Wir hoffen, dass es in Ordnung ist den Artikel hier komplett hineinzustellen. Aber für eine anständige Auseinandersetzung mit dem Thema ist ein Zitat nun mal am angebrachtesten.
Wer des Englischen nicht so mächtig ist, dem sei kurz erklärt, dass Pete Haines recht frustriert wirkt. Das verstärkte Engagement mit den Spielern über das Internet hat sich in seinen Augen als nicht sehr produktiv erwiesen. Sinnlose hitzige Diskussionen, egoistische Haltungen und ein unhöflicher Umgang scheinen ihm das neue Medium ziemlich vermiest zu haben:

"Everyone who uses e-mail has probably been sent a link to a website featuring a cartoon. The cartoon presents a simple equation:

Normal Person + Audience + Anonymity = ??? I will leave you to fill in the question marks with your own solution but I suspect it will be pretty easy to imagine what was actually there.

Beyond simple amusement the cartoon did make me think about the value of on-line discussion. The fact that the Fanatic Studio make extensive use of their website to get feedback on trial lists makes it vaguely applicable to the Last Word column so lets see how many people I can alienate.

Quantity heavy, Quality light
When I first encountered the Internet I assumed it would be a great research tool. I quickly realised this was a bad assumption. Put in any search and you will get a plethora of sites listed with no way of telling which ones are worth reading. I find lots of sites where people talk about their favourite army and post battle reports, pictures of their armies, pictures of themselves, their pets and their personal journals. Sometimes these are a bit spicy but generally you learn no more than if you were to go along to a games club, start a conversation and pretend to be interested in whatever the person you are talking to has to say. Are these sites a substitute for human contact, a desperate quest for self-publicity, an attempt to fabricate a website designer entry on the CV or what? I don't know but it seems to me the internet serves only to restrict the flow of information by obscuring it in a cloud of waffle.

Just who are you?
Part of the sieving process has to involve knowing who you are dealing with. This is particularly important for younger hobbyists entering chatrooms but, beyond the sinister predators of the cyberpathways, there are lesser fiends intent on inflicting tedium. As part of their evil scheme they use nom de plumes to make themselves sound cool, interesting or informed. If any of this was true they wouldn't hesitate to use their real names! Crass generalisation aside, you have no way of knowing who is remotely qualified to discuss the topic at hand, until of course, it is too late and you are in a flame war with an adolescent, high on acne lotion, and ecstatic that someone is taking him remotely seriously.

Manners maketh the man
There is a certain satisfaction for the immature mind in being impolite. I've been there myself but it wore off after puberty except with regard to politicians. I can only assume the web is populated by immature minds. As a GW designer I have had my share of slanderous accusations, some of the conspiracies are so machiavellian I almost wish they were true. Sadly I go home to a semi and not a secret base built under a volcano. It's bad enough when z-list celebs say dumb things to get noticed, no way am I going to encourage anyone else to get in on the act.

What is my motivation?
I discovered that a discussion site had been set up on dealing with a Warhammer 40,000 list that is years away from release so what is the purpose of this site? I can understand a bit of idle speculation about what a new Codex may contain, it might pass a few minutes during a pause in a game. I certainly cannot imagine wanting to keep it up for months as I am too busy painting and gaming. I am told there is a certain kudos that goes to owning or administering sites and that the way to get the best known one is to create it first. To be fair though, of all my targets these are the least likely to get the Room 101 treatment, they are a very useful way for new players to get the wisdom of experienced players and for jaded office staff to spend time chatting about games while still looking like they are working.

On a point of order your honour
When does feedback become advocacy? Well, pretty damned quickly as far as I can see. I have no problem with a competitive debate. What I encounter on the net tends to be people making demands for their own army or quibbling about anything that makes a prospective opponent tougher. The most common technique I have encountered involves drowning out any comments that don't fit the advocate's view by simply raising the same points over and over until the sheer brain-numbing irrelevance of the debate beats everyone else into apathy. It can get funny when two of them butt heads though because you can just leave them to it and know it will go on so long that neither is likely to pollute the gene pool.

In conclusion I can see some uses for the net. As a link between hobby enthusiasts it probably has a value, if only as a gossip shop, as a means of communicating between developers and enthusiasts it leaves a lot to be desired. Inevitably the feedback that is most apparent is the most vocal, the silent majority are as ever silent. When you do get the feedback it is very difficult to evaluate as you know nothing about its source. The net is with us and it's not going to go away - I think it would be a mistake to depend too heavily on it."