An open letter to the regulars of the Liber Astartes

[Octavulg]

Hello. My name is Octavulg. You may remember me from such chapters as the Ice Lords and the Stone Hearts. I’ve been here a while now. In fact, I’ve been here so long I remember when Grey Hunter Ydalir’s claims that he would finish his chapter were believable.

 

[pause for applause]

 

But today, I’m here to talk about something important. Specifically: what the is wrong with you people?

 

Let's explain what I mean:

This is the nature of the Liber Astartes. The strong survive, the weak die off, and those who go against the Law of the Liber are quickly and fiercely set upon.

 

this is one of our very few untouchables, meaning as a whole we don't consider it.

 

I see what's wrong with that. I bet most of you don't. So now I'm going to explain it.

 

1) This is not a club. If it was, I would have kicked most of you out about a dozen times over for not citing your sources.

 

2) Even if it were a club, "that isn't the way we do it here" is not a reason. Why? Because this subforum does not exist to determine who gets to join a club.

 

3) Even if this subforum did exist in order to determine who gets to join a club, that still wouldn't be good enough. Why? Because nobody wants to join a club of rude people who do nothing other than berate those who don't conform to their unjustified rules.

 

It's fun to joke that we're some incredibly harsh elite who destroy people's IAs for giggles, and that those who come here must bend to our will or be destroyed. But it's just that - a joke. It is not a :) ing mission statement.

 

The institutional memory of the Liber Astartes is a strength - it provides simple answers to problems that regularly arise, and often answers to problems that don't. The camaraderie amongst Liber regulars is useful - it encourages the creation of useful resources and means that people with some actual experience at this stuff don't drift away. Harsh criticism is a useful tool - it cuts through prevarication to the issues that need to be addressed. All of these things are worth being proud of. But none of it exists for its own sake. It exists to help people improve their work. Any idiot can say no. Critics explain why not. They certainly don't fall back on "we don't do it that way here".

 

Lately, it feels like the Liber is a lot more focused on telling people they're wrong and a lot less focused on telling them why they're wrong and suggesting what to do about it. I think this is a bad thing. Of course, since this isn't a club, I can't tell you what to do. I can just gently and sweetly suggest that you become aware that that's exactly the point.

 

EDIT:

 

And a note for those who wish to get cranky about me getting cranky about this: I invite you to consider who the words in the first quote are attributed to in their initial context.

[Olis]

I must say that I agree. To me this a place for critique, not approval (or disapproval, for that matter).

[Donkey Kong]

Hello Octavulg.

 

I agree with you that it is wrong for us to be anything but critics. What I find upsetting is that this thread is a blatant response to this. I appreciate the fact that you're not directly quoting those statements because even if we're not a club, we are a community, and creating hostility is never worthwhile. It doesn't change that this topic was never particularly worthwhile to begin with.

 

I can't say I've been here for a fraction of the time you have. I can't say that I've contributed half as much as you. What I can say is that this is the only 40k forum I've chosen to join and have even semi-regularly participated in, and in that time, I have seen my fair share of waste pile up in the backlogs. I don't think this is any different from any other topic we've seen with a new member set in their ways. From the time I joined up until now, it has always been my understanding that the ultimate goal of creating an Index Astartes was to make it worthy of documentation in the Forum's Librarium, with the constructive criticism and support of the greater community. It's temporary shutdown has not changed this.

 

What probably inspired me to believe that was Commissar Molotov's Castigators. Perhaps I'm giving him too much credit for what he has called an outdated IA. Maybe I'm just sentimental. That does not change the fact that that thread brought me here. That does not change how much I enjoyed reading through that log, and contributing what little I did. That does not change that that is the standard that I continue to hold a successful IA to.

 

It is not the goal of the Liber to manufacture IAs. It is not the goal of the Liber to pour undue praise on something that doesn't deserve it. We do not exist to stroke egos and wave everything by. And we sure don't exist to be apologists. For every article which has received the dedication needed to make it great, there are literally thousands which have failed to live up to those standards. Sometimes authors come with the expectation that they won't have to change a thing and go after realizing that the community here isn't a free pass. Sometimes authors will work from bottom up until they have built something they, and the community, are proud of. Sometimes, people like you, do that multiple times. Others haven't done this once, and they still stick around because of their love of the community. I'm talking about people like Ace Debonair and Grey Hunter Ydalir, Silver Phoenix, Dark Apostle Thirst, and so many others.

 

So, you're right. We're not a club. We're not a fraternity. Joining doesn't demand any contribution. Everyone is free to come. Everyone is free to go. Letting someone loose when they stand nothing to gain is not a loss to anyone: Not to them, not to the community, not to me, and not to you.

 

Chimeras

Locust

Space. Rams.

Every. Version. Of. The. Astral. Reavers.

 

These mean something. For every individual who has come and gone with a single thread, their's have not.

[Brother Tyler]

This is a recurring theme and has been discussed here and here (picking the two most recent examples that stand out in my memory).

 

However, I have to correct something.

 

The B&C is a club. And it's a community. And it's a fraternity. And it's a sorority (we do have members with X chromosomes, after all). And it's a support group (we all have some level of addiction to Games Workshop's WH40K crack, after all B) ). The problem is that many members incorrectly assume that the "fees" to be a member of the club are orthodoxy in interpretation of the game lore and a requirement to develop written work of high literary quality. This notion is patently incorrect as the nature of the game lore is inherently mutable and open to interpretation, and we all have varying levels of writing ability. We can discuss varying interpretations, and we can help each other to be better writers, but in the end there is only a realistic (and undefined) minimum quality, not an artificially high quality level, that can be expected. The only real "fee" to be a member of the club is observation of the forum rules. The differences in lore interpretation and writing ability are allowed (and encouraged).

 

Passion and emotion are to be expected, but underneath everything there must be a level of courtesy and respect (even when we disagree).

[Reyner]

Well said Octavulg.

[Octavulg]

Olisredan

I must say that I agree. To me this a place for critique, not approval (or disapproval, for that matter).

 

Oh, I think people can approve and disapprove all they like. But at least do it as individuals, and at least recognize that your approval or disapproval is not a reason in and of itself. :)

 

* * *

 

KingHongKong

It doesn't change that this topic was never particularly worthwhile to begin with.

 

Possibly not. But the failings of that topic should be judged on their own merits, not just because they're against the perceived collective wisdom of the board. For one thing, most things that go against the perceived collective wisdom of the board are pretty easy to knock over with logic.

 

So, you're right. We're not a club. We're not a fraternity. Joining doesn't demand any contribution. Everyone is free to come. Everyone is free to go. Letting someone loose when they stand nothing to gain is not a loss to anyone: Not to them, not to the community, not to me, and not to you.

 

Indeed. But the strength of the community here is that it is open. Anyone can come, and their ideas will be evaluated reasonably and on their merits. And the second anyone starts saying "you can't do that because it's not something we approve of", that is the point that it stops being an open community and starts being a closed one.

 

The community has standards, yes. But those standards are such because they are justifiable, not because they are the fiat of the membership.

 

* * *

 

Brother Tyler

This is a recurring theme and has been discussed here and here (picking the two most recent examples that stand out in my memory).

 

Yes, but I do it with style. :P

 

However, I have to correct something.

 

But that wasn't what I said. The B&C may be a club. The regular posters of the Liber Astartes subforum aren't. They're a community within the larger club, certainly, but not one in and of themselves.

 

* * *

 

Reyner

 

Thanks. -_-

[TrashMan]

Possibly not. But the failings of that topic should be judged on their own merits, not just because they're against the perceived collective wisdom of the board. For one thing, most things that go against the perceived collective wisdom of the board are pretty easy to knock over with logic.

 

You almsot sound like you do not belive in collective wisdom :)

 

 

 

Indeed. But the strength of the community here is that it is open. Anyone can come, and their ideas will be evaluated reasonably and on their merits. And the second anyone starts saying "you can't do that because it's not something we approve of", that is the point that it stops being an open community and starts being a closed one.

 

The community has standards, yes. But those standards are such because they are justifiable, not because they are the fiat of the membership.

 

Yes, but those standards ARE there.

"you shouldn't do that, because after long debates and codex and lore anylysis, it was agreed to indeed be faulty/not supported/against cannon/stupid, and tha is why we dissaprove of it" sound better?

[Ferrus Manus]

Hello Octavulg.

 

I agree with you that it is wrong for us to be anything but critics. What I find upsetting is that this thread is a blatant response to this.

 

Actually, while that's a prominent example of what Octavulg's talking about I honestly can say it's not the only place where I've seen that type of response to a topic. I appreciate I've not been the most active member of the community as of late I have had the chance more recently to do some lurking and I've noticed as a trend that this type of attitude is getting worse and worse. A lot of people seem to take this stance - both new(/ish) and older members, and granted I am a big believer in keeping to the fluff but I wouldn't shout someone down if they didn't. My reply is always the same; why? If a poster can give what is a reasonable and vaguely logical (heck, this is Sci-Fi/Fantasy we're talking about) then fine I'm happy.

 

If people didn't break from tradition every now and again the world would be a more boring place. I often get told in my studio sessions and university "be creative, but logical." I think the same applies here, as readers we need to be able to follow the train of thought from A to B. If we can, I'm happy.

 

"you shouldn't do that, because after long debates and codex and lore anylysis, it was agreed to indeed be faulty/not supported/against cannon/stupid, and tha is why we dissaprove of it" sound better?

 

Maybe. Maybe not. In a galaxy of half truths and lies anything is possible.

[Malthe]

I am reminded by an article I once read about the nature of Science Fiction. I would quote it, but I seem to have misplaced the link I kept to it, anyhow.

 

The essence of the article was this:

The basic premiss for writing science fiction is that everything must have a reason.

If in a science fiction story, monkeys suddenly start speaking english, the auther must provide a logical (scientific) explanation for why they are able to do so.

The explanation doesn't have to be mathmatical, nor does it have to be expressed in great detail, but it needs to be plausible within the setting of the story.

Another premiss of science fiction is that nothing is impossible, if a possibility can be imagined and explained to the reader.

 

My point is this:

Writing Science Fiction is just like writing IAs.

There is a set of conventions or canon (monkeys can't speak/ Space Marines are male only) that must be accepted if they are to be broken in a satisfactional way (satisfactional to the reader).

Another similarity:

What's most interesting about Sci-Fi and AIs is when they break these conventions. The conventions are made to be overcome.

Not all of them at the same time, usually just a few, but if one doesn't depart from the establshed at all, one is - frankly - writing something very boring.

 

Futhermore:

Criticism, just like Sci-Fi and AIs, needs to be sensible.

We need to accept the fact, that while something might be difficult to explain, it can still form the basic of a great story, if explained well.

It is the Liberite's job (if they so please) to provide or draw attention to the challenges that must be overcome inorder to depart from convention/canon in a sensible matter.

In a sensible matter so that we'll enjoy reading about these departures that our AIs form.

 

After all, personal preference is the only position we, as a community of individuals, can critique from.

This I feel we should keep in mind and I think this is what Octa is encouraging us all to do.

 

Anyhow, I've rambled for long enough, and I have just one last point to make...

 

An author can write AIs for two reasons (I propose):

1. To produce an article that will bring satisfaction to himself, when he reads it (or simply when he enjoy the fact that he has written it).

2. To produce an article that will bring satisfaction to (some of) the readers of the article.

Both can be difficult (and valuable) but it is the writer who subscribes to the second reason that we are truely able to help.

 

Remember now, this means that the writer doesn't have to care if you enjoy his article.

Maybe he just wants to enjoy it himself, or may he wants someone else than you (yes you!) to enjoy it!

 

Now ask yourself the question:

"Can I contribute to the construction of an article that does not seek to please me?"

If you've ever passed an exam, I bet the answer to the above is yes :P Otherwise you're insanly luck with the exams you've had to make...

 

If the answer is no; walk away!

Maybe let the auther know how you feel first (maybe he really does want to please you!), but if the author of the article acknowledges that he doesn't care about your plesure, let it slide.

Spend your time on something else.

 

If the answer is yes; accept that there are parts of the article that you will be able to contribute to and parts that you will not.

This is okay! I'm horrible with commas, but reasonably good with grammar. So I don't advice people when it comes to the first, but gives plenty of advice regarding the latter.

 

Likewise; I don't want to write a paper about how to raise money for a theatre production, but I bloody well have to if I want to pass my exam.

What I do is this; I accept that I'm writting something for other people's enjoyment (well, hopefully...).

While I wont be able to ever read the paper I'm supposed to be writing instead of the disgracefully long forum post, with any sort of satisfaction, I can quite well produce one that will satisfy the future readers of said paper (that's my university teacher).

 

 

Above all, if the author of an IA doesn't want to please you with his article, don't try to make him!

But maybe try to help him please those he actually wants to please. Even if it is himself.

 

And don't use arguments like, 'everyone here thinks you're wrong' because besides this probably being incorrect, it doesn't always matter.

 

Ask questions, present problems, by all means make life hard for the prospective AI writer, if this is what he wants from you.

Otherwise, what are you doing bothering him?

 

A 'standard' is an agreed level of attainment or quality.

They are only valuable if people actually want to reach them. Besides, they are ever changing.

 

I would like to encourage everyone to be a little more open in their critique.

Not lax, but simply prepared to accept ideas that might not please you, but could result in something extraordinary, if pulled of well enough.

Most stupid ideas have that potential.

 

 

Right, no more rablings and back to my exam paper it is.

Cheers all!

[fivepointedstar]

I do see what Octavulg stated about over charged critics in the Liber. I definitely agree with the lack of respect people put in their replys both from the OP to the person replying. I've felt on occasion my input on was shot down by a Op that wasn't open to my suggestions. make's me think some folks can't take the heat, or be open to constructive assistance. I think the guide to DIY does help in the ground work on most liber articles. As it helped me know what would make sence for the reader to believe in. Now when it come to harsh critics, if not for there input there would be nothing stopping tangent articles about "heated" topics ie. Female marines, loyal traitors etc. I for one appreciate the input I got for my chapter, as it helped shape them to what they are today.

[Ace Debonair]

But today, I’m here to talk about something important. Specifically: what the :P is wrong with you people?

 

So very, very much, I'm afraid.

 

Oh wait, there was more context to that. Carry on!

 

Lately, it feels like the Liber is a lot more focused on telling people they're wrong and a lot less focused on telling them why they're wrong and suggesting what to do about it. I think this is a bad thing. Of course, since this isn't a club, I can't tell you what to do. I can just gently and sweetly suggest that you become aware that that's exactly the point.

 

Hmm. Well, I'm probably guilty of that, at least somewhere down the road.

I'll do my best to be more careful in future.

[TrashMan]

Maybe. Maybe not. In a galaxy of half truths and lies anything is possible.

 

 

It is?

 

* Goes to write his story of the God-Girl-Empress of mankind that's also a religious Zealot and purges non-believers when she's not farting lighting. Also Horus is gay, ultrasmurts are real smurfs, Space Wolves are actual furries just pretending to be Space Marines, the Inquisiton is a singular, unified institution, the AdMech builds everything out of wood and the Echeleshiary worships athesim *

 

 

I mean...seriously. We all have oppinions, but that doesn't maek that oppinion right. Oppinions CAN be right or wrong. Interpretatiosn can also be right or wrong.

These forums do have the "READEM FIRST" threads.

 

If someone comes in here ignoring cannons, it would be wise to put that as a first thing in his post.

 

*** DISCLAIMER: THIS IS NOT REALLY TRYING TO BE CANON, I JUST WANT YOUR OPPINION ON X ***

 

 

Besides that, it's obvious canon/lore means much to the denizens of the Liber. If you come in here and disregard it, it's not really ... nice.

 

It's kinda-sorta like someone coming into a house of a deeply religious family, all friendly like, and then crappign all over their religion. Well, not exactly like that, but kinda.

 

 

Come to think of it, is there a nice way to say: "I think what youre writing is the greatest affront to the setting/lore I've seen"? I don't think there is.

 

I for one have nothing agaisnt harsh critics. I don't mind people telling me in my face that what I wrote is the biggest piece of trash in existence. I can take it. I have taken it. All the walking around on egshells just so someones tender sensibilities don't get hurt...bah.

 

 

What's most interesting about Sci-Fi and AIs is when they break these conventions. The conventions are made to be overcome.

 

I disagree. If all conventions are overcome/ignored, then there ARE no conventions to speak of.

Change in itself isnt' either good or bad. Soem things should change. Some things are great and comforting precisely becasue they don't change.

 

But of course, since people usually tend to disagree on what should and what should not change.....

[Myxx]

And it's a sorority (we do have members with X chromosomes, after all).

 

I think technically ALL the members have an X chromosome. Some just have a second one, too. :P

[Ace Debonair]

Maybe. Maybe not. In a galaxy of half truths and lies anything is possible.

 

 

It is?

 

* Goes to write his story of the God-Girl-Empress of mankind that's also a religious Zealot and purges non-believers when she's not farting lighting. Also Horus is gay, ultrasmurts are real smurfs, Space Wolves are actual furries just pretending to be Space Marines, the Inquisiton is a singular, unified institution, the AdMech builds everything out of wood and the Echeleshiary worships athesim *

 

And I'd personally critique that story into components so much smaller than atoms we'd need another thousand years of technological development before we could know for sure such things even exist.

 

Octavulg only said 'because we said so' is not valid criticism, not that we have to accept everything at face value.

 

EDIT: Oops, you ninja'd me with more discussion. :ph34r:

I think we're on the same page here, more or less. The problem is not that C&C has been too harsh, rather that people have just been saying 'we don't do X' instead of explaining why X might be a bad idea or against canon or what have you.

[the jeske]

Well you dont have to explain stuff which was explained years ago when B&C wasnt even a forum yet.

[fivepointedstar]

Well you dont have to explain stuff which was explained years ago when B&C wasnt even a forum yet.

Most of what Octavulg is saying seems to pertain to "newer" members, those who don't know the history of said forums, and or the link spots to find the information up front.

[Olis]

Well you dont have to explain stuff which was explained years ago when B&C wasnt even a forum yet.

 

Yes, you do. Some people today would simply not have access to information back then, or if they do it's unlikely they would find it. It'd be easier on everyone to provide such information as and when needed or make it easy to find. That and the fact some people forget or misinterpret rules or guidelines, too. Some may need reminding, some might not.

[TrashMan]

The first to do would be to point the new guy to the link with the rules of the Liber, making of IA's and a few others to give them the needed knowledge immediately.

[Octavulg]

TrashMan

You almsot sound like you do not belive in collective wisdom tongue.gif

 

I do not. The collective wisdom has it that Space Marine chapters do not merge. Yet at page 111 of the BRB 3e: "None can be sure of the exact number of Chapters as new ones are founded over time and as old Chapters die or amalgamate."

 

Collective wisdom is dangerous. People forget how to justify their answers with collective wisdom. That way lies laziness and incompetence.

 

Yes, but those standards ARE there.

"you shouldn't do that, because after long debates and codex and lore anylysis, it was agreed to indeed be faulty/not supported/against cannon/stupid, and tha is why we dissaprove of it" sound better?

 

Somewhat. You need to explain why it is those things (for Lost Legions - no one ever writes them well and it's really hard to reconcile with a shared universe. For Space Wolves successors, there's a quote saying they have no successors, their geneseed is wildly unstable, and they're wildly insubordinate. Etc.).

 

For Squat Space Marines, for example, you explain that the Squats no longer seem to have ever existed, that even if they did exist Space Marine geneseed is finicky and unlikely to work with abhumans, and that the power armour wouldn't fit. Oh, and that the aesthetics of the Squats are out-of-keeping with modern 40K.

 

You don't necessarily have to explain at length, but you do have to explain.

 

* * *

 

Ferrus Manus

 

Nice to know I'm not hallucinating, at least. ;)

 

* * *

 

Malthe

 

On science fiction/writing: yes.

On criticism: Also yes, but you sound insufficiently cranky. The crankiness is the source of our powers. ;)

 

* * *

 

DeathKnight2000

I've felt on occasion my input on was shot down by a Op that wasn't open to my suggestions.

 

There's a simple solution: ignore them. As a rule, if they're completely ignoring you, they're completely ignoring other people and will end up without anyone to help them. At which point, they're more likely to listen.

 

Besides, there's so many perfectly good chapters here that never get any help, there's no sense helping those who don't want it.

 

* * *

 

Ace Debonair

So very, very much, I'm afraid.

 

Oh wait, there was more context to that. Carry on!

 

I like to start broad, to draw in the reader. ;)

 

Hmm. Well, I'm probably guilty of that, at least somewhere down the road.

I'll do my best to be more careful in future.

 

Actually, you usually explain yourself pretty well. I think. I'm not around as much as I used to be. :)

 

* * *

 

TrashMan Again

I for one have nothing agaisnt harsh critics. I don't mind people telling me in my face that what I wrote is the biggest piece of trash in existence. I can take it. I have taken it. All the walking around on egshells just so someones tender sensibilities don't get hurt...bah.

 

Because, of course, I'm notorious for coddling those I criticize with unnecessary reassurances that, really, their idea's just fine. :P

 

Harshness is fine. People declaring that ideas are wrong because it goes against the received wisdom of the forum? That's not. Justifying your answers thoroughly (thus making them useful) is what makes the harshness OK.

 

Or, y'know. What Ace said.

 

* * *

 

the jeske

 

Well you dont have to explain stuff which was explained years ago when B&C wasnt even a forum yet.

 

How long have you been on the Internet, again?

 

People never read FAQs. They never read guides. They never do a damn bit of it.* Why? Because they think they're the exceptions. And because RTFM is apparently an advanced level concept.

 

Hell, I'm pretty sure a lot of posters here don't read anything other than their own threads.

 

Those people aren't here then, and they're likely not going to read the resources produced explaining that stuff. So it needs to be explained. And, frankly, it needs to be explained anyway, to prove we understand it.

 

Or what others said, but more cynical. :P

 

*Don't outrageously generalize like this without lots of experience, kids. It's just not safe.

[Sigismund Himself]

A refresher course on good ways to give feedback.

[Octavulg]

Self-promotion is always classy, Sig. :P

[Rafen_2]

I'm on Octavulg's side for this one. I remember my first post was actually me presenting an idea for my original chapter. It was god awful but back then I didn't know as much as I do now and thought it was cool. Instead of constructive feedback I got a bunch of "this is stupid" and "that isn't possible" without any indication as to why it was so.

 

I then moved on and decided to return back to it later (with a much different point of view ;)). I met some people who were real good about it (Olisredan being one of them I remember) and others who I won't name who were just there to be negative. I remember said person actually summed up one of my whole sections by saying, "This is one big fail lol." Yet again I saw the same situation as I did my first time. When I asked him why and pointed out how rude it was he simply said that he already mentioned he would be harsh. There is a difference between being harsh and being a complete :P.

 

Anyway at the end of the day it has come to a point where I feel almost terrified whenever I even think about making an article about my guys. I noticed that the members of this "club" seem to treat each other with open minds enjoying each others' ideas but when someone who isn't part of it says something different it won't work. Plus there are some things that just shouldn't be corrected such as Chapter name or colors. If they like that name and scheme it isn't a problem for you to correct (unless there is a case where the name is in official fluff and same with color scheme).

 

Just wanted to throw in my personal experience and opinions.

[War Angel]

I agree with octavulg. There's plenty of examples where people are spending more time jabbing at things the writer refuses to move on, then trying to assist those who are actualy wanting help.

 

Btw, there is a way to do successor space wolves. I think I've see. It some where, where the chapter thinks a company to be gone forever, and replaces them only to find that the company had been lost in the warp. Might have been renegades though, I don't remember

[Cpt_Reaper]

The thing I have felt is a large issue is that certain members try to force a new IA/IT article to fit within THEIR Warhammer 40'000. I think we can all agree that some things just don't happen within established fluff. That doesn't give us the right to say they don't happen. In the movie "Ultramarines" the Captain turned into a Daemon Prince. Not a Spawn. That shouldn't happen, but it did. To help me sleep better at night I simply write it off as "sponsored fan-fiction". If any of us pulled that, it would be pointed out as outrightly wrong according to established fluff.

 

Now if the writer realises this mistake, s/he has two choices: change it to fit within the universe or continue, stating that it is non-cannon fan-fiction. What the rest of us have to do is accept either course, offering advise on how to make a good IA/IT article, fluffy or not. I am lucky in that my IA article is meant to fit within cannon, so when I am told I am wrong in regards to fluff, I am wrong. How many others simply stop writing, or don't even start because they are worried their article is too wrong. More often than not we are told what is wrong, and not how to fix it. If you are at the stage of writing an IA article then you should understand the basics of why it is wrong, what the rest of us should learn to do is offer advice on how to fix that. For example, in my own IA I have worked long and hard to correct things that are considered boring, unfluffy and simply poor writing and I have had to do a lot of it by my self. Yes, some people are kinder than others (some are very blunt...one in particular but I like his bluntness), but what I noticed is when something is pointed out as wrong, unfluffy very few people offer a option B. I know some people would say that to do so makes the IA no longer the authors, but a good critic will read the IA and get a feel for it allowing them to make a good suggestion, which the author can use to make his article better.

 

Just a few of my observations put into a wall of text.

[Dosjetka]

I would just like to contribute to this:

 

Personally, I've never had any member shoot down my ideas without explaining why it wasn't a good idea/doesn't fit within the lore. I'm probably quite lucky in that respect. Secondly, I've always been pretty open-minded and have been reminded that if there is something I really want in my Chapter and that I will not budge about, then I should state it in my very first post and make it clear to the reader. And now, I've included that in my "latest" attempts to write an IA. And as far as I can see it has worked and from the comments I've had, the reader actually accommodated the idea into his crticism and tried to help me build my IA with it (in the most recent case, it was a gene defect that made my Astartes not have a second heart but they still went on, despite their weakness).

 

But then again, I've been lucky and I've seen other members who haven't. But to be completely honest, I can't put my finger on what the reason is. But it does bother me and it should be addressed and corrected as some of the members have (from time to time) quite unacceptable behaviour (and I do not exclude myself from this).

 

*ahem*

 

Anyway, back to what others have said before me, I agree quite a lot with what Octavulg has written and I don't believe that Ace is guilty of anything of the sort recently ;) (At least not in the IA's where I've seen that you have helped out in the three years I've been here.)

 

And I do think that new posters really should be informed and reminded about the fact that there are guides here on the B&C to help them (very good ones in fact), but I also think that some people should go back from time to time and re-read (or read for the first time) the guides and to correct their way of writing their criticism (as in to write why the idea proposed by the OP cannot work in their view).

 

Anyway, that's enough worthless rambling from me. I'll be following the discussion intently though ;)

 

Ludovic

 

Edit:

The thing I have felt is a large issue is that certain members try to force a new IA/IT article to fit within THEIR Warhammer 40'000. I think we can all agree that some things just don't happen within established fluff. That doesn't give us the right to say they don't happen.

I couldn't agree more with that, Cappy ;)