ADMINISTRIVIA: 1 - Things Not To Mention

This is the Warhammer 40K Mailing List ADMINISTRIVIA, part 2 of 11.

This is a mailing about the Warhammer 40,000, Necromunda, Space Hulk, Epic 40K, GorkaMorka! and Battlefleet Gothic games discussion mailing list.

It was last updated 08/26/2004 10:30AM CDT by Edwin Voskamp

Table Of Contents

This Mailing is split in 11 parts:
   0. Subject
   1. Things Not To Mention
   2. Etiquette
   3. Intellectual Property Rights
   4. How To
   5. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
   6. Other mailing lists, Web Rings, Websites and 40k.org
   7. Who's Who
   8. Commercial Postings
   9. Acronyms
   A. Changes

Do the list and yourself a favor, and read this post. Do the list and yourself a favor, and save this post so you can unsubscribe from the list without sending e-mail to the list.

This section is also known as 'things that make your account go bump in the night'; you may think you have what you think is a really novel approach to any of these threads, or take exception to the way I present them here. These threads, however, are not to be discussed on the 40K Mailing List, due to the excessive and generally useless traffic they bring. None of these topics have ever generated any positive discussion and very easily spiral out of control into huge amounts of negative posting, hence their special inclusion on the watch topic lists.

We've probably already discussed that neat argument you thought of as well:

• First Amendment
  The programmer in me likes this self-reference. Anyway, if you feel that the listetiquette is in conflict with the First Amendment, we suggest that you first read said First Amendment, then email me (wh40k-owner@wh40k.net) in private.
• Starship Troopers
  Enough said; email Edwin (wh40k-owner@wh40k.net) in private.
• Comparing Version 2 and Version 3
  This subject has been tried again and again and there is a complete lack of new comments and a complete and total lack of productive discussion on the topics that comp yp(e.g. tank shock, crossfire).
  What we mean to prevent is not a reasonable discussion of how the rules compare between the two versions, but rather the flaming it usually turns into. Comparing the rules is fine, discussing alternatives is fine. Exchanges of "mine is better than yours" are not fine. Speculating about Games Workshop's motives, their target audience and what simpler rules mean is not fine.
• Real Life Military and Political Commanders
  Discussion of 'real life commanders' popping up from character discussions has also developed a strongtendancy to veer off into nationalistic flaming about events 50+ years in the past (e.g. Churchill's role in Gallipoli).
• New Codexes before or within a week after they are released
  Everyone has an opinion, and we've seen time and again that the overpowering new rules and models are not that bad after a bit of play.
• Modern equivalents of various weapons
  e.g. What is today's version of the assault cannon, autocannon, etcetera. Everyone has an opinion, and we've agreed to disagree about the difference.
• List Certification
  Every once in a while, someone decides it would be nice to have the list as a whole designate their (Web Site/Rules/History) as 'list-approved'. The policy is as follows: If you have a neat idea, post it to the list, or place it on the Web and send the URL to the list. If people like it, they will link to it or read it or use the rules. If they do not like it, they won't. Either way, you don't need certification to survive or prosper.
• GW and pricing, market share or copyright
  This means that mention GW and any of these subjects in any way, positive or negative - in the same breath is questionable. This does cover any discussion about 1) stores that do or do not carry GW items or 2) comparisons of GW's market share to the market share of any other miniature companies, or 3) discussions about GW's copyright policies.