Originally Posted by
Chris Copeland
Wow, Melissia, I think you are being rude. Are there forum rules about this? Do we have moderators? I'm new here so I don't know yet.
You disagree with me so you have to use words like "idiotic," "stupid" and "crap." You must be a BLAST to play with at your local game store! Is the phrase,"hey look at my tits I'm a girl" truly appropriate or necessary? Must you refer to goth inspired designs as being "dressed like whores"?
Like I said, I'm new here. I don't know all the ins and outs of this board yet. Does BoLs have a troll problem? My basic tactic with trolls (folks who are always purposefully spiteful and who post back begatively about EVERYTHING just to get a reaction is "Never feed the trolls." Once you stop feeding the trolls they go away. Are you using spiteful words with me, Melissia, just to get a reaction? If so, please let me know ASAP so I can adjust my behavior accordingly.
Hey Chris - I'd like to respond to this, if you can pardon me for derailing the thread yet again, for the greater good of the community. To make it clear where I'm coming from, I say this as somebody who's been reasonably involved in the 40K part of the Lounge, particularly the SoB discussions, and as somebody who values Mel's contributions to the boards. What I'm about to say is my opinion only, and I haven't discussed it with anybody else.
With that in mind, I wouldn't say that BoLS has a troll problem so much as that BoLS has a clash-of-approaches problem. Some folks on the board, like me, like relatively writing long posts that try to be as precise as possible, even if that means we end up writing five paragraphs about a point that is really a sidebar. In general, I'd say Mel falls into this category. Other folks on the board seem to write much shorter posts that focus on their main point and leave it at that. I've observed a number of threads that, to my mind, have devolved into heated discussions not because one person is trolling but because you have one person from approach A talking to another from approach B. Most of the problems I've seen folks have with Mel boil down to that, in my opinion - Mel will post something reasonably precise about a point that is ultimately a footnote to the discussion, somebody else will respond to it in a way that misses, misconstrues, or simply ignores some aspect of its precision, Mel gets frustrated and/or offended at the misconstruction and posts a more forceful version of what she originally posted, the other person gets frustrated and/or offended, and so on. Oftentimes, "more forceful" with Mel means "less precise." For instance, "I don't like [the Sisters' breastplates]" and "I still want it done tastefully" - both statements about her personal opinion - become "the torso ... becomes stupid," which is phrased as (but not, I wager, intended to be) a statement of fact, and thus about your opinion.
I find that she isn't a rude forum denizen unless she's worked up about something, which personally lets me ignore the rudeness that frequently creeps into her colloquies (and when she's worked up about something, she is frequently rude). I chalk it up to the heat of the moment, rather than her considered intentions. When Mel associates corsets with whoring without qualifying the statement as her opinion, I think she's being needlessly parochial, but I feel reasonably confident assuming that what she means to say is
"I associate corsets with kink, which is a component of my opinion that the current Sister of Battle aesthetic sexualizes them in a way that is at odds with and detracts from the rest of their fluff,"
rather than
"Nab, your wife is a whore because she owns expensive well-fitting corsets for period and contemporary dress, and furthermore, you personally are an idiot for not thinking that corsets are inherently tied to whoring."
I wouldn't feel so confident about certain other people I've met on the internet.