The spread of Toxic Negativity in the B&C community

[Antarius]

 

 

 

For example, I absolutely hate every heroic rock I see. Thats just a fact of life now.

 

 

Been shaving off the Tactical Rocks or just building up the basing around it so it looks like a natural rise in the ground.

 

They still have a bent leg but now it looks like they are actually just moving with the terrain instead of finding a small rock to place their foot on.

 

That, and a bunch of OG Marine heads for my Primarines. Something of a rebel and/or folk hero, it's true. 

 

This, to me, is the very model of a constructive post. I wish I could “double like” it :)

[Gederas]

So I saw this thread while I was at work and as such I've had a little over twelve hours to think. While B&C is nowhere near the level of toxicity I've seen for Warhammer forums, it DOES have a "the usual suspects" that show up in certain threads and cause derailment with the topic by bringing up the same things. I'm not going to name names, but we all know the frater who would come in and bash Forge World on any thread related to FW, or the same few posters who basically go "Primaris r bad, stop liking them" whenever the marine releases comes up.

 

That's my only view of any sort of "toxicity" as it's less a case of the forum growing toxicity, and more that there's some usual suspects causing it

 

 

Also:

...

and again, the block function is still handy, is the Jeske still here?? 

 

Can someone explain this reference to a younger frater? (not the Obi-wan meme, I mean who Jeske is)

Edited December 30, 2021 by Gederas

[Special Officer Doofy]

 

Let's not twist things. Criticising a company and everything they produce is not an attack on the people who work for them.

 

They're not acting on their own accord or a personal capacity and you're totally guessing their motivations.

The people who go after criticizers are almost never even employees of the company being criticized, much less employees who might be directly responsible for whatever is being criticized. They are just fans and customers like the rest of us.

Could not agree with you two more.

[ThePenitentOne]

Hope I'm not the guy bashing Forgeworld.

 

For the record, I love their models. I don't think they are a bad company, or that what they do is bad for the game, and I don't think I've ever said otherwise.

 

However, I do find their higher prices, their online order only status and the fact that they work exclusively in resin to be problematic for me personally, and have said so on more than one occasion. I do love their sculpts though, and I appreciate the way they expand the game world.

 

I can come across as quite the white knight sometimes, I'm sure- I'm pretty enthusiastic about 9th ed.

 

I also tend to derail threads by talking a lot about Crusade; one of my pet peeves is people suggesting huge, sweeping changes in the name of balance to the game as a whole, rather than targeting those changes at Matched play, where balance is super critical to one's enjoyment of the game. This often true in posts where people suggest things like severely curtailing strats or even eliminating them entirely. Since I personally feel like they do a lot to define the feel of a faction or subfaction and differentiate it from others, and I play in a story based format where balance is less crucial, I want to keep all of them.

 

I can see how Matched Players find strats problematic, but in the context of Crusade, I see them as story fodder, and I use them as inspiration for custom quirks in narrative missions, etc. I can be pretty passionate about this particular issue, and sometimes my tone may come across as somewhat self-righteous or arrogant. Many apologies if I've ever crossed a toxic positivity line.

 

And from that, comes three guiding principles I try to emulate- particularly on B&C, which I too perceive as a safer space than most:

 

1/ Always take time to see the other persons point of view, and articulate that you agree with the parts of their post that you CAN actually agree with

2/ Always try to be specific- broad generalizations cast a large net, so offend many; if you have a problem with a rule, talk about the context in which you experienced the problem

3/ Be willing to accept responsibility for the power of your words and offer apologies/ explanations or peaceful follow-up de-escalations wherever they may be necessary

 

For the record, I try to follow these principles on Dakka too, but I find there are a few people there who tend to respond directly to me and don't appreciate the effort I go to in an attempt to maintain diplomacy. It isn't all Dakkanauts, or even many of them; it also doesn't happen all the time. But it can be discouraging.

 

That's never really happened to me here.

[templargdt]

So I saw this thread while I was at work and as such I've had a little over twelve hours to think. While B&C is nowhere near the level of toxicity I've seen for Warhammer forums, it DOES have a "the usual suspects" that show up in certain threads and cause derailment with the topic by bringing up the same things. I'm not going to name names, but we all know the frater who would come in and bash Forge World on any thread related to FW, or the same few posters who basically go "Primaris r bad, stop liking them" whenever the marine releases comes up.

 

That's my only view of any sort of "toxicity" as it's less a case of the forum growing toxicity, and more that there's some usual suspects causing it

 

 

Also:

...

and again, the block function is still handy, is the Jeske still here?? 

 

Can someone explain this reference to a younger frater? (not the Obi-wan meme, I mean who Jeske is)

http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/user/21805-the-jeske/

 

There are a couple infamous frater over the years no longer with us.  I personally appreciated the notification of bans that was recently instituted as otherwise people simply disappeared mafia style.

[Orange Knight]

@Antarius

 

It's incredibly hard to quantify the negativity, and it can often be hand waived away as anecdotal.

 

It's also difficult to point to readily available examples, because often it's not aggressively voiced.

 

What I will say, is that far too often across many topics, the possibility of excitement at hobby related news and rumors is extinguished.

From the now too-common passive aggressive disapproval of Primaris releases, to the predictable attacks on certain factions for receiving support, or the negative outlook at campaign book announcements that no one has got a hold of yet. There is no way to constructively criticise Primaris for simply existing at this point, for example, but people still do.

 

 

@Cpt_Reaper

 

You absolutely should voice your opinion and share your experience. I agree with you also, about wanting to get away from the prevailing anti-GW and hobby sentiment that seems to be a hobby in of itself in certain circles.

Due to Covid, I actually have less opportunity to interact in my usual circles so this forum has become one of my main avenues of Hobby discussion.

 

I have pointed out that I don't want to block users even if I disagree with them on 90% of their views. There remains the potential for a good discussion, even if it only happens in 10% of the interactions.

 

In fact, I want to voice my absolute displeasure at the advice that came my way from multiple users on this forum, in this very topic:

 

"Use the block button if you disagree with someone's views"

 

What a terrible thing to say. Different opinions hold the best potential for interesting discourse. Blocking users should only be for those that are abusive. This isn't an invitation for the toxic negativity I want us to tackle, because repeated, negative complaining is not constructive nor is it a discussion.

 

 

@Slave to Darkness

 

That experience you shared is truly horrible, and outright abusive.

Attacks on a person because of their ethnicity, and the distribution of personal material are not things that are easy to forgive.

If you want to name and shame, I will certainly make sure to stay away from the content of this person, as I might inadvertently be a subscriber or viewer of their channel.

[WrathOfTheLion]

I don't think raw disapproval of Primaris is always quite constructive for the topics of the forum, but it is not an invalid or incorrect opinion that is improper for the community to express or have. I do not personally have this opinion, having a uniquely Primaris force, a mixed force and a uniquely Firstborn force, expressing quite a lot of the spectrum myself, but I think more improper to the hobby is wishing those with classic SM armies have theirs removed from the current play. It is not wrong for someone to dislike this, it's perfectly fine, although within the rules of the forum of being constructive, they may need to phrase it as such (such as expressing why they dislike a specific Primaris miniature as compared to the Firstborn equivalent).

 

My personal thought on the hobby is that it's wholly wrong to tell another hobbyist that their army should go away. It may happen in the end, but I do view doing such as disrespecting their participation in the hobby, which is why I do lean towards the firstborn side of that argument, even when having fully Primaris armies.

Edited December 30, 2021 by WrathOfTheLion

[templargdt]

@Antarius

 

It's incredibly hard to quantify the negativity, and it can often be hand waived away as anecdotal.

 

It's also difficult to point to readily available examples, because often it's not aggressively voiced.

 

What I will say, is that far too often across many topics, the possibility of excitement at hobby related news and rumors is extinguished.

From the now too-common passive aggressive disapproval of Primaris releases, to the predictable attacks on certain factions for receiving support, or the negative outlook at campaign book announcements that no one has got a hold of yet. There is no way to constructively criticise Primaris for simply existing at this point, for example, but people still do.

 

 

 

I don't understand the mindset.  If you're excited for a release, congrats!  If you think it's stupid, ok, don't buy it.  If you think that guy's opinion is stupid, ignore him.  It's an anonymous message board about an overpriced niche hobby.  No one's opinions here matter in your actual real life.  

[Captain Idaho]

It’s toxic when a poster repeatedly posts the same barbs such as SM has too many bolt weapons going into more than necessary detail. When it’s posted several times within a 24 hour period you can’t help but think it’s trolling.

It's good to use the report button if you think someone is trolling.

 

For my part, I know I've made that comment once recently. It was on topic and to be honest it isn't a barb. It's a legitimate thing GW needs to address if they want to reduce needless complexity, or at least many believe so. It certainly shouldn't upset anyone, as it'd likely improve 3 of the units who have rather lacklustre bolters anyway!

 

@Antarius

It's incredibly hard to quantify the negativity, and it can often be hand waived away as anecdotal.

 

It's also difficult to point to readily available examples, because often it's not aggressively voiced.

 

What I will say, is that far too often across many topics, the possibility of excitement at hobby related news and rumors is extinguished.

 

From the now too-common passive aggressive disapproval of Primaris releases, to the predictable attacks on certain factions for receiving support, or the negative outlook at campaign book announcements that no one has got a hold of yet. There is no way to constructively criticise Primaris for simply existing at this point, for example, but people still do.

 

I find it curious you dislike criticism of Primaris yet in the Primaris rumours thread, before anyone said anything "negative" about Primaris, YOU started on about Firstborn being dropped. I'm fairly sure if someone said Primaris should be dropped, you'd class that as toxic right, judging by this definition you've made?

 

So my point is, calling you out on it, where are you drawing the line of what is toxic?

Edited December 30, 2021 by Captain Idaho

[Lord_Ikka]

B&C has much less negativity than many forums/subreddits I've been on. There are always contentious topics (female Space Marines, Primaris in general) and always people who will just spew the same angry tirades no matter the conversation. Regardless, the mods here do a good job of stopping/turning around topics that start to go sideways and I'm appreciative of that. In the end, we're talking about little plastic armies on a table representing a fictional universe- it's a game and shouldn't be taken so serious.

[Antarius]

 

No one's opinions here matter in your actual real life.  

While I certainly think being able to go "oh well" at posts you don't agree with is a useful skill, I also think this argument has a central flaw: nothing we do here "matter" in "real life", but we are here to enjoy our hobby life online and the quality of posts, debates and content certainly matter in that regard.  If we truly believed that our opinions didn't matter to other posters and that theirs didn't matter to us, I don't think any of us would bother coming here.

 

There is a frater, whose name I sadly can't recall off the top of my head, who has a tagline that basically says "your opinion matters to other posters, so use it for good" and I think that is the crux of the issue here.

 

That's also why I like Phandaal's post about removing "hero rocks" and using alternate heads on Primaris so much; it's a post that acknowledges the problems the poster has with the minis in question (incidentally, they are problems that I can relate to 100%) and provides a constructive take on how to solve those problems and actually enjoy the hobby. That, to me is much more valuable than going "yuck, Primars heads are super ugly" which really doesn't do anything except state your opinion that a certain aspect of the hobby sucks.

The former type of post lets people (even people who like the minis Phandaal is "fixing") take something constructive away from the debate, because even if they don't agree that it's necessary to "fix" the models in question, it's still an example of the creativity and diversity that makes the hobby enjoyable, whereas the latter type is basically just going "boo, miniatures I don't like!" and even if you agree that those minis aren't great, there's not really anything constructive to take away from that kind of post. 

It is of course also possible to post stuff that is basically just "yay, miniatures I like!" and while that isn't exactly super high value content, it does at least communicate enthusiasm about the hobby, which is our shared reason for being here.

 

Don't get me wrong, a forum obviously can't exist on "low content positive posts" alone because there's not a lot to discuss or build on in them, but they are not damaging to a forum in the way that "low content negative posts" are, because the latter tends to make the forum a less engaging, more bickering place and ends up draining hobby energy, which to my mind is the opposite of what a hobby forum should do.

 

Now, I am obviously no saint (imperial or otherwise) but I try to follow this rule of thumb before posting: does my post add anything to the discussion beyond "boo!/yay!"? If not, is there some way I can add something that other posters can either latch unto and engage me in a mutually enjoyable discussion or some hobby information/advice/ideas they can take away with them and (at least potentially) find useful?

 

For example, if I see minis I don't like previewed (such as, say 75% of the current Space Marine range) and I can't think of anything to write except "they suck/they're not for me", I'll try to think of possibilities for converting them, ideas for alternate miniatures or maybe simply going "well, that's nice for people who like Space Wolves" (or whatever), or at the very least go into why I don't like them in a constructive manner that can actually spark discussion beyond "boo!/yay! those minis and people who like them".

Failing that, I likely just won't post in that particular thread, because my opinion (like anybody else's) really is important and might actually detract from other people's hobby enjoyment in some small but measurable way and while I love the sound of my own voice, telling other people that I don't like what they like is simply not important enough that I want to detract from their enjoyment of the hobby and forum.

[Emurian]

Sidenote: not going to read all the replies and just replying to the first post as I am short on time atm.

Its not Toxic to point out choices of GW that are impacting our wallets on a monthly basis. I don't think people would have complained as much if GW would have made the Primaris a replacement for the Firstborn datasheets. Lets be fair here, it was a possibility of GW to simply make a intercessor a tactical marine, throw in a hellblaster as a plasma gun dude and adhere to the older established datasheets. They choose not to, this decision irked a lot of people. We all know that around 50% of the players have space marines, it doesn't have to be their main army but over time you just end up with marines from starting boxes and such. The primaris range felt like a move of GW to let players rebuy their army. This is what irked most people. I stepped back into the hobby at 8th after a break, firstborn where W1 in 8th, pushing primaris forward by a large margin if your inclined to play more competitively. Now after some time, and a lot of people reinvesting into their SM armies they bumped the firstborn to W2 to bring them closer to the Primaris in terms of statlines and usability.

This choice did not benefit the players, it only benefitted GW, and this is what pissed off a large lot of the community as a whole.

Likewise concerning books, you can state we need the books, but why do we need 30E books 7x a year to keep up to date with the rules of a single army? Most books just have 2 pages of datasheets that 90% are primarily buying the book for. Yes they are lore books, but the majority of the people do NOT buy them for purely for lore as their main reason. I bought the Octarion books recently as I do collect books for lore (Have around 30 books of 8th I picked up left and right cheap to build up my lore collection) TBH I was somewhat dissapointed by how thin the actual book is. Compare this book to the Adeptus Titanicus Loyalist Legion book, which equals if not trumps the SM codex in terms of thickness for roughly the same price. 

This leaves a sour taste in my mouth, IMO both Octarion books could have EASILY be bundled in a single book. GW rather opted to try and squeeze out 60-70 euros instead.

These books are imo not contributing to the hobby in the way they should. You should not spend like 120-150e a year just to keep yourself up to date with the rules of your own army. (Not to mention a large lot of us have at least three factions) Likewise those rebalancing pts books they released for like 20+ E that are becoming obselete within like half a year are a total ripoff. If GW really wants the best for the community and does this for balancing then they should publish the rules for FREE if you can show you bought the original codex. We all now have these codes in the back of the books, why can't GW give us updated rules in the app that they so desperatly try to sell us? 

Another thing I am very sceptical about is this recent ,,we are going to rebalance things in a faster time frame''. They will nerf the most used units into the ground while at the same barely releasing hostages in the form of rebalancing underperforming units. This is not true rebalancing in my eyes. Also note that I have gone through multiple edition changes and its always the same lullaby, everything that functioned decently in edition X gets nerfed into oblivion (Take a look at the 8th edition SM units that where considered some of staples like agressors, centurions leviathan dreads etc) , some new units get released with an obvious power creep (eradicators) only to be reigned back into line a couple of months after the community had the chance to buy into the latest bling.

And then of course we have the practise of GW lately to hijack our content creators. Creators that pull in a large amount of new players for free for the hobby. Creators that ooze blood sweat and tears to bring forth those youtube vids that we all love to listen to while painting. This Warhammer + crap is not adding anything to the hobby, its a cheap way to put content creators behind a paywall and because there is no real competition they can say F quality.

I love this hobby since a kid for years. I breathe 40k sorta speak and still enjoy assembling, painting and such as much as I was a kid. My love for GW as a company though has evaporated over the years. There are only so many organs I can sell to keep this hobby afloat before my body starts to protest =/. Thus, nowadays I do everything I can NOT to give GW my money directly. I will never buy a box of warhammer in a GW store at their prices but rather opt to support either my local store or order from a site that gives a 15% discount in my country. 

And dont get me started about Forgeworld. I know its not allowed to discuss recasters on this forum but I would like to point this out: A large lot of the Forgeworld models are being recasted for 25% of the FW price. Keep in mind that these people STILL MAKE PROFIT to make it worthwhile to recast these miniatures. This just shows incredible profit margins. I do not mind if a company takes some profit, I also dont mind if some things have a somewhat premium price. Forgeworld however is the cauldron of greed for everyone to see in the open. 

I can keep going on for hours tbh but I don't want to make an essay of how scummy GW can be. Deep down the ones that play this hobby for quite some time know this. 




 

[Special Officer Doofy]

This is not your personal safe space or echo chamber. If a post breaks the forums rules, report it. If it doesn't, but you don't like it, ignore it. If it's the same person bothering you over and over, block them. Super simple. Too many people on the internet have this entitlement nowadays.

 

I find it as Phandaal said earlier, the harassment and toxicness comes from person 2. Was just in the chaos and Eldar thread and saw this:

 

 

When GW say something is gonna be great and worth the wait it never is... I expect little for Chaos or Eldar, not the first time GW have failed to deliver...

Always a ray of sunshine

So person 1 makes a comment about GW, and person 2 makes the comment about person 1 instead about GW. Almost all the negativety I see on the site is from the entitled person 2 who takes criticism about GW personally. I've never understood it.

[gideon stargreave]

Antarius says something really important above,

I can't use the quite function on my phone, so I'll paraphrase

 

"does my post add something to the discussion?"

 

I think a lot of people's posts do, but I have to admit, it is tiresome to see so many one line posts that are jokes, basically memes at this point.

[Captain Idaho]

That is something we all need to crack down on in a personal way. Slightly off topic, but it's likely the wider culture of social media and WhatsApp groups where we reply in such ways.

[Emurian]

Slightly off topic apoligies: I am not sure if this is an option for this forum but something that might at least partially incentivize people to come with quality over quanity is showing their total amount of likes they received under their post count.

Some people get turned on by having a large post count and thus ''spam'' one liners that contribute very little to the whole of the discussion. There are plenty here with 5k+ on their counter that post very nicely, extensively, bring forth their standpoints and give arguments but there are also those here that are the opposite. 

I thus think showing a ratio of posts/likes gives an overall indication how well a person his posts in general contribute to our community.  Getting likes on this forum is not that hard, well thought out replies get liked on a structural basis, as it should imo. I personally have 145 likes vs 97 posts I made here. I remain silent and just read a lot of stuff. I reply when I feel its meaningfull to the discussion, which imo is the way it should. Of course we can have a laugh at times, and I do appreciate good puns, as long as its not derailing the whole topic at hand.

Regarding issues with other people here, if you truly are bothered by someone thats posting reguarly in your forum section, have some balls and send them a PM. You are an adult, most likely the other one is also an adult, so handle it as adults. A lot of people nowadays seem to forget that you choose to be insulted, you give the power to the other person by acknowledging their comment impacted you. Life is so much easier once you learn not to give a  about the opinions of people you don't know.



 

[Toxichobbit]

I think it would be good for all of us to take a step back and re-assess our opinions. More importantly, I think we, all of us, need to look at it from other people's perspectives.

 

Given that this seems to be evolving into Primaris vs everyone else, that seems a good thing to address.

 

Let me put my cards on the table here. I own a lot of Primaris. I like them quite a bit. I'm also an Ultramarine player. So to my fellow Primaris players, not only do I read the same vitriol against Primaris, but I also get the vitriol against Ultramarines too. Not 24 hours ago I read on this forum someone saying that Ultramarines don't deserve a supplement or special rules because they are generic. From a Black Templar player no less - a player of a faction that has had to deal with loosing their Codex and getting rolled into another Codex, now expressing a view that players of another faction should have their rules and toys taken away.

 

This isn't intended to be a rant against anti-Ultramarine sentiment, that's not something for this topic. It's more to demonstrate that I have experienced the same negative opinions as you. 

 

However, if you've read my previous posts in this thread I probably come across as pro-negativity. That, to a degree, is true. 

 

I'll agree it sucks to read people hating on Primaris releases. But you know what sucks more? Being a Craftworlds player who is seeing release after release for Marines while still having 30+ year old sculpts. Being a Tyranid player seeing release after release for Marines and not having had any releases for about half a decade. Being a Chaos Marine player who 18 months into this edition are still using Astartes that have 1 wound. Even being a Death Guard or Genestealer Cult player who, while having a decently new range, get one character as their big release for this entire edition (and a piece of scenery in DG's case). One character being released is like a Tuesday for us Primaris players, just something that randomly happens from time to time because GW feel like it. The two recently announced Primaris characters are already double what Genestealer Cult or Custodes players have got this entire edition, and that's not even considering the huge Primaris wave at the start of 9th.

 

What I'm saying is that negativity sucks to read when it's something you care about. I 100% get that. But to my fellow Marine players, remember we are in a place of privilege where we get treated like kings and queens. We get all the new toys, we get a constant release schedule, we get supplements, we get lots of flavours of Marines with full support. As Primaris players we're doubly privileged because we are the focus of each new edition. While other factions might get a character or in some cases nothing at all, we get a slew of new releases.

 

If we're fed up of reading negativity from non-Primaris players then the way to deal with it isn't to complain about complaints, especially pre-emptively (which is becoming an increasingly common trend). Trying to invalidate other people's opinions like that is only going to lead to conflict, toxicity and negativity from all sides. Empathy is a far better path, understanding that there is a lot of resentment against Marines that's been built up for decades, because a lot of players who have put just as much time, effort and money into something they're passionate about as ourselves, have been treated like   by GW. Rather than telling them they're toxic, negative etc, it's far better to be understanding of the way they've been treated.

 

With all that said, there's caveats upon caveats, because this is a complex topic. There are people on this and other forums who enjoy hating on Marines, on GW and on the hobby in general. It's a public forum, that's going to happen. In those cases just don't engage. Nothing constructive is going to come from it. There's no enlightened meeting of minds where things are going to be discussed and common ground found, some people just like to be bitter. Ignore their posts, report their posts, block their profile - let the mods deal with it. That's what they're here for and they do a good job.

 

Just, please don't start painting everyone who is negative with the same brush. Yes, some people are haters, but some people have just been treated badly by GW and are rightly upset about it. There's legitimate reasons to be negative about GW's business practices and it's important that people are allowed to vent and discuss those, as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

 

Most importantly, this is your hobby. Enjoy it in whatever way works for you and try not to let someone online spoil it for you.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Toxichobbit

[Dagoth Ur]

To be fair though, I think a lot of us would report such behaviour more often if it was easier to do so via phone. As it currently stands, I can only really report someone by phoneposting if I switch to desktop mode, which is an absolute pain to navigate on a phone (or at least it is so for me) - and by the time an actual computer is at hand, the post has either been forgotten or there is something more urgent to do. I've discussed this issue with several fraters over the years as a lot of us primarily browse this forum via means of a phone.

 

That said, I also do happen to agree with Lord Blackwood when it comes to what I'd consider a too "partisan" - for a lack of a better word - involvement of a mod in a specific side of a hot-button issue. This is a general worry of mine, and I think it specifically manifested in recent times in Idaho's posting. The worry here is that a mod has become too personally invested in an argument to momentarily fulfill their function as a *moderator*.

 

I cannot speak for anyone else, but the reason why in this specific case I have not retroactively sought out the report button is because A.) next to work, studying and what little free time I have, I have little inclination to trawl through threads again when I am back at a desktop and B.) I personally, based upon forum experience in general (meaning on the BnC and beyond), don't put much faith in reporting a mod, particularly not one with a long tenure, because I do not necessarily know who will be reviewing the report (and that one does not trust a mod reviewing a report on themselves should be obvious enough), and because because I do not trust closed off groups to manage themselves *in general* - but that is entirely my own bias formed from first-hand experience off-site, and first-to-second-hand information on-site.

 

As to the thread topic at hand - I don't really think the BnC has a problem with toxicity. Yeah, there are the same old naysayers and apologists on both side of the aisle, but that kind of goes hand in hand with being on a forum. Some people just like standing on soap boxes and repeating the same old points of either hating or loving everything about Thing X, I guess. For that I find the Ignore List to be a great tool (granted, you can't ignore a mod, which I agree that you shouldn't be able to, but that kind of makes situations like this a bit more difficult). As someone who visited Warseer and DakkaDakka religiously many, many years ago, I have long since quit both forums and have never looked back. Particularly the latter is an absolute cesspool of negativity and unproductive behaviour, while being too big of a behemoth to efficiently moderate. The BnC, in my experience, has overall been a good place to be. Some unproductive members are usually dealt with swiftly (Moonreaper666 and HeritorA come to mind) others might take years (Ishagu) - but usually something gets done. I'd certainly miss the forum if it wasn't here, even if I haven't posted a WiP in years.

 

Edit: a point I completely forgot to make. I think negativity is essential to a functioning public interaction. People should be able to express a dislike or distaste for something - but being constructive is *essential*. There are worlds of difference between saying "Man this sucks posterior and not even in a good way" and "I'm not a fan due to reasons A, B and C". Hell, the latter can actually spin off into super interesting conversions about design and writing on its own. Also, Negativity is not automatically to be equated to toxicity, as loaded of a non-term as that has become (a point I am sure has already been made).

Edited December 30, 2021 by The Observer

[Toxichobbit]

I think it's often context dependent.

 

Someone who goes out of their way to hate on Primaris at every possible opportunity? - yeah, those kind of opinions would be better not voiced.

 

But someone who is not necessarily hating on Primaris but is upset that their faction is constantly neglected? - telling them to keep their opinions to themselves is akin to telling them you don't care about their hobby as long as yours isn't negatively impacted. It's the exact opposite of a welcoming community and something that I'd rather not see become common in this forum.

 

As I said before, it's all very context dependent. Some people are haters and in those cases it's better to remove the negativity they bring. Other people are "victims" (not an accurate description but I can't think of a better word) of GWs policy and would be better off being supported, rather than suppressed. Differentiating the two can be difficult because they often sound like the same thing, but I'd personally rather deal with a bit of extra negativity than exclude parts of the community from expressing their legitimate opinions. 

Edited January 1, 2022 by Toxichobbit

[Dagoth Ur]

nvm

Ehhh, see I don't agree with this. Negative opinions and feelings deserve their time in the light, because not everything *can* be good (either objectively or subjectively) and such feelings have a merit to be discussed on their own and as a reaction to a release or preview certainly are on topic (disclaimer: I am not a mod, you should get a mod's opinion on this. I ain't working here, I just browse).

[Slave to Darkness]

As for peoples tone coming across in replies, also don forget people in different countries have different ways of talking, Slavic and German users here have come across as hostile before until I realised where they are from, its just the way they speak and isnt anything sinister... 

[Slave to Darkness]

 

Wouldn’t it just be better if fraters including moderators just kept their negative thoughts to themselves regarding Primaris Marines? I for one would appreciate it.

 

IMO that's context dependent.

 

Someone who goes out of their way to hate on Primaris at every possible opportunity? - yeah, those kind of opinions would be better not voiced.

 

But someone who is not necessarily hating on Primaris but is upset that their faction is constantly neglected? - telling them to keep their opinions to themselves is akin to telling them you don't care about their hobby as long as yours isn't negatively impacted. It's the exact opposite of a welcoming community and something that I'd rather not see become common in this forum.

 

As I said before, it's all very context dependent. Some people are haters and in those cases it's better to remove the negativity they bring. Other people are "victims" (not an accurate description but I can't think of a better word) of GWs policy and would be better off being supported, rather than suppressed. Differentiating the two can be difficult because they often sound like the same thing, but I'd personally rather deal with a bit of extra negativity than exclude parts of the community from expressing their legitimate opinions. 

 

Silencing people for saying they dont like something is like silencing a political opponent, we life in a society where free speech is important, if we start censoring people here over bloody primaris marines or some such then this place may as well turn into 40k for grownups where you get insta banned for not hating Arch Warhammer... 

[chapter master 454]

There's a difference between Toxic and Negativity and while the two are often seen together, they aren't the same.

 

Negativity is seen around anything, it is the Dark to Light, Black to White, Dark Angels to Loyal Astartes ;) . I mean, when something comes out some people will like it, some will hate it but what is important is we are able to know the boundaries of not only others but ourselves. Knowing where our opinions lie in the spectrum and understand that it isn't the only spot to stand and often can leave us in weird places depending on announcements. Some people like the idea of "seasons" for 40k, it is kind of what they are doing anyway but making it more official and structured and others don't like it. The reasons for both sides can be vast and show what that person finds most important.

 

We as a whole must remember that some people get very passionate about things. Passion is the lord of strife and conflict, an arms dealer of many arguments. Some people just can't see another perspective though and that can be difficult to handle as sometimes it isn't because of a lack of trying, sometimes they just can't for one reason or another (it may ask them to bend one of their core beliefs around a lamppost at FTL speeds).

 

Toxicity comes when people can't be civil and resort to Ad Hominem.

Slave to Darkness is a perfect example I am afraid but don't worry, I am sure I smell promethium warming in the Meltagun as I type...could be O-Zone too from a Crozius or power sword or thunder hammer, hard to tell.

 

There is no place for Toxicity.

There is a place for negativity because negativity isn't a bad thing. it would be like saying that all games are exemplars of their genre, no faults. There are faults, faults exist in all things and it is fine to point them out, discuss them and even have full threads about them. They may not be happy threads but they are needed. If everything was rainbows and daisies it would cease to be pleasant.

 

Also...you're on a forum based in a universe that calls itself grim dark, trillions die every day in the games lore ether to enemies or just being thrown into the great lighthouse pyre. What do you expect?

 

Addendum: Slave to Darkness made a couple of posts while I wrote this. So may be out of date. But remember Slave to Darkness, Free speech entitles you to your viewpoint to an extent. Being malicious and currently outwardly hostile isn't something tolerated here on the B&C. Tolerances for cultural differences can be accounted for, but being unpleasant is fairly universally recognised. Tolerance has limits, or else it isn't tolerance.

 

For the mods, if I am out of line feel free but I am just as a frater wanting to make a point. Not shy of penitence.

[The Neverborn]

This tread really exploded.

 

My 2 cents is the word "Toxic" has become totally ubiquitous within all or almost forms of communication on the internet over the last few years. I legitimately can't think of any platform I'm apart of or aware of where "Toxicity" isn't used to describe something or someone on a semi regular basis.

 

I'm hoping it's something that will pass. Or at least a new word starts getting used to describe it.

 

I'm not even sure what Toxic means, from my observation in the context it often translates to something like "this person's behavior is in someway detrimental".  

 

People are going to be people wherever and whenever they are. Just try not to think about it.

Edited December 30, 2021 by Battle Brother Abderus

[Dagoth Ur]

 

 

 

 

Wouldn’t it just be better if fraters including moderators just kept their negative thoughts to themselves regarding Primaris Marines? I for one would appreciate it.

IMO that's context dependent.

 

Someone who goes out of their way to hate on Primaris at every possible opportunity? - yeah, those kind of opinions would be better not voiced.

 

But someone who is not necessarily hating on Primaris but is upset that their faction is constantly neglected? - telling them to keep their opinions to themselves is akin to telling them you don't care about their hobby as long as yours isn't negatively impacted. It's the exact opposite of a welcoming community and something that I'd rather not see become common in this forum.

 

As I said before, it's all very context dependent. Some people are haters and in those cases it's better to remove the negativity they bring. Other people are "victims" (not an accurate description but I can't think of a better word) of GWs policy and would be better off being supported, rather than suppressed. Differentiating the two can be difficult because they often sound like the same thing, but I'd personally rather deal with a bit of extra negativity than exclude parts of the community from expressing their legitimate opinions.

Silencing people for saying they dont like something is like silencing a political opponent, we life in a society where free speech is important, if we start censoring people here over bloody primaris marines or some such then this place may as well turn into 40k for grownups where you get insta banned for not hating Arch Warhammer...

I mean, there's just a bunch of false equivalencies here, I don't know where to start. The aforementioned poster, in no way, shape or form, implied that negative posts need to be blanket-banned, merely that depending on the context and phrasing, certain measures need to be undertaken. This is *standard practice* in any forum of interaction or debate and literally predates the modern era as a means of facilitating productive interactions. As for equating a mod removing an overtly negative opinion from a thread to silencing a political opponent, just...what? This isn't even a strawman argument, its the whole damn humpball. Posting on a given forum is a privilege, not some basic human right that everyone and their mother is entitled to irrespective of given circumstances - with privileges come demands, in this case rules of behaviour. Removing a post is in no way equivalent or comparable to mobs taking down political entities or a governmental system imposing itself upon an individual.

 

As for Arch, I am not going *anywhere* near defending a man who tolerated and actively encouraged some of the vilest racism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia that I have ever seen in the hobby space, and I am quite frankly mortified that this is the wall you've chosen to hide behind.

Edited December 30, 2021 by The Observer