whose name escapes me, there's giant orcs riding huge boars that could be great in a 40k snakebite army. The weird Eltharion ghostly model is a perfect eldar wraith army autarch. The flying dwarves probably could pass as squats if you didnt like Votaan. 

What say ye?!